Barney Frank

Mr. FRANK

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

Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has asked the question why we cannot debate it, and he is entitled to an answer. It would be a little embarrassing for people who have been arguing almost all the time that with a war going on, we must rally around the President and support the Commander in Chief, give the Defense Department what it asks for. It would be embarrassing for them to then have to vote exactly contrary to that. Now, the rules of this House do not require consistency. The rules do not require Members having stated a principle to live by it, so they could say that, but it would be embarrassing. So that is the answer to the gentleman's question. The majority clearly could not simultaneously continue to argue that it is everybody's patriotic duty to rally around the Commander in Chief and the Secretary of Defense on military matters, and then vote to repudiate them. So the way they do this is by silence.

Mr. FRANK

Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, last month, in Fall River, Massachusetts, a very impressive tribute was paid to Heitor Sousa, one of the leaders in the Portuguese American community. Heitor Sousa came to the U.S. in 1981 from the Azores, and he is an example of the way in which immigration enriches our country economically, culturally, and socially. I have been privileged to benefit from Heitor Sousa's friendship, advice, and wisdom for 20 years, during the time I have represented parts of Southeastern Massachusetts in this body. I want to add my own personal gratitude to him for the extraordinary service he has performed both for the people of Southeastern Massachusetts and Rhode Island and for the residents of Portugal in general and the Azores in particular. The tribute paid to him was extremely well deserved. [From Comunidade--Community, April 10, 2002]

Mr. FRANK

Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, one collateral disturbing aspect of the current crisis in the Middle East is the rise in anti-Semitism in various parts of the world. It is particularly distressing to see the virulent outburst of this vicious prejudice in Europe, where many of us had hoped that the terrible experience of the past formed a stronger barrier against it. Obviously people have a right to be critical of particular policies of the government of Israel in a given time. Indeed, since Israel continues to be a vibrant democracy even in the face of the violence now occurring in that part of the world, some of the most trenchant criticisms of Israeli policy come from Israelis themselves. But there is a sharp line between expressing differences with particular actions of the Israeli government and expression of anti-Semitism, and, sadly, that line has been crossed far too often in recent months in Europe. In a very well reasoned editorial on Saturday, April 20, the New York Times speaks out cogently against this renewed anti-Semitism. Because this is such a well reasoned and powerful statement on a subject of great importance to us in our deliberations, I ask that it be printed here. The Return of an Ancient Hatred When many in the Muslim world blamed Israel and its supposed desire to discredit Islam for the Sept. 11 attacks, most Americans dismissed the report as a deformed joke. But just as the attacks forced Americans to face the fact that there are deadly serious groups seeking to destroy us, so some of the anti-Semitic actions in Europe in recent months cause us to wonder whether, six decades after the Holocaust, we are witnessing a resurgence of the virulent hatred that caused it. Expressions of sympathy for the Palestinians or criticism of the Israeli military campaign in the West Bank are of course entirely appropriate. What is troubling are hateful statements and actions like the bombs thrown at Jewish schools, centers and groups in France, or the Orthodox Jews beaten on the streets of Belgium and Berlin or the truck bomb driven into the ancient synagogue in Tunisia. We worry that such actions, largely by Muslim extremists, touch a historic chord in Europe that is not being confronted. Israelis have been too quick, over the years, to view criticism of their government as motivated by anti-Semitism. But it is hard to think of another word for the way some critics of Israel's policy toward the Palestinians are expressing their opposition. The dark of shadow of Europe's past seemed to be reappearing when the liberal Italian daily La Stampa depicted a baby Jesus looking up from the manger at an Israeli tank, saying, ``Don't tell me they want to kill me again.'' Or when a Lutheran bishop in Denmark delivered a sermon in the Copenhagen Cathedral comparing Ariel Sharon's policies toward the Palestinians to those of King Herod, who ordered the slaughter of all male children under the age of 2 in Bethlehem. Political opinion in Europe is certainly one-sided when it comes to the Mideast conflict. Members of the Norwegian Nobel committee have publicly called for the withdrawal of the Peace Prize from the Israeli foreign minister, Shimon Peres, but not from his co-winner, Yasir Arafat. The European Parliament voted to urge member governments to impose trade sanctions on Israel but urged no action against the Palestinian Authority. Historically, the far right and far left have not agreed on much. These days they seem united in their contempt for the Jewish state. This was evident last summer at the international conference against racism in Durban, South Africa, which turned into a celebration of Israel hatred. Zionism was once again equated with racism and Israel's legitimacy came under repeated attack. Focusing on the suffering of only one side is also not the same as anti-Semitism, although it is distressing. Just as there are American politicians who believe they have no political room to maneuver when it comes to support for Israeli policies, so there are European politicians with large Muslim constituencies whose voters do not want to see them acknowledging gray areas in this fight. There are also other explanations for the European mood. Guilt over the Holocaust may be salved with the thought that Jews, too, can act with cruelty. And given American sponsorship of Israel, being fashionably anti-American can easily mean being anti- Israel. But much of Europe has a special responsibility to be cautious. Its cultures are drenched in a history of anti- Semitism. The mixing of historic European anti-Semitism with the more modern version in the Muslim world is a dangerous cocktail. All this does not mean that Israel should be above criticism. Far from it. But it does mean that when you read of hooded men shouting ``Death to Jews'' attacking a Jewish soccer team in suburban Paris, as happened recently, it should prompt some profound soul- searching about whether the past has come calling.

Mr. FRANK

Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, this current semester marks the last in the tenure of Dr. Adrian Tinsley as President of Bridgewater State College in the Congressional district I have been privileged to represent for the past ten years. Dr. Tinsley came to this very important institution of public higher education on July 1, 1989, and will thus be finishing up 13 years in this difficult and demanding position. She has performed her duties with enormous skill and grace and she will be very deeply missed by a multiple of constituencies. Her fellow administrators, the faculty, most importantly of course the students who have been educated under her tenure, her fellow administrators of higher education elsewhere in Massachusetts, and the people of the Greater Bridgewater community whose interest she has advanced by her effective administration of this important institution all regret her leaving, even as we all acknowledge that she has earned a dozen times over the right to a little rest and relaxation. This is not to say that she will no longer be an active and committed member of the intellectual and educational community, but few jobs can equal the Presidency of a major public institution of higher education today in terms of the demands made on those who hold this position. Bridgewater State is one of the oldest such institutions in our country, and has a long tradition of preparing teachers. Recently it has broadened its mission even while maintaining its commitment to the training of educators, and Adrian Tinsley has significantly advanced the college's academic curriculum by adding important new programs in economics, criminal justice, public administration and management science and provided strong leadership in the implementation of advanced technology for teaching and learning. Indeed Mr. Speaker, thanks to Dr. Tinsley's leadership, the college today has three new Schools created during her presidency, the School of Arts and Sciences, the School of Education and Allied Studies, and the School of Management and Aviation Science. Mr. Speaker, one highlight of Adrian Tinsley's tenure was the work she did with our greatly admired and respected colleague the late Joe Moakley, who represented this district during the 80s and early 90s before redistricting moved it. One of their joint legacies is the state of the art John Joseph Moakley Center for Technological Applications, which is a great source of intellectual and economic strength for the entire region, not just for the college where it is located. Indeed Mr. Speaker, in cooperation with members of the state legislative delegation from Southeastern Massachusetts, Adrian Tinsley has helped BSC become a vital resource for the Southeastern Massachusetts region with outreach programs that serve the public and private sectors. Adrian Tinsley has presided over significant growth at Bridgewater State College, and she has done so in a way that has not allowed dilution of the spirit of collegiality that is so important for an institution of higher education. I join with all of those whose lives she has touched with her excellent work in congratulating her and telling her how grateful we are on the occasion of her moving on.

Mr. FRANK

Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, it is becoming sadly clearer that the Bush administration foreign policy consists of a successful military victory in Afghanistan, in a bipartisan fashion, with the military it inherited from Bill Clinton, but a series of muddles, mistakes, and errors elsewhere. Most recently, we had the administration outrageously both incompetent and insensitive with regard to democratic values with regard to Venezuela. There was a coup in Venezuela against a president for whom I would not have voted and who I would wish would be voted out of office, but the notion that it is okay for America to disregard our supposed commitment to democratic values because we do not like the president who was elected is unfortunate, and it is even worse when it is done in such an incompetent fashion. Our administration was congratulating the victors in this coup long after it became clear that the coup had not become successful. Someone said in the French revolution that something was not just a crime, but was a blunder. From the standpoint of defending democracy, the Bush administration in Venezuela managed to do both. I include for the Record a very interesting article from the Washington Post of April 16, entitled ``U.S. Seen as Weak Patron of Latin Democracy,'' as well as a very good article on the same day, April 16, from the New York Times by Paul Krugman. They both document the extent to which we both fail to defend our values, and even do that in a wholly incompetent fashion. The articles referred to are as follows: [From the New York Times, Apr. 16, 2002] Losing Latin American (By Paul Krugman) Many people, myself included, would agree that Hugo Chavez is not the president Venezuela needs. He happens, however, to be the president Venezuela elected--freely, fairly and constitutionally. That's why all the democratic nations of the Western Hemisphere, however much they may dislike Mr. Chavez, denounced last week's attempted coup against him. All the democratic nations, that is, except one. Here's how the BBC put it: ``Far from condemning the ouster of a democratically elected president, U.S. officials blamed the crisis on Mr. Chavez himself,'' and they were ``clearly pleased with the result''--even though the new interim government proceeded to abolish the legislature, the judiciary and the Constitution. They were presumably less pleased when the coup attempt collapsed. The BBC again: ``President Chavez's comeback has . . . left Washington looking rather stupid.'' The national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, didn't help that impression when, incredibly, she cautioned the restored president to ``respect constitutional processes.'' Surely the worst thing about this episode is the betrayal of our democratic principles; ``of the people, by the people, for the people'' isn't supposed to be followed by the words ``as long as it suits U.S. interests.'' But even viewed as realpolitik, our benign attitude toward Venezuela's coup was remarkably foolish. It is very much in our interest that Latin America break out of its traditional political cycle, in which crude populism alternated with military dictatorship. Everything that matters to the U.S.--trade, security drugs, you name it--will be better if we have stable neighbors. But how can such stability be achieved? In the 1990's there seemed, finally, to be a formula; call it the new world order. Economic reform would end the temptations of populism; political reform would end the risk of dictatorship. And in the 1990's, on their own initiative but with encouragement from the United States, most Latin American nations did indeed embark on a dramatic process of reform both economic and political. The actual results have been mixed. On the economic side, where hopes were initially highest, things have not gone too well. There are no economic miracles in Latin America, and there have been some notable disasters, Argentina's crisis being the latest. The best you can say is that some of the disaster victims, notably Mexico, seem to have recovered their balance (with a lot of help, one must say, from the Clinton administration) and moved onto a path of steady, but modest, economic growth. Yet economic disasters have not destabilized the region. Mexico's crisis in 1995, Brazil's crisis in 1999, even Argentina's current crisis did not deliver those countries into the hands either of radicals or of strongmen. The reason is that the political side has gone better than anyone might have expected. Latin America has become a region of democracies--and these democracies seem remarkably robust. So while the U.S. may have hoped for a new Latin stability based on vibrant prosperity, what it actually got was stability despite economic woes, thanks to democracy. Things could be a lot worse. Which brings us to Venezuela. Mr. Chavez is a populist in the traditional mold, and his policies have been incompetent and erratic. Yet he was fairly elected, in a region that has come to understand the importance of democratic legitimacy. What did the United States hope to gain from his overthrow? True, he has spouted a lot of anti-American rhetoric, and been a nuisance to our diplomacy. But he is not a serious threat. Yet there we were, reminding everyone of the bad old days when any would-be right-wing dictator could count on U.S. backing. As it happens, we aligned ourselves with a peculiarly incompetent set of plotters. Mr. Chavez has alienated a broad spectrum of his people; the demonstrations that led to his brief overthrow began with a general strike by the country's unions. But the short-lived coup-installed government included representatives of big business and the wealthy-- full stop. No wonder the coup collapsed. But even if the coup had succeeded, our behavior would have been very stupid. We had a good thing going--a new hemispheric atmosphere of trust, based on shared democratic values. How could we so casually throw it away?

Mr. FRANK

Mr. FRANK. Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. FRANK

Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, on Sunday, March 24, just after we entered our spring recess, the New York Times Sunday magazine published a very interesting interview with Richard Holbrooke, who served as U.N. Ambassador during the Clinton administration. In a short interview, the questioner put several important questions and Ambassador gave very cogent answers. Because Ambassador Holbrooke effectively counters a good deal of mistaken argument in this relatively short space, I ask that some of the remarks relevant to current policy disputes be printed here. Ambassador Holbrooke brings to some of our ongoing debates important perspective and a keen intelligence. In particular I commend to Members Ambassador Holbrooke's argument that with regard to the military effort in Afghanistan, ``the military leadership in this country was essentially the same group of senior officers that served the previous administration. The military budget was the budget submitted by the Clinton administration. On the military side I think any President would have responded the same way.'' He then draws on his significant experience in dealing with the aftermath of a successful military effort to note, accurately, ``the true test of a military action is the peace that follows it. Right now, because of the strict limits that the Pentagon has placed on the international peacekeeping force . . . the country is in extreme danger in falling back into the hands of warlords and drug lords and terrorists.'' Furthermore, in his comment on foreign policy in general, Ambassador Holbrooke points out that ``there are some people in Washington right now who are so hostile on a visceral level to what was done in the Clinton administration that they haven't looked at the successes of that time.'' Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to Ambassador Holbrooke for speaking out in ways that some will find controversial, but which are in fact lucid and persuasive, and very relevant to our current policy discussions. Question. With all that has been happening in the world these days, has it been hard to sit on the sidelines? Answer. There are plenty of times when you look at things and you say: ``They did that well, or they should have done that differently. I might have done that differently.'' I think everyone second-guesses public officials, and people who have been in public affairs are more likely to do so. But it's not a healthy way to live. And those people who stand around and say, ``I would have done it this way instead of that way'' are going to waste their lives thinking about things that are too hypothetical. Question. During the first few months of the war in Afghanistan, a log of people, including Democrats, said that they were surprised to find themselves feeling grateful that Bush had won, because no Democratic administration would have prosecuted this war as well as his administration has. Is there anything to that? Answer. I've heard that from people, but I reject it completely. First of all, the military leadership in this country was essentially the same group of senior officers that served the previous administration. The military budget was the budget submitted by the Clinton administration. On the military side, I think any President would have responded the same way. And we can win any military victory at any time at any place against any enemy in the world. But the true test of a military action is the peace that follows it. Right now, because of the strict limits that the Pentagon has placed on the international peacekeeping force--5,000 troops, no Americans, limited only to the capital city of Kabul--the country is in extreme danger of falling back into the hands of warlords and drug lords and terrorists. And if this happens, Afghanistan will once again become a sanctuary for attacks against the United States. Question. So what advice would you offer to those in power now? Answer. We should apply what we learned in the Balkans to Afghanistan. But there are some people in Washington right now who are so hostile on a visceral level to what was done in the Clinton administration that they haven't looked at the successes of that time. This was particularly evident in the Middle East, where they thought the president was too engaged, so they decided to be unengaged. Would the deterioration of the situation have occurred had the United States been more actively involved? I can't say, but it's hard to imagine the situation being more dangerous than it is today. Question. Has the administration taken this military victory as a sign that it can afford to go it alone in general? Answer. There are people in the administration who have made strange noises--atonal noises--that have a unilateralist component. If there are people who hold these views, they will come up against the harsh reality of the world, which is that not even the U.S. can go it alone. Question. What about Milosevic? You have made it clear that you have admiration for his wiles, even if you deplore his principles. Now he's defending himself in the special tribunal. How has he been doing? Answer. His performance has been what anyone who knows him would have predicted. He has a legal background, he's smart, he's tricky, he's very dangerous, he's in possession of many facts that he can twist to his own purposes. But I have no doubt that he belongs in The Hague, on trial, that he's responsible for the four wars of the Balkans. This is probably his final strut on the world stage, and the stage is getting smaller--it's no longer southeastern Europe; it's a courtroom.

Mr. FRANK

Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. When I originally heard of this bill, I was inclined to be supportive. It was described to me several years ago as a bill that would more accurately determine, in fact, whether a class action was multistate or unistate in its real focus. I was told, and I think there is some accuracy, that the technical way in which the diversity rules operated resulted in some class actions that really were national in scope being tried in particular State courts when, under our system of government, they would more appropriately be tried in Federal court; and I thought that was reasonable, and I supported a bill that would do that, and I still would, unlike some of my colleagues here. When I read the bill, though, it became clear that the bill does not simply say that certain class actions will be tried in Federal court rather than State court; much of its attraction, I believe, to its proponents is that it will make sure that certain potential class actions are never tried at all. That is the way the bill reads. If a class action is brought in State court, and under the liberalized removal procedures of this bill, it is then removed to Federal court, and a Federal judge finds that he or she does not believe that it meets the requirements for a Federal class action, it is dismissed, in effect, with prejudice. That is, it cannot ever again be tried as a class action. If it was restarted in State court, it would go back again to Federal court, which would again dismiss it, so that would be fruitless. An individual case could obviously be brought. So I have been asked if this is an amendment that guts the bill. I do not think it guts the bill. I think it does something of which I am generally more in favor. I think it outs the bill. What it does is to say, let us stop pretending to be something we are not. Let us not claim simply to be a bill that is about which jurisdiction tries the case. Let us be clear that its impetus is to reduce the number of class actions, because people believe that some States imprudently and improvidently allow class actions and because some Members in the majority, many of them, do not trust all of the State courts to honestly apply class action rules; they want to be able to go into Federal court so the Federal court can, in some cases, prevent the class action from being maintained anyway. Again, under the proposal that I advance in my amendment, if, in fact, the case meets the criteria set forward in this bill for removal, it is removed, and the Federal court can go forward with it. The only change I make is, the Federal court does not have the option of saying, this can never be tried as a class action. So I hope the Members will adopt it. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, I was informed, and perhaps I should have been paying closer attention, that there was some line number item alteration and I, therefore, in compliance with what has happened, ask unanimous consent to modify the amendment, and I request that the modification be considered as read.

Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to reclaim my time.

Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to my colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan).

Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the gentleman from Virginia for the honesty with which he acknowledged that the effect of the bill without the amendment, and indeed the purpose, is to prevent many cases from being class actions at all. I differ with one aspect of his argument when he said that some truly national cases will then be, under my amendment, brought to State court. No, I think that is not true. If they are truly national and they truly represent a national class, they will be tried in Federal court, because under this bill, the Federal court can, under the terms of this bill, take the case from the State court if somebody moved it and try it in the Federal court. So we are not saying that truly national ones cannot be done in Federal court. What this bill does is to say very simply, in modern slang, rule 23 rules. What it says is this: rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure describing class actions is now, by this bill, the rule for every State in America. No State can deviate from rule 23, because if you have a different description of what class action ought to be, then you will lose to the Federal people. Now, I find it particularly odd that my friends who pretend to be for States' rights, and excuse me, I do not want to violate the rules, who assert that they are for States' rights, now want to say that rule 23 will preempt any State law to the contrary, because that is what this bill does. This bill says the Federal standard for class action will be the standard to govern everywhere.

Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the very purpose of that amendment is to guarantee that as a class action you will get one day in court. Without that amendment, the bill gives no days in court. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) be allowed to control the time.

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

Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. FRANK

Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, this new nuclear posture paper that the Bush administration has presented itself, from the Pentagon to the President, looks like an entry in a contest as to how many things can we find wrong with this picture. To begin, most shockingly, it proposes to reduce the barrier that has long existed against the use of nuclear weapons. It proposes that we consider using nuclear weapons against non-nuclear nations. It proposes using nuclear weapons in a variety of ways previously uncontemplated, or at least not advocated in our policy. There are several things, of course, wrong with that. In the first place, any American policy of trying to discourage other countries to develop nuclear weapons could not be more seriously undermined by anything we do. The town drunk is not going to be very credible preaching temperance, and having America threaten a more promiscuous use of nuclear weapons makes no sense whatsoever. If, in fact, the policy were to be carried out, it would, of course, add greatly to the billions that would be spent in development of these newer weapons to be used in new situations, further straining our ability to meet important domestic needs. It could very well mean a violation of the proposal of the nuclear test ban treaty and of our, up until now, policy of not testing. Reducing the psychological, physical, strategic barrier to the use of nuclear weapons is a very, very poor policy; but there is a silver lining. As with the proposal to have the Pentagon lie to us and others, as with the proposal to use military tribunals in place of the American domestic courts, as the Attorney General once suggested, we are now being told, well, never mind. The Pentagon has developed a very interesting approach and the Bush administration with it. This is the third time we have seen very, very extreme proposals which when they encounter resistance we are told we should not have paid a great deal of attention to. I am unpersuaded that the proposals were not meant in the first place. I am pleased in the face of the very wide and very thoughtful criticism that these proposals have brought forth the administration backs down; but we cannot be sure that they have totally disappeared and of all of the proposals this suggestion, more than a suggestion, this policy review urging more use of nuclear weapons in more situations against more countries is really quite frightening. The President has justly commanded virtually unanimous support in the United States in his defense of America against terrorism. It cannot be in our interests for him to raise serious questions about his judgment in other strategic areas. It is important that this policy not simply be characterized as a mere option but, in fact, repudiated thoroughly. There cannot be continuing suggestion, even more than a suggestion, that the United States contemplates this sort of use of nuclear weapons. Its impact on our alliances will be corrosive. It will have a negative, rather than a positive, effect on our ability to persuade even those countries to which we are opposed to respond in sensible ways. The President's effort to work out some kind of role with Russia is undermined by this and particularly by the suggestion when he says he is going to take some nuclear weapons down, he simply means putting them in another place. This clearly undermines our efforts to reach agreement with China, with Russia and with a whole range of other countries; and it is a very embarrassing episode for the United States. I am pleased that the administration now appears to be backtracking, but it is important that we make sure that this one does not rise again. Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert into the Record at this point some very good discussions of the absolute fallacy of this proposal, today's editorial from the New York Times, ``America as Nuclear Rogue''; today's editorial from the Boston Globe, ``A Twisted Posture''; and a very good article in today's Boston Globe by the writer Thomas Oliphant entitled, ``Bush's Stealth Policy on Nuclear Arms.'' I hope, Mr. Speaker, that this is the last time the Pentagon is going to play this game of putting forward something that is so demoralizing that it has to be withdrawn. We would be much better if these kinds of grave errors were not made in the first place. [From the Boston Globe, Mar. 12, 2002] Bush's Stealth Policy on N-Arms (By Thomas Oliphant) Washington.--It is not simply the fresh list of countries that the United States is willing to consider nuking someday. What is truly significant--as well as stupid, scary, and outrageous--is the almost casual breaking of long-standing policy taboos about the unthinkable and the implications of this cavalier attitude for relations with the rest of the world and for future arms races. The Russians and Chinese already know the United States is unilaterally departing from the 1972 treaty effectively banning missile defense systems. Now the world has reason to doubt the American commitment to the 1974 treaty to guard against nuclear proliferation as well as the honesty and good will of Bush administration ``pledges'' to cut back our post- Cold War nuclear arsenal and to maintain a moratorium on testing. The cover story the administration sought to peddle on last weekend's TV talk shows--via Secretary of State Colin Powell and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice--is that contingency plans to target Syria, Libya, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Russia, and China are more theoretical exercises than serious policy work and that no special notice need be taken. The cover story is belied by actual intentions as revealed to Congress in a freshly completed Nuclear Posture Review and in the very faint, fine print of the recently unveiled Bush budget. Over the weekend the headline-making list of countries leaked from Capitol Hill, but as part of a leak of the underlying policy document that began four weeks ago. On Feb. 13, the Natural Resources Defense Council--well- known for its thorough, documented research--put out the first detailed summary of the posture review that had been ordered by Congress in late 2000 and of a special briefing the Defense Department has conducted on the document--without the secret list of countries. At the time, no one really noticed. With the addition of the countries, The Los Angeles Times got noticed. Here's the council's highly critical but accurate summary view four weeks ago: ``Behind the administration's rhetorical mask of post-Cold War restraint lie expansive plans to revitalize U.S. nuclear forces and all the elements that support them, within a so- called ``New Triad'' of capabilities that combine nuclear and conventional offensive strikes with missile defenses and nuclear weapons intrastructure.'' If the basic purpose of nuclear weapons since the end of World War II had been to prevent their use and proliferation, the deadly serious review by the Bush administration--with the force plans and massive spending as accompaniments-- results in a doctrine that contemplates their use and appears indifferent to their proliferation. Numbers tell a large chunk of the story. When the administration's intention unilaterally to abrogate the ABM treaty was made known, President Bush made much of a supposed intention to reduce its supply of deployed warheads from roughly 8,000 to below 4,000 in 2007 and eventually to between 1,700 and 2,200. What the posture review actually reveals is a plan to cut ``immediate force requirements'' for ``operationally deployed forces.'' What's going on here is more a change of terms than in posture, hidden by a new, gobbledygook accounting system that the council properly declared ``worthy of Enron.'' Behind the clearly visible nuclear inventory, the council found a ``huge, hidden arsenal.'' It included, but no longer ``counted,'' warheads on two Trident submarines being overhauled at all times, as well as 160 more now listed as ``spare.'' It included nearly 5,000 intact warheads now in a status called ``inactive reserve,'' not to mention a few thousand more bombs and cruise missile warheads as part of a new ``responsive force.'' And on top of that there is to be a stockpile of weapons-grade plutonium and other components from which thousands more weapons could be assembled quickly. Extrapolating the information, the Defense Council estimated that the United States would have a total of 10,590 warheads at the end of 2006, compared with 10,656 this year. And there's more. The administration's posture review also discloses plans to greatly expand the nuclear war infrastructure and to prepare for a resumption of testing, in part to make possible a new generation of warheads that could penetrate deep into the ground. The rules of the nuclear road from the U.S. perspective have never included a flat-out promise never to be the first combatant to resort to nuclear war. During the Cold War, the United States was always prepared to go nuclear to stop a massive, conventional attack from the east in Europe, and before the Gulf War, Saddam Hussein got a stern message that all bets were off if he used chemical or biological weapons. But this is different. This is a plan to use nukes in conventional war-fighting and to maintain a Cold War-sized arsenal by stealth and deception. It is disgraceful.

Mr. FRANK

Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, I was not, but I hope Sheila Toomey has not been lost in this thing.

Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, I was struck by reading the findings. Members will be pleased to know that if they vote for this amendment, they will be certifying the American Civil Liberties Union as an expert on the interpretation of the first amendment. Now, I often agree with the ACLU on the First Amendment, not on some other amendments, but I think this is a new height in freedom of expression. Look at finding 16 on page 12: Whether it is the American Civil Liberties Union or the counsel to National Right to Life, experts have thoughtfully explained this need. I am sure the ACLU appreciates the gentleman from Illinois's very occasional endorsement, because I must say, having served on the Committee on the Judiciary with him for years, I do not remember too many other occasions when he and the ACLU have agreed on constitutionality; not on the antiterrorism bill. In fact, I agree with the gentleman from Indiana. I do not think we should vote for things that we think are unconstitutional. That is why I have consistently voted against the censorship of the Internet which this House passes every other year, and, in the alternative year, the Supreme Court throws out. The fact is that there is a pattern here of people who have never found much virtue with the ACLU and the first amendment suddenly becomes believers. Now, it also sanctifies here the case of New York against Sullivan, the libel case that I have heard Members be critical of, but people also talk about draftsmanship. Let me say I was particularly impressed with finding 14. This is the finding. Finding 14: Sheila Toomey, Anchorage Daily News. It does not say anything else, except that she was reporting on a story. So Ms. Toomey, whoever she is, has now become an official finding of the United States if you pass that amendment. That is a great honor to her. So you have sanctified the expertise of the ACLU, you have officially found Ms. Toomey, who probably did not know heretofore that she was lost, and you have, in fact, added surplus verbiage, at best. The gentleman from Illinois is well aware nothing we can do could impinge on the First Amendment. So what this amendment comes down to, in addition to certifying the expertise of the ACLU, and they will appreciate every Republican who votes that way, and they will probably cite you in their literature, and you may expect the people in your own districts to be thanked by the ACLU for sending a supporter of their expertise to the Congress of the United States and to officially vote and certify them as experts.

Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, I want to welcome converts. I do not always get a chance to do that, but for years here I have tried to defend freedom of expression, free speech and the first amendment. We have passed information censoring the Internet that was thrown out unanimously by the Supreme Court. We have passed other restrictions. And, frankly, I have usually found most of my friends on the other side voting for these restrictions, but today is the day of conversion. The first amendment and freedom of speech have gained today defenders that they have never had before. Unfortunately, I am afraid they will never have them in the future either. But, for instance, I was looking at the amendment that will be offered later by the majority leader in defense of the first amendment. The first four cases he cites are from the Warren Court. Oh, for the days of Warren and Douglas and Black and Brennan. That is the version of the first amendment that they are embracing, and if I thought that was a lasting embrace, I would welcome it. But it is a very temporary use of a particular version of the first amendment that they never had before and they will never have again. Let us be very clear that if you are, in fact, going to adopt their version of the first amendment, which I think is not a correct one, you are going to encompass a lot more than simply letting yourselves spend money, although maybe that is a distinction. I thought about it as free speech. You have had a number of people, including the majority whip who just spoke, who had not previously distinguished himself, in my view, as a great defender of free speech. The key is this: They are for free speech as long as it is not free. If you pay for the speech, they are for it. Free free speech they never defend, but paid free speech is something that many of these people find acceptable. I will tell Members this, that, in fact, if you endorse this version of virtually untrammeled free expression, understand that in no way logically and philosophically can you confine it to this. We have obscenity decisions being quoted here. We have decisions about the right to speak in very radical terms about opposition to the government. It does not fit logically to be someone who has been for severe restrictions on free speech in every other context and suddenly become a first amendment absolutist in this case. And the doctrine of free speech that is being used to try to discredit this bill, which I think is an inaccurate one, because the notion that speech you pay for is somehow fully endowed and that no restriction can be made and no regulation on that, that does not seem to me to be free speech. But if that is what people hold, let me say the lead Senate opponent of this says to be consistent he is against the flag burning amendment because he says he is against this on free speech grounds, the Senator from Kentucky, and he is against the flag burning constitutional amendment. So let us be clear, if you want to adopt that version of free speech, adopt it, but you cannot turn it on and off like a water faucet.

Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, this is the second time we have heard reference on the other side to the haste, et cetera. These are the people who refused to let the bill out. These are the people who bottled it up and forced it to be forced out by the petition. So I have never seen a case where people guilty of a misdeed freely blamed other people for the consequences of their own action. Yes, it was not done the appropriate way. That is because the other side would not allow it to be done in the appropriate way.

Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, first let us talk about the time. Yes, if this bill had come up in a timely fashion last year, it would have been effective for this cycle. The amendment purports to say let us put it into effect right away. Seventy House seats will be decided in primary in 3 weeks. The States of California and Illinois between them have more than 70 House seats. The primaries are in 3 weeks. Members can differ about a lot of this bill, but it is simply not logically possible to argue that they are for this bill and are going to have it go into effect 3 weeks before primary which have been conducted heretofore under the old rule. That is just not arguable, and to have someone say I am for the bill but I want to make it take effect right away and then call me a hypocrite is like being called silly by the Three Stooges. It simply does not make any sense. One cannot purport to be for this bill and say that they are now going to put it into effect 3 weeks before 70-some-odd primaries. The other point that the gentleman raised has some validity. There is some ambiguity in the bill; and as Members know, it will be corrected in a recommit. To the extent that there is an unintentional ambiguity that would allow a hard-money, soft-money transfer, the recommit will ban that. I understand that there is no worse news to give people who have found a flaw in something they hate than to plan to correct a flaw. I apologize. Maybe they should have held that they tortured the language or did not torture the language, they came up with an ambiguity. The two sponsors of the bill are going to put an end to that ambiguity. I understand why they want to talk about it now. It is about to disappear, and they will miss it, I understand, because it will take away from them that argument. So the fact is very simple. If my colleagues voted for Shays-Meehan, how can they possibly now go to the people and say yes I voted for this and I then voted to make it take effect immediately 3 weeks before the primaries in which the rules have already been under the other way? Then it has got to go to the Senate and be signed by the President. I hope this amendment is defeated and we will correct that error in the recommit.

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

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

Mr. FRANK

Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, not surprisingly in this political city the debate over campaign finance reform has taken the shape of people talking about which party would be advantaged, but there is a more profound issue, more profound even than the kind of subtle corruption that campaign money takes. It goes to the nature of democracy. We have two systems in this country. We have an economic system, capitalism, which is based on inequality. It is inequality which drives that system which has been so productive of wealth and which is so broadly supported. If people are not unequally rewarded for their labor, if people are not unequally rewarded for the wisdom of their investment decisions, if people are not unequally rewarded because they respond to consumer demand, capitalism does not work. So inequality, some of us want to keep it from getting excessive, but it is at the heart of that system. We also have a political system, and the heart of that political system is equality. That was the genius of the American Constitution, not fully realized at the time, a goal that we have been striving towards with some success ever since. What we have in our public policy is a tension between an economic system built on inequality where people are unequally rewarded and unequally powerful and a political system in which people are supposed to be equal, in which people's preferences are supposed to count each equally one for one. What we have in America today is a corruption of that system in the broadest sense. As money has become more and more influential in politics, the inequality of the economic system has damaged the ability of the political system to function in a way that carries out equality. We cannot allow the inequality that is a necessary element of our capitalism to swamp the equality that is supposed to be the element of our political system. That is why the Shays-Meehan bill is so important. It reduces the role of money. Soft money is a way that the unequal part of our system gains undue influence over the place where it is supposed to be equal, and that, Mr. Speaker, is the profound philosophical reason why campaign finance reform ought to reduce the role of money, ought to reduce the extent to which inequality undermines formal equality. Interestingly, some of those opposed to the bill have implicitly acknowledged this. I have heard people say, on the Republican side mostly, we cannot go ahead with that kind of a forum; if we get rid of soft money, the next thing we know, labor and environmentalists and all those people will dominate the election. We have, in fact, had people almost explicitly say that the danger in campaign finance reform is that the people will have too much to say. Well, that is the way it is supposed to be in the political part of the system. The financial, the economic system has inequality, but in the political system people are supposed to have equality. That is also the answer to those who say that somehow this violates freedom of expression in the first amendment. I should note, Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat interested to see Members that I have served with for a very long time who for the first time in their careers have become champions of free speech. That is, there are Members who have supported virtually every restriction on free speech, including censorship on the Internet and other rules that the Supreme Court has thrown out, and they have voted for them cheerfully, but when it comes to the power of money to swamp the equal part of our political system, suddenly they become advocates of free speech. Indeed, it seems that many of them are for free speech as long as it is not free. They are for free speech when it costs money, when they can buy it. In fact, if we look at the purpose of our Constitution and our political system, if we look at the role that equality is supposed to play, we understand, because we do not just interpret the Constitution in the abstract, we interpret it in its context, our political system is meant to be one in which people are equal, and what we are doing with campaign finance reform is restricting the ability of money to swamp that equal sector. It does not impinge on free speech as we have ever understood it. Everyone in this country will be as free as they ever want to say what they want to say, to speak out. We do say that they cannot use money, they cannot use the inequality that has accrued to them through the capital system to undermine the electoral system. So, for that reason, precisely because the very heart of the democratic political system is at stake, I hope that we will pass the campaign finance reform bill in an appropriate form, in a form that can go right to the President's desk, because it is essential that we vindicate the equality principle against those who are the beneficiaries of inequality who are seeking to erode it.