Barney Frank

Mr. FRANK

Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to apologize for being a little late, but I am pleased to learn that some of the colleagues who preceded us were more concise than I had anticipated. Perhaps I am being too pessimistic about their ability. I agree very much with what the gentleman from Florida has just said. Let me say as the ranking minority member on the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity that this is an issue that was brought to my attention early and persistently and persuasively by the gentlewoman from Florida whom the gentleman from Florida has graciously mentioned. I know they worked together on this. She pointed out that this was a matter, as has been explained, that would cost the government nothing; it was simply correcting an error. I should say this, Mr. Speaker. As a member of the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity, I hope that the chairman will agree that we can take up legislation that would make this sort of bill unnecessary, that is, there needs to be a capacity at HUD to correct errors of this sort. People make errors. I have had a couple of other cases that were brought to me by Members where errors were made. We have one that I hope will be coming down the pike. I know the minority and majority staffs are working with people from Indiana to try and straighten out one from Indianapolis. I think a little history is helpful. We had terrible scandals at HUD in the early 80s. When a former member of this body, Jack Kemp, became the Secretary of HUD under the Presidency of George Bush, we worked together, the then Democratic majority in the Congress and Jack Kemp, to tighten up the rules so that the kind of abuses that had happened in the 80s would not happen again. But we appear to have overtightened. We were worried about the abuse of discretion; and we, as sometimes is the case, went too far in the other direction. So I look forward to working with Secretary Martinez and with the majority on the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity so that we can restore some common sense, I think we have done a good deal of trying to get rid of the corruption, and the legislation of this sort would not be necessary. Mr. Speaker, I am very glad that this legislation is being passed for two reasons: first, because it will give some relief to the people of Jacksonville; and, secondly, because I will not now have three conversations a day with my good friend from Jacksonville, Florida (Ms. Brown), who has been simply indefatigable in working for her constituents on this subject. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown) since it will no longer be mine.

Mr. FRANK

Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, one of my early memories is of my mother going off to Hadassah meetings. When I was 6 or 7--meaning that these meetings happened during the first half of Hadassah's existence--I was a little resentful. But when I came as an adult to learn of the extraordinarily important work that Hadassah does, I have retroactively given my enthusiastic support for my mother's participation. I am very familiar with the work of Hadassah, which is the women's Zionist organization, both here in the U.S. and in Israel. In Israel, the medical care provided by the generosity and the diligence of Hadassah members is extremely important and has been particularly valuable during that young nation's history. Here in the U.S., Hadassah has an unequaled role as an advocate for important Jewish values, including support for the state of Israel, and also for a humane and open American society; it does significant community service work; and it is an important educational institution. One of the impressive things about Hadassah is the inter-generational nature of its work. Mr. Speaker, I am very proud that my mother was a Hadassah member more than 50 years ago, and I am proud as well of my own record in cooperating with this very important organization during my own public career. I am delighted to extend a Mazel Tov to Hadassah as it celebrates its 90th birthday this month.

Mr. FRANK

Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, sometimes we get blamed for things that are not our fault. This is however often offset by occasions when we can bask in the reflected glory generated by the great deeds of others. As the House Member representing Foxboro where the New England Patriots play their home games, I am in that happy latter situation today. So I express my congratulations to the Patriots for their incredible season, topped off by their dramatic last-minute examples of how to perform under the greatest pressure. The people in the Fourth Congressional District appreciate being the home of the Super Bowl Champs.

Mr. FRANK

Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, when I prepare an introductory paragraph for insertion into the Record, my very able assistant, Maria Giesta, often has to remind to compose a headline. But in this no such reminder is necessary, because the National Housing Conference, whose statement I am inserting, composed a perfectly appropriate headline which I have appropriated. The National Housing Conference is a broad based group of a variety of organizations concerned with our housing crisis. The statement which the NHC has issued, which I am inserting here, is very important both for its substance and precisely because it represents such a broad range of organizations. As the statement says, ``a significant increase in direct federal funding for affordable housing, coupled with a more responsive and progressive use of the nation's tax code, will be necessary in order to expand, and in some cases execute more effective affordable housing strategies at the state and local level.'' And as the NEC has made clear, such an increase in resources for affordable housing is necessary because ``in addition to homeless and very low income families who experience the most severe effects of an inadequate supply of affordable housing, today many teachers, police officers, fire fighters, retail sales clerks and nurses are also finding it increasingly difficult, if not impossible, to find decent affordable housing for their families.'' Mr. Speaker, it is morally unacceptable for the richest nation in the history of the world to tolerate this continued housing crisis which blights the lives of so many American families simply because of a mis- allocation of resources. I applaud the National Housing Conference and its member organizations for this important statement and I hope that all of our colleagues will read and assimilate it so that we can act along the lines the Conference has recommended. [From the United Voice for Housing] Affordable Housing Shortage Nears Crisis Proportions Washington, DC.--The following statement was released today by the National Housing Conference (NHC): As we begin the new year, this nation continues to face a serious affordable housing situation of near crisis proportions. Based upon the most recent data, approximately one out of every seven (13 million) American families has a critical housing need, including some 4 million low- and moderate-income working families. In addition to homeless and very low-income families who experience the most severe affects of an inadequate supply of affordable housing, today many teachers, police officers, fire fighters, retail sales clerks and nurses are also Ending it increasingly difficult, if not impossible, to find decent affordable housing for their families. According to a recent NHC study, janitors and retail sales clerks, for example, are all but shut out of the nation's largest housing markets,. While reports of the resilience of the housing industry during the current economic slow-down provide hope and support for the nation's economy as a whole, we should not be lulled into a false sense of accomplishment when it comes to the housing needs of low- and moderate-income families. Today, there is an affordable housing shortage which is not being addressed adequately. We have not budgeted the necessary resources to address the current shortage of affordable housing and there are barriers in far too many communities across the nation which inhibit the development of new affordable housing. To make lasting and meaningful progress on this issue in the new year and beyond, there must be an immediate and demonstrated public commitment at all levels to address the full measure of the nation's affordable housing problem. At present, there are simply not enough resources to support affordable ongoing housing efforts. The lack of political will to increase funding to encourage and provide incentives to produce new affordable housing has and will continue to force families to make unacceptable choices in order to find adequate shelter. Our goal in the new year should be simple and straightforward (to increase the overall supply of affordable housing). To accomplish this goal, there must be vigorous leadership at the federal level as well as concerted efforts at the state and local level to break down barriers which constrain efforts to increase the supply of affordable housing. A significant increase in direct federal funding for affordable housing, coupled with a more responsive and progressive use of the nation's tax code, will be necessary in order to expand, and in some cases execute more effective affordable housing strategies at the state and local level. Increased federal resources must, however, be coupled with additional state and local resources, private sector incentives and local housing policies which are designed specifically to preserve existing and produce new affordable housing opportunities. We have the tools, the know-how and the experience to meet our nation's affordable housing needs. Our housing needs are well documented and have been with us for many years. We know that good housing is essential to support the health and well-being of our families and our communities, and we also know that our continuing failure to address the full measure of our nation's affordable housing needs will have a direct impact on other national concerns including the environment, transportation, access to jobs and urban sprawl. In the year ahead, much will be made of the need to make hard choices, the need to focus on larger national priorities and of tight budgetary constraints. For those who have fought for years to encourage necessary funding for responsible housing policies, this will be nothing new. What must be made clear, however, is that our collective failure to act to meet the nation's affordable housing needs in a comprehensive fashion over many years has only increased the need for new affordable housing to near crisis proportions. Our failure to address this situation again this year will hurt hard-working families and will continue to leave behind those who need our help the most.

Mr. FRANK

Mr. FRANK. I will yield to the gentleman to speak anywhere he wishes, other than Guam.

Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, I will begin by yielding to the gentleman from Guam (Mr. Underwood).

Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I just want to make two points. First of all, recently we did have a real eulogy for a Member who passed away, our late colleague Joe Moakley, and the outpouring of affection and respect for Joe Moakley was very impressive. I am in a position to tell you, as someone who was a neighbor to Joe Moakley's district, there was no one in this business that he admired more than David Bonior. One of the things Joe Moakley made his goal was when Dave Bonior ran for whip was to get Massachusetts Members to vote for him. So let me just past on that if Joe Moakley was still with us, you would be hearing from him his enormous respect and admiration for David Bonior. I want to thank him for one other thing. I am a great believer in free speech. I generally vote against it when we start telling adults what they can read and what pictures they can show of each other. But if I was going to amend the Constitution, I would make it illegal to use the words ``pragmatism'' and ``idealism'' as if they were in opposition to each other. The notion that the world should be divided between people who have a strong set of values and people who are effective is really a disaster morally. In fact, the more you are committed to a set of ideals, the more you are morally obligated to be effective in implementing those ideals. Otherwise, they are just something you put on in the morning to make yourself feel good. They do not do anybody else any good. I know of nobody else in politics who better exemplifies that synthesis. I know of nobody else who is equally a passionate idealist in politics because he has a vision of the world that he wants to have implemented, which would be a fairer and kinder and better world for people who are in need in various ways, and who, at the same time, understands that that gives him the obligation to be as effective as possible; fair but tough; understanding the rules and abiding by the rules; but putting everything every ounce of energy into it. And for his exemplifying that merger of pragmatism and idealism, for understanding that a tough-minded approach to political reality in fact is a necessary compliment to a commitment to a set of values you want to implement, I want to join in honoring David Bonior and thank him for what he has shown us. (Mr. GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to speak out of order for 5 minutes.)

Mr. FRANK

Mr. FRANK. What legislative business?

Mr. FRANK. Well, I wonder, is any contemplated? I think the minority would have an interest in that prospect. Does anyone know if any legislative business is contemplated?

Mr. FRANK. Well, I have checked with our staff here who usually have good channels of communication. We did not know about any, and I would express some hope that there would be some communication so that we would have some idea of what legislative business might be transacted with everybody no longer in Washington.

Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. FRANK

Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, along with a large majority of the House, I voted for a resolution that reiterated our opposition to the acquisition by Saddam Hussein of Iraq of weapons of mass destruction. But I am concerned that some might try, quite inaccurately, to take that large vote repeating our condemnation of Saddam Hussein and our insistence he comply with U.N. resolutions regarding these weapons, that some might mistake this as an expression of support for a war in Iraq. First of all, we should be very clear: there is no legislation, no resolution that has passed this House, that expresses support for war in Iraq. The post-September 11 resolution was explicitly limited to involvement in the attack on the World Trade Center. And to date, no one has produced evidence, as reprehensible as Saddam Hussein is, as despicable as his regime, that he was in any significant way involved in that. Many of us, in fact many of us who voted for the resolution, signed a letter to the President reiterating we do not believe it would be appropriate to commit America to a major military action in Iraq or anywhere else in the world without a congressional vote. And I would be, at this point, voting against that. We did a very good job in Afghanistan. The American military made us proud. And, by the way, that is the American military that President Bush inherited from President Clinton. All during the campaign of 2000 candidates Bush and Cheney denigrated the American military, claimed inaccurately that Clinton had somehow left it impotent. All of a sudden it got very good in a hurry, because that very military that President Bush inherited from President Clinton showed a great capacity in Afghanistan. But as good as they were and as careful as they were, innocent lives were lost, property was destroyed, the economy, already in tough shape, was disrupted, food distribution was inhibited. We had a moral right and a moral obligation to go into Afghanistan. But having done that, having unleashed significant military power in that poor country, for good moral reasons, I think it is now an equal moral obligation to show that we can work just as hard to help rebuild the country, to help feed people, and to help reconstruct it. In the first place, I would say this: until we have shown an equal ability and commitment and dedication to giving the people of Afghanistan a better life, as we should, to helping them get rid of that terrible regime, then I do not think we have earned the right to go do that somewhere else. I do not think that we can simply go from country and oppose destruction, even when it is morally justified to go after some bad people, without living up to the second part that of commitment. Secondly, an attack on Iraq, unlike the war in Afghanistan, would be almost universally opposed by a variety of others. The Bush administration has learned that going it alone is not the best strategy. I am glad the Bush administration has abandoned the kind of unilateralism that unfortunately marked its early months. But if we now attack Iraq, we would be back in that situation. In fact, any hope of further cooperation with Arab regimes in getting intelligence, in prosecuting terrorists and continuing to go after al Qaeda would be discouraged. Mr. Speaker, I am no fan of the regime in Saudi Arabia which is lacking in so many respects; I have become increasing disenchanted with Mubarak in Egypt, but they, at this point, seem to me better than what we would get as an alternative if we were to launch an attack on Iraq that could destabilize those countries. And as King Abdullah, the King of Jordan, in the tradition of his father, seems to be a responsible individual trying to do well, I do not want to see those efforts undercut. So it would be counterproductive in the war against terrorism to go after Iraq. I would love to see Saddam Hussein out of power. He is a vicious and brutal man, but to attack him militarily at this point, engendering the opposition this would engender in the Muslim world, would be counterproductive to our fight against terrorism. Indeed, as a strong supporter of the legitimate right of Israel for self defense, which is now under attack from the most irresponsible elements in the Arab world, people should understand, President Bush never said that he was for a Palestinian state until after September 11. The political need to show some connection to the Muslim world moved him in that direction. I fear greatly that an attack on Iraq, with all of the negative consequences that would have in the Muslim world would, in fact, lessen rather than strengthen America's support for Israel's legitimate needs. I fear there would be a tendency to trade-off a little bit of that support for Israel at a time of great crisis because of this. Finally, they are not analogous. Not only do we not have Saddam Hussein not having attacked us the way the Afghan-supported Taliban allowed al Qaeda to do it, we do not have the same situation. There is no Northern Alliance. One of the things that helps morally vindicate our effort in Afghanistan was the obvious joy of so many people in Afghanistan that we helped rid them of this barbarous repressive regime. Saddam Hussein is not a lot better than the Taliban, but I do not see in Iraq the kind of opposition that would allow us to do the same thing. So while to continue to support the sanctions and I continue to say we should work with opposition within Iran, if possible, to launch a military assault on Iraq comparable to what we do in Afghanistan would be counterproductive. I hope it will not be done. Clearly, the resolution we voted offers no support for that.

Mr. FRANK

Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, I am a non-fan of the rule which says we shall not denigrate the Senate, but as long as it is on the books, it has to be enforced. The gentleman's comments were blatantly out of order in characterizing the motives of a Member of the Senate. Either we are going to have this rule and enforce it, or we are not going to have it. I would be glad not to be bound by it. But simply announcing after Members have violated it that we wish they had remembered it is not appropriately enforcing the rules. If we are going to have the rule that says clearly that we cannot talk about the Senate in that fashion, then we should enforce it or else let us get rid of it.

Mr. FRANK. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. FRANK. Would it not be appropriate for the Speaker, when such violations happen, to prevent the violation, rather than simply comment on it after the fact?

Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, I agree with my Republican colleagues on one very important point. This bill is much, much better than the last time they told us that we had to pass a stimulus bill to save the economy. How is it better? Liberalism has broken out in that unlikely place. Member after Member has bragged about how much they are doing for the unemployed, how much they are doing with health care. All of a sudden the market does not work, and we have the Republicans telling us how much more money they are providing out of public funds. Well, I agree, they are trying; but like most people who are doing something which they really are not used to, they do not do it well, because what they do is compound it by adding tax cuts. The gentleman from Iowa is partially correct, in my judgment. There are many factors why the surplus that we had has become a deficit. But one thing we do not do is to respond by deepening that deficit by further tax cuts, some of which are entirely unrelated to a short-term stimulus because they are 2 and 3 years. The biggest difference between the two bills to me is yes, we do say we want to raise taxes over current law for people who make more than $300,000. The Democratic plan puts off that further rate reduction for people who make over $300,000 and prevents the deficit from lessening. The first President Bush said we could not do a lot of important programs because we had more will than wallet. The current President Bush, having inherited a wallet from Bill Clinton, was terrified that this might lead to real programmatic improvements, so my Republican colleagues are helping him throw that wallet away. That is a very important difference. Yes, they should be proud of doing much better, although not good enough, in trying to respond to the unemployed; but they cannot do it without revenues.

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

Mr. FRANK

Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, I can see the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) is right. To some extent we are trying to protect one of those ideas from 40 years ago that he so denigrates. One in particular is called Medicare. It is about 36 years old. It is part of that 40-year history. It was when it was opposed by most Republican. They have grudgingly accepted its existence, but they continue to try to whittle it away, and one consequence of this tax cutting for the wealthy that the Republicans have indulged in is to endanger Medicare, and in fact, one casualty of their policy was that prescription drug program for the elderly. The lock box to which they all pledged fealty long since went out the window, and we all now have clearly a policy which makes the prescription drug program for the elderly impossible. The President has instead offered them a card so they can go get some retail druggist to give a discount out of the retail druggist pocket. Yes, the gentleman is right, some of us are defending some of the ideas that came during the previous 40 years, and Medicare is a prime example of one of those policies which resulted from Democrats beating Republicans over that 40 years and the Republicans trying to get their revenge on it today.

Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, I will congratulate my Republican colleagues on one thing: they have enough humanity left to be completely embarrassed by what they are now doing: leaving the gentleman from New York alone at his post to defend what is really the last step in what has been an ongoing Republican assault on the notion that in the House of Representatives of the United States Congress, democracy with a small ``d'' ought to be practiced. I guess there is one other thing I can say in their defense: they understand that this is a wholly unserious effort. If this were in fact a serious legislative effort, it would be an outrage. But it is not an outrage; it is a farce. The gentleman from New York talked about how urgent this was. It is so urgent that now, 9:35 at night on the day before we are probably going to adjourn, knowing that, they bring forward a bill which no one has seen; and, of course, the less one has seen of this bill, the more one thinks of it. They bring forth the bill under very extraordinary procedures. It is going to take rules. First, they have to have a rule that suspends the rule that says we have to have enough time to read the bill. Then they bring forth a rule when they ram this through that says there will be no amendment in order, no substitute, no alternative. Yes, the Democrats will be given, as the rules of the House minimally require, a motion to recommit. That allows for 10 minutes of debate on the substance of that motion. So we have got the Republicans completely dismantling democracy. And one thing is predictable, Mr. Speaker: the Speaker and every Republican will vote for this. I do want to congratulate my Republican colleagues, as someone who has been a student of legislative bodies. When the Contract with America was promulgated many years ago, one aspect of it was a series of constitutional amendments, none of which, fortunately, passed. Never have so many constitutional amendments been proposed since the days immediately after the Civil War. All of them were defeated, but the Republican Party has managed to achieve a de facto constitutional change. We used to believe in the separation of powers, and we used to believe that the House of Representatives was an independent body, independent of the executive, independent of other bodies, and it was a place where Members were elected and came and deliberated and made decisions. By the extraordinary control they exercise over individual Members, the Republican Party has brought about a parliamentary revolution in America. We now have in the House of Representatives one large rubber stamp. Whatever the Republican leadership says is to be done is done. I do not think ever before in American history we have seen such obedience. I do not know if we are allowed to pipe music in here, and I know C-SPAN pipes in music when we are voting sometimes. I want to suggest that what they ought to be playing is the March of the Siamese Children, because the monarch of the day gives his orders and down they march obediently. They are going to all vote for this bill. We had an earlier stimulus. There is one other thing I can say about this stimulus: it is at least a repudiation of the earlier outrage they voted for. They voted for a stimulus very different in many ways previously, and they all voted for it, and they will all vote for this one. As we said before, the way the Republican leadership gets obedience from its Members has wrought a constitutional change. We are in a parliamentary situation. The only place left on this side of the Capitol that Members can find checks and balances is in the bank accounts of the Members. Now, what is it they are trying to do? Why did we not have a real stimulus package? Very simply, because the Republican Party has brought us back David Stockman. What we have had on the part of the Republican Party all year is a deliberate effort to create deficits. They pretend to dislike deficits, but they regard them as their saviors. They understand that if we were to continue the surpluses that were inherited from the previous administration of President Clinton, there would be a demand for a prescription drug program. There will not be one now if the Republican tax policy is followed. We will be told we cannot afford it. There would have been a demand for a housing production program to deal with the terrible housing crisis we have. Every witness before the Republican hearings this year said we needed it, but we will not be able to afford it. We will pull cops off the streets. We will cut back on environmental programs. There will be no money to help with sewer and water or transit. What we have had on the obedient Republican side is a deliberate effort to reduce government revenues, not to stimulate the economy; but because they understand that if we were fairly able to debate these with an adequate revenue base, the public would insist on meeting public needs, to the dislike of the ideologues who control the Republican Party, and who control it so thoroughly that they are able to compel the obedience of Members who will tell their voters something else, and then show up here and march down and vote the other way.

Mr. FRANK

Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to me. I have one serious regret about this bill, but it is beyond the capacity of the members of the subcommittee or even the full committee to deal with. There is not enough money. We do not do enough to alleviate poverty in the world. We could do better. In fact, right now we have taken on an obligation by the war we have waged in Afghanistan, which we had not just a right but an obligation to wage, and I am delighted with our success; but it has given us an obligation to go now into Afghanistan economically and politically and in other ways to try to make that a better society than it was before. I have one other point that I want to comment on. I have long supported aid to Egypt. I was glad Egypt played the constructive role it did beginning in the late seventies in the Middle East. But I am becoming less and less happy with the role Egypt plays. It is becoming less and less willing to be a constructive force. I want to say that I was particularly outraged when the Egyptian Government decided a few months ago to engage in blatant oppression of Egyptian men who happen to be homosexual. This happened long after this process had begun. The Egyptian Government ought to understand that it cannot with impunity continue to be so oppressive towards people's human rights, and in particular, its most recent outbreak of severe, unjustified, blatant prejudice, jailing men for no good reason whatsoever. They cannot continue to do that and not have it have an effect on how people view Egypt here and how people deal with Egypt. I hope Egypt will once again play a more active, constructive role in the Middle East. That is now in question. This bill does some good things with regard to sending a very strong message to the Palestinian Authority about the unacceptable lack of intervention on their part to maintain peace in the Middle East. The Egyptian Government's record of late has deteriorated, and it has been particularly outrageous in this human rights field. I will vote for this bill. I regret the fact that it does not have more money. I hope we will make sure that our moral obligation to help the people of Afghanistan deal with the devastation that has happened will not come at the expense of others, and I hope the Egyptian Government will pay attention.

Mr. FRANK

Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, I think in fairness to the gentleman from Florida, my friend misheard him. I do not always speak with perfect diction. I understand when people mishear people. You said you think he said he would accept it, A-C-C-E-P-T; he said he would except it, E-X-C-E-P-T. That means he is going to vote for it, except for the money for the Defense Department; he is going to vote for it, except for the money for New York; and he is going to vote for it, except for the money for domestic homeland security. So, if the gentleman had said he was going to accept it and simultaneously disregard it, you would be perplexed; but if you had understood him correctly as saying he is going to except it and do everything except what it says it is supposed to do, the perplexity would be gone.

Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, my point was that it would be confusing if the gentleman had accepted the motion and simultaneously disregarded it. So it seemed to me what he was saying was he intended to make exceptions to it, and that ``acceptance'' and ``exception'' got confused, because the gentleman said he was going to vote for a motion which required additional spending which he then said he planned to oppose. Since that would not have made any sense, I tried to follow the principle that you try to listen to what people say and you try to make some sense out of it.

Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, there are several oddities being announced today. One is that when we know we are going to need more money, we should not, in the basic budget bill, vote all that we are going to need, but we should hold some back for a supplemental. I had thought the purpose was, when we were pretty sure we were going to need money, to vote that at the outset so there could be intelligent planning on the part of those receiving it, and reserve a supplemental for something unexpected. We are told here, yes, you are right, we need this money; but let us not do it in the overall budget bill. Let us wait for a supplemental. Why? Because the President does not want it. That is really quite striking. That is the second interesting constitutional point. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) said the President leads and we support. In terms of the deployment of troops and the command in the field, of course that is the case. But in terms of allocation of resources, this is a very odd constitutional theory, that it is somehow inappropriate for Congress to say to the President, we think you need more money. It is a good thing Harry Truman did not believe that during World War II when he did such a good job of oversight. Apparently, there is this new theory that once the President says something, that is it, that our job is simply to do what he wants. Pretty soon, under that theory, the only place we are going to find checks and balances around here is in the Members' bank accounts, because we have this view that says that whatever the President wants we have to accept. By the way, there is reason to question the President's judgment. I know that is considered now to be, by John Ashcroft, somewhat treasonous, but the fact is, the President's judgment seems to be flawed. All last year, I heard Candidate Bush and Candidate Cheney talk about how weak and pitiful the American military had been. We heard again from the gentleman from California that the American military had been reduced to a state of pitiful decrepitude. So I have a question: Where did that wonderful military come from that just did such a magnificent job in Afghanistan, while it was simultaneously maintaining forces in Korea, in the former Yugoslavia, and continuing to bomb Iraq? In fact, the denigration of the military, which was the theme song of the Republican ticket last year, has just been very effectively refuted by the wonderful performance of that military in Afghanistan. Now having performed that way, there is a need to replenish. Apparently, what we are told is yes, we do need to replenish them, we know that, it is foreseeable; but let us not do it in the basic budget bill because the President does not want us to, because Mitch Daniels will yell at him; and, therefore, let us do a supplemental. It is not a sensible way to budget; it is not a sensible way to conduct legislative affairs; and it is not a sensible way, in my judgment, to try and spend money efficiently. If we think the military is going to need more money, let them have it at the outset. Let us do homeland security at the outset. The supplemental is meant to be a way of taking care of unanticipated needs; it is not supposed to be a way to show congressional submission to an all-powerful executive which feels it would be inconvenient to spend now what it knows it is going to have to spend. I hope that the resolution is adopted, and that it is in fact conscientiously carried out by those who vote for it.

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