Barney Frank

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I simply want to say to my friend from California (Mr. Thomas) and I was going to ask him: I heard him say that anyone who is serious about an amendment should come to him. As I looked at the list of amendments and at the people who offered them, it had not previously occurred to me that being serious about an amendment was a prerequisite for offering one. Is this a new, and it is my time, is this a new rule that will only people on his side who are serious about their amendments will be allowed to offer them? Because if the people who are offering unserious amendments for unserious reasons were to be excluded, we could probably finish this in about an hour.

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, apparently by ``antics,'' and let us be very clear, he refers to the antics on our side. ``Antics'' apparently is the gentleman's phrase for defeating amendments aimed at killing the bill. Certainly the antics have consisted of defeating amendments with some help on the other side. I think the gentleman unfairly denigrates the serious remnant on his own side. Finally, the gentleman objected that I put too much meaning into use of ``serious.'' I apologize for taking the gentleman at his word, and I will try to do an individual doing that this the future.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. The gentleman wishes it was only one.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I was going to offer an amendment. I will not be offering it. The lateness of the hour, frankly, makes me think it would not get the kind of attention that I would have hoped. But I do want to explain why I am going to vote against this bill. Mr. Chairman, we are in a different situation post-Cold War, and I continue to be perplexed by those who argue that we are not safer. It seems to me people are denigrating the whole notion that we accomplished something significant by the dismantlement of the Soviet Union. Yes, there are threats in the world today that exist other than the major threat we had in the Soviet Union. Those threats, of course many of them existed then as well. There is a quantitative difference. For 50 years, beginning with the rise of Hitler and the emergence of the Soviet Union, the physical existence of this country was at risk. We had evil people who hated democracy who had the ability substantially to inflict physical damage on us. That has been substantially changed. We do face dangers in the world today, but they are not of the order that they were during the Hitler and the Stalin years and their successors, yet we continue to spend at very high levels. Mr. Chairman, we are in a zero sum situation. Money we spend on the military cannot be spent on keeping cops on the streets, fighting drugs here at home, providing necessary housing for people, fighting environmental hazards. And there is a way that we could make savings that the administration of this Congress has failed to take advantage of. We continue to subsidize our wealthy allies, particularly in Western Europe, far beyond what is logical. We continue to bear the burden of defending Western Europe disproportionately, despite the fact that the threat to Western Europe has decreased and our allies' ability to defend themselves has increased. Until and unless we end this policy, it is the greatest welfare policy yet left and the recipients are our European allies. They continue to drain tens of billions of dollars from us. If they were prepared to take primary responsibility for the defense of Western Europe, we would still have the responsibility in South Korea, in the Middle East and elsewhere. Mr. Chairman, we could save money with no cost to anybody's security and free up funds for necessary purposes that are going undone at home. For that reason, I will vote against this bill.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, let me say I apologize for responding to what the gentleman said rather than what he meant, but my psychic powers are not as strong today as they have been. I differ with the analogy. In the S&L business we did try very hard to put the S&L owners out of business. Those who were, in fact, culpable, we protected the depositors but not the owners. But this is the issue, and I have all these free market people on the other side. I mean, maybe I am a sloppy reader. I thought I was familiar generally with the works of Milton Friedman, Friedrich Von Hayek, Ludwig Von Mises and Daffy Von Duck and whoever else the gentleman is citing. I must have missed the footnote that said none of this applies to farming. Somehow apparently in this whole body of intellectual activity that the friends of the free mark, there is an exception for farming. What are we told? There is overproduction, my friend from New York says. Too many people are producing, there are people who can barely make it. And what is the solution? It is that the government step in and protect that overproduction, let us have government rules that guarantee that people can continue to overproduce. It is the role of the market to deal with this in a fair way. If there are people who will then suffer, I am for health care for them, I am for better education programs for their children, and I am for trying to protect them. What this does is artificially keep prices high in the parts of the country so that poor consumers have to pay higher milk prices. Let us also understand that there is no magical source of money here. If we are going to pay some farmers more money than they would otherwise get because of government rules and it is not coming from the taxpayer, it must be coming from the consumers. And indeed I am, I guess, in the minority in my region in opposing the dairy compact because that is another example of mercantilism to protect a small number of people who apparently would not make it in a free market system. We require others to subsidize them.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin. Indeed I feel a little bit like an exhibit in an SAT question, ``What doesn't belong in this sequence?'' because I find myself in among all the Wisconsinites, and I am not motivated similarly to them. I bid them all a happy June Dairy Month. I was previously unaware of its existence and I probably will not celebrate it other than today. I am speaking for the consumers in favor of the amendment. Let me address the free market question. I have generally believed that we should, when we are dealing with production, rely on the powerful pro-production, pro-efficiency mechanism of the free market. I differ with some of my colleagues here in believing that the government then has some responsibility to provide safety nets. So I want to see these dairy farmers who are not doing well get the benefit of health care. I differ from some of my colleagues maybe in that. I do think, however, we make a distinction. The free market is the best way to govern production. Then the government intervenes to deal with people who may not be doing well. What I am struck by are the number of my colleagues who are ordinarily supporters of the free market who trash it in this regard. My friend from New York, who I had always thought of as a great conservative, says that there are people who do not belong in the dairy business. Apparently we have a new function now. We in the Congress will decide who belongs in the dairy business and who does not belong in the dairy business. I do not think we belong in the business of deciding who belongs in the dairy business, and therefore we ought to get to this amendment.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I will yield once more to the gentleman from Vermont.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Let me respond. I would say to the gentleman, Mr. Chairman, that the price paid to the farmer is not the only price. There are processing costs, there are trucking costs, there are costs in having the store, and I know the gentleman is much more critical of the market than I. I would point out to many of my colleagues on the other side that the view of the market he is taking, he is being consistent, is not one they usually take. They are the ones that are making a very blatant exception for this one favored profession. I differ with the gentleman from Vermont about this. I understand that is his view. I do believe the market generally works, but the price paid to the producer is by far the only element.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield first to the gentleman from Vermont because I have not yielded to him yet at all. It is the same side, it is equity. They are both against the free market. We are talking about socialist economics, one versus the other. That is okay. I yield to the gentleman from Vermont.

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, excuse me, I am taking back my time. I only have 2 minutes. No, I do disagree with the gentleman on exactly that. It is always the argument on behalf of the people who are less efficient that efficiency will lead to price increases. I understand there are people who do not believe the market works. I disagree with that. In the first place there is no danger, in my view, of the milk production business being dominated by three or four or five entities. There will continue to be competition. Secondly, as for preserving the family farms, I would like to try to preserve family farms, but I would like to preserve family plumbers, family small grocery stores. One of the problems we have here is that we are singling out one occupation, small farming, which is not well served apparently by current economics and saying, ``We'll preserve you with subsidies and with extra consumer funds and not anyone else.'' As far as the sick States are concerned, yes, I know all States have voted for that. I have seen times in my life which States have voted incorrectly. I believe, as a representative of one of those States, that in fact the people I represent are poorly served by a mechanism which increases the price because we make the choice for them if they pay more.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield first to the gentleman from Vermont.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield again to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. First of all, Mr. Chairman, let me say two things to the gentleman. First of all, I am somewhat familiar with the political history of New York, and there is less justification for the continued existence of that Liberal Party, which is a vestige, as the gentleman knows, than there is for some of these dairy farms that cannot make it on their own. The Liberal Party in New York is a patronage farm, and my colleague wants to subsidize them. But beyond that, what the gentleman is saying is that the consumer should be willing to subsidize this because the consumer will get fresh milk. Mr. Chairman, I think I will let the consumer make that decision. I do not think the United States House of Representatives has to say to the consumer, ``Look, we're going to make this choice for you. We will set rules that make you pay higher because you'll be getting fresh milk.'' Consumers are capable of making that decision. If in fact people are not willing to pay enough of a premium to buy the extra milk, then we will not have it.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I am reaching the point where I am behaving more cordially than I feel.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I thank the gentleman. I wonder if the chairman of the full committee might indicate what his view is on what the chairman of subcommittee has just said.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I thank the chairman of the full committee. Mr. Speaker, given the importance of this and the fact that we are making some progress, I thank my friend from American Samoa. I look forward to our being able to begin the serious process of making some changes in the prison system.

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