Barney Frank

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I rarely disagree with my good friend from Massachusetts who preceded me, but he was much too harsh toward the Republicans. He should not have chided them for voting for a budget that would bring the deficit up rather than down next year. They have learned. Last year, they tried to impose themselves on the U.S. Senate, their colleagues over there, and what happened but a shutdown of the Government, a lot of political problems, a lot of governmental problems. They have learned the advantage of flexibility, of compromise. A year in Washington makes a difference. The firebrands of last year have become now those who listen to leadership, who back down, who accommodate. And when they are told we need to have the deficit go up, when they are told we have to put several billion dollars more in, when the Senate says that, the president of the freshman class says he does not like to but he will accommodate. I do not think my friend should be so harsh. I think when the firebrands of yesteryear learn flexibility, accommodation, compromise, deferring to their elders across the hall so they can help the Presidential campaign of our recently departed majority leader, they should be encouraged.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Regular order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hoke].

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. The point of order is that two Republican Members in this debate have violated the rules by interrupting Members when they did not have the floor in a limited time. That is inappropriate, and I ask that you enforce the rules against it.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would strike out the international military education and training for the country of Indonesia. Indonesia made an international solemn agreement through the U.N. to take over the area known as East Timor. Indonesian rule in East Timor has been one of the most oppressive and brutal we have seen. East Timor had been controlled by Portugal. This is a case where colonialism looks pretty good to people in retrospect. Indeed it is to the credit of the people of Portugal that they have continuously spoken out against the oppression which the Government of Indonesia has visited on the people of East Timor. What the Indonesians have done is simply violate their international obligations, agreements they had made, to treat the people of East Timor fairly. There continues to be one of the most oppressive regimes. The people of East Timor, who have sought to preserve their own identity, their freedom of religion, freedom of speech, have been consistently and brutally mistreated. That is going to be documented in the debate. But I want to deal now with the arguments we are going to hear that will say, oh, yes, the Indonesians have not done what they should do, but this is not the way to do it. One thing should be very clear. When we are talking to those who specialize in foreign policy, to them there is never a way to do anything. Whatever method anyone puts forward for dealing with any wrong anywhere in the world turns out to be not the right method at a given time. Any effort to try to vindicate human rights will run up against a whole variety of arguments. One is that we must rely on Indonesia, in part for its strategic stability. One thing that strikes me when we debate foreign policy, we are constantly being told that America must be careful less we alienate, unsettle, destabilize, other nations. How come nobody ever has to worry about what we think? I do not understand the logic that says because we are quite wealthy and quite powerful, we therefore must accept the fact that our views ought to be disregarded and we must worry about offending others? Is the relationship between the United States and Indonesia useful in preserving stability? I believe it is. I believe it is so useful, that the Indonesians will not jeopardize it based on this. The argument is always given that we should not take this or that step because we will anger some nation who has been the recipient of our protection, cooperation and investment. None of these nations that I am aware of are doing this as a favor to us. They are doing it because it is even more in their self-interest than ours. There is a particular reason why I think it is important for us to begin a policy of refusing American assistance to blatant violators of human rights is Indonesia and elsewhere in Asia. There is a distressing pattern in much of South Asia of people, nations, progressing economically, while showing a fundamental disregard for democracy and human rights. One of the things we like to tell ourselves has been there is some necessary connection between expanding free market economy, between capitalism at its best, and democracy. I wish I were more confident of that. But I think the pattern is emerging in much of Asia where nations are showing a capacity to develop economically while remaining from the standpoint of human rights quite retarded. Indonesia is a nation with very little democracy internally, a great deal of corruption, and with a terribly oppressive record against East Timor. I believe there are important strategic reasons why they welcome American cooperation sufficiently so they are not going to repudiate it altogether. The question is: Do we do anything whatsoever to effectuate our view that the systematic mistreatment of the people of East Timor must stop? I know we will be told, at least I have been told this privately, we have changed the IMET around. It now becomes a force for good, naked to the eye. I do not understand how that argument can be made when we see a continuation of the pattern on the part of Indonesia of a systematic mistreatment of those people. Therefore, in pursuance of human rights, in pursuance of the obligation the world has to the people of East Timor who were turned over to Indonesia through international means, and in defense of the principle that human rights cannot simply be disregarded, I hope this amendment is adopted, and that the Indonesian Government will get a strong message from the United States that this behavior is not acceptable. Mr. Chairman, with that, I reserve the balance of my time, which will hereafter be managed by the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Reed].

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I ask unanimous consent, because I will be due in a markup, that I be permitted to turn over the management for our side of the time to the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Reed].

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment pursuant to the unanimous-consent agreement.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, we should be discussing Medicare, but sometimes decency requires us to deal with unpleasantness. The unpleasantness in this case is an outrageous, inaccurate, degrading accusation by Speaker Gingrich about the late Ron Brown. Speaker Gingrich, in what is apparently an organized Republican effort to divert this campaign from discussing the real issues into the kind of negative attacks that maybe they think is the only way they can win, outrageously suggested to a Republican campaign gathering that the President and others delayed the announcement of Secretary Brown's death so that they could engage in some manipulations at his office. It is a lie. The Speaker, when asked, could provide no justification for it. In fact, we are told in today's paper by the Speaker's press secretary that the justification is that there might be subsequent facts. That is a fairly outrageous standard. Make a terrible accusation and then look and hope for subsequent facts. Mr. Speaker, I know it is a tough year for the Republican Party. But nothing justifies libeling the dead. Please apologize to the Ron Brown family.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, I will not object, but just for scheduling purposes, would it then be the intention, I wonder if it is proper to ask that the clustered votes would then take place so Members might know? I know we have been talking about a vote at 8. If we have a 60-minute limit, to which I do not object, would it then be the Chair's intention to go to the three votes that would then be pending? Members have been talking about an 8 o'clock time from the standpoint of scheduling here.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Reserving the right to object, I reserved the right to object not to interfere with the gentleman from California but to ask the Chairman's intentions. What happens if there are no further nonlimitation amendments?

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I thought maybe I would get a cabinet nomination out of my colleague. In lieu of that, Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself less time than anyone else has taken today to express my appreciation for the gentleman's kind remarks, my agreement with the substance.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I was very pleased to read in the New Bedford Standard Times, on Thursday, May 23, an excellent editorial in support of the recent Supreme Court ruling striking down the anti-gay and lesbian law in Colorado. As the editorial cogently points out, what the Supreme Court said is ``that this is still the United States of America, people are still entitled to equal protection under the law. All people. Even ones we may misunderstand or, as in the case of Colorado voters, despise. The Supreme Court understands that, even if many other people do not.'' I am very grateful to the editorial board of the New Bedford Standard Times for coming to the Supreme Court's defense on this important occasion when they have reaffirmed basic American constitutional principles. And I ask that this excellent, temperate, well reasoned editorial be printed here. Court's Ruling on Gays Was Strict Reading of Constitution The U.S. Supreme Court made a profoundly conservative decision this week when it voted 6-3 to strike down a Colorado measure that sought to deny homosexuals any ``special treatment'' under the law. That's always the charge when gays in the United States make any attempts to appeal to the government to stop people from discriminating against them. They're looking for ``special treatment'' that no one else gets. But the Colorado constitutional amendment turned that logic on its head, giving homosexuals ``special treatment'' no American would want, and in the process ran afoul of the equal protection clause of the Constitution. The six justices who made that conclusion haven't lost their minds. They haven't subscribed to some subversive liberal agenda. They merely read the words of the amendment in question and took them literally. And what they meant, literally, that one group of people was to be singled out for a single trait and systematically denied any specific civil rights protection in the State of Colorado. ``It is not within our constitutional traditions to enact laws of this sort'' was the tart understatement of Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who wrote the majority decision. To better understand what he meant, try substituting the words ``black'' or ``elderly'' or ``handicapped'' for the word ``homosexual'' and try talking about denying those groups protection under the law when they have been discriminated against. To put it simply, in those cases where communities have instituted laws protecting gays from discrimination in housing, banking, employment or whatever, it is because of the fact that without such protections it remains legal to discriminate against them in many instances. The discrimination does happen. As we see in Colorado, that's the way a lot of people would like it. But thanks to the fact that this is still the United States of America, people are still entitled to equal protection under the law. All people. Even ones we may misunderstand or, as in the case of Colorado voters, despise. The Supreme Court understands that, even if many other people do not. We've got a long way to go in this country, don't we?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. That is $200 million out of $4 billion. Mr. Chairman, let me take back my time to say, here is the point: Yes, $200 million, maybe a couple hundred more, was used for Bosnia. Billions of dollars were unspent. I am making two points. First of all, I am wholly skeptical of the toughness of your oversight, since no one was penalized at all. As a matter of fact, they are rewarded by this. They are rewarded when they overspend, by being allowed then to spend more than was authorized. My point is this: If you authorize correctly in the first place, then you must admit you overspent, because if in fact they were able to make savings to the tune of $4 billion in one set of programs, then we should have been able to get at least some of the benefit of that $4 billion, instead of your rewarding them by putting it elsewhere.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. How much for Bosnia, I would ask the gentleman?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Is there more? Maybe can we hope?

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I would make this distinction, and in the case of HUD, I am more critical, because we had for 8 years a Secretary of HUD, appointed by Ronald Reagan, who was dishonest and incompetent, in combination. I do not think that is the case here. I do not think people had the kind of abuses and criminality here. I know they did not. But what we had was they gamed the system very effectively. They were able to not have to spend it. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Texas said it turned out they did not need to spend it. They were able to save $4 billion. And they got the ability, after authorizations, to reprogram that and reuse it so they were able to spend more in other areas, since they did not have to spend as much in the first area. Given the commitment we hear about deficit reduction, it is striking that almost none of that undiscovered, unspent money went for deficit reduction.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Yes, I do.

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Yes, and I will explain what I said to the gentleman. I am sorry the gentleman and his colleagues have done, frankly, such a lousy job in letting these people put $4 billion away, and it was $1 billion and then $2 billion, and now it is $4 billion. Every time, they come up with more money. You explained to us how you had it under control. What happened, Mr. Chairman, was this: They were allowed to spend almost all of that on other purposes, not things that were not authorized, but they were allowed to spend more, because the accounts were added to. They were given that $4 billion, they were given a limit: You can spend so much on this and so much on that and so much there. And because they underspent here, they were allowed to reuse that. You have provided them with every incentive to keep fooling you, and fooling you they have been doing. You have not penalized them at all. If any other agency of the Federal Government got caught with a surplus of this percentage, there would be calls for resignations and impeachments and denunciations. Mr. Chairman, the $4 billion that was found, that was spent in addition to what was authorized in these purposes, that $4 billion is more than the amendment of the gentleman from Vermont would cut. You lost track of more money than we want to cut, so that is how, I think, unfounded it is for you to claim that this in any way jeopardizes it.