Barney Frank

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I do not mean to accuse the gentleman of inconsistency in not leaving, because he has articulated correctly that view of it, that we should not unilaterally disarm. But I would ask him this: He and I came here together 17 years ago. He points to the problems of careerism and undue vulnerability to special interests if we are here too long. Has the gentleman himself succumbed to those problems? If not, what in his experience has allowed him to overcome them? Because if these things hit us after we have been here for 12 years, have they hit the gentleman? If not, can the gentleman tell the rest of us how to avoid those problems?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I do not see anything that needs to be changed in that statement.

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I will get an extra minute, if I can.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I ask the gentleman from Massachusetts to yield 1 minute to me.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, first I was interested to hear my friend say that he was going to vote on this contrary to his philosophy. That is a precedent in his case I would urge him to follow more often. I think that would have a good effect on the body. But beyond that he made an interesting point. His view is that the President, as he sees it now, is less committed to budget balancing than Members of Congress. I differ with him factually, but let me make a point. The President is term limited and we are not. So the gentleman's point is that the term limited President is not as committed to balancing the budget as the nonterm limited Congress, and I do not think that is a great argument from his standpoint for term limits.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Edwards].

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Hastings].

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Klink].

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert]. (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to say to my colleague from Florida that I join in saying we should follow the example of George Washington, who did not advocate term limits for Members of Congress. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from Michigan [Ms. Kilpatrick], for our concluding remarks.

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I want to make sure I understood. So if rollcalls are requested on every one of these, and since the purpose of having them in there is so Members can be recorded, one assumes that there will be rollcalls, it is the Chair's intention to call the first set of rollcalls after the first three amendments?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I thank the Chairman.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I would claim the time in opposition.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this is a new experience for us. I have seen many rules in the 17 years I have, I blush to admit, served in this body, sinking no doubt deeper into the morass of special interestism with each passing year, but I have never before seen a rule where the governing principle was alphabetical order. We are being presented with amendments today, as one of the members of our staff said, it is the rollcall of the States. The order, if Members will look at it, you are getting it in alphabetical order. When the majority has to resort to alphabetical order to bring some structure to the chaos they have brought to the floor, I think that is an indication of some intellectual weakness. I also have a proposal, I am tempted but probably prohibited by the germaneness rule to offer a recommittal motion, which says that there will be a test for the Members on the seven amendments issued by each State to see what the differences are. I have to say that asking people what are the real differences among the seven separate amendments is of such arcane proportions that it would probably be ruled inappropriate to put on the Scholastic Aptitude Test as too trivial. We are going to be taking the time of the House to vote on seven variants. People talk about term limits as an antidote to incumbent protection. Here we have term limits as a form of incumbent protection. Every State's Members get to vote on their State's term limits so they make them feel better and they do not get the scarlet letter. I think this is a problem which indicates the fundamental weakness at the core of this. Where you have a principle that rises to the level of constitutional relevance, you do not have to do it in alphabetical order. You do not have to bend over backwards so people will know the difference between you and Hester Prynne. You do not have to introduce into the House a degree of parliamentary flip-flops and hair splitting that is unbecoming. But there is also a fundamental intellectual problem here for the supporters of term limits. Some are going to vote for 6 and not 12, some are going to vote for 12 and not 8, some are going to vote for 8 and not 6. I do have a parenthetical question, Mr. Chairman: Whatever happened to 10? We have 6 and we have 8 and we have 12. Apparently there is some numerological fettish on the majority side which makes 10 terra infirma because we get 6 and we get 8 and we get 12. I cannot find any logical principle to overlook 10. But there is this dilemma. Members on the majority side who favor this and some on the minority side who favor it have invoked the referendum. What they have said is you must be for this because there is a referendum. But we have all these different referenda and if you live by the referendum, you die by the referendum. If in fact we are as a body to be governed by the referendum, then this fails, because there is no 38-State mandate. That is your problem. There is also one other problem with the referendum that I want to address now, although I will have a chance to address it when variant plus-and-minus and up-and-down and when we get into the B's and the C's and the D's and the S's. The problem we have is this. What about the argument that while it is a democratic right to elect your Representatives, in some States the people have voted to do away with a democratic right? I think the answer is very clear. My right as a citizen to go to the polls every 2, 4, and 6 years and have my vote counted is my right and it is not at the service of some majority that is willing to do less. Voters, and we have the paradox, as I said we had it in Algeria, we have had it elsewhere, where majorities may be prepared to vote away their rights. The majority has no right to vote to diminish the democratic ballot right of any individual. My right as a citizen and, more importantly, the people in my district and elsewhere who as citizens want the unrestricted freedom to vote for whoever they think is best every 2 years, no matter what, ought not to be constrained because the majority do not want to exercise that right. If you in the majority do not want to exercise your right, do not exercise it. But it is not democratic theory to empower a majority to vote to diminish the votes of a minority. The right of the people every 2 years for the House, every 6 years for the Senate, to go to the polls and pick the individual that they wish to see elected ought to be unconstrained. I do have to say in closing, Mr. Chairman, that I am struck, and I appreciated my friend from Florida, who as I said is a man of remarkable consistency and has been for a 12-year term limit in each of the 17 years he has served here. Of course, he is not up to the gentleman from South Carolina in the other body who for 50 some odd years has been for a 12-year term limit, I gather, or maybe he is for a 6-year term limit. Maybe he is showing his fealty to the principle nine times over, because the Senator from South Carolina is now in his ninth 6-year term limit. I think we ought to, Mr. Chairman, vote all these down so the right of the voters to untrammeled democracy remains unchallenged.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, when I came to Congress in the early 1980's, our late colleague Stewart McKinney of Connecticut was the sponsor of a bill to allow doctors to prescribe marijuana for medical purposes when they found this to be in the interest of their patients. When Mr. McKinney tragically died in 1987, depriving this Congress of one of its most valuable Members, the bill lapsed. A few years ago, at the urging of some people interested in this subject, I reintroduced the bill, essentially the legislation which Mr. McKinney had initiated. While no action was taken on that bill in the previous Congress, and while some of the prior cosponsors had in the interim changed their mind on the bill--for example, Mr. Gingrich of Georgia--I will be reintroducing the bill this year. In the interim, voters in the States of Arizona and California have given their endorsement by solid majorities to this principle. I hope we will in this Congress seriously debate this issue. I have been disappointed by the failure of the Clinton administration to be more forthcoming, but I have been encouraged by the increasing interest in debating this subject seriously among many members in the medical profession. Recently, one of the leading outlets for informed opinion about medicine, the New England Journal of Medicine, carried an editorial by Dr. Jerome P. Kassirer, editor of the Journal, on this subject. His title--Federal Foolishness and Marijuana--accurately sums up his point of view. Dr. Kassirer says in this editorial that he believes ``that a federal policy that prohibits physicians from alleviating suffering by prescribing marijuana for seriously ill patients is misguided, heavy handed and inhumane.'' I should note that it is now in direct conflict with the wishes of the people of Arizona and California as expressed in referenda. Indeed, I await the support for my bill that I assume will be forthcoming from my conservative colleagues who are great supporters of States rights, and who in particular believe that when the public has expressed its view in referenda, Federal officials should acknowledge the validity of that point of view. Mr. Speaker, in the hope that we may again be able to change your mind so that you go back to your position of the 1980's in support of this proposition, and in the interest of furthering debate on this matter, I ask that the thoughtful editorial by Dr. Kassirer be printed here. [From the New England Journal of Medicine Jan. 30, 1997] Federal Foolishness and Marijuana (By Jerome P. Kassirer, M.D.) The advanced stages of many illnesses and their treatments are often accompanied by intractable nausea, vomiting, or pain. Thousands of patients with cancer, AIDS, and other diseases report they have obtained striking relief from these devastating symptoms by smoking marijuana. (1) The alleviation of distress can be striking that some patients and their families have been willing to risk a jail term to obtain or grow the marijuana. Despite the desperation of these patients, within weeks after voters in Arizona and California approved propositions allowing physicians in their states to prescribe marijuana for medical indications, federal officials, including the President, the secretary of Health and Human Services, and the attorney general sprang into action. At a news conference, Secretary Donna E. Shalala gave an organ recital of the parts of the body that she asserted could be harmed by marijuana and warned of the evils of its spreading use. Attorney General Janet Reno announced that physicians in any state who prescribed the drug could lose the privilege of writing prescriptions, be excluded from Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement, and even be prosecuted for a federal crime. General Barry R. McCaffrey, director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, reiterated his agency's position that marijuana is a dangerous drug and implied that voters in Arizona and California had been duped into voting for these propositions. He indicated that it is always possible to study the effects of any drug, including marijuana, but that the use of marijuana by seriously ill patients would require, at the least, scientifically valid research. I believe that a federal policy that prohibits physicians from alleviating suffering by prescribing marijuana for seriously ill patients is misguided, heavy-handed, and inhumane. Marijuana may have long-term adverse effects and its use may presage serious addictions, but neither long-term side effects nor addiction is a relevant issue in such patients. It is also hypocritical to forbid physicians to prescribe marijuana while permitting them to use morphine and meperidine to relieve extreme dyspnea and pain. With both these drugs the difference between the dose that relieves symptoms and the dose that hastens death is very narrow; by contrast, there is no risk of death from smoking marijuana. To demand evidence of therapeutic efficacy is equally hypocritical. The noxious sensations that patients experience are extremely difficult to quantity in controlled experiments. What really counts for a therapy with this kind of safety margin is whether a seriously ill patient feels relief as a result of the intervention, not whether a controlled trail ``proves'' its efficacy. Paradoxically, dronabinol, a drug that contains one of the active ingredients in marijuana (tetra-hydrocannabinol), has been available by prescription for more than a decade. But it is difficult to titrate the therapeutic dose of this drug, and it is not widely prescribed. By contrast, smoking marijuana produces a rapid increase in the blood level of the active ingredients and is thus more likely to be therapeutic. Needless to say, new drugs such as those that inhibit the nausea associated with chemotherapy may well be more beneficial than smoking marijuana, but their comparative efficacy has never been studied. Whatever their reasons, federal officials are out of step with the public. Dozens of states have passed laws that ease restrictions on the prescribing of marijuana by physicians, and polls consistently show that the public favors the use of marijuana for such purposes. [1] Federal authorities should rescind their prohibition of the medicinal use of marijuana for seriously ill patients and allow physicians to decide which patients to treat. The government should change marijuana's status from that of a Schedule 1 drug (considered to be potentially addictive and with no current medical use) to that of a Schedule 2 drug (potentially addictive but with some accepted medical use) and regulate it accordingly. To ensure its proper distribution and use, the government could declare itself the only agency sanctioned to provide the marijuana. I believe that such a change in policy would have no adverse effects. The argument that it would be a signal to the young that ``marijuana is OK'' is, I believe, specious. This proposal is not new. In 1986, after years of legal wrangling, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) held extensive hearings on the transfer of marijuana to Schedule 2. In 1988, the DEA's own administrative-law judge concluded, ``It would be unreasonable, arbitrary, and capricious for DEA to continue to stand between those sufferers and the benefits of this substance in light of the evidence in this record.''[1] Nonetheless, the DEA overruled the judge's order to transfer marijuana to Schedule 2, and in 1992 it issued a final rejection of all requests for reclassification.[2] Some physicians will have the courage to challenge the continued proscription of marijuana for the sick. Eventually, their actions will force the courts to adjudicate between the rights of those at death's door and the absolute power of bureaucrats whose decisions are based more on reflexive ideology and political correctness than on compassion. References 1. Young FL. Opinion and recommended ruling, marijuana rescheduling petition. Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration, Docket 86-22. Washington, D.C.: Drug Enforcement Administration, September 6, 1988. 2. Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration, Marijuana scheduling petition: denial of petition: remand. (Docket No. 86-22.) Fed Regist 1992;5759:10489-508. Copyright 1997, Massachusetts Medical Society.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker. One of the most important organizations I have had the privilege to work with is the American Dream Challenge, a committee of the Citizens Scholarship Foundation of Fall River, MA headed by Dr. Irving Fradkin, which has spread across the Nation and which helps young people go to college. I have been privileged to introduce Dr. Fradkin's work to various officials of the Federal Government, and I have been pleased--although not surprised-- when they have responded very favorably when they learned about it. Dr. Fradkin has spent considerable time recently working with elementary schools and the results have been as a I expected, extremely gratifying. I ask here that I be allowed to share with my colleagues examples of the response the American Dream Challenge has received from faculty and students in the elementary schools. I think it is useful for people to read the pledge of the American Dream Challenge which children are asked to take, and the responses to this program from two 4th grade teachers from Fall River, and from students in the Fall River schools. The Pledge of the American Dream Challenge I am very pleased to accept this award, honor, and scholarship. In accepting this award, I pledge to continue to do the best that I can in school and make the most of this valuable tool offered to me--my education. I promise to respect my teachers and classmates, giving an effort to learn about and appreciate their religious and ethnic backgrounds. I further pledge, in accepting this award, that I will not be involved in any way with the use of illegal drugs. I will not resort to the use of weapons of any kind to resolve differences with others. I will volunteer to perform service for my community whenever possible. I will continue to do everything within my power to be a caring and responsible citizen of my school, my community, and my country--proud to be an American.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield for a simultaneous translation?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out, if we are going to debate this, let us do it. The provisions we are talking about do not just deal with illegal immigrants but the medical and other benefits that do to legal immigrants. If we are going to ask questions, we ought to have the accurate premises. Some of us have objected to restrictions on the ability of legal immigrants to get medical care. I think it ought to be accurately phrased.

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I have no objection to the gentleman from California doing this, although he says he has to go back to California and he is, of course, delaying the moment when that will happen. But if we are going to debate the immigration bill, it should not be as part of this measure. Let us have more time to debate it tomorrow morning. I object to a one-sided discussion of the issues.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I join my enormous admiration for my colleague from Massachusetts with my disappointment at the bill he has been put, against his will, in the position of supporting. I acknowledge also that the gentleman from Alaska, who has been unfailingly courteous to other Members, also was put in an uncomfortable position. There is a lot of good work in this bill and I wish we had back the bill these two gentlemen brought forward. But in a development that will undoubtedly astound people, the United States Senate did not do what we all wished they would do, namely, keep a good bill. One of the things they have added, quite surprisingly in this climate, is a new tax, in effect, on fishermen, because this bill says that under the new central lien registry fishermen will involuntarily be assessed one-half of 1 percent of the value of their permits. We are not sure what the permits are, but this is going to go to fishermen who are struggling now, trying to make a living, and take more money from them to finance government activities. This is an assessment on the fishermen that will be indistinguishable to them when they have to pay it from any other tax. It is an error. I hope we will have a chance, and I will vote against this bill because of it in part, but I hope we have a chance to revisit it in the future. There are ambiguities because permits are not valued here. I also oppose the lobster bycatch restrictions. We have State authority here. Again, it seems to me somewhat unusual that the Senate would disregard States' rights and impose nationally through legislation rules which are fully within the competence of States to deal with and which, at least in the case of Massachusetts, States have already dealt with. I welcome the inclusion of peer review, because I think there has been an error with regards to further restrictions. I think amendment 7 in New England goes much further than necessary, when amendment 5 is working. I welcome the improvements there. But I do not welcome the additional tax, I do not welcome the intrusion into what could be a State matter, and I very much regret the Senate has ruined a good bill.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, it is a good sign that they are uncomfortable when it is described accurately. It does not just say you go after the sponsor. If you are a legal immigrant and you are treated, you can be deported for it. It becomes a deportable offense to be a sick person who gets treated if you have AIDS. At least describe accurately the harm you are inflicting on people.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the subcommittee has given the perfect rationale for voting against the bill and for our motion to recommit. He says many of these provisions are here in part because of the gentleman from Texas, the ranking member. That is exactly right, and if this bill had only those provisions, it would not be controversial. He has conceded the point. There is a core of agreement on measures to restrict illegal immigration that would not be controversial. But here is what happens, and people should understand people sometimes think the party does not mean anything. Yes, party control means something. The Republicans are in control of this Congress. That means their ideological agenda and the interest groups that they are most interested in get served. What that means is that we do not get a chance to vote just on the bill dealing with illegal immigration. It comes with illegal immigration and an unbreakable format, a conference I have never seen before, where the chairman just decided no amendments would be allowed because he is afraid to have his members vote on these things. Other provisions are there. Well, what are the other provisions? One provision reaches back to antidiscrimination language. It has nothing to do with illegal immigration. We have said that we feared, when we put employer sanctions into the law, that this would lead to discrimination against people born in America who were of Mexican heritage. The GAO said, ``You're right, it's happened.'' What they have done in this bill is to reach back to that section not otherwise before us and made it much harder for us to protect those people against discrimination. Then we will have a recommit to undo that. My colleagues could vote for the recommit and it will not effect their commitment on illegal immigration. With regard to the people with AIDS, that is a provision that was in neither bill. The gentleman from Texas who does not want to defend things on the merits says, ``Well, the majority is with me.'' Well, that was not in the House bill, and it was not in the Senate bill. It is an add-on in that secret conference that they had. What this bill does is to weaken our enforcement powers against those who employ people who are here illegally and then, serving the Republican ideological agenda, says ``If you're here legally and you have AIDS, you may die if you need Federal funds because you will get none. If you are a Mexican-American born here, we will make it easier for people to discriminate against you. If you are an American legally eligible to work and the Government falsely certifies that you weren't and makes a mistake, in the House version of the bill we had a protection for you.'' In this version of the bill there is none. if they apply for a job, having been born in this country, and they are turned down because the government inaccurately reported that they were not eligible to work, they have no recourse. Our bill would have given some recourse. This bill protects the employers. This bill makes it harder if someone is a potential victim of discrimination, or if they are a perfectly legal resident of the United States with AIDS, including a child. Children with AIDS who are not yet eligible to become citizens, children who are brought here; they did not sneak in, not these terrible people my colleagues are worried about, children who are here with AIDS are denied Federal health benefits in certain circumstances by this bill. That is shameful.