Barney Frank

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. If the gentleman would yield again, I am glad to know he is flexible. May I ask my question again? The gentleman said there would be a fair structured rule. Does that mean that there would also be a fair structured rule of the same sort to the other bills?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. We will settle for the gentleman's commitment.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I was delighted to hear my friend from New York say that the flexibility bill would be brought up under a fair structured rule, obviously meaning amendments would be allowed. May I safely assume that the other two important bills would also be brought up under fair structured rules and allowing amendments that week?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman from Michigan yield to me.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I am not going to push this to the point of a vote, but I want to express my disagreement with the resolution. I am sorry to spoil the good cheer, and I admire the people of Okinawa, but I think we should make it very clear that there is considerable unhappiness in the United States and here in the Congress with the one-sidedness of this relationship, particularly financially. Mr. Speaker, I insert into the Record an article, from which I want to read briefly. The article referred to is as follows: [From the New York Times, Feb. 15, 1997] Japan Hesitant About U.S. Antimissile Project (By Clifford Krauss) Washington, Feb. 14--After three years of exploratory talks, Administration officials say Japan has all but decided against taking part in an antimissile defense project with the United States for fear of offending China and overspending scarce military resources. Tokyo's hesitation stems from reluctance to spend billions of dollars when its own economy is weak, and concerns that developing a missile system would anger Japan's deeply pacifist electorate and frighten Asian neighbors wary of any signs of a Japanese military buildup. A decision not to join the project would be a setback to American military contractors that hope to supply Japan with hardware. And it could swell United States military budgets for Asia because the United States would have to bear the cost of such a system alone. Senior Administration officials said that no Japanese decision would be announced for months and that the United States would press ahead with its own plans to develop antimissile systems to protect American forces in Japan from any North Korean or Chinese attack. The feasibility of an effective antimissile shield is still a matter of debate, but Pentagon officials say the Patriot missiles, which displayed a mixed record during the Persian Gulf war, have been updated and improved in recent years. Administration officials also say a decision by Tokyo not to take part would not hurt its relations with Washington. Discussions on how to pool technology, engineering talent and money to set up a ``theater missile defense'' began shortly after North Korea test-fired a Rodong 1 missile 300 miles into the Sea of Japan in 1993. A middle-level working group of Japanese and American defense planners has met nine times to discuss regional threats, deployment timetables and various types of land- and sea-based antiballistic weaponry. Japan has been wary of the project ever since the Clinton Administration first broached the idea in October 1993. But American hopes were raised after Japan allocated $2.7 million in its 1996 budget to study building an antimissile system, 20 times what Tokyo spent the year before on the project. American officials were also encouraged when President Clinton and Prime Minister Ryutaro Hashimoto met in Tokyo last April and promised to broaden their military alliance. A Japanese Foreign Ministry official said the group would continue meeting until the summer, after which time Tokyo would decide what role to play. ``At this moment, we have not made any decision and we cannot predict or prejudge any result or conclusion,'' he said. But after a meeting in Tokyo last weekend, senior American officials have concluded that Japan is simply not ready to pursue a project that could cost them as much as $10 billion a year--more than one-fourth of Japan's current $35 billion military budget--for four or five years. They said the project has a few powerful supporters in Japan's military establishment, but is opposed by many in the Foreign Ministry and by most of the nation's top economic officials. ``Japan is financially constrained, and they don't have the strategic consensus,'' said a senior Pentagon official involved in making Japan policy. ``Japan is most nervous about China, even through they talk about North Korea. A decision to build this would be perceived by the Chinese to be a blatant act. So I'm sure Japan will not go down this line.'' Another Administration official, who noted that China has repeatedly warned Japan that it would view deployment of an antimissile system as a hostile act, added, ``This is not something that will happen anytime soon.'' The Chinese have argued that a Japanese antimissile program would undermine regional arms-control efforts. Given the pacifist strain that runs through the Japanese electorate, American officials said, Prime Minister Hashimoto and other members of the political elite cannot be expected to commit themselves to any such program without a thorough debate in Parliament. And there is no sign, they said, that Parliament will take up the issue any time soon. The Pentagon has proposed at least four antimissile options for deployment by 2004, including enhanced Patriot surface- to-air missiles designed to intercept low-altitude missiles and Thaad antiballistic systems for high-altitude interceptions. American officials have also discussed the possibility of sharing with Japan early-warning data from satellites that are now being developed to detect infrared radiation at the time of a launching. ``Our interest is that we would like to see American troops in Japan protected from ballistic missile attacks,'' said Joseph Nye, a former Assistant Secretary of Defense, who is dean of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. ``But Japan is very sensitive to the political repercussions in China and North Korea.'' Many American military experts still say Japan will eventually join the project, but perhaps not for another five years or more. ``These things take time,'' said John M. Deutch, the Director of Central Intelligence, who pushed for a joint project when he served as a senior Defense Department official in the early 1990's. ``Inevitably, the Japanese Government will see that it needs to be concerned with antimissile defense.'' Despite the setback, Administration officials say they are committed to building or upgrading regional antimissile systems to protect American troops in all potentially hazardous regions, including Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and South Korea. The Administration's proposed $265 billion military budget for 1998 calls for a 3 percent cut in spending from the 1997 budget, but it adds $320 million for antimissile systems. ``The goal is to develop, procure and deploy systems that can protect forward-deployed U.S. forces, as well as allied and friendly nations, from theater-range ballistic missiles,'' Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen said this week while testifying on the budget before Congress. ``These programs are structured to proceed at the fastest pace that technology will allow.'' New York Times, February 14: Japan has all but decided against taking part in an antimissile defense project with the United States for fear of offending China and overspending scarce military resources. Needless to say, the scarce military resources they are afraid of overspending are theirs. They are quite willing to spend ours. As the article points out this ``could swell United States military budgets for Asia because the United States would have to bear the cost of such a system alone.'' And where is this system going to go if the Japanese do not want to pay for it? Then we are going to have to pay for it in Japan. This is a system that we are going to install in Japan to protect American soldiers that are in Japan, in part to protect Japan from North Korea or China, but the Japanese do not want to offend North Korea or China; they want us to be over there to offend North Korea and China presumably, and they do not want to spend their money because they have budget problems. The worst of it is the article then concludes in relevant part: ``Administration officials say a decision by Tokyo not to take part would not hurt its relations with Washington.'' Well, I have to say that maybe it does not hurt relations with the administration, but the administration is wrong to say so. The notion that the American taxpayer, and we are going to balance the budget, and we are going to be making cuts in education and environment and housing and health care and very important domestic programs so that we can spend billions of dollars to build an antimissile system in Japan to protect American troops that are in Japan to help Japan, and the Japanese tell us they cannot afford to do it because they do not have enough money; they have got budget problems. We have got to put an end to the one-sidedness and subsidy of the Japanese nation.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I know some have wondered why the pace of the House has been so slow this year. Here we are in March and we have not done any serious legislating, and I guess people who have been worried about that can now take heart. We are indeed legislating. We are in a congratulatory legislative mode. This week we will be congratulating Guatemala, Nicaragua, Warren Christopher, and Moses. What we do I think is get 3 out of 4 right, because as the gentleman from California who preceded me noted, what we have here is an effort to enlist religion into a political battle. No one thinks that this resolution will have any influence on the outcome of a court case. Indeed, we would hope it would not. There is going to be a judicial proceeding. How often does Congress take sides by resolution in a pending court case? The answer, fortunately, is not very often. It does it apparently when we have people in control of the House of Representatives who are lacking a legislative agenda, who are unhappy about a vacuum, and therefore put this into it, as has been noted by my colleague from California, without any hearing, without any chance to amend it. For instance, some people might want to vote for this, for all but section 2. Some people might, feeling the need, want to talk about what a wonderful thing the Ten Commandments is, or are, I am not sure of the grammar, but why do we have to vote without a chance to amend on section 2? Section 2 is relevant. The notion that this is freedom of religion seems to me wholly without any intellectual respectability. We are talking here about a sitting judge presiding in a courtroom into which people are brought, one assumes sometimes against their will. His freedom of religion as a citizen is not at issue here. His freedom of religion in his home and any private premises he maintains to put whatever he wants up is untrammeled. His freedom to speak as he wishes as a citizen is untrammeled. The question is, Do you bring people into a courtroom who have to be there and say to them officially, we feature this religious statement, because it is there as a religious statement. Indeed, in defending this religious statement by the judge some of the people on the other side would trivialize it. He is not putting the Ten Commandments up there as an interesting historical factor. He, I believe, himself has acknowledged it is up there as an expression of the importance of religion. It is not just religion in general, which in itself I believe would be unconstitutional, but it refers to specific religions, Judaism and Christianity, which support the Ten Commandments. And it is not simply the principles of, that would not be objectionable, it is that specific religious expression. It is simply inappropriate constitutionally in this country to tell people that the price of justice in Alabama or anywhere else is to be acknowledging the superiority of 2 religions over others. People have said, well, you know, the separation of church and state was to protect religion, not government. That is right, and what you do not understand is how you undermine religion. What you are saying is that the Ten Commandments are not in themselves strong enough to command respect. Religion cannot propagate them sufficiently. We have to take a sitting judge, with all of the powers of a sitting judge and all of the authority vested in that judge and allow that judge to be the medium of educating people about the Ten Commandments while he is doing his judicial duty. That is a denigration of religion. That is an assumption that religion cannot make it on its own, and it is an inappropriate assumption and it violates the constitutional right of people to say I do not believe in the Ten Commandments or I believe in 8 commandments or 13 commandments. We are clearly here for political purposes seeking the capturing of the Ten Commandments, not to inculcate respect for them but to deal with a political problem.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, last week I joined several of my colleagues in celebrating the 50th anniversary of a very important organization in the fight for a fairer America, Americans for Democratic Action. As examples of the vital role ADA has played and continues to play, I ask that two very thoughtful articles be printed here. One is by Jack Sheinkman, former head of the Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers Union, who is now the president of ADA and a great fighter for social justice in our country. The other is an interview by Kenneth Adelman with one of the most important non-Members of Congress in history from the standpoint of people who have affected the course of this institution. Evelyn Dubrow, who recently retired as vice president and legislative director of UNITE, the successor union to the Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers and the International Ladies Garment Workers has an unparalleled record of accomplishment in fighting for the rights of working people. I believe that these two articles make an important contribution to our debate on public policy. [From the Washingtonian, Jan. 1997] Made in the USA (Interview by Ken Adelman) The new session of Congress will be the first since the Eisenhower administration without Evelyn Dubrow treading the halls of Capitol Hill on behalf of garment and textile workers. The International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union sent her here in 1956, when the minimum wage was a dollar, and she's lobbied for everything from protection against imports to civil-rights legislation. Soon, she'll be stepping down as legislative director of the union, now called UNITE (Union of Needletrades, Industrial, and Textile Employees), but she'll stay on as special assistant to the president. Liberal politics came naturally to Dubrow. Her parents were socialist immigrants from Belarus who raised four daughters and a son. Her father was a union man. Her sister Mary picketed the White House as an early suffragette. Sent to prison, she went on a hunger strike. Dubrow grew up in New Jersey and studied journalism at New York University. After her graduation in the late 1930s, she pursued journalism and then union work, with a brief stint in Washington in 1947 to help organize the liberal Americans for Democratic Action and campaign for Harry Truman. She joined ILGWU in 1956 and was sent to Washington the same year. She's been here ever since, living on Capitol Hill to be near her work. Among her many awards in the Lifetime Achievement Award from Citizen Action. Ladies Home Journal has named her one of the 75 most important women in America, and The Washingtonian has named her one of the region's most powerful women. Dubrow is single but has loads of nieces, nephews, great- nieces, great-nephews, and now great-greats, whom she considers her children. In her free time, she plays poker with a group of longtime friends. She also plays plenty of gin rummy, reads the classics--especially Dickens and Trollope--and used to adore going to baseball games. In her office in the AFL-CIO building, one block from the White House, we discussed what she's learned. Why is ``lobbyist'' such a dirty word? I don't consider it a dirty word at all. American citizens are constitutionally entitled to petition the government through their representatives for any purpose. The term ``lobbyist'' arose when members of Congress didn't have offices. So everyone seeing them had to meet in the House or Senate lobby. Now as government grew, organizations found they had a bigger stake in what happens in Washington. So they hired people like me to represent their members. That's perfectly legitimate. But lobbyists tend to work for, or even become, fat cats. Well, I'm not. And I don't. I work for more than 350,000 union members and 250,000 retirees. They're far from fat cats. They're hard-working citizens who can't trot up to Capitol Hill and meet their representative directly. However, they can and do write letters and call. How has Congress changed in your time? Members are much younger. Some, sadly, don't know much about the institution and haven't learned much. Many of these young Republicans distress me. After the 1994 election, I even broke my own cardinal rule of going to visit each new member. I was so upset at their ignorance and small- mindedness about anyone in this country not like them. They have less knowledge of the institution, of how to legislate or understand their constituency. They are narrow- minded on guns and the right to choose, affirmative action-- oh, you name it! Has the caliber of members declined? Yes, it has. Some of these guys obviously decided to run for Congress because they were bored with what they had been doing. Others run because they hate things. That's what bothers me most--the atmosphere of hate that's grown here. I was used to Republicans and Democrats opposing each other on issues but with some on each side voting for the other position. That happens less nowadays. And, no matter what, members were friendly. They'd talk to each other. They'd kid one another. There was an overall feeling of being in this together. They'd disagree on issues but never be nasty about it. Members need that civility. Every issue is different. An opponent one day will be your supporter the next. But there's been a big decline in civility--above all, a decline in respect for the government of the United States of America. That, to me, is saddest. How do you expect the new Congress to differ from the 104th? I suspect that it won't be as mean-spirited as it was in the last two years. I think the Republicans as well as the Democrats realize it's going to be important to produce legislation that will be helpful to the people of this country. The Republican leadership realized that their attempt to dictate what the legislative program would be in the 104th Congress didn't work. I assume, along with everyone else, that there will be more cooperation. However, I see some evidence that members in the leadership of the Republican party still are determined to attack the Democratic leadership. I also think they are likely to try to attack the labor movement through legislation that would be detrimental not only to union members but to American workers generally--such as campaign reform to prevent the unions from raising money from their members, or compensatory-time legislation that would deprive workers of the chance to earn overtime pay. What works best to persuade members of Congress? Always be honest. Never play games. Never pretend you know everything about a bill or issue. You don't. Use constituents, since they're always the best lobbyists. We succeed most when our union members contact their own representatives directly. Folks at the grassroots, if they ever realized it and wanted to, could run this country. People really do have power. The smart congressmen or senators assign a top staff member full-time to take constituent calls and read mail. Then the member can respond to constituents. Many times over the years I've asked our folks to send me any correspondence from Congress. When doing so, many attach a note saying, ``Please return this. I'd like to keep it since it comes from my member of Congress.'' That means a lot to them. What should a lobbyist avoid? Three things, which I call ``my BAT.'' One, don't Beg for votes. Second, don't Assume you know everything. And third, don't Threaten anyone by saying you'll work to defeat the guy or gal or anything like that. Always remember why you're there. As a lobbyist, you're there to get votes. This means you approach anyone who has a vote, regardless of whether you're likely to succeed or not. I rarely go into an office just to be there. I'm in to talk about an important issue. I like to win because I'm convincing on the merits. But I know that sometimes a member will vote as a personal favor to me. I don't kid myself about that. Many of these members I've known for a very long time. They know by now that I won't ask them to support something horrendous. That isn't my way. I'm very conscious of time, which is their most precious commodity. Members are terribly busy so it's best to have the staff in there too. A good staffer knows the issue as well, if not better. They'll often ask me to send background or briefing materials. A major part of my job is providing information they can use in the committee or even in floor debate. When a new session begins, I go in to see new members and their staffs. I try to introduce myself to everyone in the office. Sometimes I'm successful in that, sometimes not. But at least I've made the effort. So you really like Congress. Oh, yes. This negativism towards the institution bothers me. I think Congress is the greatest institution in the whole wide world. I'm corny enough still to be thrilled each time I see the Capitol--day or night. I think it holds the fate of America in its hands. I do distinguish between the institution and the people in it. Nonetheless, I have great respect for members. Some who've disagreed with me are still people of great stature. A good number are first-rate historians or scholars. Tell us the best three since you came here in 1956. That's too hard. Go on. Try. Okay. The guy who did most for the people of this country was Tip O'Neill. He understood his job as member and then as Speaker, and he knew his people very well. Lyndon Johnson used his position as majority leader, vice president, and then president to pass many laws that were good for ordinary Americans. He was a consummate politician but still had faith in the people. Third was my great friend Richard Bolling, who was a protege of Sam Rayburn's but a great liberal. I worked with Bolling at Americans for Democratic Action and then here. He was a real student of government, especially of Congress. Any Republicans you respected? Oh, sure, Senator Charles Mathias of Maryland was a real statesman. John Sherman Cooper was a great student of the issues. So whenever he spoke, he gained respect on both sides of the aisle. Third, strangely enough, was Barry Goldwater. He was honest. He'd always give you a direct answer. When he was on your side, he'd fight all the way. How good a Speaker is Newt Gingrich? Good in that he sounds like he knows what he's talking about. He has a fine ability, as a former teacher, to express himself with great panache. In fact, he's rare--a Speaker of the House who's actually a good speaker. Now, what he says is something else again. Why don't you like Newt? I don't like him he's backed more proposed laws that would harm Americans than anyone I've seen here. His Contract With America, his opposition to family and medical leave, to healthcare reform, to Social Security, and to the minimum-wage increase were unconscionable. All these laws are good for Americans, especially for the poor. What most bothers me in his Republican Congress is how they make it seem a crime for anyone to be poor. Like the poor want to be poor. Some of those folks on the Hill can't get it through their thick heads that, as representatives in a democracy, they should care about the people who most need their help. As a staunch Democrat and liberal, you must be disappointed in Clinton. No, I'm not. I always knew he as an economic conservative and a social liberal. Clinton cares about people and about education. He understands our need for good government programs. But when it comes to economics, he's long been conservative. Remember, he came out of the Democratic Leadership Council. I know those guys over there. I've even worked with them. But I don't kid myself. They're not my brand of liberal. So Clinton hasn't disappointed you? He has in missing our passion for fair-trade laws. We've lost hundreds of thousands of jobs because we now must compete with countries that bring their products into America very cheaply. NAFTA still burns. It sure does. I tell my people that when we elected Clinton, we didn't elect somebody from the labor movement. Well, there's never been a president we haven't been somewhat disappointed in. How great a president is he? He's been a good president so far. Maybe he can approach greatness. Who were the best three presidents you've known? Harry Truman was number one. He did more for the people than anyone. Truman understood better what America's all about. Though he came from the Pendergast mob, he was the most honest man I ever knew. Then John Kennedy, who exuded concern and a complete grasp of what a president had to be. Kennedy didn't have time to do much, but he left a legacy of turning the US into a young and wonderful country. There were so many things we all had to do back then. And Kennedy had a sense of humor, which you need when you're president--or anything else for that matter. Third was my great friend Lyndon Johnson. He passed the first civil-rights law and education measures. Johnson had deep respect for the labor movement and liked people of all backgrounds. He used his power to develop programs. Who was the worst president? Richard Nixon, without question. He came to the Congress after making Jerry Voorhis, really a very great member, seem like a Communist. Jerry Voorhis actually had an impressive record of fighting Communism from his socialist base. Nixon did the same thing to Helen Gahagan Douglas when he ran against her for Senate. And what Richard Nixon later did to the institution of the presidency was dreadful. What was your saddest day? The day Kennedy was assassinated. I had a funny feeling right before that day. Adlai Stevenson had gone to Texas and told Kennedy, ``Don't go. The atmosphere down there isn't good.'' So I woke that morning with a heavy heart. I was attending a conference, but all day long I thought about Kennedy. So when the news came. . . . Gone was a leader in whom we all had great faith and hope, cut down before he had a chance to make his mark. I had sad days whenever people tried to enact right-to-work laws, the whole business of 14B in the Taft-Hartley Act. They were trying to deny people their inherent right to belong to unions, a right given them in the National Labor Relations Act. The right to join together and do things for the common benefit is what democracy's all about. I've been saddened by our inability to get equitable trade laws passed. I work for a low-wage industry with probably more immigrants and people of diverse backgrounds. They're just trying to make their daily lives a bit better. Our fight isn't against the workers of other countries. We're against the sweatshops abroad, as we are here. What episodes from your career will you best remember? The day Speaker Tip O'Neill instructed the House doorman to give me a chair at the entrance to the House floor because I deserved it. That was a great moment in my life. I remember fondly being up in Albany making a speech when I got a call at the airport from the White House. Juanita Roberts, President Johnson's secretary, said he was going to sign the education bill and would like me there, along with the president of my union. So I called our union president, Louis Stylberg, and we arranged to meet in Washington. We were there along with members of committees that had pushed the legislation through. After signing the bill, LBJ walked off the platform, pulled me up from my seat, and said, ``This little lady is responsible for this bill.'' Now I don't think that was entirely true, but it sure was nice to hear. Another happened right after I came down to Washington in 1956 to lobby an amendment to the Landrum-Griffin Act. The act, part of the whole Taft-Hartley approach to unions, among other areas outlawed the use of the secondary boycott. It should not have applied to the garment industry, where there is a direct relationship between the jobber (the main employer) and the contractor who manufactures the garment product. My job was to get the amendment to permit our union to be an exception to that section of the act. John F. Kennedy, then a senator, agreed to introduce it in the Senate. One of his top staffers told me, ``Ev, you're asking him to put his political head on the block.'' I said, ``Oh, come on. What are you saying? Massachusetts has plenty of garment workers affected by this. It won't hurt Kennedy one bit.'' And it didn't. Barry Goldwater had been calling my boss, David Dubinsky, head of our union, who was a very great man. I told Dubinsky to let me see what Goldwater wanted. So I saw him and asked. He said, ``Look, Ev, my family knows the rag business. My sister and I spent a year in the garment district. I understand the problems there.'' So I called Dubinsky and told him to talk with Goldwater. Later Dubinsky told me Goldwater said to him, ``Hey, that's a smart little girl lawyer you've got down here.'' I said, ``Did you tell Goldwater I wasn't a lawyer?'' Dubinsky laughed and said, ``No. If he thinks you're a lawyer, that's okay with me.'' That began a wonderful relationship. Whenever I'd see Barry Goldwater after that, he'd ask me: ``Well, Ev, what are you on today?'' I'd tell him, and most often he'd say, ``Sorry, I can't vote with you on that one.'' We became very good friends. What have you learned about how Washington works? Washington's a special little enclave in the grand United States. Too many Washingtonians think they're running the country when they're not. The government still reacts more than it acts. Here, more than elsewhere, personalities count. Personal relationships matter most. Technologies like e-mail and faxes and the Internet bring the rest of the country much closer to Washington, which is beneficial. Many members now must think of those they hadn't paid much attention to before. In Washington you should never write off anybody. You'll be surprised where tomorrow's allies come from. I've learned there's a lot of the patina of Washington social life; it's often who you know--not what you know--that goes a long way. Invitations from certain people mean a whole lot. I've learned I don't know as much as I thought I knew. Living here's a very humbling experience. Money plays too large a role here. I resent how much it costs to run for office nowadays. So many members or candidates must go out and beg to be elected. That's why I've always supported public financing of campaigns. I've never been comfortable with forming PACs. Our strength should be in the people we represent and not the money we hand out. The first year after a representative gets elected is spent trying to make laws. The second year is spent raising money to be reelected. This means their productive time is cut in half. Tell us three big lessons of life. One is not to think that friends have to agree with you. A broad swath is great. Some of my friends think I'm loony and disagree all the time. Get to know what this country's all about. I've studied the American Indians, as they fascinate me. I began working with the Congress of American Indians in the 1950s, teaching some of them how to organize their members, how to register, and how to vote. The Navajos have power now because they learned these skills early on. Get to know our senior citizens. They're wonderful. They vote. They're interested. They'll call. They express themselves honestly. I've learned that no one's as important as he or she thinks. It's hard to accept that you'll have to get out of the picture and let somebody else take over some day. I'm lucky to have lived so long and so well. I try to enjoy every day. So many people touched my life. Other lessons of life? My greatest lesson is not to take life so very seriously. You can make a difference, but never think you're Joan of Arc. Great people came before you. Great people will come after you. If you have an opportunity to make any contribution, be grateful for that.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, because of the press of other business I was unable to join my colleague from California [Mr. Filner] in the Special Order he took out to celebrate the great achievements of Americans for Democratic Action. ADA has been for 50 years one of the most important organizations in America for the articulation of liberal principles. From its inception through today, it has been a source of thoughtful, well reasoned political activity on behalf of a fairer and more prosperous America. I am very proud to have been active in ADA myself for more than 30 years, and to have served as president of the organization. Indeed, I join many of my most cherished colleagues in having had that honor. ADA was founded to provide a platform for liberals committed to the principles of social justice and individual liberty. Throughout its history it has fought extremists of the far left and far right, and has consistently maintained a forceful commitment to the Governmental principles first articulated by Franklin Roosevelt in his New Deal. The challenges to American society now presented by the effect of technological change in globalization on the ability of working people to maintain a decent standard of living testify to the continued relevance of the viewpoint that ADA has upheld for so long. I continue to be proud of my affiliation with Americans for Democratic Action and I look forward to a continued advocacy of ADA and its members on behalf of a set of public policies that will improve the qualities of fairness and freedom in American life.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, he is speaking in favor of a 12-year limit.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Would it be in order for the Chair to explain the difference between amendment No. 1 and amendment No. 2?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, in the spirit of bipartisanship, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady], the Chairman of the subcommittee.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I have the right to close, and I only have one speaker remaining.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I was instructed by the second speaker who said the voice of the people is the voice of God. Well apparently God speaks with a different voice in Colorado, from Nebraska, from Nevada. Apparently we are not just amending the Constitution here, we are amending the Bible, and polytheism is now coming in. I mean if it is Vox Populi, Vox Dei, why do we have a different ``vox'' when you cross the river between Nebraska and Colorado? I must say so circumscribing it, and it is one thing to circumscribe the right of the people, but when you begin to circumscribe the jurisdiction of the Almighty, it seems to me there is an overreach. Now, I do not want to think we are using the time of the House very well, so I looked at the differences. I mean, why one amendment not the other? Why do we have to do them? Well, there are some very important differences here. One might think that it is unimportant that they are exactly the same substantively, they both have the same limits. But for instance in Arkansas it is section A, B and C, whereas in Colorado it is section 1, 2 and 3. Certainly the gentleman from Colorado would not want to betray the voice of God in Colorado by adopting the voice of God in Arkansas because apparently God says A, B, C in Arkansas and God says 1, 2, 3 in Colorado. Now, religious wars have been fought over less, so I understand the gentleman's scrupulosity of instruction. There are also some other differences. For instance, in Arkansas the voice of God says of the congressional term limits amendment, but in Colorado, in a major theological difference--maybe we will get a new religion out of this or at least a new synagogue in my tradition--it does not say of the congressional term limits; it says of this amendment. And certainly we would not want to confuse the people that God meant of the amendment in the one place and the congressional term limits in another. In another place he says four more than one additional term in Colorado, but he just says more than one additional term in Arkansas. Now understand Members are coming before us, and they are saying I invoke the most powerful doctrines around democracy and the voice of God to say that I cannot vote for A, B, C because I am committed to vote for 1, 2, 3. Never mind that 1, 2, 3 means exactly the same thing as A, B, C in most places. Mr. Chairman, I have not previously talked about trivialization. I do not think this trivializes the Constitution. I think the fundamental principle restricts the Constitution in a nontrivial way. But when Members come here and say I am honor bound to vote for 1, 2, 3, and I ask my colleagues to join me in rejecting A, B, C, I think we have reached a level that is inappropriate for the House to be spending a lot of time on. And to make my contribution towards diminishing that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I claim the 5 minutes in opposition, and I have only one speaker, Mr. Chairman, because God has not spoken to us so we only have one. So I will reserve my right to close.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I bring reassurance. As I said before, there was a therological difference in that the first amendment talked about A, B; no C, I correct myself; and this one is 1, 2, and 3. The people of the letters who fear that they had been abandoned by the Almighty for the doctrine of numbers can take heart, because the A, B, C variants have returned. So the difference is the first amendment was A and B; the second one was 2 and 3; and the third one was A, B and C. Of such triviality I suppose our careers are construct. Now, when we talk about careers, the gentleman from Idaho [Mr. Crapo] has made a variant of the striking historical point that the Founding Fathers were great supporters of term limits, even though they rejected the concept. The notion that the Founding Fathers forgot to put term limits in the Constitution is rather more unkind than I think they deserve. They not only rejected term limits; they were, many of them, career politicians. James Madison, whom the gentlewoman just cited, was one of the most distinguished career politicians in America, and I ask the gentlewoman to look up the career of James Madison, look up the career of James Monroe, look up the career of Benjamin Franklin, of Thomas Jefferson himself. Tammany Hall goes back, the Democratic Party goes back, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison go back to the leaders of Tammany. They were part of a political deal. They were people who were very political. It was through John Adams, one of the most distinguished of them, who wrote a famous passage in which he said, I have to be a career politician. I hope we will have so solved the problems. He said, I studied politics in war, and he saw depression so that his great, great grandchildren could deal with painting and the fine arts. But he was a career politician, he acknowledged that, and he said he had to be a career politician because these were difficult times. He thought allowing people of the first rank to abandon a career in politics was a luxury to be left to later times when the Nation was more strongly developed. Now, I think it is admirable to talk about the Founding Fathers, but it would be equally admirable to read what they said and read about them. Anyone who reads about Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, et cetera, and does not see in them career politicians is missing the point. George Washington I did not mention. George Washington was much more reluctant a public servant. George Washington can legitimately be cited as someone whose preference was not for public life, but Franklin and Madison and Jefferson, and then to go on, as others have said, Webster and Clay, John C. Calhoun, these were not people who spent most of their time in what someone referred to as the real world. I must say, until recently, I would reject the notion that there was something unreal about our world. But I will have to concede, when we are debating A, B versus 1, 2, 3 versus A, B, C, and invoking God's authority to tell us to pick one or the other, then I suppose an element of unreality has come in, but I do not think those who have rejected the unreality are entitled to cite it. I think that there is a rule of equity that ought to be abided by here. Let me close with this, Mr. Chairman. The notion that a continuation in public service is corrupting can only mean one thing, that you think the public constitutes a bad influence on politicians, because what differentiates a career-elected official from someone else? It is that the career public official has decided to dedicate himself or herself to constant scrutiny of the public. That career is dependent on a renewal of the approval of the public. What my colleagues must be saying is it is the only logical explanation when you denigrate people who make a career out of public service, the voters are on the whole a bad influence, and the way to improve things is in fact substantially diminished by amending the Constitution and changing what the Founding Fathers thought, substantially diminishing the extent to which the public can be such a bad influence. I do not think that is a good idea, and I hope, once again, that all of these amendments are defeated in all of their various numerological, graphological, and other permutations.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, if the criterion is who is being ineffective in advancing term limits, the gentleman's side wins.

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, my friend from Florida, who has been very responsible here, has one error in his reasoning. He keeps averring to the fact that the public in their referenda rejected this. But the public in their referenda have generally voted for 6 years so the gentleman, if he is going to invoke the moral influence of the referenda, then he cannot argue for his 12-year position. It is true, referenda have said, do not make it retroactive, but they have also said overwhelmingly 6 years. What is the referendum, something you can turn on and off like a faucet?

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

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the gentleman is correct, and I think in the future just refer to him as the senior Senator from the Earth and that would probably make it clear to people to whom the gentleman is referring. Mr. Chairman, there are a number of lesser arguments that can be made on this which counter the arguments in favor. One argument has been, well, it is too hard to defeat incumbents. We know of course that that is simply no longer factually true. There was a period in our politics when incumbents seemed to be hard to defeat. I was always puzzled by that argument, still am. We must be the only profession in the world in which an indication that your employers are very satisfied with your work is taken as a sign that something is terribly wrong. If anyone in any other business maintains a good relationship with those who decide whether or not to continue to use the services, that is considered a good thing. A doctor, a lawyer, a grocery store manager, a shoe repair person, a teacher, anyone whose employers say, ``Great job, keep at it,'' anyone to whom people keep returning for their custom is generally considered to be very good at their job. But in our case being approved of on a regular basis by those to whom we owe primary allegiance has been considered by some to be a bad sign. But even by that, it seems to me a wholly flawed measure. The arguments for this amendment have decreased. People know how to throw out of office those who they do not feel are serving them well. Members here have been defeated, Members have been turned out. In fact, let us be very clear. The underlying amendment here, the 12- year amendment, we will get back to this when we get the amendment from the dean of the House, the gentleman from Michigan, [Mr. Dingell]. The unknown amendment which would add 14 years to what everybody now here serves would apply to less than 20 percent of the House. In fact, 12 years is already an upper limit for many, many Members. We also heard the deficit argument. And the people said, well, the deficit was caused by all these people trying to get reelected. I will return to that argument because that is the core, it seems to me, of the flaw, namely that the people are a bad influence in this place and if we can somehow diminish their influence, we would be better off. But even that argument is flawed. There was a period in American history during the 1980's when conservatives, liberals, Republicans, and Democrats resolved their differences by agreeing to each other's deficit-enhancing proposals. So we wound up with more domestic spending, more military spending, with tax cuts, and the result was a ballooning of the deficit in which all parties were somehow complicit. But we have now seen a very drastic public shift. People are now driven to reduce that deficit by the very public influence that the proponents of this amendment want to kick out. It is the worst example of cultural lag seen in a long time because it builds on a temporary period in American history. And it was, if we look at this, and I am sure historians will conclude this, the term-limit movement was a specific response to people frustrated not with the system of American government but with the results that were being produced by that system at a particular period in history, and that is no longer there. But even if I did not agree on those two points, even if I did not agree that the amendment has been weakened on those two points, I would be fundamentally opposed to this amendment because, as the gentleman from Illinois pointed out, this essentially seeks to alter democracy, to reduce the choices of the voters. It is at bottom a view, as the gentleman from Illinois has consistently and courageously articulated, it is at bottom a view that says we cannot trust the voters. The voters are, according to the proponents of this amendment, too easily seduced. The voters must be put in some kind of fetters. Because we leave to the voters of America, unconstrained, the choice every 2 years of who should represent them in the House of Representatives and every 6 years who should represent them in the Senate, two fairly profound choices, and this amendment says leave to the unconstrained choice of the American people who they wish to have represent them every 2 years and every 6 years and the results will be bad. What else can that be but a negative judgment on the competence of the voters? What else is it but a notion that the voters are too easily bamboozled? We would be in a terrible situation if that were the case. We have a sad problem in parts of the world. Algeria was an example. What do we do when we bring democracy to a voting public and it votes to end democracy? That is a fundamental philosophical problem for those of us who believe profoundly in democracy as a guarantor of the basic rights of human beings. We do not believe in democracy because it is fun to sit up on election night. We believe, given the inherent nature of human beings, when we give one set of human beings consistently power over another, we better give those over whom the power is offered some self-defense weapons, because people have a tendency to abuse power and wield it to their own interest. The ability to vote for or against them on a periodic basis is that fundamental guarantor, the nearest we can come, in this imperfect world, to fairness on the part of the voters. So we get this amendment, which says that does not work, and let us restrict what the public can do. Let us tell the public that there is one set of choices they can make. And, by the way, people have said, well, what about the Presidency? First, I do think we can make a somewhat stronger argument for limiting an executive than a legislator, but I oppose both. In 1985 our former colleague, Mr. Vander Jagt, of Michigan, introduced a constitutional amendment to repeal the limiting amendment on the President. He wanted to allow Ronald Reagan to run for a third term. I cosponsored that amendment, although I will confess that if my colleagues polled me, I probably would have come out leaning against a third term for Mr. Reagan, but I thought democracy meant people had a right to do something even if I was not going to approve of the outcome, and I have consistently supported a repeal of that. But there is even a stronger argument for doing this with a legislator. One might argue an executive accretes too much power. I do not agree that that is a reason to overcome democracy, but it is an argument that cannot be made. There has not been a single legislator in the history of this country who can be deemed to have accumulated the power in foreign policy, in committing troops to war, in appointing Federal judges that any President has if he is there for a year. There is a great disproportion. Indeed, that is another reason to be against this amendment. One is the constraint on democracy. The other is this amendment would do more to alter the balance in favor of the executive and against the legislature than any other single action we could take, with the possible exception of the legislative veto. And it is interesting, I read in The Hill this morning that some of the Republicans who were all for the legislative veto are now worried about how it might enhance Bill Clinton's power too much and are thinking of ways to restrict the use of it. That is an entirely reasonable fear. But this one would enhance the executive even more. No one is proposing, nor would anyone, I think, propose term limits for the bureaucracy. We certainly do not want to say that nuclear engineers, medical research supervisors, prosecutors, other very important specialists in this Government, people who are expert in fission, people who are expert in foreign policy, no one is proposing that every 12 years they have to leave. I do not use the term ``bureaucracy'' in a negative sense. Some of my close relatives are bureaucrats. I have an enormous respect for those who work for this Federal Government because, in many cases, particularly in these areas of expertise, they are very, very talented people working for far less compensation than they would get in the private sector. We are lucky that we have lawyers willing to work as prosecutors for a small percentage of what they would get if they were out there in the private sector. We are lucky there are dedicated scientists working purely to try to find ways to combat illnesses when they could make more in the private sector. But one of the jobs that we have, as we all know, is to intervene on behalf of our constituents, whether they be individuals or municipalities or businesses or labor unions. We intervene on behalf of individuals when they have been unfairly treated. And there are no perfect institutions in this world. Bureaucrats, as much as I admire them, will from time to time treat people unfairly. That happens to everybody. My ability to intervene on behalf of my constituents, my staff and I, is enhanced by the experience we have. I will tell my colleagues that now I am a better advocate for those in my constituency who may have been treated unfairly than I was in my first and second and third term. It may level off after a while, but if we adopt a 12-year term limit, and this is, of course, a fortiori if we do a 4-year or a 6-year term limit, we then have to figure most people will not serve up to the limit. People will begin to see, as the gentleman from Illinois pointed out, they will begin to see the term limit approaching and they will start taking alternative jobs. No one will wait until the minute they have to go out the door to do alternative planning. So they will start leaving. They will live for the private sector and other public jobs. The median service in this place will go down very substantially. What that will mean will be that the institutional memory in this city will be almost exclusively an executive branch institutional memory. We will have experienced, dedicated executive branch appointees and executive branch personnel dealing with relatively inexperienced legislators and staff. I am not one who thinks this will help the legislative staff. Legislative staffs tend to go with the Members, particularly the personal staff, those who do a lot of the constituency intervention work. We will greatly enhance the power of the executive, even a term- limited President. Because it is not the President's policies we are often dealing with when we intervene on behalf of our constituents, it is the ongoing bureaucracy, and a bureaucracy that must be ongoing in our interest. Well-intentioned, the best bureaucracy in the world will make those mistakes. So two streams come together. First, this is an amendment that says the American experiment in giving the people unrestrained power to decide who should represent them every 2 years was a mistake. That was not, of course, the experiment, as the gentlewoman from Texas pointed out, of 1787. That did not become American practice until the 1920's. And in fact probably not even until the 1960's. It was not until after the passage of the Voting Rights Act and the other constitutional amendments dealing with other restrictions until we got rid of literacy tests and poll taxes of a discriminatory kind. But we have had now in America, I believe, as unconstrained a democracy as it is possible to have in a modern complex urban society. Can we not be proud of that? Can we not be proud of the fact that in America there are fewer formal restrictions on the ability of citizens to vote for their Representatives than I believe in any other society with which I am familiar. Have the results really been that bad? I do not think so. I think America still is a place of great envy in the world. We certainly still are from the immigration standpoint, from the problem that everybody wants to come here. Our economy, the state of our liberty, all of us can find flaws, but all of us I think would acknowledge that they are in pretty good shape. And the mechanism for improving on them must be self-correction. I do not want to add further. Add term limits to the line-item veto and the first President to serve during that era of term limits with a line- item veto, I guarantee you will be the most powerful President in the history of the United States, because the legislature will have put one more shackle on itself and ended a two centuries old tradition in America of expanding the freedom of the voters. We did it with direct election of Senators, with doing away with property rights, with empowering African-Americans, with letting women vote, with reducing the vote to 18. With the exception of the 22d amendment, which I think was obviously just fear of FDR coming back again, with that exception, every time we have amended the American Constitution regarding our system, we have expanded democracy. This would be the most significant reactionary act, as the gentleman from Illinois correctly labeled it. Let us not tell the American people that we have decided after 200 plus years of successful and expanding democracy that the fundamental premise that we can trust the voters, unconstrained, to make the best decisions in their own interests was a mistake, and passing an amendment that so severely limits them, the most severe limitation on the right of the voters to have been put forward in the history of this country. Do not undo the very proud democratic history of this country. Let us continue to be a beacon to the world of what representative government, electoral freedom, unconstrained, can produce. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for indulging me in the time.

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding me this time and I am honored to follow the chairman, who appropriately discussed this issue in its philosophical context because we are talking here about as fundamental a question as can be addressed in the body of elected officials.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking minority member. I want to say at the outset that, while I am against term limits, given the complexity of the situation I think the Committee on Rules did a very fair job in structuring this rule. Any opposition that was expressed to the rule on our side is philosophical opposition to term limits. But we have, I believe, no complaint about the rule. The gentleman from New York accommodated the reasonable issues that were raised in the Committee on the Judiciary. He accommodated both majority and minority Members. The only thing I would express is the hope that this rule will be the model for the next 2 years because it is an inclusive and fairly structured rule, and I appreciate it. I would just note that the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] quite honestly, as he always does, indicated that part of the motivation; indeed I think the bulk of the motivation for term limits, is a sense that the voters can be a bad influence on this place. I mean, as the gentleman from New York said, philosophically he is elected to impose limits on democracy. He is driven to what he said, and this is a very honest and, I think, accurate statement, by the sense that during the 1980's, when there were differences, for instance, between conservatives who wanted to increase military spending and cut taxes and liberals who wanted to increase domestic spending, we compromised by doing all of the above with consequent negative effects on the deficit. The easiest way for us to resolve our difficulties was for each to accommodate the other with the consequent exposure of the deficit. My colleague correctly points out that the public influence there was despite polls that said people did not like the deficit, in fact to urge Members to vote for things which had the effect of raising the deficit. The popular short-term vote was often a deficit-enhancing vote. But I would point out that today everybody understands that is not true. The public may not instantly get the point of the contradiction and from what they are saying. But today public opinion is an overwhelming force for bringing that deficit down. I think that vindicates the fundamental democratic principle that one does trust the voters ultimately to express themselves accurately, and I think the voters are now doing that. That is, they helped resolve this contradiction. I think the voters have said to us: Balancing the budget is more important than a lot of other issues. That was not what they were saying in the 1980's. So I have to say that I understand the motivation, but it ought to be made clear. People who offer term limits have at bottom a desire to limit popular influence on the deliberations of this body. The more Members who are ineligible to vote for reelection, the less public opinion will be affected. By the way, one amendment which was offered in committee; we did not reoffer it here, but it was overwhelmingly rejected by the advocates of term limits, and it makes a point. One Member proposed that the term limit be a consecutive term limit but not a lifetime ban--at committee, one Member offered an amendment to say that this would not be a lifetime ban. It would simply mean that one could not serve a consecutive period more than 12 years, but one could leave and come back. Now that was meant to handle the argument that the problem here is seniority and that one way to break the seniority system was with that term limit. But, overwhelmingly, Republican Members said, ``No, that is not acceptable. You cannot make an exception to the principle. The principle is 12 years and you must leave the House of Representatives.'' In other words: ``We don't want you thinking about what the voters might do in your case 2 and 4 and 6 and 8 years from now,'' and I think that confirms that this is fundamentally meant to be a limitation on democratic influence. It is a limitation on the extent to which people will be able to influence how their Members vote. I do not think Members ought to be slavishly following the latest poll. I think Members ought to be willing in many cases to say I know public opinion disagrees with this particular vote, but I believe, given the values that I was sent here to express, that is a mistake; and I think the public will ultimately accept this judgment if I make the case. But term limits is a way to say, look, after a certain period the voters will not pay much attention. People say term limits is to increase competitiveness. I believe it would have the opposite effect. Members who are interested, citizens interested in running for Congress in the fifth and sixth term of a Member of Congress could say, ``But why challenge an incumbent? Why not wait until the seat comes open?'' So I think this is a philosophically flawed proposal which is really an expression of frustration. When did term limits come up? It came up after the explosion of the deficit in the 1980's when people felt the deficit would go up and up and up and Members could never be defeated. We now have a situation where the deficit has been coming down, and we have an overwhelming commitment to get it to zero by the year 2002, that Members here feel is a public expression of will. We also have a significant turnover. So I hope that we will, when this comes before us, vindicate democracy and vote down all of these versions of term limits.

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