Barney Frank

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, the point I would make is this: My understanding is that the majority has pulled this bill because we voted for a States rights amendment. The gentlewoman from California offered an amendment to this bill in committee that said it would not override State protections, that the Federal protection would be in existence, the State protections, and apparently the majority does not think we should respect the rights of States in this case, and apparently this bill was pulled because we have taken a position respective of the rights of the States to set policy.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I will try as a member of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services, and I participated in working on that bill which passed 36 to 1 that was sponsored by a very distinguished Republican Member from Utah and, in the other body, by a Republican Senator from New York, and it was aimed at protecting consumers.

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, we had two debates on substantive issues. We did have one very substantive bill yesterday, but some people in the industry affected complained, the private mortgage insurance bill, so that got pulled lest their feelings be hurt, much less their profits. We were through voting by about 20 after 5. Another two votes would have added 10 minutes. I understand we had 2 weeks off. Is there some implicit notion that we have to have a decompression chamber, that after 2 weeks off the Members will get the legislative bends if they have to deal with three or four bills in 1 day?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I do not think anyone on our side wants to denigrate the importance of the veterans bill or the Samoan development bill. My question is, why did we not do them yesterday? We are not objecting to doing those bills, but Monday and Tuesday are the regular suspension days. We hardly worked ourselves into a lather yesterday. Our question is, given these important bills, why did we not do them on the regular suspension day rather than have to do an extraordinary procedure to take them up today?

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, yesterday we were voting.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, the recent decision by the Federal Reserve Open Market Committee to raise interest rates in itself raises two very serious questions, one substantive and one procedural. The substantive question is will America be permitted to grow economically at a rate sufficient to overcome some of our most pressing social problems or will the Federal Reserve be allowed to snuff out that growth? And that is also the procedural question, because we have a nonelected body consisting of seven members who were at least appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate and four others, regional bank presidents who are officers of private corporations in effect, the Federal regional banks, making the single most important economic judgment that will be made in America this year, and that simply cannot be allowed to go forward. Alan Greenspan is a man of good will, and he is doing what he thinks is right. But what he thinks right strikes many of us as profoundly wrong. When Mr. Greenspan testified before the House Committee on Banking and Financial Services we asked him, several of us, whether there was any evidence of inflation given the growth that we have seen in recent years. His answer candidly was no. I asked him if he did not agree that he had in fact himself been too pessimistic in his analysis of the ability of the economy to grow without generating inflation. He admitted that he had been too pessimistic, he has been wrong over these past years. We reached a level of unemployment far lower than what Mr. Greenspan and others of the Federal Reserve thought we could reach without triggering inflation; the inflation did not come. Mr. Greenspan decided nevertheless, with the support of the others on that committee, to raise interest rates to slow down growth. In other words, Mr. Greenspan has told us we are creating too many jobs in America. Many of us of course feel that our problem has been that we have not created enough jobs. We made a decision last year; I did not agree with it, but the country made it, to make drastic changes in the welfare system. Everyone agrees that that will work only if the people who have been on welfare are able to be absorbed into the work force. Mr. Greenspan and his colleagues have just taken a step which will make it very much more difficult. Obviously, the people on welfare are among the last to be hired. They are people with skill deficiencies and other problems. An economy which is not growing rapidly simply will not assimilate them. We just heard a previous speaker complain about NAFTA. Trade is a very controversial issue in this country. There are many who believe that we ought to be increasing international trade, but increasing international trade creates both winners and losers in America. An economy which is growing, an economy in which new jobs are being created is better able to deal with the transitions of international trade. By clamping down on growth, by announcing that America simply will not be allowed to grow as rapidly as it has been growing because of his fear of an inflation which he acknowledges he cannot yet point to, Mr. Greenspan not only cuts out the benefit of that growth but exacerbates other problems. We have a dispute over how deeply we have to cut important programs to reach a balanced budget. Those disputes turn in part on differing estimates between the Congressional Budget Office and the Office of Management and Budget about the rate of growth. Again Mr. Greenspan has just said to us there will be less growth, there will therefore be less revenue and the painful decisions involved in getting the deficit to zero by 2002 will become more painful. There is a legitimate question for this country as to what risks we want. Many of us believe that a combination of trends have made it possible for us to grow more rapidly than in the past without inflation. Mr. Greenspan and some of his colleagues in the central bank apparatus believe that the risks of inflation are so great that they do not want to find out whether or not that is true. They have decided we will not continue to see how long we can grow without inflation actually arising. He did what he said was a preemptive strike, but which looked to many of us like a self-fulfilling prophecy. Not only is that wrong it seems to be substantively, but from the standpoint of democracy that is not a decision that a handful of appointed officials and private bank officials ought to make. So I will be working with many of my colleagues to ask this body through its Committee on Banking and Financial Services, through other committees and through the floor itself to address this issue: the question of what degree of growth we will strive for. The question of when we will choke off growth because of an anticipation of inflation that has not yet appeared must not be left to a handful of bankers or a handful of any other appointed officials. It must be done through the democratic process. The possibility that America can increase the rate of growth that is noninflationary, which has appeared to many of us to be more and more likely over the past few years, cannot be snuffed out this easily, and I hope, through a variety of means, that we will be allowed to bring to the floor of this House, before the Federal Open Market Committee meets again, this issue so it can be debated as it ought to be in a democratic society.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me anticipate. Members on the other side have said, ``Well, when you say health, the Supreme Court reads a broader version.'' Yes, I have that opinion right here. When it only said health, the Supreme Court interpreted a statute referring to health more broadly. The Supreme Court has never said that health always--that physical health does not just mean physical health. There is no argument for that, and the Supreme Court has never interpreted a statute on physical health. That is the key issue here. I also add a language point that others have brought up making it clear that, if life is endangered by a condition arising from the pregnancy itself, that is also an exception. And that is not in the bill explicitly, and it ought to be, but this key point is before us now: ``Do you believe as the chairman of the committee said, and the chairman of the committee in his intellectual integrity said if the choice is serious long-term physical health damage to the mother or the life of the fetus, apparently even a severely damaged fetus that could not live long, the woman's health must suffer.'' I hope the House will not vote that way.

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly).

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I am in its form, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I thank our senior member for yielding me the time. I appreciate the skill with which he is managing our side of this very difficult issue. I want to call attention to an amendment which the majority refused to allow. When Members have come forward, as the gentlewoman from New York just did, with an eloquence and passion that is a model of how issues ought to be discussed, and talk about threats to the health of women and talk about how this bill does not allow a doctor to take into account serious adverse health consequences, some of my friends on the other side said, well, health is too vague. Health could mean severe mental health problems. We want to rule that out. But what they do not say is that they do not only want to rule out mental health, which seems to be a valid consideration, they would deny the use of this procedure to a woman even if the doctor could show that it was necessary to avoid serious physical damage to her health. And I have offered an amendment that says only that, that we will not preclude this if a doctor finds it necessary to avoid long-term serious adverse physical health damage. They will not allow that amendment. They will not allow even a vote on that. The chairman of the full committee, a man of great intellectual integrity who was against abortion in any form or shape, says the reason he voted against that amendment was that if it is a choice between the life of the fetus and severe physical health damage to the mother, then the mother must incur that damage and not only that, we in Congress will decide that the mother must incur that damage. I think the failure to allow a vote on serious physical health adverse consequences in the first place deprives them the right to argue about mental health because they will not allow any health requirement. We are not talking about whether or not you have an abortion at all but about the procedure. And what they are trying to do is to force a vote which would, and let us be very clear, the vote would make it impossible for a doctor to even try to show that it was necessary to use this procedure to avoid serious long-term physical damage.

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, after the Committee on Rules tried to keep this from being heard, I appreciate your helping make sure that it is. This is an amendment that would in its most important form add one more exception. Remember we had the bill that does not prevent the abortions, as the gentleman from Florida acknowledged, but bans a particular procedure. Mr. Speaker, the bill bans a specific procedure. The sponsors said in opposition to the amendment that we just voted on that was ruled nongermane when it came up before, well, we do not like health as an exception. I do. I wanted health as an exception. That was voted down, and I regret it. But now I am offering a narrower one that meets some of the arguments we heard. Health broadly defined by the Supreme Court when there is no other reference, and it is just health when there is no modifier, the Supreme Court has said that includes mental health, et cetera, as I think it should. But in this case where we are talking about one procedure where we have already voted down health, I have a further amendment. This says, ``You can have an exception if it is necessary to avert serious adverse long-term physical health consequences.'' This, Mr. Speaker, is what the House is about to vote on. I ask my colleagues, ``Are you prepared to say to a doctor if you believe in your best medical judgment that it is necessary to avert serious physical long-term adverse health consequences, and the only way to avert them is to use this procedure, this amendment says to a doctor, because it follows the language of the bill, if it is necessary, not if it's in your subjective opinion, but if it's necessary, and you can show in a judicial proceeding that it was necessary to avert serious long-term adverse physical health consequences you can perform the procedure.'' And the majority is going to say no apparently. Well, some say it is never possible. If my colleagues really believe that, then the amendment would do no harm. But is the House ready to tell every doctor in America that never under any circumstances can he or she use a medical judgment to say this procedure? Because again we are not talking about whether or not there can be an abortion. There can be an abortion. It may be on mental health grounds, it may be on physical health grounds. Then the question is what is the procedure. And we are asking for a vote that says if it is necessary so that a woman does not lose her fertility so that there is not permanent damage to her organs, if she is not in horrible pain for a prolonged period. Is that not likely to happen? I do not know; along with almost everybody in the House, I do not know. And therefore I am not prepared to legislate it. I am prepared to say that the physicians can decide that. How much time do I have remaining, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. First, I would say, I think the gentleman from Oklahoma's comments help focus this. He said that as far as this legislation is concerned, if the fetus was killed earlier in the procedure, then this bill would not have any affect. I think that shows, we are not here talking about not having the abortion or not bringing an end to the potential life. I think that ought to be clear. I think we have heard arguments on the other side that suggested that this is opposition to abortion. That underlines the point that has been made here. This is not a bill about stopping abortions in any circumstances, mental health, whatever the reason. It is saying, well, you did not perform the fatal act early enough. I think that is a great distinction with very little difference. I think that it undercuts the arguments they have been making. I think people have been led to believe that this was going to prevent late term abortion. We have the acknowledgment that it does no such thing and does not even try to. Second, as to the medical argument, I do not think Congress ought to arbitrate disagreements among doctors. There are doctors who have said they would find this procedure useful in some particular circumstances. For Congress to legislate that it would never ever be useful physically to use this particular procedure rather than another is, it seems to me, a great overreach. Again, I want to underline, as the gentleman from Oklahoma made clear, we are not talking about stopping abortions. We are not talking about stopping abortions even late in pregnancy. We are talking about dictating particular procedures to doctors even if they think the physical health of their patient would be better served otherwise.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman has made his point. Let me say this, if in fact Members were confident of that, then the amendment would be harmless because this bill does not say, I do not like this bill, but I am dealing with the framework you put forward, the bill does not say, if in the opinion of the physician, it says you can have such an exception for life if it is necessary. My amendment tracks that language. My amendment says, the doctor would have to show that it was necessary to prevent long-term physical health. The gentleman at the microphone, a doctor, is convinced that never, ever, ever in the whole history of the world would it be physically possible. That is a judgment he is qualified to make. But I do not believe we as a Congress ought to legislate that it is never possible. The fact is that if it is never possible, the exception will not be a very large one because it is not a subjective amendment. I will go back to what the chairman of the full committee said, as I said, a man of great integrity, he said, if there is a choice between physical damage to the mother, serious adverse physical damage, and the life of the fetus, even if we are talking about a fetus with the brain on the outside, as the gentlewoman from New York pointed out, that tragic situation, this would not be allowed. I want to make it clear, I do not believe you should restrict into physical health in general, but here we have an unusual bill. This bill concededly by its sponsors does not try to stop abortions. It would allow all manner of abortion except this procedure. Now, your mental health would be relevant, and it still would be as to whether or not you could have an abortion. A severely depressive situation would be a justification for an abortion, as the exception. When we are talking only about this procedure versus that procedure, then it seems to me it is relevant to talk only about physical. But again the assertion that it is never, ever going to be physical, and we have had women and doctors who disagree, the doctors do disagree, the question is, Should the Congress adopt the view that it is never valid to try to avoid serious physical health damage to the mother if that means this particular abortion procedure? That, I wanted to point out, is the amendment that they would not even let us vote on. That is the choice. I think it is unfortunately indicative of some Members who might rather have an issue to take to the country than a piece of legislation. I believe the adoption of this legislation, of this amendment, even though I might not like it, could lead to a signed bill. The failure even to allow a vote on this and the insistence on defeating it, it seems to me, shows a preference for an issue over a piece of legislation. I thank my ranking member for yielding me the time.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, it seems very clear to me that we have people who would prefer an issue to a bill that could become law. I offered an amendment in committee that would have provided an exception to the ban in cases where it was necessary to use this procedure to avoid serious adverse physical health consequences to the mother. Now, people on the other side have argued that health is too broad. I do not agree with that. I find the health concept important. But I also understand the health concept, including mental health, is most directly relevant when we are talking about whether or not to have an abortion. This bill does not say you cannot have an abortion; it says you may not use this particular procedure. Where we are talking about a ban on a specific procedure, then physical issues become more prominent, because the mental question generally is as to whether or not an abortion is permitted. Here is what the majority is insisting upon. A doctor believes he can show that it is necessary under the wording of this bill to use this procedure for a woman who has established her right to an abortion, because otherwise there would be severe physical adverse health consequences, and the majority says no. The majority says even if avoiding this procedure will subject the woman to severe adverse physical health consequences, as long as she is not going to die, but if she is severely physically damaged, then they cannot use this procedure. And the chairman of the full committee, with the intellectual honesty he brings to the issue, said if it is a choice between the woman incurring serious physical health damage and the life of the fetus, then the woman's health must give way. The chairman of the committee made that explicit when he opposed the amendment, and that is the choice that the Members are not being allowed to make. I am not being allowed to offer an amendment that would have provided an exception to severe physical adverse health consequences. I think that bespeaks an interest on the part of some in an issue and not a law.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, while I was pleased to vote for the minimum wage increase, I regretted that in effect this minimal act of social justice had to be purchased by tax reductions, some of which were unjustified from the standpoint of the maximum efficiency of the tax code. In the accompanying article, Jerome Grossman, a prime example of a businessman who has been both successful in private enterprise while being an active crusader for social justice, notes that the corporate sector benefited significantly more than the working poor from this legislation. I think the central point is relevant whether one supported the legislation or not because it is an example of how efforts to aid poor people are often exaggerated in their impact, while far more valuable benefits conferred on wealthier members of our society are often ignored. Mr. Grossman's article from the Wellesley Townsman is very relevant in this regard. [From the Wellesley Townsman, Jan. 23, 1997] Who Will Really Pay for Minimum Wage Increase? (By Jerome Grossman) Democrats claimed their biggest victory of 1996 with the passage of a 90-cents-an-hour increase in the minimum wage. President Clinton cited this accomplishment in virtually every speech he made during his campaign for reelection. So did almost every other Democrat running for federal office seeking to prove that even though the Democratic party is in the minority, it can force through legislation. The raise, which affected about 10 million workers, was the first increase in five years. It attained a unique moral status. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy wrote, ``Because of those increases, we can be thankful today that the wolf is now farther from the door for millions of deserving American families . . . to do.'' Initially, there had been fierce Republican opposition to the measure. House Majority leader Dick Armey of Texas had called the raise ``a folly'' and said he would ``fight the minimum wage increase with every fibre of my being.'' Representative Bill Goodling, R-Pa., chairman of the Economic and Educational Opportunities Committee, said, ``For two years, this minority (the Democrats) was in the majority and they had the White House and not one word was ever mentioned about the minimum wage.'' In fact, while the Clinton administration eventually backed the increase, it was virtually ignored from the time Clinton first moved into the White House in 1993 until the election year loomed in late 1995. The AFL-CIO claims that their incessant advertising scared Republican members of Congress in working-class districts and indeed a large group of Republicans broke with the party leadership in the House on the issue. Majority Leader Robert Dole fought the measure vigorously until we left the Senate, but, surprisingly, his successor, Trent Lott of Mississippi, lifted the GOP siege and let the increase pass. Kennedy gives Lott full credit. The key to passage was the transformation of the bill from being primarily a workers' bill to primarily a business tax- break bill. As Goodling said, ``We knew that just raising the minimum wage would be devastating unless you did the other things in this package, the tax changes.'' Most of the tax breaks, which were originally designed to help small business, had bipartisan support. I suppose it could be argued that small business needed special help. Moralists could just as compellingly point out that all businesses have a responsibility to pay their workers a living wage, for the health of the workers and for their greater efficiency. But in the deep recesses of congressional committees, without public attention, tax cuts were added that will benefit some of the largest companies in the United States, including Hewlett-Packard Co., Johnson & Johnson, Microsoft Corp., and Domino's Pizza Inc. As usual, the numbers clearly show who are the primary beneficiaries of the minimum wage bill. Ten million workers will gain 90 cents per hour; total increased wages for five years equals $6.8 billion. The tax breaks for employers in this bill will total $10.1 billion over five years. That makes a net profit to business of $3.3 billion. As recently as Dec. 1 the New York Times described the minimum wage as a Republican ``surrender.'' A rather profitable ``surrender''; the business lobbyists crying all the way to the bank. Business cannot even take the high road and say to their workers, ``We gave you a raise, we are paying you more, we did the right thing.'' Only we taxpayers can say that-- because it is our money.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, March 10, in conjunction with our colleague, the gentleman from California, the ranking Democrat on the National Security Committee, along with the senior Senator from Oregon and the senior Senator from Minnesota, I participated in a day long meeting on the implications of allowing the military budget to stay at its current levels while trying to reduce the Federal deficit to zero. The basic point that we and others made is that unless we begin to make substantial reductions in the military budget, we will devastate a number of other important social and economic goals of our society by reducing Federal support for them to an unacceptably low level. But none of us would be for reducing American military spending if by doing so we were going to put at risk our national security. Therefore, we began the day with a discussion of the genuine needs of national security today, and the highlight of that was a thoughtful, well documented analysis of our national security situation presented by our colleague from California who is the former chairman and current ranking Democrat on the National Security Committee. The gentleman from California who came to Congress in 1971, after winning an election in which his criticism of the Vietnam War was a central factor, has become one of the undisputed experts in the country on national security policy. As my colleagues know, he combines a strong passion with an extremely powerful analytic intelligence and the result is an eloquent, forceful statement of the case for a more realistic and comprehensive national security policy, one which would allow us to save substantial resources from the military budget. Mr. Speaker, because the need to reduce the military budget and make funds available for important non-military purposes is the central issue facing this Congress, I take the unusual step of seeking permission to insert into the Record the extraordinarily thoughtful and useful remarks of Mr. Dellums on that occasion, even though it exceeds the normal length of remarks which are printed here. But with a military budget in hundreds of billions, tens of billions more than it needs to be, I believe that asking for the expenditure of a few hundred dollars here to bring the case for reduction before the American people is indeed a bargain.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following for printing in the Record: Envisioning a New National Security Strategy (By Hon. Ronald V. Dellums) The Cold War has been over now for several years. Throughout that era, congressional colleagues told me: We cannot make cuts in our military budget because of the world- wide threat posed by the Soviet Union and its allies. Nonetheless, we believed then and we argued then that we could reduce military spending and thereby help to ratchet back the conflict. Indeed, throughout the last decade of the Cold War, the Congressional Black Caucus proposed a series of budgets to do precisely that. With the Cold War over, many colleagues now say: With one- third cuts in funding, force structure and personnel, we have gone far enough in our post Cold War draw down. They say that any more will leave us unable to respond to emerging challenges because of hollow forces untrained and unequipped. I say again, our current security environment both allows and demands that we reallocate significant resources from our military accounts, and redirect them into those domestic and foreign policy accounts that contribute equally importantly to our United States national security. Indeed, a strategy that ignores the contributions to national security made by foreign assistance and investments in education and science research and development, just to name two domestic accounts, is not a comprehensive strategy--and therefore it is one that is doomed to fail. Certainly instability and danger remain in various parts of the world, including in Russia and other nations of the former Soviet Union. Military modernization in China, Southeast Asia, Latin America and elsewhere--including within the United States--always should give pause for concern. The Persian Gulf and Korean Peninsula merit continued attention because of the possibilities for open warfare between nations. Humanitarian crises and instability throughout the globe will properly continue to require the involvement of the U.S. military at least in the near term--preferably through United Nations' sponsored undertakings in which the United States acts as a colleague which can bring special skills to the table. But we should not allow ourselves to be trapped into the belief that these challenges, only partially military in nature, represent anything requiring anywhere near our current force structure or modernization plans. Moreover, we should not view even these ``security'' challenges in purely military terms. They must be seen in their economic, cultural and diplomatic frame of reference. Seen in that light, much of the instability that threatens human rights or outright bloodshed can be diminished and deflected through a robust program of sustainable economic development and timely diplomatic activity in behalf of crisis intervention and conflict resolution. As I noted throughout the Cold War, conflicts that are economic, political, social and cultural in their origins cannot be solved by resort to arms, but only by solving the underlying economic, political, social and cultural origins of the conflict. Viewed this way, it is clear there exists an imbalance in the funding of our three ``national security accounts.'' In one account, we continue to make a commitment to find ways to finance a too-large military force structure, an overly aggressive and in many cases misguided weapons modernization program, and overly programmed requirements to maintain short-term readiness (while not planning successfully to pay for the involvement we will have in peacekeeping and humanitarian ventures). We fail to pay for a sufficient program of foreign assistance and much of what we do pay for goes for military security assistance which often compounds the problems that generate regional instability and hostility, rather than ameliorate the root causes of that instability. And, finally, we have already and continue to sacrifice the necessary investments in education, science, research and development, medical and infrastructure that are absolutely critical to the national security of our nation on the three-tiered alter of sustained military spending, balanced federal budgets and generalized tax breaks. It is clear to me that significant spending reductions can be achieved in our military account by a thoughtful application of analysis to understanding the threats and opportunities that great us in this new era. In this paper, I seek to set out the justification for such reductions-- reductions which I believe represent both a down payment on durable savings in the years beyond which we are currently planning budgets and which will also shape and reduce the military investments that will be made by other nations in the future, especially including China and Russia. I will leave it to others to more carefully lay out the types of investments that could be made in both the foreign assistance and domestic investments. But let me assert in regard to both of them that fiscal investments in these priorities will bear enormous leverage toward creating international stability beyond our borders and to ensuring that we have a healthy and vibrant society and polity within our borders. In other words, contrary to those who worry that we spend too little on defense, I believe that our current level of spending--far in excess of our most robust potential adversary--is excessive and represents a long-term threat to our national economy and to the integrity of the national treasury and, therefore, to our national security. The Military Funding ``Crisis'' Much of the discussion to date from the new Congressional majority has centered on how to find equilibrium by an increase in the funding side of the military requirements- funding equation, rather than confronting whether or not the program side might be overly robust and therefore excess to our legitimate defense requirements. I believe, as I will set out below, that we should focus on the program side of the equation, and seek to find our equilibrium by scaling back excessive force structure and formulating our modernization effort to meet more appropriately the strategic challenges that will confront us in tomorrow's world. Indeed, when approached from that direction substantial savings can be generated. All of us--whatever our political viewpoint--should be able to agree that the United States has not fully reconfigured our forces or our thinking to meet the new realities of the post-Cold War era. The disagreement is over how we can meet them, what our strategy should be and what it will take to implement that strategy. Only when we have answered these questions can we proceed to assess the budgetary requirements to fulfill that strategy. My continued assessment of the type and scale of the dangers that exist, the proper response to them and the role of the United States in that response convinces me that we can over the coming five-year defense planning period, and prudence dictates that we should: first, make further reductions in our nuclear arsenal and the infrastructure that supports that arsenal; second weapons acquisition programs that were undertaken to meet Cold War threats and which no longer are required, or which are provocative and thereby detrimental to U.S. interests in long-term stability; third, reduce readiness requirements and plan to incorporate more effectively reserve; forces in our military planning by establishing less stringent planning requirements for conflicts; and fourth, make further marginal force reductions beyond those already projected, including in intelligence accounts.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, I also want to say this is my day to be delighted at the resolution of my friend from New York. I was particularly pleased to hear him pledge absolute fealty to the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution as governing what we do, and I look forward to our being very closely governed by what the Supreme Court says we can and cannot do for the rest of the year.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, even on its own terms I think the variants of this resolution are kind of silly. As I understand it, what they say is we will decertify Mexico but we will immediately then waive the decertification so it will have no tangible effect. This is a new policy. It is called substituting insult for injury. We will not deny anything substantive to Mexico, we will just call them some names. People seem to think somehow that this will help. I do not understand how they think it will. It may help some people politically. It clearly will not help promote cooperation with Mexico. What it says is, we will decertify you and immediately thereafter make sure the decertification has no effect except to hurt your feelings and make you angry. We spent all last week congratulating, this is our first step on the way to legislate, and as of now I would say that my colleagues seem to be better congratulators rather than legislators because I do not understand what this does, except make it worse. Second, it is fundamentally flawed. The notion, and my friends have forgotten, particularly on the other side, what they, I thought, knew about a free market. The notion that in a free society, where tens of millions of people come and go on a regular basis monthly, where goods come and go, the notion that you can physically keep something in great demand out as your main strategy is seriously flawed. The resolution that came from the Republican leadership denounces drug treatment, untested drug treatment, and says we should rely instead on physical interdiction. That has it absolutely backward. The notion that this country points the fingers of blame and objects to others because they meet an unfortunate high demand in this country absolves us of responsibility, plays political games. It does nothing to really advance the problem. What we ought to do is to allow the President to go forward, change our legislation, and focus our resources on the kind of efforts within our own country, which is the only place we can deal with this problem.