Barney Frank

Mr. FRANK

Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, point of order.

Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, I am going to confess our inferiority. We have been here denouncing this continuing resolution, but we are not as good at denouncing continuing resolutions as some of the great figures in America's past. I was here when Ronald Reagan really talked about a continuing resolution, when he said Congress should not send another one of these, when he belittled a continuing resolution of 5 days and 8 days and 9 days, then denounced the fact that Congress had passed none of the appropriations bills. That was Ronald Reagan holding up that continuing resolution as an example of government at its worst. How the Republican Party has fallen away from that ideal. Ronald Reagan was the one who said let us get the people's work done in time to avoid a foot race with Santa Claus. Santa Claus has gained on the Republican Party since he left. The Republican Party is usually quite respectful of Ronald Reagan. Why this great falling away from the teachings of President Reagan to which they are usually so obedient? Do the Members know why? I hope Members listened to the speech from the chairman of the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services and Education, who boasted about increased government spending, and then heard the speech from the majority whip, who denounced all those people who boast about increased government spending. That is the problem when the chairman of the Appropriations subcommittee gives a speech which is in fact denounced by the majority whip. That is why the bill cannot come up. Let us be clear. There is no rule, there is no principle, there is no Constitution, there is nothing that interferes with this House bringing something up, and Members can violate the rules by denouncing the Senate all they want. It is irrelevant to anything except their disrespect for the rules of this House. It has nothing to do with whether or not we vote on bills. Indeed, they are illogical by their own rules because they ultimately boast about passing some appropriations bills and then complain that some mystical force has kept them from passing the others. The fact is that rarely, rarely do I have to dissent even mildly from the gentleman from Wisconsin who has been such a magnificent articulator on this issue, but he said the problem is a fight between the moderates and the conservatives of the Republican Party. He knows that is a fight between Mike Tyson and Grandma Moses. The moderates in the Republican Party are lucky if they get the water cooler turned on. It is not the moderates. Here is the problem: it is the Republicans who voted for a tax cut, and then we had Afghanistan and Iraq and homeland security, and we now have demands on expenditures that are greater than the revenues. I will pay tribute to those like the majority whip in his fervor and venom against government spending. He is prepared to bring government spending down to the level that would be consistent with the tax cut, but the other Republicans want to have it both ways. They want to vote for a tax cut, which reduces government revenue; and then they do not want to vote for a bill that would bring down the spending. So that is why we do not have the bill. We do not have the Health and Human Services bill or the HUD bill because they cannot admit how much they have made it impossible for the government to spend responsibly.

Mr. FRANK

Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, for several years I have had the very distinct honor of sharing with our colleagues information about the important charitable work done by ROFEH International and the New England Chassidic Center. Under the leadership of Grand Rabbi Levi Y. Horowitz, the New England Chassidic Center and ROFEH International do an excellent job of helping people take full advantage of the wonderful medical facilities we have in Boston. Through their efforts, families are able to come to Boston when members of those families need medical care, and find their needs tended to so that they can focus on the important job of being supportive of that individual in need of medical care. I am very proud that this innovative program that does so much for people at a time of their-greatest need is headquartered in the district I am privileged to represent, and I am pleased to put here into the Record of our proceedings a list of those individuals who are receiving awards from ROFEH at a November 10 dinner, in the hopes that this will inspire people elsewhere in the country to emulate this creative work. Mr. Speaker, here is the list of the award winners and a brief description of their efforts which does not do full justice to them, but does give some indication of how important they have been to ROFEH's vital work. Dr. Eugene Braunwald is the Distinguished Hersey Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School, Faculty Dean and Chief Academic Officer of the Partners HealthCare System founded by the Brigham and Women's and Massachusetts General Hospitals. He is the only cardiologist who is a member of the National Academy of Sciences. In 2000 the living Nobel Prize winners in medicine voted Dr. Braunwald as ``the person who has contributed the most to cardiology in recent years''. The doctor is a Holocaust survivor. Dr. Eugene Braunwald, will receive the coveted ``Lillian and Harry Andler Memorial Award''. Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Gann in recognition of their devotion to ROFEH International will have the newly renovated ROFEH International facility named in their honor, ``The Joseph and Rae Gann ROFEH International Residence Facility''. Mr. and Mrs. Gann have been affiliated with the Bostoner Rebbe, Grand Rabbi Levi Y. Horowitz for over 50 years and they continue to be strong supporters of ROFEH International. Others to be bestowed with special laudatory communal awards are Mr. Irwin Chafetz and Mr. A. Joseph Stern. Mr. Irwin Chafetz is the director of Interface Group-Massachusetts, Inc., a privately held company that owns and operates GWV International. He has been instrumental in the development of ROFEH International and the renovation of its residential facility for the benefit of the families and the desperately ill, who come to Boston for medical help. Mr. Chafetz received a Boston University Distinguished Alumni Award in 2000, and was honored by the Massachusetts Anti-Defamation League in 2001. He is a member of the executive board of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and is an active participant at Chabad House of Lexington. Mr. Chafetz grew up in Dorchester, Massachusetts. He lives in Brookline with Roberta his wife. They have two sons and four grandchildren.

Mr. FRANK

Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman said with regard to the appropriations bills, well, the committee has done them. Why would we be taking 5 days off now if the committee has, as he said, passed these appropriations bills? Why are they not on the floor? Why do we not get those appropriations bills that the committee has already voted on?

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

Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would be more impressed with my colleagues on the other side and their commitment to a full deliberation of the welfare bill if they had not used their power in the rules to shut off adequate effort in this House when we debated welfare to address one of its great defects, child care. They would not allow an amendment which I think would have passed if they had given us a chance to vote on it, which is why they would not, which would have expanded child care as part of welfare. But we are not just talking about welfare. As I listen to the Members on the other side complaining that a legislative body is not doing its work, this is the end of September. We have not passed an appropriations bill for the Department of Health and Human Services or Education or Labor or Transportation or Housing and Urban Development or the Environmental Protection Administration. The gentleman from Ohio talked about September 30 being the date when the welfare bill expires. The whole Government expires on September 30 and they have not passed any bill for the domestic agencies. Listening to people who have that record of nonfeasance complain that somebody else is not getting its work done, I feel like I kind of wandered into a nudist colony and somebody complained that I was not wearing a tie. I have never seen a more bizarre example of people trying to object to a fault that they are themselves guilty of. We all understand, by the way, why we do not have appropriations bills. We have a split in the Republican Party. We voted in 2001 a very large tax cut. Since we voted that tax cut, this administration has committed to spending more than half a trillion dollars over the next 10 years between the war in Afghanistan, the war they want to have in Iraq, running Iraq, running Afghanistan, homeland security, and a lot of other things. The result is that there is not enough money to fund the Government even at what I would consider the minimal level that many of the Republicans want. So here is the problem. We have the intellectually consistent Republicans who, having voted for a tax cut, are prepared to make substantial reductions in the appropriations bills. We have many of us on the Democratic side who thought the tax cut went too far and we do not support such drastic restrictions as shutting down efforts to clean up Superfund sites or taking away funds from public housing or reducing other important funds, but then we have the bulk of the Republican Party. They voted for a tax cut which reduced revenues, but they will not support appropriations bills that reflect the revenue reductions. So what do they do? They do not pass anything. There is a split between the Republican party, between the intellectually honest conservatives who voted for a tax cut and are prepared to reduce spending, and the rest of the Republicans who said, wait a minute, you must be kidding. We cannot reduce spending to that level. We cannot let the American people know what the true consequences of our tax cut are. So how do we deal with this? We do not vote on an appropriations bill for the Department of Health and Human Services. We do not vote on an education bill. They are going to give us a big CR, a big continuing resolution. I can remember Ronald Reagan standing here waving a continuing resolution and decrying it. I guess this is the birthday present that Ronald Reagan gets this year, a complete repudiation of his denunciation of continuing resolutions by a Republican Party incapable of appropriating.

Mr. FRANK

Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, earlier this week my colleague, the gentleman from Worcester, Massachusetts, sponsored and the House passed and I voted for a resolution naming a post office in Worcester for a former colleague of many of us in the House, my colleague from Worcester's predecessor, former Representative Joseph D. Early. I first met Joe Early in 1972 when I, along with two of my current Massachusetts colleagues (Mr. Markey and Mr. Delahunt), was elected to the Massachusetts House. Joe Early was by then an established leader in the Massachusetts House. Two years later, he came here. I was proud to support him in his campaign to come here in 1974, and 6 years later I became a member of the House and so worked with him for the ensuing 12 years. I was very pleased to have a chance to join in naming that post office for him. I regretted the fact that I was not able to participate in the debate. I was tied up at a committee meeting. I thought I was going to be notified in time but to my error I came too late to make the debate so I am taking this special opportunity now because of my enormous respect for Joe Early and in particular for his extraordinarily strong understanding of what the role of government ought to be in our society. Joe Early, during his time in the Massachusetts legislature, during his time here, showed that you could be compassionate, that you should be concerned about the needs of people who would otherwise be left behind without in any way being soft on waste, without in any way being tolerant of sloppiness or unnecessary expenditure. Joe Early was a tough fiscal watchdog. On the Ways and Means Committee in the Massachusetts House and here on the Appropriations Committee, he was a man who paid a lot of attention to the specifics and was very, very tough on those who would waste public money. But he also understood that there were important values for the quality of our life that had to be met with public money. Time and again when it would be unpopular, when demagogic amendments would be offered on the floor of this House to make cuts of various sorts, Joe Early would be one of the few courageous enough to point out how damaging they would be, how irresponsible it was to take that easy approach as opposed to doing the kind of tough, ongoing work that he did of familiarizing himself with the programs for which he had legislative responsibility and fighting hard to make sure that they took effect. Those of us who knew Joe Early also were stimulated by his company. He was not, as people will remember who served with him, an unfailing dispenser of good cheer. If something was bothering you and you were looking for a smiley face, Joe was probably the last person on the continent that you wanted to encounter. But if you wanted serious conversation about our responsibility as an elected official, if you wanted to talk about both the strengths and the limitations of government, if you wanted to talk about how you actually use the machinery of government and public funds to try and accomplish important goals, then Joe Early would be very, very high on your list of people to consult. He was, in particular, interested in medical care. He was very proud of the first-rate complex at the University of Massachusetts Medical School that he represented, and the hospitals. He took on, to some extent, from Tip O'Neill, the great leader of the Massachusetts delegation, an interest in and an advocacy for the National Institutes of Health. Joe Early did as much as any man who served during that period to help America establish the position of leadership in health research, in providing the kind of resources that has done so much to improve the quality of human life. So now that Joe is in retirement, I want to just take this opportunity to express my appreciation to my colleague from Worcester (Mr. McGovern), Joe Early's successor, for taking the initiative in naming that post office after Joe Early because it is as much as we can do to pay tribute to a man who understood as well as anyone what the job of being a Member of the United States House of Representatives entailed and who used to the fullest the powers of this job to make life better for the people of this country.

Mr. FRANK

Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, when I became the representative of a district with significant commercial fishing activity after the 1992 redistricting, I became aware of a strong view among many who fish for a living that the quality of scientific knowledge on which fishing regulation was based left a great deal to be desired. In particular, fishermen have from time to time argued that their experience has demonstrated that there were in fact more fish than the regulators were counting. No one has greater interest in the sustainability of our fisheries than the fishermen themselves, and I was therefore impressed with the force of their arguments. My willingness to listen to their arguments was not based simply on this predisposition, but rather on the very convincing factual cases they made. Because of their persuasive arguments, I have in two instances, worked with people in the fishing industry to secure funds for independent research, and in both of these cases the results were to confirm that the fishermen were right and that there were in fact far more fish available--in part as a result of sensible conservation practices--than previous science had indicated. Most recently, fishermen were hit with a very restrictive decision by Judge Gladys Kessler which threatens the ability of many in this industry to make a living, and which threatens also very importantly to drive up the price of this important protein rich commodity for consumers by severely restricting the catch. Once again many fishermen expressed some skepticism about the science on which these restrictions were based. Recently, that skepticism has been dramatically confirmed. The National Marine Fisheries Service announced last week that the data about the amount of fish in New England waters on which recent decisions have been based was flawed, which argues strongly that there is in fact a greater stock available than previously maintained by NMFS. Specifically, as the New Bedford Standard Times summarized in its recent editorial, ``The NMFS scientist did not properly calibrate the trawl they use for annual fall and spring surveys in New England waters. One side of the trawl had a cable much longer than the other side, making it impossible for the gear to efficiently gather groundfish.'' Mr. Speaker, I ask that this very thoughtful editorial by the New Bedford Standard Times be inserted here, because I know it strikes this important point, and argues thoughtfully and persuasively for NMFS to follow its admission of error with corrective action. Further, Mr. Speaker, when this House debates the renewal of the sustainable fisheries act, known as the Magnuson Act, this admission by NMFS that it had seriously undercounted the amount of fish in New England waters will be relevant as I and others talk about the need to revise fishing regulation in a manner that will make it less likely that unnecessary restrictions will be imposed on hardworking people based on faulty data. [lsqb]From the Sunday Standard Times, Sept. 15, 2002[rsqb] NMFS Has Yet Another Reason for Cooperation What a relief it must have been for hundreds of commercial fishermen in New Bedford and throughout New England this week when scientists at the National Marine Fisheries Service in Woods Hole announced that their data for the last two years was flawed. Big-time oops! There's nothing as satisfying as learning that you aren't crazy after wondering whether you are. Many of our region's fishermen must have thought they were going crazy, as they pulled up increasing numbers of groundfish in the last two years, but were told by scientists that many groundfish species were not recovering from decades of overfishing. The NMFS scientists did not properly calibrate the trawl they use for annual fall and spring surveys in New England waters. One side of the trawl had a cable much longer than the other side, making it impossible for the gear to efficiently gather groundfish. It also made it impossible for the data from these two years to be compared with data from previous years. The NMFS admission is particularly important because this region's fishermen are now under some of the strictest regulations they have ever experienced. How this mistake will affect those regulations remains an open question. But the National Marine Fisheries Service should take this as a strong sign that more fishermen need to be involved with scientific research for the sake of the fishermen, the scientists, and overall accuracy in reporting fish numbers. Just as there have been federal science observers on fishing boats, there should be fishermen observing the scientific methods used aboard federal trawl survey boats. Environmental advocates also should be part of the review as another check and balance. NMFS would be wise to quickly establish a review panel consisting of fishermen, gear experts, environmental observers and scientists to examine the data in question and determine the changes that are needed in current fishing regulations based on these errors. Do we allow more fishing of some species, less, or wait for new data? And it wouldn't hurt for scientists from the Northeast Fisheries Science Center to make a humble and public apology to fishermen for the error that could have a significant effect on their lives, their families and the port communities where they live.

Mr. FRANK

Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, earlier this week I shared with my colleagues an editorial from the Boston Globe about the death of an outstanding former Massachusetts State Legislator, Jack Backman. Today I am saddened by the fact hat I feel called upon to memorialize here another former legislative colleague who performed extraordinarily important service for his own constituents and the people of Massachusetts in general. When I arrived at the Massachusetts House in 1972, one of the leaders was Royal Bolling Sr. Then Representative Bolling was one of the early political leaders of the African American community in Massachusetts, and I--along with my current Massachusetts Congressional colleague (Mr. Markey), who was then a Massachusetts House colleague--had the great honor of working closely with him in an effort to establish for the first time in Massachusetts history fair legislative districting that established a state Senate seat that pulled together the various efforts of the African American community. No one was surprised when Royal Bolling was the first winner of that seat. He was for years a leader in the fight against racial discrimination in our state, as well as a strong advocate for social fairness in general. As the following article from the Boston Herald shows, Royal Bolling was a pioneer. He launched a career in elected office at a time when racism was a serious obstacle, and through his personality, intelligence and energy, he was one of the most successful in confronting those prejudices. Royal Bolling Sr. was also a patriarch of an important political family--two of his sons followed him into elected office, inspired by the model he provided of how one effectively fought against prejudice and for basic values for which America ought to stand. Mr. Speaker, Royal Bolling's family is entitled to be enormously proud of the great contribution he made to Massachusetts and I ask that the Boston Herald article about him be printed here. [From the Boston Herald, June 25, 2002] Friends Bid Farewell to Community Leader (By Jules Crittenden) Neighbors, fellow veterans and politicians came out to pay their respects yesterday to a man they say served as an inspiration and a role model to his community. Royal Bolling Sr.'s body lay in state yesterday at the Reggie Lewis Center at Roxbury Community College, the school he helped found as a state senator. Bolling died last week at the age of 82, retired from a long career as a neighborhood Realtor, legislator and decorated war hero. Emmanuel Horne, a fellow member of the William E. Carter American Legion Post 16, was taking turns with other members standing in a guard of honor by his friend's casket. ``His impact as a role model was immeasurable,'' said Horne. He cited Bolling's example as an active father of 12 in a community where many families had one parent; his success in business; and his legislative career. ``When we had so few leaders, it was important for young people to see someone who had attained a position, so they could realize that they might someday achieve that.'' John Canty, owner of Walnut Cleaners, said, ``He was a standard for this community, for the morals of this community. He was firm in his beliefs. When Royal believed in something, he stood up for it.'' House Speaker Thomas Finneran and Senate President, Thomas Birmingham paid their respects yesterday. Sen. John Kerry, former Gov. Michael Dukakis and former speaker and attorney general Robert Quinn were expected to attend a memorial service last night. ``He was relentless in trying to create a level playing field,'' said his son Bruce Bolling, a former City Council president. ``He refused to accept anyone having to be a second-class citizen.'' As a Realtor, Bolling said, his father experienced ``red- lining,'' when some sellers, banks and insurance agencies refused to deal with blacks or black neighborhoods. In the Legislature, he helped pass laws that made the practice illegal. ``There was an expectation that these are things you have to do,'' Bolling said. ``He didn't look at it as being a pioneer, but as trying to correct a wrong.''

Mr. FRANK

Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, last weekend, Massachusetts suffered a great loss. Indeed, when Jack Backman died, the world lost a man who was as fiercely dedicated to the cause of social justice as anyone of whom I have ever known. My association with Jack Backman began in January 1973, when I became a freshman Member of the Massachusetts Joint Legislative Committee on Social Welfare, of which he was the Senate chair. I was proud to work under his leadership in those years for policies that would preserve some minimally decent life for the least fortunate among us. I have never worked with an elected official more willing to follow where his conscience led him with no regard whatsoever for electoral consequences than Jack Backman. And to my pleasant surprise and often to the chagrin of others, it turned out that when voters were presented with an example of someone prepared to do exactly that, they responded in a favorable way. Jack Backman genuinely brought out the best in democracy. Mr. Speaker, in the Boston Globe for Tuesday, July 23, Renee Loth, Chief Editorial Writer, drew on her years as a reporter to give people a fair portrayal of this extraordinary man. I very much appreciate her doing this, in such a personal and compelling way, and because I think this model of how we Representatives should do our jobs ought to be widely shared, I ask that Ms. Loth's eloquent and accurate tribute to Jack Backman be printed here. [From the Boston Globe, July 23, 2002] Jack H. Backman (By Renee Loth) I LAST SAW Jack Backman at a forum on women's issues at the University of Massachusetts in Boston in May. I told him the state could use him back in the Senate, where he had served for 16 years, and I meant it. Jack H. Backman, who died Friday at age 80, represented not just his constituents in liberal Newton and Brookline but an entire population of otherwise disenfranchised citizens: prisoners, mental patients, street people, drug addicts. Concern for the less fortunate has become so marginalized in state politics that social spending is usually connected to a ``sympathetic'' interest group, such as children, or politically sophisticated groups such as the elderly or women. But Backman, whether in flush times or lean, represented causes for which there was no obvious political reward. With characteristic clarity, he once said he found it ``morally abhorrent'' that the dispossessed had no voice in government. So he gave them one. During Backman's tenure in the House and Senate (1965 to 1987), Massachusetts was at the national forefront of social reform, much of it tied to his efforts. His legislation created the first Office for Children, the first lead paint removal act, and a guaranteed annual income for the blind and the disabled. He helped fund and implement the groundbreaking consent decrees that U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro ordered to improve conditions at state facilities for the retarded. He led regular tours for freshman legislators of the state's maximum security prison in Walpole. He pushed to pay welfare mothers a living wage, to divest state funds involved in the apartheid regime in South Africa, to deinstitutionalize juvenile justice, to give prisoners rights to education and training. He worked with a calm persistence some found maddening, using the Committee on Human Services (then called the Social Welfare Committee), which he chaired, as a pulpit for hearings on society's ills. He annually filed one bill--to appropriate $100 million in housing construction funds--for at least 11 years, mostly to illustrate the housing woes of the poor and the elderly. Philip Johnston served for eight years with Backman on the Human Services Committee. ``He always took the view that it was his role and our committee's role to push the envelope on social justice,'' Johnston said. ``He felt that someone needed to articulate what was right and let others decide what was feasible.'' In 2002, elected officials are reviving the chain gang and charging prisoners a day rate for room and board. The Legislature just passed a budget that eliminates health care coverage for 50,000 low-income and disabled adults. We really do need Jack Backman--dreamer, believer, humanist, optimist-- back at the State House. He was the rarest of politicians: someone whose heart was bigger than his ambition.

Mr. FRANK

Mr. FRANK. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. FRANK. Reclaiming my time, I appreciate that, but do not expect too much credit for the cuts. I will be ready to come down here and apologize the day I read that Member after Member who voted for the tax cut went back to his or her district and said, I have good news for you. Thanks to the tax cut I voted for, we will not get the following project. Are we not glad for what we did for America? The day I hear Members who voted for the tax cut take credit for its consequences, I will acknowledge error.

Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, to begin, I want to join the gentleman from Wisconsin in welcoming those to the ``don't-shut-off-debate'' club. I voted against the motion to limit debate to 10 minutes. I am sorry it lost. But I am also sorry that we had rule after rule this year that brutally shut down this House. We had rule after rule where we had hours of free time on Tuesdays and Wednesdays and Thursdays, but the minority was not allowed to offer amendments. I voted not to shut down debate, and I hope that the commitment to open debate was not simply a fleeting one. Beyond that, I want to talk about what is really a very important philosophical issue. I am pleased that this has come forward, because we are talking here not about petty issues, we are talking about one of the most fundamental questions we can, as elected representatives, discuss: What is the appropriate level of public activity in our society? I think what is happening here is that it is being made clear that the reduction in revenue that went through in 2001 was unsustainable, according to the majority. After all, and it is very important to note in this debate, I have not heard those offering amendments and pushing for cuts denouncing the spending as bad. That is very important. This is not a case where people are saying, that is a bad thing; do not do it. What people are saying, and I respect the philosophical fount that it comes from, people are saying, yes, that is a good activity, but we cannot afford to do this much of it. No one is saying that the appropriations bill is funding things that should not be funded. The argument is that we are fiscally constrained. Well, that is a serious problem. I would have some sympathy for the majority Members of the Committee on Appropriations who found themselves in this dilemma if they had not put themselves in the dilemma. What we have here is a very clear example of a fact: The Republican Party is more committed to spending reduction in general than it is to spending reduction in particular. Unfortunately, they cannot cut spending in general, they have to cut spending in particular. So when it comes to cutting revenues, everybody wants to cut, but then when it comes to cutting programs to meet those revenue cuts, nobody wants to cut; not nobody, I take it back, about a third of the Republican Party, or maybe 40 percent wants to, and I honor them for having the courage of their convictions. But I must say, the majority of the Republican Party, I have heard of wanting to eat one's cake and have it, too. When they vote for tax cuts, and then they vote for appropriation bills above the level that the tax revenues will now support, they have a variation on eating the cake and have it too. They want to eat their cake, but also get credit for giving it away. First they reduce the revenues, then they commit themselves to spending more than they get in revenues. I am reminded of a piece of philosophical wisdom I got from a Boston city councillor in 1968 when I complained about what seemed to me to be inconsistency on the part of the voters. He patted me on the knee and said, hey, kid, ain't you heard the news: Everybody wants to go to heaven, but nobody wants to die. They want to cut taxes and get credit for reducing the revenues of this government, but then when their own majority brings forward appropriations, which they acknowledge are for good purposes, they say we cannot afford them. Why can we not afford them? Because they cut the revenues too much. Mr. Chairman, people ought to understand this, go back to David Stockman. In his book he said, here is why we cut taxes under President Reagan: We knew that if the money was there, the American public would want it spent. We knew that there were programs that were popular, and the only way to control the spending was to cut the revenue. If it was done to stimulate the economy, boy, that did not work, did it? In fact, the President in 2000 said, as a candidate, let us cut the taxes because the economy is doing so well. In 2001, he said, let us cut taxes because the economy is not doing well. Why cut taxes? To prevent spending from going forward. It turns out that much of this spending is essential, it is desirable, and only the Federal Government can do it. Only the Federal Government can fight the fires and do the other things in this bill. And again, I want to stress, I have not heard people denouncing the spending as bad spending. There is an implicit acknowledgment that these are good things that we cannot afford. So what we are seeing today is an example of what I think, frankly, is a philosophical incoherence on the part of the Republican majority. There is a Republican minority that is philosophically consistent and is prepared to live up to the tax cut, but the rest of the Republican Party wants to have it both ways.

Mr. FRANK

Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, Americans overwhelmingly supported President Bush's response to the terrorism of September 11, and his attack on the Taliban for providing a haven to these murderers was an entirely legitimate one. The successes American military forces achieved were impressive, and have contributed to a situation in which we have both diminished the possibility of terrorist attacks, and paved the way for a significant improvement in the lives of the people of Afghanistan. But that latter accomplishment is being put somewhat in jeopardy by a pattern of inappropriate action and undue inaction on the part of the administration. The recent killing of dozens of people at a wedding party is of course tragic. But it is more than that. No one believes that any American military were consciously indifferent to the lives of innocent people. But it does appear that the strategy being dictated from Washington at this point fails to take into account sufficiently the need to prevent this sort of killing of innocent people. No one wants American troops put unnecessarily at risk, but we must achieve a better balance of serving our legitimate military ends while being fully respectful of the lives of innocent Afghans. Our current policy fails to give appropriate weight to that latter concern. In addition, the stubborn refusal of the administration to support extending international peacekeeping beyond Kabul is a grave error. We had every moral right in my judgment to go into Afghanistan to go after the murderers who have attacked not just Americans but many others over the past few years. But having successfully and legitimately destroyed the Taliban regime, we have an equal moral obligation now to help the people of Afghanistan live in peace and security. And our current policy fails to live up to that. Mr. Speaker, an editorial in the Boston Globe for July 10 makes these points extremely well. Because nothing is more important to our national security and our moral purpose than acting appropriately in Afghanistan right now, I ask that this very thoughtful editorial from the Boston Globe documenting the shortcomings in the current administration policy in Afghanistan be printed here. [From The Boston Globe, July 10, 2002] Afghan Targets The assassination Saturday in Kabul of a minister in President Hamid Karzai's government, no less than the lethal strafing of Afghan villagers by US aircraft, illuminates America's need to help Afghans rebuild their nation. It was a calamitous error for the US military to use an AC- 130 aerial gunship to attack four villages in Oruzgan province last week, killing dozens of women and children and wounding more than a hundred. Unless President Bush prohibits similar attacks in the future, his phoned apologies to President Hamid Karzai will be remembered as little more than a futile expression of regret from a leader who did not know how to preserve his battlefield victories. There may be a bit of a mystery about how many villagers were killed in the attack and some unanswered questions about antiaircraft guns that disappeared from sites where pilots had seen them firing. But US soldiers entered the village of Kakrak after the attack and saw the blood and gore. Something atrocious happened to a wedding party in Kakrak. There is no excuse for loosing such firepower on an Afghan village without US spotters on the ground who can be trusted when they call in strikes on armed enemy forces. Strategically, US decision makers are acting like rote managers who cannot see the forest for the trees. They are deploying high-powered US war machines to hunt tiny clusters of Taliban. In reality, the Taliban are finished. They present no immediate threat to the Karzai government. The members of Osama bin Laden's terrorist cult are in a different category, but because those foreigners are generally despised by Afghans, they are at the mercy of local Afghan informers. The United States has much more to lose by killing innocent villagers than it has to gain by trapping a few Taliban diehards or even by catching their leader, Mullah Omar. The US strafing of wedding guests risks making the Americans, who liberated Afghans from the Taliban, look like just another band of foreign invaders. Since nobody has claimed credit for the daytime assassination of Karzai's public works minister, Haji Abdul Qadir, the murder is unlikely to be part of a blood feud. It is more likely the work of forces intent on destabilizing Karzai's government. To help that government survive and prosper, Bush should drop his administration's foolish opposition to expansion of the international security force--now composed of Turkish troops--this is currently confined to Kabul. If Bush wants to keep Afghanistan out of the hands of international terrorists, he must commit US power and prestige to nation- building in that country. Aid money must be funneled directly to the central government for the rebuilding of roads, bridges, canals, and irrigation systems. It will be much easier and less expensive to help rebuild Afghanistan than to go on chasing Taliban bandits through the mountains for years to come.

Mr. FRANK

Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, on July 26, the Southeastern Massachusetts Hispanic Recognition Awards Committee, Incorporated will hold their third annual award ceremony. I am delighted to extend my congratulations to committee chairman Emilio Cruz, co-chair Johnny Arellano, and committee members Jose Perez, Carlos Arellano and Jose Rodriguez, Bernice Diaz, Reubecca Rivera, Glenda Izaguirre and Gladys Medina. Hispanic Recognition Awards are given to people who have worked for the betterment of the Hispanic population in Southeastern Massachusetts, in ways that benefit not simply those in the Hispanic community, but the broader community of which they are an integral part. America--and Southeastern Massachusetts--benefit enormously from the various cultures which come together to form our nation, simultaneously unifying on important national concerns, and contributing culturally, socially and economically through the preservation of their various heritages within this unified national framework. The Hispanic community is growing in numbers in Southeastern Massachusetts, and is taking its place along other ethnic communities that have contributed so much to our area. I am delighted to extend recognition to the winners of this year's awards. They are: Mr. Luis Bayanilla--For his outstanding work and support to the Latino Community of Southeastern Massachusetts. Ms. Abigail Ramirez--For her outstanding work and support to the Latino Community of Southeastern Massachusetts. Mr. Angel Urena--For his outstanding work and support to the Latino Community of Southeastern Massachusetts. Festival Herenicia Hispana, Inc.--For their efforts in keeping the Latino Culture alive in Southeastern Massachusetts. Ms. Aracelys Rodriguez--For her efforts and support to the Latino Community and her dedicated work as an education professional. Ms. Norma Collazo Porcha--For her efforts and support to the Latino Community and her dedicated work as an education professional. Mr. Adrian C. Pina--For his dedicated work as a role model and achievement as a College Student. Kids Against Drugs--For their efforts in providing education to the New Bedford Community about drugs and their dedication to philanthropic causes. Dennison Memorial--For their commitment and support to the Latino Community and the Community at large of New Bedford, Massachusetts. Boys and Girls Club--For their commitment and support of the Latino Community and the community at large of New Bedford, Massachusetts. Mr. Raymond Patnaude--For his support to the Latino Community of New Bedford, Massachusetts. Dr. Alvaro Lopez--For his support to the Latino Community and his expertise in the medical field. Mr. Dennis Halls--For his support and commitment to the Latino Community. Rev. Hector Correa--For his years of service and commitment to the Latino Community. Ms. Bernice Diaz--For her support and dedication to the Latino Community of New Bedford. Mr. Speaker I believe that both the award recipients and the committee that has pulled this event together deserve our thanks for their hard work on behalf of the best of American ideals. And I have chosen to share this with my colleagues because I believe it is such an excellent example of how a community can deal with both the challenge and promise of diversity.

Mr. FRANK

Mr. FRANK. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. FRANK. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam speaker, I would like to note that I am glad to be here endorsing the importance of homeownership; but as the gentleman from California indicated, homeownership is very important for a significant segment of the population, indeed, we hope for a very large majority. But there will always be people among us who, for economic reasons in particular, will not be able to afford homes, and a rounded housing policy, we will do everything we can to help with homebuilding. It will also help with rental, including the production of rental housing. I hope that we will continue to support a balanced program, indeed, with more resources than we have done previously.

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

Mr. FRANK

Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, recently we have learned of two cases where American citizens have been arrested and subjected to indefinite imprisonment with no prospect of their being allowed to appear before a judge, and contest the basis on which they have been imprisoned. I believe this is a grave error. There is virtually unanimous support in the Congress and in the country for the fight against terrorism. And we realize that this means stepped up law enforcement in many respects, but it should not mean that the Constitution exists only at the option of the Justice Department. Imprisoning people who are legally here in the U.S. for indefinite periods with no provisions for there being any adjudication of the grounds of their imprisonment is unacceptable. On Thursday, June 13 the Washington Post editorial entitled Detaining Americans (Cont'd) addressed this issue in a very thoughtful and cogent fashion. The concluding paragraph of that editorial is an important one that deserves special emphasis: The idea of indefinite detentions of Americans who have not been convicted of any crime is alarming under any circumstance. Without the meaningful supervision of the courts, it is a dangerous overreach of presidential power. If such a thing were happening in any other country, Americans would know exactly what to call it. Mr. Speaker, because this is one of the most important issues now facing us--figuring out how best to defend ourselves in ways thoroughly consistent with our Constitional values--I ask that the editorial be printed here. [From the Washington Post, June 13, 2002] Detaining Americans (Cont'd) The Bush administration is at least candid in its description of its detention of Jose Padilla, the American citizen arrested in Chicago on suspicion of being part of an al Qaeda plot to set off a dirty bomb. ``We are not interested in trying him at the moment or punishing him at the moment,'' said Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. ``We are interested in finding out what he knows.'' President Bush described the Brooklyn native as ``a threat to the country [who] is now off the street, where he should be.'' If Mr. Padilla is, as Mr. Bush said, ``a bad guy,'' then it's a relief to have him behind bars. That said, we had thought that it took more than the determination by the president that someone was a ``threat to the country'' before an American could simply disappear and be locked up without charge or trial or prospect of release. The government may be right that an American citizen working with al Qaeda can be held as an enemy combatant for the duration of the war on terrorism. As a legal matter, the contention has precedent in prior conflicts, though how to apply those precedents during an undeclared war against a non-state actor when the administration itself seems to regard the conflict as never-ending is no easy question. International law permits the detention of captured enemy soldiers, even those who have committed no crimes, and it would be reckless of the government simply to release people bent on detonating dirty bombs. The question is not whether the government can detain an enemy combatant bent on doing America great harm but whether it can designate anyone it chooses as such a person without meaningful review. The government's position would be easier to swallow were it not actively seeking to frustrate judicial review of the president's designations. When the government detains a citizen as an enemy combatant, that person must be permitted to consult with counsel and challenge the lawfulness of the detention in court. Without that, every citizen is at the mercy of presidential whim. Formally, the government recognizes that federal courts have jurisdiction to consider the legality of detentions--including military detentions--in this country. Yet in Mr. Padilla's case--as in that of Yaser Esam Hamdi, another detainee with likely citizenship--it has thrown procedural obstacles in the way of efforts to adjudicate detentions. After whisking Mr. Padilla to military custody in South Carolina from civilian custody in New York, it has prevented him from consulting with the lawyer who had been appointed to represent him. Similarly, the government refused to let Mr. Hamdi meet with a federal public defender interested in representing him. And when that lawyer sought to file a case on his behalf anyway, the government then contended in a Kafkaesque twist that, having had no prior relationship with Mr. Hamdi, the lawyer could not do so. The idea of indefinite detentions of Americans who have not been convicted of any crime is alarming under any circumstances. Without the meaningful supervision of the courts, it is a dangerous overreach of presidential power. If such a thing were happening in any other country, Americans would know exactly what to call it.

Mr. FRANK

Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? I will answer him. Will the gentleman yield for an answer.

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

Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Massachusetts who has been such a leader on energy and environmental issues for so long in this Congress. I am glad to note some points of agreement. First of all, as the previous speaker made it clear, the important issue of energy policy is one where there has to be a strong Federal Government role. Sometimes there is rhetoric in this Chamber that assumes that the Federal Government is simply a problem. Indeed, Ronald Reagan in his first inaugural said, ``The government is not the answer to our problems. The government is the problem.'' I am glad to join the gentleman from North Carolina in repudiating that simplistic and inaccurate misstatement. As the gentleman said, without a Federal Government investment, we cannot have a good energy policy. Obviously if you think the Federal Government is just a problem, you do not want it to go around investing, presumably spreading problems. He is right. The free market has a role to play, but the government has an indispensable role. Those who would denigrate government and those who would think that you could somehow do away with it are reminded here, and I am glad to see that we have this agreement, this is a bill to expand the role of the Federal Government in dealing with our energy problem. I welcome that area of agreement. We may have disagreements about how to do it. We have one other disagreement, though, and let me just say, there are some areas where I wish the gentleman from Louisiana had gone even further. He mentioned some of the unattractive regimes with whom we must deal to get oil. I would have added Saudi Arabia. Indeed, when I look at the list of things we find wrong with most of these countries that have been criticized, I find Saudi Arabia right up there. It seems to me we are a little inconsistent. Things that we find indefensible in some regimes, they appear to be almost virtues when the Saudis do them. But I agree we should be across the board. As to conservation, I wish we would go further. I wish the President of the United States had not backed off his predecessor's proposals regarding air conditioning. When we are talking about the need for energy at that peak period in the summer when air conditioning is such a drain, under the previous administration, the presidency of President Clinton, we had very good energy-saving proposals. The President has cut back, and here is the common theme. The President cut back because, well, we would have had to pay for that a little bit in air conditioning. The gentleman from North Carolina said, why are we objecting? We are giving a tax cut here and a tax break here. There a tax break, here a tax break, everywhere a tax break. I am for many of those; not for all of them. The problem is the attitude that says to the American people, here are some freebies. The one word that people never mention is ``sacrifice.'' We are not talking about going around in sackcloth and ashes, whatever those look like. I do not know myself, but I have heard that often enough. What we are saying, however, is you cannot have it all. You cannot have more spending on these programs and more tax cuts for those programs, and then more tax cuts in general, and then still make everything work. There is a failure here to tell people the truth. We vote here, but not under oath. Maybe we ought to vote under oath sometimes and not just testify under oath. Everybody is going to vote for this, they tell us, but I do not think it is going to be carried out. It has a particular relevance to Social Security and Medicare. It is not the case that money spent here will in and of itself reduce Social Security benefits. That is not the argument. It is not the case that it will reduce in and of itself the money in Medicare. But here is what is happening. People make projections, and they look at the cost of Medicare and Social Security as currently structured 20 years from now and they say we will not have enough money to pay for it. But what they then do by increasing spending and reducing taxes is to exacerbate that very problem. This is a self-created problem. We say there will not be enough money at the Federal level to meet the commitments of Social Security and Medicare. So how do we respond to that? Let us reduce the revenues that would otherwise be available for it. That is why people are being frightened with the need to privatize Social Security, although we have heard less of that these days. We could all look forward, of course, to the average working person retiring and being told he or she now has a private Social Security account and, of course, his or her friendly analyst would be glad to give that person a wholly objective impression of what stocks to buy and which accounting firms had been involved in manipulation there. But that is the problem here. What you do is you tell people you can have it all, we can have the standard of living we have already had, we can conserve, and we can cut taxes, and we can continue everything else, except when we get to Medicare and Social Security, people are going to be told we have to cut back. One of the previous speakers mentioned the prescription drug program. The prescription drug program that was passed 2 years ago was inadequate. It did not give middle income older Americans a fair deal, and neither will the one that will be coming forward. Indeed, it has been held up because the first impulse on the majority side was to cut Medicare to pay for it. Well, the Members were not ready to vote for that now, so we are going to get a still inadequate prescription drug program. But the consequence of this bill and every other bill, and we are not objecting at this point to doing some of these things, we are objecting to pretending you can do them with no choices being made, and that is probably even a better word than ``sacrifice.'' What the majority wants to do is simply avoid choices, to tell everybody they can have everything. What this will result in is, on the one hand, people will spend and cut taxes and raise the debt limit and increase the deficit and reduce the revenues that are coming into the Federal Government and turn a surplus into deficit, and then they will say in an entirely other context, hoping nobody remembers, oh, and by the way, we are going to run out of money, and, therefore, we have to reduce Social Security benefits. Therefore, we have to restructure Medicare. Therefore, we have to cut back. Therefore, we cannot afford an adequate prescription drug benefit program. I am pleased that my friend from Massachusetts has offered this. I do note one other thing that I meant to mention. I did hear the chairman of the subcommittee who began the debate say, ``Why are we so upset? This is, after all, not an appropriations bill, it is just an authorization bill. That is, this simply says we can spend the money. It does not spend the money.'' Note the apparent assumption that just because we say something does not mean we mean it. When you say do not worry, this is just an authorization bill calling for the expenditure of these billions, but it does not actually spend them, I am reminded of the couplet from Tom Lera that I cannot quite remember, but it did involve Wernher Von Braun, the former German rocket scientist who became a part of the American science movement, and I remember the rhyme which was basically he was in this song disclaiming responsibility for the damage his creations had done in England, because, the words went, in effect, I am not responsible. I am only in charge of when they went up. I am not responsible for where they came down, said Wernher Von Braun. Well, you are responsible when you authorize and write into law for the expenditures that come. So what the gentleman from Massachusetts said is absolutely accurate: Do not pretend that we can continue to cut taxes, incur deficits, spend in other areas, and not have that have a negative impact on our ability to continue to fund Social Security and Medicare. So I am glad that people are going to vote with us. I just wish they meant it.

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

Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, I would just say to the gentleman from Iowa, because he wanted to know where the money could come from, I had several places. I am personally prepared to say that incomes over $300,000 do not need a tax reduction which is scheduled to go into effect as urgently as we need energy and security. So to the extent that we have outstanding tax reductions that have not gone into effect for incomes over $300,000, reducing the rate on that, there are tens of billions to be gained by that; that would be one place. And personally, I would look at some of the money in the agriculture bill also.

Mr. FRANK. Or any knowledge of the rules either, apparently.