Barney Frank

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I object.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] said he is for this bill because he wants to reduce the number of abortions. This bill, of course, does not by any means reduce the number of abortions. It does say doctors cannot do one procedure versus another. This deals with one procedure. It does not purport even to ban abortion under any circumstances but simply says, do not use this procedure. Now, when we ban one procedure and allow the others, we make this one mistake. On this bill, the majority has consistently refused to accept an amendment which says this procedure can be used if the doctor believes it is necessary to avoid grievous physical harm to the mother. So I ask my colleagues to understand, this is a bill which says that even if there will be grievous physical harm in the opinion of the doctor, he has to use a different procedure. Mr. Speaker, I am told the chairman of the committee, who is here, has said: Well, but we cannot just restrict it. Once we say ``health,'' the Court will automatically say ``mental health.'' That is simply, wholly untrue. Mr. Speaker, when the Court interpreted health to mean mental health, they were not talking about a statute which specifically modified health with the word ``physical.'' The Court has held that there is a general constitutional right of the health of the mother to be taken into account, and they have defined that as mental or physical. If that governs, the whole bill is out. Understand, if that interpretation governs, then all health, all abortions are out. We are apparently believing here, the majority, that we cannot ban this particular procedure and make an exception. What we are saying is, OK, we will make an exception to the exception and if grievous physical harm will come, then it will be allowed. No, there is no argument that the court would not recognize that. The court has defined health when it was unmodified. There is not a single decision that suggests that the court will look at the words ``grievous physical health consequences'' and interpret those away. So either we must believe that the court will impose health, including mental health, across the board, or we must recognize the validity of this. Without the amendments we have offered, by refusing to let us offer an amendment, the majority says not simply that we will ban the procedure but we will ban it even to avoid, if it is necessary, to avoid grievous physical health consequences. That is what this is about, whether or not grievous physical health consequences should be allowed into the bill.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, on November 10, the Cape Verdean American Veterans Association headquartered in New Bedford, MA will be holding a military ball, which will be an occasion of mixed feelings. As with any ball, the occasion will be one for good friends to enjoy each others company, as well as some good music. But there will be a sad note to this particular ball because it will commemorate the death in July 1965 of Pvt. Edward Almeida, who was the first New Bedford resident to be killed in action during the conflict in Vietnam. It is typical of the Cape Verdean veterans that they are honoring the memory of their fallen comrade on this occasion, and that they will be on this Veteran's Day tempering their good fellowship with a remembrance of the ultimate sacrifice made by Private Almedia, whose dedication to duty, honor, and country stand as a model for others. Because of a previous commitment I made some time ago to speak to university students, I will myself be unable to join the Cape Verdean Veterans and Auxiliary, and their friends in the Greater New Bedford community in this evening. But I believe with Veteran's Day approaching that it is important that all of us take this occasion to pay tribute to Private Almeida and all of those who, like him, made the ultimate sacrifice for their country and their fellow Americans. The cape Verdean American veterans deserve to be congratulated for their dedication to the memory of their fallen colleague, and to the important work they continue to do to make sure that America remembers both those who gave their lives for their country, and those who have returned from foreign wars and are entitled to our gratitude and support for their efforts.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I would like to call to my colleagues' attention the designation of this coming November and all future Novembers as Jaw Joints--TMJ Awareness Month. In Washington's world of abbreviations and acronyms, TMJ is not one of the better known. Temporomandibular Joint Disorders are among the more painful, yet least well understood disorders affecting people today. While estimates of the number of people in this country affected by TMJ disorders run into the millions, these disorders are often mistaken for other ailments or presumed to be psychological in nature. In light of the difficulties that exist in diagnosing and treating TMJ disorders it is clearly very appropriate to establish an awareness month, and I applaud the Jaw Joints & Allied Musculo-Skeletal Disorders Foundation for helping organize this effort. The foundation, which is based in Boston, was created and is presided over by two extremely dedicated Massachusetts residents named Renee and Milton Glass. They have been an excellent source of information to me over the years about TMJ and related matters, and, although this November is officially TMJ Awareness Month, it is also in many ways a tribute to their dedication and hard work in the cause of helping those who suffer from this disorder. As part of that work, Renee and Milton Glass and their colleagues are going to be involved in two important TMJ-related events in Washington in November. On November 20 and 21, the National Institutes of Health will be holding a workshop entitled ``New Directions in Pain Research,'' which will include some discussion of TMJ. On November 22, the TMJ Association's annual meeting, with participation by the foundation, will take place at the NIH. Both events will no doubt make valuable contributions to the goals of TMJ Awareness Month. Mr. Speaker, because I share the Glass' belief in the importance of making the public more aware of the effects of Temporomandibular Joint Disorders, I ask that the attached material describing TMJ in more detail, as well as the foundation's mission statement, be entered into the Record. Jaw Joints--TMJ Awareness Month Temporomandibular Joint Disorders, commonly referred to as ``TMJ,'' afflict millions of Americans, both children and adults of both sexes and all races. ``TMJ'' is a painful and disabling disorder that emanates from the Jaw Joints and can affect the health of the entire neuro-musculo-skeletal system often spreading pain and dysfunction throughout the body. The Jaw Joints are the most special and complex joints in the entire anatomy. While similar to other joints--cushioned by cartilage, held together by ligaments, and moved by muscles activated by nerves--they differ in their structure which allows them to perform more functions than the other joints in the body allowing the mandible [lower jaw] to function in a five-way movement, i.e., from side-to-side, forward-and-backward, up-and-down, and to ``open wide.'' Due to their location, the Jaw Joints are the pathway for motor and sensory activities to and from the brain to the rest of the body. Disorders to the Jaw Joints, therefore, can upset the delicate balance of the neuro-musculo-skeletal systems. Some of the diverse symptoms of this multi-faceted TMJ disorder include inability to open or close the mouth freely, difficulty in chewing and swallowing, headache, eye pain, ringing and pain in the ears, leg cramps, fatigue, and pain to the muscles throughout the entire body. Many of the symptoms mimic or overlap with many other disorders, thereby creating the popular designation for TMJ as ``The Great Imposter,'' and its sufferers as ``Prisoners of Pain.'' While they are orthopedic joints like all other joints in the body, care for the Jaw Joints and disorders to them ``falls between the cracks'' of medicine and dentistry, but is largely directed into a dental and psychosomatic realm despite the myriad of symptoms usually treated by physicians and other non-dental health providers. TMJ has not yet been established as a ``legitimate'' medical disorder, thereby denying millions of Americans their fair entitlements to health insurance and other benefits, as well as their dignity and deprives them of decent quality of life. TMJ patients, therefore, are further penalized by being physically, emotionally, and financially broken. The nation's pioneer TMJ patient advocacy organization, established in 1982, the Jaw Joints & Allied Musculo-Skeletal Disorders Foundation, Inc. [JJAMD] is headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts. Among its many goals and missions is the broader recognition of the importance of healthy Jaw Joints to good oral and general health. It plans to establish in-school programs to teach children, their teachers and parents, the importance and function of the Jaw Joints, as well as safety and prevention of injury to the Jaw Joints in sports, play, and daily activities. JJAMD advocates for recognition by the Medical Profession and their Societies, Center for Disease Control [CDC,] the National Institutes of Health [NIH], the Arthritis Foundation, and all others concerning the need to include the Jaw Joints along with all other joints for inclusion in their programs, appropriate comprehensive research and reporting in the medical and dental literature. JJAMD also encourages the Dental Profession to work with the Medical Profession and to establish a requisite TMJ Speciality training within their professional schools. JJAMD advocates for the creation of medical models and medical protocols for the necessary appropriate health insurance coverage for TMJ patients. This will help to end the discrimination against millions of Americans who suffer with this disorder with disastrous results--including the thousands who have had silicone joint implants which have failed. To this end, JJAMD has sponsored independent research, holds free public lectures, encourages support/ self-help groups and has organized and conducted professional lectures and national seminars. JJAMD has received the support of the Massachusetts Department of Public Health in many of its activities and has become allied with another leading patient advocacy organization. The TMJ Association, Ltd., in efforts to support all TMJ suffers around the country. The ultimate aim of these actions is to alleviate the untold preventable human suffering of to those afflicted with TMJ as well as the needless high costs of health care associated therewith. By designating November of each years as ``Jaw Joints-TMJ Awareness Month'' awareness can be increased among all Americans, and in particular those in a position to help treat, insure, provide appropriate research ultimately to prevent this scourge in our nation.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, several very valuable commodities are unfortunately rare in politics these days--as they are in other aspects of our life. Among these prized entities are acts of graciousness, complete intellectual honesty, extremely lucid thinking, and, probably rarest of all, a willingness to go to the aid of a colleague being unfairly attacked, rather than to gloat secretly over his or her distress. This makes the article written by former Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis in the New York Times for September 29 both extremely rare and extraordinarily valuable. In this article, Governor Dukakis, who was during his many years in elected office a model of integrity, rebuts the unfair accusations that have been made against Vice President Gore and President Clinton involving telephone requests for contributions. I do have one correction--Governor Dukakis refers to a comment I once made about his resistance to any effort unduly to influence him on behalf of contributors by saying that I had referred to him as the only ``true ingrate'' in politics. In fact, my recollection is that I referred to him as the only example I could think of, of a ``perfect ingrate'', in that he better than anyone I knew in high office was able to withstand the pressures that result from elected officials having to raise large sums of money from private individuals on a regular basis. Then, and now, I cited his rarity in this regard as the best argument for replacing our current campaign contribution system with public financing--a point Governor Dukakis himself makes in the article. But, like Governor Dukakis, I am prepared to settle for less than perfect reform and the current version of the McCain-Feingold bill seems to me to meet that definition, so I join him in supporting that. But most important, I want to commend him for his willingness to use his own extremely well earned reputation for absolute integrity to come to the defense of Vice President Gore and President Clinton against some unfair accusations being leveled at them, and I therefore ask that his thoughtful, admirable article be printed here. I Raised Money From My Office. So? I get an odd sort of flashback when I hear about the uproar over the Vice President's fund-raising phone calls. I can see him reaching for the phone, dialing the number, making his pitch. I can see it all because I've done it myself, under roughly similar circumstances. When I was running for re-election as Governor of Massachusetts in 1986, I had two phones on my desk. One was white--the state phone. The other was red--the campaign phone, a separate line paid for entirely by my campaign committee. Massachusetts had (and still has) a law much like the Federal one that's now in the news, prohibiting fund-raising inside a state building. Yet I made hundreds of campaign calls on that red phone, and it never dawned on me or anyone else that doing so violated the law. It's not that I was cavalier about fund-raising--that's why I had the separate phone lines. I tried to set a very high standard for my gubernatorial campaigns when it came to raising money. (Barney Frank once said that I was the only true ingrate in American politics because I was so unresponsive to my contributors.) No PAC's. No corporations. No registered lobbyists involved in the fundraising process. But the red phone never made my ``no'' list. That's because the Massachusetts law was not intended to prohibit such things, and neither are its Federal cousins. Both were part of the civil service reform movement of the late 19th century that was intended to end wholesale political patronage, create a merit system and protect civil servants from being forced by their superiors or by party bosses to contribute to political campaigns. Al Gore was treading on none of that territory with his fund-raising calls. What do his critics expect the Vice President (or the President, who may also have made such calls) to do? Go across the street to a pay phone? And what if the person is not in and calls him back at the White House? Is it a criminal offense for the Vice President or, for that matter, a member of Congress while at his or her desk to accept a call from a political supporter or contributor? What troubles me about this kind of foolishness is that it is diverting our attention from the things that really need fixing. It's not where you make the phone calls that is the problem. It is the people and organizations that candidates are going after and the virtually unlimited sums of money that the soft-money loopholes permits them to raise. Millions of special-interest dollars continue to flow into the coffers of both major parties and their candidates. The soft-money loophole that the Federal Elections Commission carved into the post- Watergate campaign reform legislation--and anybody who has run for the Presidency knows how pernicious it is--has made a mockery of our efforts to broaden the base of our campaigns and restore public confidence in the political process. Unfortunately, much of what is currently passing for a Congressional investigation of the subject is blatant hypocrisy--many of the lawmakers sounding so outraged about fund-raising phone calls by Mr. Gore and President Clinton are experts at taking special-interest money; some of their own campaigns have been fined for taking too much. And all of it is a smoke screen for Congressional inaction. Speaker Newt Gingrich is leading the way in this regard. Two years ago, he and the President told a New Hampshire audience that reforming our campaign finance laws deserved the highest priority. Last week he pronounced a major bipartisan bill on campaign finance reform, the McCain-Feingold bill, dead- before-arrival in the House. We know what the problems are: candidates prostituting themselves for big special-interest contributions; the soft- money loophole, which either the Federal Election Commission or the Congress should close immediately; campaigns waged almost exclusively on radio and television; politicians spending too much time with fat cats and not enough time in backyards and living rooms recruiting supporters from the people who ought to count in this country. And then there's the most important problem of all; the profound effect all of this is having on voter turnout and the wililngness of ordinary citizens of get deeply and actively involved in public life. The solution is painfully simple. Either we decide that public financing is the way to go--something that is a long way from commanding a Congressional majority--or we get behind the McCain-Feingold bill and, to the maximum extent possible, limit the ability of candidates to raise large amounts of special-interest money. In short, we don't need any more educating about what the problems are, or any distracting sideshows, or any pre- emptory blocking maneuvers from the Speaker's office. We need Congressional action, and we need it now.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, if we were to adjourn now without acting on the pending suspensions, what would the parliamentary effect be?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Which would be next week, if we adjourn, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. They would simply be pending next week?

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, what we are talking about is the right of a citizens group here. First of all, the resolution, of course, is hardly worth all this. The resolution originally demanded that the Justice Department do something. It now demands that the Justice Department think about doing something and then do whatever it thinks. It was amended. I should note that this is, I guess, an example of what is meant by a self-executing resolution. This resolution has already executed itself. It cut off its head. But we still have a headless horseman stumbling around, and it is an obnoxious one, because here is the issue. A private citizens group has been denounced criminal by persons with constitutional immunity from any libel suit on this floor. They have been denounced as criminal partly, I guess, because they had a tax problem. I guess that is going to be the precedent: somebody is shown not to have done right on taxes, and they are a criminal. The word will probably echo around here a lot, and make the parliamentarians earn their pay. But the question is this. This organization has been the subject of a very broad subpoena, subpoenaing things that go to everything that is done, including political activity. They are trying to resist it. Important constitutional law has been made in America, the NAACP against Alabama, other organizations. Resistance of subpoenas has been important. What we now have is a U.S. Attorney entitled to decide that a particular subpoena may have been so broad as to fail. My colleague, the gentleman from Georgia said, where did you get such an idea? I will tell Members where, from William French Smith, Ronald Reagan's Attorney General, who told us when this House voted to cite Anne Gorsuch for contempt, when the House voted, not just one Member, when the House voted, not even an ex-Member, but when the House voted to cite Anne Gorsuch with contempt, William French Smith said, we are not going to prosecute because we disagree. We think that constitutionally there is executive privilege here. That is the precedent that held. No one tried to break it. Here we have a group of private citizens engaged in political organizing who have gotten a subpoena, and they want to litigate it. What are the Members saying? Prosecute them, treat them as criminals. There is a process going forward now before the district court, and they want to appeal it, and they are saying, no, prosecute them. My friend, the gentleman from California [Mr. Campbell] said, well, we have to get this on. We do not sacrifice the constitutional right of association of private citizens because we are in a hurry, not that they seem to have been in such a hurry on this. But even if we are, citizens have a right to assert their constitutional rights. To have the subpoena power in the hands of one individual who has clearly issued inappropriate subpoenas to the press, the committee has quashed some, this organization, and understand, this is not a subpoena specifically about who voted and who did not. It is a very broad subpoena issued by Mr. Dornan, and they are trying to figure out a way to litigate it, and to demand that they be criminally prosecuted is inappropriate. To demand that maybe they should be criminally prosecuted if someone who has the job of thinking that they should think they should is not inappropriate, it is just too silly. It is unfortunately done to accommodate a political imperative that should not be taking up all this time in the House.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Yes, Mr. Speaker, it was a subpoena that came from the former Member, Mr. Dornan, as opposed to one solemnly voted by the House in the course of an investigation. But the argument that it was not authorized by a district court, no, under our Constitution this House has the right constitutionally to issue contempt citations to try to compel testimony. The Attorney General, I did not libel or defame the Attorney General, I simply quoted him. Being dead is not relevant. The fact is that the Attorney General said, it is wholly a matter of prosecutorial discretion whether or not we act on a contempt citation, and one voted by the whole House in the course of an investigation certainly has a great deal of standing.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. As I said, I would be prepared to go in to the stockholders as well, but obviously, what we have here is a view that when wealthy people are involved, we ought not to do anything but simply say, is that enough? Yes, it is true that people who are engaged in exporting are decent people doing a good thing, and so are people who live in public housing. It does not mean that we think these are bad people when we impose this requirement. People who live in public housing are decent, hard-working people, on the whole, who are taking advantage of this program. Public housing, the construction of public housing, the payment of these funds, that has a positive effect on the community. So it is not a badge of dishonor, I hope, to live in public housing. Similarly, the fact that people who are exporting are doing something good for the country does not take away the fact that they are receiving a significant benefit. The ability to have your exports guaranteed to some extent by the Export-Import Bank is important. I support the Export-Import Bank. I worked hard in terms of the Raytheon Corporation to help them get guarantees that helped them to win a $1 billion contract. I was very glad. If in return some members of the board of directors would do 8 hours of public service, I think it would be a good thing. Let me put it this way, we are simply asking people to give back who are able-bodied, younger or middle-aged, who have the capacity to give something back to the community. How this strikes anybody as unreasonable is beyond me. Now, of course, I am quoting the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio] with regard to public housing tenants. I guess the question is, why is it good for the public housing goose and not for the export-import gander? Why do we say if you are poor, if you are down on your luck and you take advantage of a Federal program that we think is overall a good thing, we are going to make you give us 8 hours of community service, but if you are wealthy enough, respected in the community, and you are a member of the board of directors, you will be the beneficiary of this for nothing, with no competition? Let us have one rule. If the House votes this down, when we get the bill back, and let me say this is very relevant, because the other body has rejected that 8 hours of community service in that public housing bill. Let me say to the Members, I hope people are prepared to have a certain degree of consistency. If we are going to reject this for people in the Export-Import Bank, let us not impose it on the people in public housing. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I apologize for taking the gentleman seriously.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the failed premise of that last comment is that if we ask members of board of directors to do 8 hours of community service, they will reject the loan. I reject that. People who serve on the board of directors have a responsibility to the stockholders whom they represent, they have a fiduciary responsibility. I reject the notion that they would be so mean-spirited and so unwilling to contribute that if they were told they had to do 8 hours of community service, they would refuse the loan. I was disappointed, I must say to the gentleman. When he began, people who live in public housing, I thought he was going to say people who live in public housing should not throw stones. If he had, I think it would have been a better argument than the one he made.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise out of my respect for this institution to give it the opportunity to rebut an unfair accusation. There have people who argue that a double standard obtains, that when it comes to showing compassion for people who have not fared well in life for one reason or another, we have tended to be hard-hearted, but that when wealthy and powerful people come to our door, we are much more generous. Recently this House voted to say that if one lives in public housing, if one is simply taking advantage of public housing because one cannot live anywhere else, one is paying what the law requires one to pay in rent, but because of the subsidy inherent in the rent one pays in public housing, if one does not have a job, we will require one to do 8 hours of community service. Even if one has to be taking care of someone who is ill or a child, one will still do 8 hours of community service per month. Well, I did not agree with that principle, but I believe majority should rule and that is the principle the House has adopted. If one is getting the benefit of living in public housing and one is not otherwise employed, one has to do 8 hours of community service. And to show how conciliatory I am, I think the majority's principle ought to be applied generally. Now, Mr. Chairman, let me ask, if we had to choose between getting the guarantee of one's business from the Export-Import Bank to make a $100 million sale, or the right to live in Cabrini Green, Chicago, which would one pick? My guess is most people would pick exporting with a guarantee. I disregard that, however. I am willing to treat them equally. My amendment takes literally, word for word, the language from the bill imposing a community service requirement on people in public housing, and it applies that to members of boards of directors who are similarly situated if their corporation is getting something from the Export- Import Bank. As I said, because of my respect for this institution, I would not want Members to be laboring under the view that when it comes to the poor we are hard-hearted and tough, but when it comes to the wealthy we roll over and say, here, what do you want? Therefore, I offer this amendment to make that no longer the case. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent to amend the amendment, if the gentleman would be supportive.

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment as provided for in the rule.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, in the first place, there was not a subpoena issued by the committee. They are looking for these facts the way they think. But here is the problem. We are talking about private citizens, Hermandad. They cannot be forced, I think, to give up their constitutional rights for the convenience of this House's process. What the gentleman is saying is these people who are asserting their constitutional right to privacy should be put under the threat of criminal prosecution, and I am saying no, they have a right as a citizens' group to their full appeal process. The gentleman's insistence on subjecting Hermandad to criminal prosecution, cutting off their right of appeal, seems to me unfortunate, no matter how convenient it might be for this House.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, we should be very clear on what this resolution says. It forthrightly demands that the United States attorney do whatever he thinks he ought to do. Now, I did not realize that we had become the paymasters of the U.S. Government. Apparently this is kind of a bed check on the U.S. Attorney. It demands, it does not recommend, it demands, that he do whatever is appropriate. I guess, if that is all the majority has to do with its time, that may be a better way to take up time than others, but I think we ought to vote against the resolution anyway. In the first place, it is kind of a silly precedent to set; not a bad precedent, but a silly one, and understand, that is what the resolution does. It demands that he do what he thinks is appropriate. I suppose we could offer an amendment that we demand that he not do what he thinks is inappropriate, and we might also demand that if he is undecided, that he make up his mind. I mean, why pull any punches. I also, however, want to argue for letting the U.S. Attorney make the determination that they should not go forward. This has been a day. I started this morning, and three times today I have seen the Republican Party repudiate what used to be conservative legal doctrines. In 1983, William French Smith, the United States Attorney General under Ronald Reagan, said, ``No, Congress, you cannot tell me to prosecute a contempt citation. You cannot tell me to prosecute for failure to comply, because the way to deal with it is through the civil process.'' No one is saying that Hermandad, who seem to be the victims in this case of a fishing expedition, no one is saying that they can simply ignore the law. They went to court; they are contesting it. A single district court judge has decided against them. Now, all year the Republicans have said that when a single district court judge rules on affirmative action or a single district court judge rules on something else, on immigration, ignore it. That is arbitrary. Now we have a single district court judge, and what is this organization saying? They want to appeal the decision. They have constitutional arguments to make. The constitutional argument is that the subpoena issued not by this House, but by Robert Dornan, might not be appropriate. I am myself not used to hearing the words ``Dornan'' and ``appropriate'' in the same sentence. I think that is a valid constitutional argument to make. What we are saying is, let them proceed with an appeal. Instead, the Republicans said no, no, William French Smith in 1983 filed a lawsuit to enjoin the House of Representatives from doing a contempt citation. That is what the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Diaz-Balart] was referring to. He called the lawsuit, by the way, to show his respect for this institution: The United States of America versus the House of Representatives. The judge threw out the lawsuit, but there was an agreement that a civil process would be a way to go forward. What we are saying here is, we will prosecute these people criminally in the middle of their appeal process. Now, I have to say that is what we originally demanded. We should come back to what happened. Because of the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Diaz-Balart], my colleagues have backed off, and are now, with a very silly resolution, demanding that the man do his job, but the context makes it worthy of defeat. Mr. Speaker, maybe my colleagues will amend the resolution again while I am speaking, but I just again want to point out, conservatism ought to be some consistency to principle. I want to make a point, by the way. People talk about the McCloskey-McIntyre election. As a Democrat, I voted not to seat Mr. McCloskey. I thought he was a great Member, but I was not sure he won that election. No, I do not believe you to be partisan, but I think to deny this group the right to their civil appeal is a grave error. The Republicans recently, in an amendment passed earlier today, decided that the constitutional doctrine of standing does not mean anything because we want to get at statistical sampling in the census. In the Committee on the Judiciary today they decided to have the Federal courts further involve themselves in zoning matters because of property rights. The notion that conservatism stands consistently for a set of legal principles is being thrown out the window with such rapidity that passersby probably ought to be warned. Yes, I think it is a good thing that my colleagues backed off on the resolution and that it no longer demands, it no longer makes any sense, but given the context in which it came forward, I think we ought to vote ``no.''

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, if what the gentleman who just spoke wanted to have happen could happen, I would support it. What he said is look, there is a constitutional question here. Let us, before anything happens, go to the United States Supreme Court and ask them to tell us. They will not do it. There is a core principle of American constitutionalism, which conservatives usually adhere to, which says they do not issue advisory opinions. The United States Supreme Court does not decide until there is a case or controversy, defined repeatedly by Justice Scalia, who was quoted only partially on one point, as injury in fact. We recently had an effort to try to get around that by getting an advisory opinion in effect on the line item veto. The Supreme Court unanimously said, or almost unanimously said no, you cannot have it. What the gentleman from Kentucky is asking for is impossible. What he says is, we will go to court. But the Supreme Court will not decide it. Standing is a core conservative principle. I thought the gentleman's amendment was written by William O. Douglas. I thought William O. Douglas had channeled himself through to somebody on the other side, because he is the great liberal justice who says there is a constitutional question, let me at it, I will handle it. What in fact the conservatives said is, no. You talk about judicial activism, this is a monument to judicial activism. This is a constitutional question. We will ask the United States Supreme Court for an advisory opinion. It will not give it to you. It requires an injury in fact. Here is how you define standing. Here is who could bring this lawsuit. Any resident of a State, resident, not even a citizen, any resident of a State whose congressional district could, not was, could, in fact be changed. If you thought that your district might gain under this, you could go in and get an advisory opinion. The Supreme Court will not do it. No one familiar with this jurisprudence thinks remotely that you could force this. If it were possible, it would be a good way. But remember, we said, we will have to deal with these first through the electoral process and the political process, and only after the fact can you go to court. Who said that? That was done by conservatives to keep the non-elected judiciary from being too intrusive. What the gentleman's amendment does is to reverse that principle of judicial restraint.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, could I be told how much time remains in the debate?

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I would simply note that the State that I represent passed legislation which said that the State did not wish to do business with people who supported the terribly repressive regime in Burma, and we have since that time had international efforts to stop the State of Massachusetts from deciding how to spend its own dollars in purchases, and that is why I support the effort of the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders]. If we are going to have people use these international bodies to object because we object to oppression, then the time has come to fight back.