Barney Frank

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, is that motion renewable at this time?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, on July 27 I will be here on the floor of the House. Ordinarily that would be a source of pride to me, because I very much enjoy serving in this institution and appreciate the privilege of doing so which I receive from my constituents. But on July 27, I will be here with some regret, because my presence in the House will mean that I will be absent from the event honoring Sheila Decter, Executive Director of the American Jewish Congress in Boston. From my days in the Massachusetts Legislature in the 70s, through my current service in the House, I have relied on Sheila Decter's wisdom, knowledge, and commitment to fairness for all people in my effort to do my job. Sheila Decter is one of the great natural resources of Massachusetts, and no one better deserves the honor she will be receiving on July 27 than she. In her work through the American Jewish Congress Sheila Decter exemplifies the notion set forward by the great Rabbi Hillel, because she shows that working to protect the rights of Jews in this country and elsewhere are not only compatible with a strong commitment to universal human rights, but in fact reinforces and strengthens that commitment. Sheila Decter exemplifies the point that fighting injustice against any one group is best done by putting that in the context of the fight against injustice everywhere. She has enriched the life of our community, and she has made my job a lot easier. And while I know that our rules require us to address all remarks to the Speaker, I hope I will be permitted an exception so I can say: Mazel Tov, Sheila.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. 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 of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, this rule degrades democracy. It is a conscious decision for the democratically elected House of Representatives to avoid open discussion and debate on the most important national security issues. Let us put aside the suggestion that time dictated that. The gentlewoman from North Carolina said, well, there were 89 amendments submitted. The leadership that decided not to go forward with the debate on these significant issues gave us all a present a week ago of 3 days off next week that were scheduled for work. The original work schedule called for us to meet next week. Three days were canceled. So it was not time. It was a political decision. We have on the other side Members who say, and some on this side, that one of the problems that is driving the military budget and causing strains in the budget like we just saw agony on this floor over the agriculture bill. Why? Because there is a general perception that the amount of money we have to work with does not equal the amount that people think is necessary to meet various programmatic needs. Clearly, as you increase military spending, you cause a problem there. One argument has been, we have to increase military spending because the Clinton administration has exceeded its capacity by overcommitment. Now, that is a valid argument to be debated, but we will not be debating it here, because that is too hard. That is one that might make people mad politically. That is too fundamental. We will debate the proceeds of the dairy farm at the Naval Academy and strength equipment and whether or not it is being bought right, and nonsecure tactical radios for the 82nd Airborne. Those will all be separately debated. But should America continue to have 100,000 ground troops in Western Europe on a permanent basis subsidizing the Europeans 50-some-odd years after the end of World War II? Nine of us, five Republicans and four Democrats, put together an amendment to say, let us cut that to 25,000, subject to the President's right to send more if there is an emergency, an absolutely untrammeled right to say in an emergency, they go over, but as an ongoing, permanent situation, let us not continue to have 100,000 American troops there. Many of my Republican colleagues say, ``Well, we don't want ground troops going into Kosovo. We didn't want ground troops in Bosnia.'' I have agreed with that, but I am willing to vote that way. What we have are people who want the easy rhetorical out of denouncing something, but do not want to get caught voting for it because voting for it might someday have political consequences. So this leadership refuses to allow the House to debate an amendment put forward by five Republican, three Democratic and one Independent Member to say, ``Let's reduce troops from Europe.'' In 1989, a group of us began working on burdensharing, on saying to our wealthy allies in Japan and Europe and in a few other places, the American taxpayer cannot keep paying that defense burden. We have had some successes. It has been bipartisan. My friend from Connecticut and I have been working on it. The gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) is here. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior), Ms. Schroeder when she was here, we had a good bipartisan group. This is the first time in my memory, the first time since 1989, when we have been refused an opportunity to debate burdensharing. So let me say to the people of Europe, I hope you are grateful to the Republican leadership, because having ended one welfare program, they decided to keep another. They are keeping the most expensive welfare program in human history, the one by which American taxpayers, year after year after year--I cannot give all the years because it has been since 1945--in which we subsidize the budgets of Western Europe. Now, you may think America ought to keep 100,000 troops in Western Europe so the Europeans can cut their budget, even though we do not ever want to use those troops, but how do you justify in the House of Representatives of this great democracy not allowing it to be debated and voted on? There is nothing in this bill, nothing, I take it back, there is one thing, there is an amendment that would say, we will remove our troops from Haiti on a permanent basis, one of the smaller interventions. But I heard the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) talk about Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia, Rwanda, et cetera. People denounce the level of commitment and say that is driving up the cost of defense. But this bill quite deliberately guarantees that whether or not we should maintain those commitments will not be debated. It is very cowardly. It is a stance of people who want to talk tough and take no action whatsoever. It is easy to wave your arms and denounce all these commitments, but then, however, to guarantee that they cannot be debated on this floor so Members never have to take responsibility for what they proclaim politically is unworthy of a democratic process. This bill ought to be, as it was in the past, as the gentleman from South Carolina said, the form in which this great democratic body debates, should we have a two-war strategy? What kind of nuclear strategy should we have? What should the role of the American armed forces be? You demean democracy with this refusal to allow fundamental issues even to be debated.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I have been here too long to be proud. I will accept second chances. Mr. Chairman, I would just say I think the issue is in fact, and I am not as sure as the gentleman as to what the American people think, but I think the American people may be conflicted. I think they may have a preference, on the one hand, for a low level of overall spending, and on the other hand, for particular spending programs that add up to more than the overall level. That is, I think the American people may be in a position where they favor a whole that is smaller than the sum of the parts they favor, and that is what we have to grapple with.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I will respond to the gentleman, when the gentleman says ``do what they say they were going to do,'' that is what we said we were going to do in 1997, is that correct? The issue is whether we are going to live up to the Act of 1997. I would ask the gentleman, is that right?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I had understood that the leadership on the other side had brought this bill up because this was the easy appropriations bill. I know we are not supposed to address the audience watching this on television, but my guess is that some of them may be eagerly anticipating the fun they will have watching the hard appropriations bills if this is what we do with the easy one. Were it possible to sell tickets to this circus, we could probably do something about the revenues, but of course we cannot. But what I want to talk about is what I think is, in fact, the real issue here. The real issue is that one of the signal achievements of the Republican Party, the 1997 Balanced Budget Act, is an unmitigated disaster. Now, there are efforts going on to mitigate it. But let us be very clear. That is the unspoken premise of this whole debate. What a terrible mistake this House made with the acquiescence of the other body and the President in 1997. Everybody gets up and says, oh, those budget caps, what a terrible thing they were, sort of. Some people are saying, we are going to hold you to them, and the suggestion that we are being held to them is considered to be an unfortunate one. But everybody acts as if the budget caps fell down from the heavens like the rains or the hail. People have forgotten. Those budget caps are not a force of nature. They were the vote of this House, and they were, as I understand it, one of the great achievements of the Republican Party. I also agree, by the way, that Social Security is not at risk here. What is at risk is Medicare. Because that same wonderful 1997 Balanced Budget Act, which is the greatest orphan in history since it does not appear to have any parent left, that 1997 Budget Act cut Medicare very substantially. It cut home health care, it cut prescription drugs in my State; it has cut hospital reimbursements. And what do we have now? Surprise, surprise, the 1997 budget caps which said spending would be the same in 2002 as in 1997. People are shocked that it is inadequate. People are shocked at having voted to cut $115 billion out of Medicare to pay for a capital gains tax cut, and Medicare is suffering. What is all the shock coming from? Were Members in a coma when they voted for the 1997 budget act? Did people not think that voting to keep spending at the exact level 5 years later was going to cause problems? Did people think cutting $115 billion out of Medicare would have meant there would be a shortage of monopoly money the next time they sat down at the game? Never in the history of humanity have so many people professed surprise at the foreseeable consequences of their own actions. Members ran for office on this budget in 1998. They bragged about it. Now they are acting as if it was some terrible act of God that we have to live with. Everybody in here is Job; Oh, look what has happened to us, and we will have to live with it.

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I will take back my time. I would only make one edit. When the gentleman said ``Washington,'' read for that, ``The Republican Congress.'' That is what he means by ``Washington,'' because the Republicans control the House and control the Senate. So my friend, the gentleman from Oklahoma, says the issue is, is this Republican-controlled Congress going to live up to this Republican accomplishment of 1997. And I think the answer is, they are looking for a way not to. He may not like the implications of what he said, but that is what he said. He said, here is the issue, is this Republican Congress willing to live up to this Republican 1997 budget act. And I think here is the problem with the American people.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 2 additional minutes.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield, would he tell me what that remotely has to do with anything?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield, yes. Then why did my colleague vote for the cap? I agree that because the events preceded it, the cap came after it. That I agree to.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue, I understand that. But my point to the gentleman is we can differ about that, although I hope we can work together to reduce some of these excessive commitments. But I would say to the gentleman this: Most of those things happened before my colleagues voted for the cap. So I am simply saying it is impossible logically to say both that these interventions make the cap unrealistic and to have voted for the cap, because the cap came after most of those interventions.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I appreciate focusing, as the gentleman did, on the fundamental issue here. And I think we do have a question as to the adequacy of the caps. The gentleman from California said we could live under the cap, even for national security, and he said if it were not for Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo and Iraq. My point to the gentleman is this: Kosovo came after, but the other military efforts he mentioned all preceded the cap. The cap was 1997. So if the gentleman says we could have lived under the cap except for Haiti, Somalia, Bosnia and Iraq, then he must be saying, seriously, that the cap was too low. Because those four items which he said make it impossible to live under the cap, four of the five predate the cap. So I ask the gentleman, does he still say the cap was adequate in 1997?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I guess he would say that, but I do not know why. If the gentleman is saying, ``change your mind,'' okay, but let us be clear what ``change your mind'' means. If it means he admits that this great accomplishment of 1997, this Balanced Budget Act that has been the basis for so much that they have taken credit for, they are really ready to throw it over the side, I do not blame the Members. I never liked it in the first place. The one thing the Members are not entitled to do is to express surprise at the entirely foreseeable consequences of their action. They are not entitled, having done it in 1997 and taken credit for it in the 1998 election, to throw it over the side and say, what do you guys think this is, term limits, a promise one makes and then forgets about?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I knew Lincoln was a pretty smart fellow, but if the guy that was around in 1865 has made a comment about 1997, he was even smarter than I thought. But go ahead.

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Yes, the gentleman can. I just wanted to make sure I understood it.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for yielding me this time. I am reminded of a song that I think my colleagues on the other side are singing. I remember in earlier times when they would be very critical of the appropriations process, of the excesses that were sent in, of the long time it took. I think they have now decided to sing a song, anything we can do, they can do worse. We are told that we should fall to the hostage theory: ``This has some good things in it; therefore, you should ignore the bad things.'' The gentleman from Alabama said that the glass was nine- tenths full. One of my friends on the Committee on Appropriations said, ``No. The trouble with this glass is that it's overflowing.'' We are told that if we are for aid to the hurricane victims, if we are for the troops, we have to vote for it and never mind all the bad stuff. I have heard that before. I thought it was one of the things they were going to change. So this notion that because there are some good things in a bill that has fewer bad things than it used to have, we have to vote for it makes no sense. As for people who tell me we are in a real rush to do these things, I think I remember voting for some of these things several weeks ago. I was not holding it up. Yes, I would vote for a clean bill very soon. But what is even worse is the offsets. The gentleman from Wisconsin correctly pointed out, the offsets either are very powerful reductions in spending when they are trying to sell the bill to the conservatives, or they are nothing when they talk about their real impact. Well, unfortunately they are not nothing. I wish they were. Yes, it is true, and I thank the gentleman from New York and the appropriations subcommittee and others, we will be protecting the people who now live in housing with section 8s. But any Member of this House who has told a constituent, ``Gee, I'm sorry you don't get a section 8, I'm going to try and get you one,'' anyone here who has looked at an elderly constituent and said, ``Gee, ma'am, I really feel for you, I'm going to do what I can,'' who then votes for this cancellation of $350 million of section 8 vouchers that could otherwise go to new people is guilty of the worst kind of inaccuracy. My colleagues can vote to cancel $350 million of Section 8 if they want to, but they should not then go back to their districts and lament and weep for those who are not adequately housed because actions do have consequences. Yes, it will keep existing people in housing, but all of my colleagues who have talked to people on the waiting lists, who have talked to others and said, ``Gee, I would love to help you,'' it is like the old reverse Houdini. Mr. Speaker, Houdini used to get tied up in knots, and his trick was to get himself out of the knots. This bill ties ourselves in knots, and then we tell people we cannot help them because we are all tied up in knots.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I know some people think that debate is not often instructive but I just learned from the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) that the companies that will be the beneficiaries of this bill support it. That is something people might not have taken for granted. Beyond that, however, I want to pay tribute to the great work of the gentleman from Virginia, the gentlewoman from California and the chairman, or the ranking member but chairman to be. The gentleman from Virginia and the gentlewoman from California have, in particular, distinguished themselves by thoughtful advocacy of the legitimate concerns of the high technology community. They have the vehicle that is the only one that can become law. The administration has changed its position. It has been in part because of the work of these individuals who have said to them that they are wrong to just stonewall; let us work out a reasonable position. Now, there is one other thing I do want to notice. I know there are Members who talk about how government always gets it wrong and the private sector always gets it right. One of our leaders of the House says government is dumb and the markets are smart. I think the markets obviously are wonderful in their work, but I do have to note that in this case it was not the government that forgot that 1999 would become 2000. That was the private sector. We all make mistakes. The private sector is now coming to that stupid government and saying can we get a little help? I think we should. I think that is an appropriate role for government but we ought to understand what has happened here. What this amendment does is to deal sensibly and try to find a compromise. I do not agree with everything. I am against unlimited punitive damages. I voted against the amendment of my friend, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott). I hope if we get to conference we will put back a cap on punitive damages, but on the whole this bill takes a sensitive and thoughtful approach. I voted for the legislation passed over the President's veto, and I voted to override his veto limiting suits based on stocks. In this case, the companies that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) enumerated need to be saved from themselves because if they insist on getting every single thing on their wish list, if they get everything that could mean they would almost never be sued under any circumstances, there will be no bill. Yes, I think there are things about the American legal system that ought to be changed but it is fair to note that these companies we are talking about that are so afraid of this legal system grew in this legal system. If it was so terrible, if it was so obstructive, how did they get where they are? Did they all parachute in here from Mars? The fact is that this same legal system allowed them to grow and what we now have is a sensible, thoughtful, specific compromise, worked out by people who have a great deal of understanding and knowledge of this industry and they are trying to get a bill. We have a choice now. Some Members think a political issue would serve them better. Some Members think that legislation that gets signed into law would do a better job for the country, and I think that the substitute that is pending reflects that latter view. I urge Members to vote for this substitute and set the basis for a sensible bill.