Barney Frank

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Excuse me, I would say that is not a yield, that is a sentence.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Let me say to Members who may think that this is not at a high level, that is where we started. This is about nothing. This is a political game. This is the Model U.N., about nothing. It is wasting time and money.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, would it be in order to get unanimous consent to abolish the Committee on Rules?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, not yet. I think the gentleman from Arizona needs time to assimilate the first answer. It does not seem to me that he has gotten it yet. But I will get back to him when he has more time. Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that $285,000 is a very small amount of money compared to the much larger sum that the Majority has spent; and they are now going to come forward with a resolution telling us that the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez) can be a Member of Congress. Some of us knew that hundreds of thousands of dollars ago. Mr. Speaker, now I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I would say to my friend, the beauty of this resolution from this standpoint is none of this makes any sense. This is pure for show. The reference to $285,000 baffles me. If it was intended to suggest that this is going to save the $285,000, it is not written to. It is simply written to try and take some political shots and let the gentleman from Arizona mention a comment from the Vice President, although he could have done that in 1-minutes. I guess he used up his 1-minute today and wanted to have a second 1-minute. So we may have more of this political activity, but it is all a total waste of time. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding me the time.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I am against the rule because if we defeated the rule, we would save time, not vote on the useless resolution, and be a few thousand bucks ahead.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) for yielding, and I hope I do not violate the rules and appear to be addressing others when I welcome everyone to the session of the Model U.N. My colleagues remember the Model U.N. That is when all the students with nothing else to do come together and pass resolutions that have no visible effect, or invisible effect, on anybody, anything, anytime, anywhere, anyplace. Here is what we have got. This is a resolution which is intended to have absolutely no effects whatsoever on anyone. That is because, if it were to have any effect, it would be illegal and unconstitutional. So what we have here is a Majority with apparently nothing that they feel they want to do and get caught doing. There are things they would like to do, but they understand that the public would not like many of those things. So having been reluctantly forced to end what was the longest recess in a very long time, we have come back to do nothing. The difference between the recess we were on and the sessions that we are now having is not visible to the naked eye. Thus, we get this resolution, and it is the Model U.N. It is a resolution, we should stress, which has absolutely nothing to do with anything. The gentleman from Arizona said $285,000 is real money. Well, it is real money, but this is play money. This is Monopoly money. Because whether we pass this resolution, defeat this resolution, burn this resolution, make it into 11 paper airplanes and fly it around the room, it has nothing to do with the $285,000. It is not intended to. They did not try to. They know how to draft a binding resolution when they want to, and they did not.

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman asked a question, and I am telling him that I do not remember, because they are often of such little significance that they do not register. I will say this, though. I will say to the gentleman that I now recollect I have in the past voted for senses of Congress' resolutions, but I have never claimed that any of them saved anybody any money. I have never said that, having expressed my opinion, I saved anybody $285,000. And, by the way, if we wanted to save money, and I agree $285,000 is a lot of money for lawyers, I do not know how many hundreds of thousands of dollars we paid the lawyers for the House Oversight Committee to tell us today that the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez) won the election that we knew she won in November 1996. I daresay that the amount of legal fees that will have been paid to lawyers over the past year-plus that people have been harassing the gentlewoman from California----

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, during our recess I was delighted to have a chance to address a forum sponsored by the Committee of Concerned Journalists at the Columbia School of Journalism in December. This committee, chaired by one of our most distinguished journalists, Bill Kovach, deals with the critical subject of the responsibility of people in the journalism profession. I attended as one who both believes passionately in the importance of a free and vigorous press for our democracy, and is disappointed in the work product of that journalism much of the time. Because it is wholly inappropriate for government at any level and in any form to try to dictate to journalists, even for the best of reasons and under the best of motives, it is essential if we are to see the improvements that I think necessary in this area that we have this sort of self-scrutiny by distinguished journalists. It is for this reason that I welcome and congratulate the journalists who have convened this committee and the work they are doing. Because I believe this deserves the full attention of everyone concerned about the state of our democracy, I ask that their organizing statement be printed here, along with the list of those who serve as the leadership of the committee. As of the end of October more than 400 journalists had signed on as members, and while that list is--happily--too long to be printed here, I would be glad to share it with any who are interested. Committee of Concerned Journalists--An Overview The Committee of Concerned Journalists is an unusual collaboration of reporters, editors, producers, publishers, owners and academics worried about the future of their profession. The group believes this is a critical moment in American journalism. Revolutionary changes in technology, in economic equations, in our relationship with the public, threaten the core principles that define journalism's role in democratic society. With splintering audiences and information overload, companies at once diversifying and merging, confronted by unimaginable complexity, we have begun to doubt ourselves and the meaning of our profession. To secure journalism's future, the group believes that journalists from all media, geography, rank and generation must be clear about what sets journalism apart from other endeavors. There is a price for our press freedoms: We have a professional obligation to broker honestly the information that citizens must have to fulfill their duties in a self governing society. It is well enough to entertain and amuse, but we must also provide democracy's grist and glue. The group is proposing to seek a clear expression of those purposes and those core principles that unite journalists and define journalism. We have issued a statement of concern, articulating why a national effort at self examination is necessary. That statement is circulating in newsrooms across the country, gaining signatories. The plan is to convene public meetings for all types of journalists and the public. The group will listen carefully for common ground and then prepare a written report on what we have learned. It will not be a report of recommendations or a code of conduct. Like the seminal Hutchins Commission Report ``A Free and Responsible Press'' 50 years ago, the report will attempt to clarify the common ground journalists share. The series, which begins in November in Chicago and ends in Boston next June, will examine key questions of principle. What is journalism? Who is a journalist? Can journalism really be neutral? What are the responsibilities imposed by the First Amendment? More than half a dozen major educational institutions have already agreed to sponsor them. This is only a beginning. A web site will serve as a host for discussions about forum topics, current news stories and other journalistic issues. We believe other projects will evolve. The effort was convened by the Nieman Foundation and the Project for Excellence in Journalism in June 1997 in Boston. The Committee is an extraordinary group. Members come from various media, backgrounds, ages and institutions, from David Halberstam, the New York author, to Mark Trahant, a Navajo Indian newspaper editor from Idaho; from Lucy Himstedt Riley, a news director in Montgomery, Ala., to Vanessa Williams of the Washington Post and the President of the National Association of Black Journalists, to the heads of several journalism schools. The group has no set agenda. It is not interested in placing owners at odds with reporters, journalism with business, print with TV or the internet. It is simply a united belief that journalism is a unique form of communication. It is a mission, a service. We must communicate what that means. A Statement of Concern This is a critical moment for journalism in America. While the craft in many respects has never been better--consider the supply of information or the skill of reporters--there is a paradox to our communications age. Revolutionary changes in technology, in our economic structure and in our relationship with the public, are pulling journalism from its traditional moorings. As audiences fragment and our companies diversify, there is a growing debate within news organizations about our responsibilities as businesses and our responsibilities as journalists. Many journalists feel a sense of lost purpose. There is even doubt about the meaning of news, doubt evident when serious journalistic organizations drift toward opinion, infotainment and sensation out of balance with news. Journalists share responsibility for the uncertainty. Our values and professional standards are often vaguely expressed and inconsistently honored. We have been slow to change habits in the presentation of news that may have lost their relevance. Change is necessary. Yet as we change we assert some core principles of journalism are enduring. They are those that make journalism a public service central to self government. They define our profession not as the act of communicating but as a set of responsibilities. Journalism can entertain, amuse and lift our spirits, but news organizations also must cover the matters vital to the well being of their increasingly diverse communities to foster the debate upon which democracy depends. The First Amendment implies obligation as well as freedom. For much of our history, we believed we could let our work enunciate these principles and our owners and managers articulate these responsibilities. Today, too often, the principles in our work are hard to discern or lost in the din, and our leaders feel constrained. Now we believe journalists must speak for themselves. We call on our colleagues to join as a community of professionals to clarify the purpose and principles that distinguish our profession from other forms of communication. Since the change we face is fundamental, it requires a response of the same magnitude. We need a focused examination of the demands on journalism of the 21st Century. We propose to summon journalists to a period of national reflection. First, we ask our colleagues young and old to sign this declaration of concern. We believe the consortium of journalists who share a commitment to common principles is so broad and so significant that it will constitute a powerful movement toward renewal. Next we will convene a set of public forums around the country over the next several months to hear the concerns of journalists as well as other interested individuals. The forums should reiterate two simple messages: that journalists of all generations are concerned about the direction of the profession; and that they want to clarify their purpose and principles. We do not presume to enumerate those principles here, but hope to have them articulated through the forums. These sessions, will include the public. We will publish an interim report after each one. At their conclusion, the group will release a final report that will attempt to define the enduring purpose of journalism, along with its principles, responsibilities and aspirations. We see this as a beginning, a catalyst forging new ideas and a renewed spirit of conviction. We plan to carry the dialogue forward with a web site, videotapes of the forums and through other means. We do not intend to propose a set of solutions: this is an attempt to clarify our common ground. Nor is our motive to develop a detailed code of conduct: if journalism is a set of aims, how we fulfill them should change with changing times and be left to each news organization to decide. But if journalism is to survive, it falls to individual journalists, especially in each new generation, to articulate what it stands for.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), and I know that this is a difficult task for him to undertake. When one orchestrates the goodbye to a good friend, it is not an easy thing to do; and I appreciate the dignity and the concerns my colleague has shown for all of us in dealing with this very, very tragic task that befell him. Mr. Speaker, we are too much divided by parties, by ideology. Obviously, division properly pursued is at the heart of democracy. That is what we enshrine, the right of people to differ. But recently in American politics, and maybe in the politics of other places, differences have deepened in ways that are not necessary and are not healthy. Personal enmity too often has accompanied honest differences on issues; and, for me, the greatest loss that we suffer in Sonny Bono's death and for many of us he was a good friend. So we lose the personal sense. I must say, of the large number of people I have gotten to meet, of all of them, Sonny was probably the hardest guy to be unhappy in his presence. There was about him a determination to seek out the most cheerful and the most upbeat in any situation. He radiated that, and he shared that, and we benefited from being in his presence. But we lose as an institution someone who was dedicated to the proposition that ideological and partisan differences were a good thing and part of our democracy, but that when personal enmity entered into it, it poisoned the process. Sonny Bono did more to counter that tendency inappropriately to personalize disagreement than anybody. He was someone who it was hard to get mad at. He was someone who sought out the common humanity that he had with others. As an analyst, Mr. Speaker, he was extraordinary; and he showed that talent early on in that wonderful monologue he performed in 1995 at the Press Club Foundation. Because what he did, this was a man who was a first-rate entertainer. He was a man who understood how you make yourself appealing and enjoyable to audiences. In the best sense of the word, he was a man who was determined to ingratiate himself to others, not by giving away principle but by being someone who other people enjoyed being around; and he studied how you did that in the entertainment context. And what was extraordinary was that, within a few weeks, he observed how Members of Congress did that here; and he did some great analytical work looking at the place as a theater, a small house today, but sometimes that happens. He understood this place as a theater, and he understood that important element of it, and with the good humor and with the lack of malice that drove everything that he did, in my experience, he shared that with people. That understanding of the legitimately theatrical effects that impacted our politics was an important thing that he shared. I also benefited, as many did, by his expertise of the field of intellectual property, where as a song writer he knew a great deal and made a very significant contribution to the Committee on the Judiciary. Indeed, I believe there were times when he might have been a little bit chagrined if people knew exactly how serious and thoughtful he got when we dealt with some of these very complicated and intellectual property subjects; and I am very glad now that just before we adjourned he passed in this House and I think they became law two important pieces of legislation dealing with protection of rights of property owners. There was controversy over them, and Sonny weighed in and was critical in our passing these bills regarding the La Machia and La Cienega cases and other contexts people could look up. Finally, I just have to return to the personal. Sonny and I and our partners, his wife Mary and my partner Herb, went to dinner one night at Galileo. It was an interesting night, Mr. Speaker. It was a night we thought we were going to adjourn and all the Democrats voted not to adjourn and the Republicans double-crossed us by voting also not to adjourn, Mr. Speaker. They kind of surprised us. So Herb and Mary were kind of waiting for me and Sonny. There was kind of a lot of confusion that night because we did not know whether we had adjourned or had not adjourned, and we had to choose between adjournment and our dinner reservations in Galileo. Actually, in the end, I think we managed to get both an adjournment and dinner; and the four of us, along with the movie director John Waters, had a wonderful time. Herb had that same reaction to being in Sonny's company that I did. He was just a wonderfully good friend. He was a man who understood the meaning of friendship, was dedicated to it and understood the importance to our democracy of injecting some of that spirit in here. We will all miss him.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, first I want to express my agreement with the gentleman from California on the importance of putting back in here important international financial material. But secondly, I want to congratulate the gentleman from Ohio for his work on the census and say that I plan to vote for this bill. I try very hard to avoid cliches, but it is much too late in the session to think fresh, so I am going to have to use one. I think some of my good friends here are trying to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. The problem I and others had with the original census language was that it said we could not go forward with the sampling process until the Supreme Court had said it was okay. That would have killed it. That is not in the bill. We now have parallel processes. We have the sampling going forward, and we have the court process. I disagree with my friends who say, oh, allowing the court process to go forward kills sampling. I think sampling is constitutional. I do not think the Supreme Court is going to find it unconstitutional. Indeed, I am sceptical that the Supreme Court, given its own rules on ripeness and standing, will even decide this at all. So what we have is a situation where previously sampling could not go forward until the Supreme Court acted, and we knew the Supreme Court was not going to be able to act because of its own doctrines, and now we have a situation where it can go forward. I do not want to argue this too strongly, because I do not want to lose you any votes on this side, but the fact is the obstacle to census sampling that existed previously has been dissolved. Now we have been told, well, there will be a subcommittee that will propagandize. I have to be honest with you, I hope I am not being unduly modest when I say I do not think most people pay too much attention to our subcommittees. They can dance and sing and whistle, and we can still go ahead with it. Yes, it may have to face a court test, but that is to be done. In fact, I want to congratulate the Republicans. This is one more example of their belief in judicial activism, and I want to salute the Republican conversion to the notion that when there are important decisions that are to be made, we should ask some unelected, life- tenured Federal judges to arbitrate them for us. I think that is appropriate, as long as the work is not held up until then. So I think we have the best of both worlds.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to this resolution, and I think that I am as sensitive to the issue of persecution as anyone. I believe I am the leader in minority group membership in the House, claiming two myself, and I am going to vote against this resolution. I would not vote for a resolution that approved of the way Germany is dealing with the Scientologists and others, but I do not believe a case has been made to do the very, very solemn act of having this House of Representatives single them out for condemnation. There are a lot of things in this world of which we disapprove, and I think the gentleman from Virginia quite correctly pointed out that if we were going to make a list of practices worthy of condemnation in this great democratic institution, even those critical of Germany's treatment of Scientologists would put it much lower on the list than practices that have gone unmentioned here. So there is a disproportion. Secondly, and I understand from my friend from Arizona that is in the resolution, my colleagues cannot disclaim it, they also have in the resolution a specific example that people in the youth wing of two political parties boycotted movies. Well, I do not always like people who boycott movies, but are we going to have a resolution condemning the Baptists for condemning Disney? I mean, to intermingle genuine religious persecution with a decision by private individuals to boycott a movie is a mistake. It is also inappropriate. Also I do think we should practice what we preach, but I do not think we should preach what we do not practice. If we are going to look at people who are engaging in inappropriate religious persecution, I think the Governor of Alabama would be on my list. I think people who are atheists and agnostics in parts of Alabama are under assault and having their constitutional rights impinged by the Governor of Alabama. The fact is that Germany is overall a very democratic nation. It is not perfect. There are not a lot of perfect countries around. But to single out Germany this way while other countries that have far worse patterns of abuse are ignored, to intermingle legitimate efforts like a boycott by political parties with actual persecution and to ignore some of the problems we have ourselves is wholly inappropriate. So, Mr. Speaker, I do not think this resolution ought to pass.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I will yield if the gentleman promises to be good television, because I do not want to be responsible for driving away the viewers.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I thank the gentleman for helping. This shows how dedicated we are to getting the work done. Under the Republican leadership control of the schedule, we have adjourned early for Republican fundraisers, we have adjourned early for Democratic fundraisers. We adjourned early, according to one leadership Member, for a Rolling Stones concert. And of course those are separate because, as everyone knows, the Rolling Stones gather no cash. But what we have here is on the one hand an argument that, ``Oh, my God, you've got to stop these privileged motions, we're not getting our work done.'' But if we had not adjourned for Democratic fund-raisers and if we had not adjourned for Republican fundraisers and if we had not adjourned for the Rolling Stones concert and we had not taken a week off in October and if we worked on Tuesdays during the day and if we worked a little on Monday, we would not be in this spot. The point I want to make is that the assertion that we do not have time to get our work done is nonsensical. The reason for shutting off the privileged resolutions is that the majority understandably does not want to discuss what is being done to Loretta Sanchez. I want to say that cutting off the privileged resolutions is clearly not necessary. The rule is not necessary to get the House business done. By the way, there is no rule that says we have to adjourn this weekend. We could go another week or two. The notion that we are running out of time when we have time to adjourn for fund-raisers, concerts and other things obviously does not wash. What you are trying to do is divert attention from the Loretta Sanchez issue. Yes, they are repetitive privileged motions. They are, however, aiming at one of the most fundamental privileges of the House, a partisan decision by the majority to impeach election results without having a basis to do so. There has been a year in which all of the resources have been available to show that there was a problem. You have not been able to show that. Of course people should investigate. People have said, ``Don't you want to know if people who voted were illegal?'' I would love to know that. I also want to know why after a year of investigating you have not been able to come up with enough numbers to invalidate the election. No one has stopped you from investigating it. That is the phoniest of all arguments, that someone is trying to stop you from finding out if people voted illegally. Of course no one tried to stop that. No one tried to stop it when it was initiated. But a year after the election, if you have not come up with enough evidence, the time has come to stop. I want to say, I know there are partisan pressures here. In 1985, and people keep talking about the 1985 election that was brought up the other day when a Republican was unseated, I disagreed with my party in that regard. I thought it was impossible to tell after they counted. I voted for the motion offered by the gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Frenzel, to declare a new election. I did not vote to seat the Democrat and I did not vote to seat the Republican. I did not think you could tell. I was in the minority. I was asked how did the Speaker respond; I told people the Speaker was mad at me until I explained my position. Then he got furious. Yes, I understand partisan pressures. I think it is unworthy of Members to give in to them. I understand the impulse to say, OK, there is reason to look at this, even though a 984 majority is the largest majority I could ever remember being called into question. But after a year, after a year, give it up. After a year of using all of your powers to try to find a basis for overturning the election, you ought to give it up. You do not want to have that acknowledged, so that is why you are bringing in this rule. This rule is not necessary, this cutting off of privileged resolutions, to have the House function. Again, we have adjourned for all kinds of reasons. We have not worked very hard. We have taken October breaks for a week. We are going to get out earlier than anyone expected. The reason you are doing this is you do not want to have to try to defend in public what is happening to Loretta Sanchez. I think there is a dilemma. There is a wing of the Republican Party graphically represented by Mr. Dornan that says to you, ``Don't you dare let loose of this.'' It is a very important wing of the party. They do not want this dismissed. So there is a dilemma. Obviously, you do not have the evidence to overturn the election or you would have done it. On the other hand, there is not the political will to dismiss the challenge and let the elected Representative of the people serve. And then given this dilemma, you do not want it discussed. So that is what we are talking about today, a change in the rules of the House striking at a fundamental issue, a question of privilege, not just on Loretta Sanchez but in general because you do not want attention called to the fact that you are playing political games with an election. You do not want attention called to the fact that there is a challenge going on to an election that you have been unable to sustain after a year, a 984 majority. Yet you do not have the political will to dismiss. Mr. Speaker, I hope this rule is defeated so we can continue to discuss the Sanchez election.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I would simply differ when he said why did I not talk about our decision to pick certain people to offer these resolutions. I must tell the gentleman people do not pick people on this side. When the women or members of the Hispanic Caucus decided those resolutions, I must tell him that that was their own voluntary choice. No one had to tell them to get angry at what was happening to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Sanchez].

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, I move to reconsider the vote just taken. Motion to Table Offered by Mr. Solomon

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I must say I was a little surprised to hear my friend, the chairman of the Committee on Rules, say that one of the reasons we have to do this is that it makes for bad television. He said we have people calling up and complaining. I can think of some reasons to change the rules of the House, but ratings is not one of them. It does seem to me a grave error to say that because people are calling up and complaining that this has gotten boring, that we should change things. I also have to reject the notion that this is necessary because we cannot get the business of the House done. The House has been working at a very leisurely pace. We took off a week in the middle of October, an unscheduled recess, unscheduled from the beginning. We have on the majority side a preference for about a 2-day workweek as far as the House is concerned. We come in on Tuesday night and we go home on Thursday night. There are other things besides being in session that count, but the fact is we have run things at a very slow pace. We have adjourned early for Republican fundraisers.

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the chairman, has explained this. This is a bill which was broadly supported on both sides. We have some controversial issues that will be coming up later dealing with the copyright subject matter. This is not one of them. What we are doing here is concurring in the first place with the Senate over a base bill that we already passed. This is a bill that included amendments of a technical nature that we already passed, with one or two dissenting votes on a rollcall. The Senate added this bill, which we have referred to as La Cienega, because that was the name of the case, and what we have here is a reading by the courts, and it was not the court's choice of policy, it was a reading of the technical language of the statute, the effect of which would be to deprive decent, hard-working composers of the right to benefit from their compositions, not because of any real dispute over who owned what, not because of any policy issue, but because of a very narrow technical point. And I am pleased that we were able to bring this forward; I am pleased that the other body has gone forward with it. I hope we will just vote this through. It is, as I said, narrow, technical; it leaves other copyright issues ahead of us. I suppose it is a sign that sometimes the law moves a little more slowly than technology that we are today passing a bill about phonorecords. When the phrase ``phonorecords'' first went into the law in 1909, there were not very many because they were too new. Now there are not very many because they are too old. So we have in this legislative history sort of gone through the life cycle of phonorecords. I should note that the 1909 act was passed in the same year as the birth of our colleague, the gentleman from Illinois, which is irrelevant but interesting.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

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.