Barney Frank

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I must say I am a little puzzled when my friend from Texas says, ``I want to correct the gentleman, he is absolutely right.'' That is not what I would ordinarily list as a correction.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to express my appreciation for the appearance of the majority whip in a new guise, defender of the first amendment, and particularly as an advocate of free speech. He and I have served together for, I do not know, a dozen or 14 years. I guess I will ask for a nexus search. I cannot remember any previous occasion when the issue was freedom of expression that the gentleman from Texas was here. We have had constitutional amendments, we had two amendments to restrict the first amendment or to cut back or to change what the Supreme Court says. He was for both of them; that is legitimate. We have had a whole series of assaults on free speech. Often it comes from speech that is obnoxious, but that is when free speech gets involved, and I am forced to conclude, not having previously heard the gentleman, he himself said he does not usually agree with the ACLU, he does not usually agree with the Washington Post. He quoted, by his own admission, authority after authority in defense of free speech to whom he is usually an opponent. He has a whole bunch of allies to whom he is usually a stranger. This is first time in my memory that the gentleman has been for free speech. Why? Because we are talking about the free speech of people with large amounts of money trying to either win an office or buy some political influence. We are talking about free speech that is on behalf of millionaires, and it becomes very clear what the principle is. The gentleman is for free speech as long as it is expensive. I have never heard him support free free speech, but expensive free speech, the purpose of which is to buy one's way into the political process. He is all it. He has also, it seems to me, neglected to mention one thing about the constitutional amendment, and I worked on the drafting of it. I agree that constitutional amendment, as it came before us, is not ready to be put in the Constitution. That is why it is so disappointing to see it used in this fashion. I have never supported a constitutional amendment coming to this floor without a previous subcommittee markup and committee markup. This constitutional amendment has had no such markup in the subcommittee or committee.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I will yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I ask the gentleman, he has made a fundamental confusion here. The constitutional amendment and the Shays-Meehan bill do different things, and no one has been arguing, prior to the gentleman from Texas, and I do not underestimate the novelty of the arguments he brings to us from time to time, but no one has argued that nothing is constitutional. The constitutional amendment would allow us to go further; but, for example, one of the major parts of the Shays-Meehan bill is the ban on soft money. Would the gentleman tell me if he thinks that is unconstitutional, and would he tell me which decision of the Supreme Court makes banning soft money?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Yes, I am a cosponsor of this amendment which did not get a subcommittee markup and did not get a committee markup. I am sorry those terms appear to be foreign to the gentleman from Texas. When we are dealing with the Constitution of the United States, it would be irresponsible to go directly from the drafting to the floor. That did not happen with the balanced budget amendment. That did not happen with the various religious amendments. We work in the Committee on the Judiciary on these amendments, and I cosponsored; I said I worked on it. What I wanted, however, was to begin a serious discussion, and if the Republican leadership really wanted to advance that discussion, they would have had a subcommittee markup, they would have had a committee markup bringing a constitutional amendment directly to the floor. Having refused for a year and a half to have any committee consideration, it is hardly serious legislating about the Constitution. In fact, if anybody had tried to get an amendment through seriously that way, he or she would legitimately be subjected to criticism. Then the next thing the gentleman does is totally collapse this into the bill, and I am impressed by the reasoning here. Apparently he recognizes, and his allies, that the bill brought forward by the gentleman from Connecticut and the gentleman from Massachusetts is hard to attack on its merits, so he has abandoned that by claiming that it is clearly unconstitutional. No one who was supporting the constitutional amendment introduced it as a substitute for this bill. Indeed, those of us who think a constitutional amendment would be useful explicitly believe that legislation is possible and desirable but that an amendment could take us further, and his suggestion that Buckley outlaws a ban on soft money is clearly wrong. Buckley clearly says soft money has to do with the contributions. The gentleman is talking here in this bill about limiting contributions, and Buckley said we could limit contributions. It said we can limit them to a thousand dollars. Now, there are separate issues with issue advocacy and independent expenditure. What the gentleman from Texas is doing is collapsing everything. The constitutional amendment and soft money and issue advocacy and independent expenditures, all complicated, substantive subjects, get collapsed into his rhetorical assault on the notion of reform because he is not for restricting expensive free speech. The gentleman from Texas, as he said, did not want the bill to come to the floor. He told us that. So he decided instead to let it come to the floor in the most convoluted process. By the way, the Committee on Rules, which would not allow a single amendment onto the floor to reduce the defense budget by a penny, which has restricted important amendments on virtually every other bill we have today, has allowed to this bill, I believe, more amendments than were made in order for all the other bills this Congress has dealt with this year. That is, of course, not serious legislating. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, as a general supporter of this bill, I did want to express my dismay at that attack on the gentleman from Texas. That remark about playing golf at night certainly does not grant this debate any reasonable weight.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. No, just as the gentleman, having made the attack on the gentleman, would not yield to him, I certainly would not yield at this point. I do want to say to my colleagues, while I generally like the bill, I also wanted some amendments, but they are following the wrong course. What we should do, and we can still do it, offer these as amendments to the campaign finance bill, because the same Committee on Rules that would not allow amendments to the defense bill and shut off reasonable amendments to this bill, and I regret that as a supporter, this same Committee on Rules has made more amendments in order to the campaign finance bill than I think it has made in order for all other bills that have come up in this Congress. So given what the Committee on Rules has done, the Committee on Rules is actually out shopping for nongermane amendments. So while we have to do this very important bill in a quick-time operation, Members who, like myself, had good amendments to this bill which were germane to this bill and were shut out, despite, in some cases, assurances that we would get them in, make them nongermane amendments to the campaign finance bill. Follow this pattern. Go to the Committee on Rules. Make any amendment we want to bankruptcy a nongermane amendment to the campaign finance bill. Not only will it be made in order, but we will have unlimited debate time. It does seem to me, when we are judging the seriousness of purpose and fairness of procedure, to compare these. Here is the campaign finance bill. Here is the bankruptcy bill. The bankruptcy bill is a very important bill. It will have a significant impact on this country, and I am generally in favor of it. But we get amendments killed by the Committee on Rules, presumably on the direction of the leadership. We get amendments with only 10 minutes to debate. Then we get the campaign finance bill where amendment upon amendment, as far as the campaign finance bill is concerned, germane is Michael Jackson's brother. The whole concept that has always been at the core of the House of Representatives that an amendment should be germane to the bill has been thrown out the window. So I have to say I am particularly dismayed as a supporter of the basic concept of this bill to see a rule come forward which does violence to fair debate in this particular instance and then makes a mockery of it elsewhere. Then the gentleman from Texas is, I think, unfairly impugned for complaining about it. So I urge people to vote against this rule.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, this amendment seeks to solve a problem that does not exist and then quietly create a very serious problem. There is no constitutional prohibition against children praying in school. Yes, teachers have told children not to read the Bible on the school bus or say grace before meals. Those teachers were wrong. Teachers are not infallible. Children have the right to do that. At all of those many moments during the school day when, without disrupting the regular procedure, children are free to talk, to read, to decide what to do, they may themselves pray, if they have been taught to do so. The real problem here, and I find this ironic from people who talk about themselves as ``defenders of family values,'' is that there are many in this country who do not think that the average family, left to its own choices, will inculcate enough religion in their children, because any schoolchild who has been brought up to be religious will find innumerable chances during the day in school, and certainly before and after at school clubs that are sanctioned, as they should be, to pray. They can read the Bible on the school bus. They can say grace before they eat. They can say a prayer as they walk to class. They can say a prayer in the school yard at recess. But people think children, left to their own, will not do enough, so this amendment seeks to allow us as a society to use the mechanism of compulsory school attendance to inculcate in official settings more religion in schoolchildren than they would learn at home. Nothing now in the law prevents children from expressing themselves religiously, if they have been told to. But people who think they should be in charge of other people's religious instruction think that this does not provide enough. They want to use the coercive school mechanism, so that children who would not otherwise pray will be pressured into doing so, or pressured into doing so in a certain way. Religion does not need now, as it has not in the past, the help of these self-appointed volunteers. Let us leave religion to the families and to individual choice. That choice can be freely expressed in school, as it can elsewhere, in the way that prayer has always been meaningful.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the ranking minority member yielding me the time. I appreciate the support on this I am getting, not just from the chairman and the ranking minority member, but from the gentleman from Virginia who has been an active proponent. Last year we passed overwhelmingly, unanimously, an amendment that said the United States will not spend more than $200 million per year for our share of the cost of NATO expansion. NATO expansion is one thing. But an American subsidy of France and Germany and England and Italy and Scandinavia and the Benelux countries is quite another. We have a continuing problem. Our wealthy, powerful European allies, who do not themselves face serious threats, have gotten so used to the American taxpayer picking up the tab for the common defense that they do not make a contribution. Part of the objection to NATO was an objection over an excessive contribution from Americans. We in this amendment take what the State Department and Defense Department told us it would cost and we say that will be the maximum.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman because this may become a dispute between this body and the Senate, and I hope we will have our conferees standing firm for the American taxpayer if the Senate tries to kill it.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, the gap between reality and the description we have just heard is very, very wide. The suggestion that the national security of this country has been endangered or is in danger because of the People's Republic of China, with its relatively weak military capacity, is an absolutely unjustified denigration of the military strength of this country. But it also raises an important question in my mind. Now, the gentleman from New York was complaining of the President's failure to listen to him regarding apparently the terrible menace of the People's Republic of China. But the President is not the only one to whom he should be addressing his words. It was the leadership of his party that brought forward recently a bill to grant the People's Republic of China Most Favored Nation treatment. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I had to check the record. I heard a lot of this denunciation of the threat that China poses to the United States, and I had this vague recollection that the Republican leadership had given the Chinese the single thing they most wanted from this government: Most Favored Nation treatment. Indeed, if we look at the trade practices, if there could be one thing the American government could do that would make the People's Republic of China happier than anything else, it would be to give them Most Favored Nation treatment. Now I know my friend from New York was against it, and so was I, but it was the Speaker of the House, of his party, who put it through. Has the gentleman been so focused on the President that he has forgotten to share his wisdom with the Speaker? The staffer who sits next to him, who so carefully hands him that paper every 4 minutes when he forgets where he put it, can the gentleman not have him with him the next time he meets with the Speaker? The gentleman should bring that staffer along, because the gentleman will have to show that paper to the Speaker. If the gentleman asked the Chinese what they wanted, some missile technology or the right to sell us $50 billion a year worth of goods, I think the $50 billion would come first. Now, I disapprove strenuously of the way in which the Chinese government runs its people. I think they are oppressing Tibet. I think they are a threat to some of their neighbors. I was supportive of our going to the defense of Taiwan. I do not believe they are a threat to this great strong country. But if I thought they were trying to become a threat to this country, the last thing I would begin to do is to fund them, and that is what Most Favored Nation treatment does. The Chinese government makes far more money because of Most Favored Nation treatment than anything else. And the gentleman's party put the bill through. The gentleman's party controls the House. Now, on the other hand, maybe there is good news, Mr. Speaker. Maybe the Speaker has seen the light. Because my understanding, until recently, was that the Republican Party, the leadership of the House, planned once again to bring a Most Favored Nation bill for the People's Republic of China before us. Now, I know I would vote against it and my friend from New York would vote against it, but given the organizational power of that coalition of President Clinton and Speaker Gingrich, the People's Republic of China would probably get it. And, apparently, there is a breach in the coalition, because I certainly would find it hard to believe that the Republican leadership, who so excoriated China and so warned us of the danger China presents to our very national security, surely they are not prepared to give the Chinese Most Favored Nation treatment. The gentleman said it is the Cold War again. During the height of the Cold War, in fact, during the low parts of the Cold War and the medium parts of the Cold War we never gave Russia Most Favored Nation treatment. So I guess those of us who voted against Most Favored Nation treatment for China should take heart: Allies are apparently coming. Because I am sure that the passionate nonpartisan eloquence of the gentleman from New York will not spare his Speaker if he were to err and provide Most Favored Nation treatment for that threatening nation of China. The other thing I wanted to talk about briefly was the resolution. The facts on this are that the President has, I think, been doing everything he can. I hope no one is suggesting the President has the right to order people not to plead their constitutional rights. But, in fact, the suggestion that the President is not doing what he can is clearly contradicted by the facts. One of the things the gentleman mentioned were the people who have fled the country. They fled the country because the Justice Department is after them. But the Justice Department works, of course, under President Clinton. We have heard these arguments that said, oh, we must have an independent counsel. And what is the basis recently for demanding an independent counsel? Well, the Justice Department cannot investigate that. How do we know that? Well, we just got facts that show the Justice Department cannot investigate it. Where did we get the facts? From the Justice Department's investigation. The latest revelations which came from Johnny Chung came from the Justice Department's investigation. The people that have fled the country, in all honesty, I do not think they fear the gentleman from Indiana, who chairs the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, as much as they fear the Attorney General and her prosecutors. They are the ones who are threatening them. So what we have here are people have fled the country because the Justice Department is engaging in a tough, honest investigation. And so, what do we say? We say, ``Mr. President, bring them back.'' The only way the President could bring them back would be to order the Attorney General to stop the investigation. It is the Justice Department that is involving them in this investigation. The gentleman says he wants to pursue this in a nonpartisan way, and I am glad to hear. I look forward to being here the day he chooses to do that. Apparently, today was not the day. Because this is a resolution that is accompanied by rhetoric denouncing the President for following a policy towards the People's Republic of China, which in substantial ways is the same as the Speaker of the House and the people in the other body, because both Houses passed Most Favored Nation. It is the Administration through the Justice Department which is investigating these people. And that is what they are taking the fifth amendment from. They are refusing to testify before the Justice Department, they are fleeing the Justice Department, and they are saying, well, what are you doing about it? Well, the President is in fact, by the toughness of the investigation under the Attorney General, ultimately the cause of precisely these things. Now, of course, we want an investigation. And there do appear to be people who abuse the campaign finance system on both parties. We had high-ranking fund-raisers in both the Clinton and Dole campaign in 1996 who behaved badly, who appeared to have violated the law. They should be prosecuted, and we should do it in a nonpartisan way. But just in summary, first of all, let us not grossly exaggerate the physical threat that the People's Republic of China poses to the United States. Yes, they threatened Taiwan. And when the United States sent military force, they backed down. There is a disparity, fortunately, between the United States and the People's Republic of China military that means we are not in any danger from them. Others might be. Secondly, if they do believe that the People's Republic of China is such a threat, then how do they put through the House a bill that continues their Most Favored Nation treatment which does as much to fuel their economy as any other single thing, is something they greatly want? The gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) is not guilty of inconsistency here. Because he and I agree; we voted against Most Favored Nation treatment. What happened was, and I know the gentleman is very busy, he is busy keeping amendments off the floor, the defense bill, and doing other things, he forgot that the Speaker was for Most Favored Nation treatment. I understand that. He cannot always remember everything. But now that I have reminded the gentleman that it is his Speaker who was bringing forward Most Favored Nation treatment, I will be glad to go with him, I will even hand him the document and show him if he misplaces it to remind him how terrible it is and how he should not even have it. Finally, let us note that the investigation from which these people are hiding, in which they are pleading the fifth amendment, is the investigation being conducted by the Attorney General and her aides. And that is, of course, proof that these allegations of cover-up are pretty silly.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I thought the gentleman was yielding to me to close.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry. I thought the time had expired.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Alabama helping draw it all together in a logical way. Mr. Speaker, I would first say to the gentleman from Indiana, the Justice Department is doing the investigation. He said the way to get around their invocation of the Fifth Amendment is to get them before a grand jury. It is the fact that the Justice Department, or Attorney General Reno, is trying to bring them before the grand jury, that has led them to do this. That investigation is going on. Finally, I do want to say apparently something I said was misinterpreted as in some way reflecting on the very able staff, and I regret that, because we are very well served here by our staff. I did mean to call attention to what I thought was the uncharacteristically repetitive argument of my good friend from New York. In no way did I mean to reflect on the first-rate staff work he depends on. This was between Members, and I apologize, because apparently something I said may have had that inference.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise and report the bill back to the whole House with the recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken.

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, we ought to be very clear. If Members are going to go ahead and vote for this bill, let us at least change the title. We asked for a vote on troops in Bosnia. We asked for a declaration of a congressional role in Iraq. Let us call it, if we are going to ratify a rule which says these things cannot even come up, the Congressional Abdication of Constitutional Responsibility Act of 1998, because that is what we will be doing. We will be saying we in Congress will take our shots, we will make our political points, but tough decisions about the Middle East or Bosnia, let somebody else do them because we find them inconvenient or difficult. I was told by the chairman of the Committee on Rules that he kept them off the floor to accommodate the President. I must say that it came as sort of a surprise to me that this bill was being constructed to accommodate the President. And it is not the sort of accommodation of a President we ought to engage in. We could save $2 billion a year by telling the Europeans it is their turn to do Bosnia. And we could serve the Constitution of the United States by the elected representatives debating it. The leadership of this House has apparently decided, in cooperation with the President, not to speak out and to abdicate its constitutional responsibilities. That is a very grave error that does not serve well the traditions we profess to care about.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I have offered the motion to strike the enacting clause to have a chance to protest against the outrageous denial of democratic procedures. Along with the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell), the gentleman from Ohio, who chairs the Committee on the Budget, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Hilleary), the gentleman from California (Mr. Condit), and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), I offered an amendment to the Committee on Rules to require that American ground troops leave Bosnia by December 31 of this year. We recently had a supplemental in which we were asked and voted, I did not but the majority did, an additional $162 million per month for the American ground troops in Bosnia. I believe, and others do, that it is time for the Europeans to step up. We believe, at the very least, this House ought to vote on whether or not there should be a continuation of American ground troops in Bosnia. I have heard a number of Members complain about this. We have heard the people on the committee complain that we do not have enough funds to fund Defense. Some of us feel Defense is taking too much money from other programs. What justification is there for bringing a bill and having the Committee on Rules refuse to let this House even vote on whether or not we ought to have the ground troops in Bosnia? Another amendment was offered by the gentleman from California and the gentleman from Colorado to reaffirm the role of this House in dealing with troops in Iraq. Let us be very clear. Many of us disagree with what the President is doing. It is the leadership of the House that has decided that the House will not be able to speak on Bosnia or Iraq. And I will say this: If Members voted for the rule and are going to vote for the bill, at least have the consistency not to complain about American troops being in Bosnia and Iraq, because we are trying to give those Members a chance to deal with it. As to Iraq, most of us would probably vote to authorize that, but it ought to be voted on by the House. As to Bosnia, a majority of the House might say it is time for Europe to defend Europe and pull out. But, again, the House is not being given a chance to vote on it. This is a very grave error and we have to protest. If we were able to defeat this bill, it could come back very soon after we came back and those amendments could be made in order. And we just want Members to be on record that if they vote for the bill in this form, they have waived their right, by any reasonable standards, to complain about the troops in Bosnia or to complain about executive branch excesses not listened to by the Congress.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the House for intruding at this late date, but it did seem to me, having the elected representatives of the American people vote on whether or not American ground troops ought to stay in Bosnia until infinity was a reasonable use of about 20 minutes. It is not ideal to do it this way, but the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell), the gentleman from California (Mr. Condit), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich), the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Hilleary), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) and I submitted this germane amendment in a timely fashion to the Committee on Rules and we were told we could not debate it. My colleagues may not realize how important the issues have been that we have been dealing with, because they were so important, the ones we have been debating for the last couple of days, that we did not have a chance to vote on Bosnia. We are told that we are spread too thin. A number of Members have complained of the President's dispensing the troops to Bosnia. Being heard here today is important, because a lot of Members here have been heard on the subject of Bosnia. I am delighted to give them a chance to put their voting cards where their mouths have been. We are here faced with an amendment that says the troops have to leave by December 31. That is plenty of time. It does allow for troops afterwards, if they are needed, to pull out in an orderly fashion. This is a correctly drawn amendment by the gentleman from California. It even says, because we were told, well, later we will come in with the right conditions. This amendment says, if a subsequent bill comes forward, then that will cover it. All this says is, we will not by silence acquiesce in the indefinite extension of that mission. This is not Mission Creep, this is Mission Rush. This is Mission Hurdle, and we are all allowing it to happen if we do not vote for this. Now, I believe it was a good thing that the world, and the U.S. leading, stopped people from killing each other in Bosnia. The fight has been broken up; we have stopped the killing. We have a relatively easy military mission, I think. It is to keep the combatants apart. Now, Bosnia is very close to the following countries: Germany, France, Italy, England, the Scandinavian countries, the Benelux countries. They are members of a vestigial organization known as NATO. We are giving NATO a chance to mean something. The U.S. carries the burden in South Korea; the U.S. carries the burden in Iraq. Is it never to be time for Europe to do something on their own? Can Europe never be expected by us to do this? It is a relatively small thing: Keep the troops in this police action to separate people. Members just voted, I did not vote, but Members just voted to put American troops on the border. Well, where are they going to come from? Maybe we can take them from Bosnia. We are told we have to have troops in Europe because they are our allies. Well, if that is the case, if we show we are allies by having troops in each other's countries, are we sending for Dutch troops to control the Mexican border to deal with drugs? Can we expect some French troops to help us implement the Traficant amendment? We cannot keep voting for more and more and not sometimes say no. If we do not believe the European troops are capable of maintaining the peace in Bosnia on their own, then let us stop pretending that there is anything but a unilateral American presence. This amendment is a chance for Members to vote to say, and we will save, by the way, $2 billion. In the supplemental we asked for $162 million a month, Pentagon calculation. That is the incremental cost of keeping the troops in Bosnia. So we can save $2 billion on the defense bill, we can inconvenience our European allies by asking them to increase their forces, and we can be consistent if we have said we are for pulling the troops out of Bosnia, and I have to say to my Republican colleagues, you have been fighting the President all over the place. You have been whacking him and hitting him and smacking him. This is something he cares about. They have the troops in Bosnia, you have been shadow boxing and dancing and creating and melting snowmen. You have been taking care of China and you have been taking care of this and that. Here it is. The chairman of the Committee on Rules said he could not allow this amendment because the President told him not to. Well, the President cannot control the vote on a motion to recommit, so if you want to show that you believe in the constitutional function of Congress, you can vote for it.

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of the time, but I hope I do not yield back the prerogatives of this House.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Yes, Mr. Speaker.