Barney Frank

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, the Republicans' problem is with the Constitution. They want to make very drastic, extreme changes in programs like Medicaid and environmental protection, and they do not have the votes, so they have decided to take the Government hostage. But they are getting a little heat. They did not have a game plan. So what do they do? They come up now and say, ``We will let the veterans' checks get paid, but we will not let the EPA function, we will not let housing authorities function so veterans who live in housing will be hurt, but we will let the VA function.'' So now I understand their game plan. It is literally a game plan. This one is ``Red Rover, Red Rover, let the Veterans' Department come over,'' and then we will do that. Tomorrow, we will hear from another group that is complaining, and it will be time to ``Let the housing department come over.'' I do not know what has come over them, but it certainly is not rational government.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, we live, as we all know, in an era in which good news is no news. So the recent report issued by Jay Stevens on behalf of the Resolution Trust Corporation which exonerates President Clinton and Mrs. Clinton from any liability to the RTC involving Madison Guaranty has gone largely unnoticed in the press. People who have an interest in perpetuating inaccurate accusations against President Clinton and Mrs. Clinton have understandably ignored this. People will remember that Jay Stevens is the Republican who was a U.S. Attorney appointed by the previous Republican administrations who was considering running for the U.S. Senate as a Republican. He is a deeply committed conservative partisan, but also an honest man, not that there is any inconsistency there. He was hired by the RTC to investigate President Clinton and Mrs. Clinton. Indeed, it was the fact that so committed a Republican partisan had been hired that caused the uproar in the White House, when people said to the Treasury Department, how could you let this happen? Well, Mr. Stevens has now given his final report. The RTC has asked that grand jury information not be released, and I have none here. They have asked that their future litigation strategy not be discussed, and I would not do that here. I will quote from Mr. Stevens' report. ``The foregoing list contains essentially all the documents regarding Whitewater that seem to have been addressed to or written by the Clintons.'' I skip a little bit. It says, ``Therefore, on this record, there is no basis to assert that the Clintons knew anything of substance about the McDougals's advances to Whitewater, the source of the funds used to make those advances, or the source of the funds used to make payments on bank debt. In particular, there is no evidence that the Clintons knew anything of substance about the transactions as to which the RTC might be able to establish liability as to people other than the Clintons.'' Skipping again to the summation, ``On this record,'' this is Jay Stevens, the very committed Republican who was hired by the RTC over the objections of the Clinton administration to investigate the Clinton involvement with RTC, Madison Guaranty, Whitewater, here is his final recommendation based on his extensive survey of all of the evidence: ``On this record, there is no basis to charge the Clintons with any kind of primary liability for fraud or intentional misconduct. This investigation has revealed no evidence to support any such claims, nor would the record support any claim of secondary or derivative liability for the possible misdeeds of others.'' Skipping a little, ``There are legal theories by which one can become reliable for the conduct of others--e.g., conspiracy and aiding and abetting. On this evidentiary record, however, these theories have no application to the Clintons. To hold one liable for conspiracy or aiding or abetting, the RTC must plead and prove the elements of these theories. These elements include a general awareness of the wrongful acts being committed by others and an intention to assist in the commission of the primary offenses. There is no evidence here that the Clintons had any such knowledge or intent. Accordingly, there is no basis to use them.'' Mr. Speaker, partisan Republicans, extreme right wingers, and others have been engaged in a desperate, unyielding, incessant search for evidence to tarnish the Clintons with regard to Whitewater. They have found none. There is no evidence, and here we have a comprehensive report by a Republican prosecutor, a would-be candidate for office, who thoroughly investigates this and, as conclusively as you can get an investigator to say, he says there is no basis for this. Pirandello wrote a play, ``Six Characters in Search of an Author.'' Our Republican colleagues have collaborated on a more fantastic creative work. It is hundreds of accusations against the Clintons in search of any evidence. And Mr. Stevens, a professional investigator and Republican charged with looking into not just criminal liability, but civil liability, has concluded that after all of the evidence is examined, there is no basis whatsoever to make an accusation against the Clintons. Will this stop our colleagues from their accusations? No. But it ought to mean that the public will receive those accusations with the total lack of respect to which Jay Stevens says they are entitled.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, last week there was a terrible tragedy in Massachusetts, when a fire did enormous damage to the Malden Mills factory in Methuen, MA. While no one can undo the terrible effects of this fire, thanks to the enormous courage, compassion, and integrity of one individual, Aaron Feuerstein, the working men and women who were the victims of this terrible event have more hope than they otherwise might have. Aaron Feuerstein is the third generation in his family to run this company, and his actions since the tragedy have been an unparalleled example of how a human being can act in a moral manner in a very tough situation. In the Boston Globe for Sunday, December 17, columnist David Nyhan accurately conveys the heroic role that Aaron Feuerstein has played at a time when most people have done far less. Despite himself being a major victim of this tragedy, Aaron Feuerstein has acted with an extraordinary degree of humanity and decisiveness to administer to the other victims, and I believe it is important at a time when more and more working people are giving reason to doubt the essential fairness of the American economic system that the shining example that Aaron Feuerstein presents be fully understood and appreciated by the nation. I therefore ask that David Nyhan's excellent presentation of what Aaron Feuerstein has done be printed here. [From the Boston Globe, Dec. 17, 1995] The Mensch Who Saved Christmas Were it not for the 45-mile-an-hour winds ripping out of the Northwest, the sparks that they carried and the destruction they wrought, Aaron Feuerstein today would be just another rich guy who owned a one-time factory, in a country full of the same. But the fire that destroyed New England's largest textile operation Monday has turned this 70-year-old businessman into a folk hero. If a slim, determined, devoutly-Jewish textile manufacturer can be Santa Claus, then Feuerstein is, to 2,400 workers whose jobs were jeopardized by the fire. The flames, so intense and widespread that the smoke plume appeared in garish color on TV weathermen's radar maps, presented Feuerstein with a stark choice: Should he rebuild, or take the insurance money and bag it? Aaron Feuerstein is keeping the paychecks coming, as best he can, for as long as possible, while he rushes to rebuild, and restore the jobs a whole valley-full of families depend upon. Everybody got paid this week. Everybody got their Christmas bonus. Everybody will get paid at least another month. And Feuerstein will see what he can do after that. But the greatest news of all is that he will rebuild the factory. The man has a biblical approach to the complexities of late-20th-century economics, capsulated by a Jewish precept: ``When all is moral chaos, this is the time for you to be a mensch.'' In Yiddish, a mensch is someone who does the right thing. The Aaron Feuerstein thing. The chaos was not moral but physical in the conflagration that began with an explosion and soon engulfed the four-building Malden Mills complex in Methuen, injuring two dozen workers, a half-dozen firemen and threatening nearby houses along the Merrimack River site. The destruction was near-absolute. It is still inexplicable how no one perished in a fast-moving firestorm that lit up the sky. This was one of New England's handful of manufacturing success stories, a plant that emerged from bankruptcy 14 years ago. The company manufactures a trademark fabric, Polartec fleece, used extensively in outdoor clothing and sportswear by outfits such as L. L. Bean and Patagonia. The company was founded by Feuerstein's grandfather in 1907, and its history over the century has traced the rise, fall and rise again of textile manufacturing in New England mill towns. Most of the textile makers fled south, leaving hundreds of red brick mausoleums lining the rocky riverbeds that provided the waterpower to turn lathes and looms before electricity came in. The unions that wrested higher wages from flinty Yankee employers were left behind by the companies that went to the Carolinas and elsewhere, to be closer to cotton and farther from unions. The Feuerstein family stuck it out while many others left, taking their jobs and their profits with them. The current boss is one textile magnate who wins high praise from the union officials who deal with him. ``He's a man of his word,'' says Paul Coorey, president of Local 311 of the Union of Needleworkers, Industrial and Textile Employees. ``He's extremely compassionate for people.'' The union's New England chief, Ronald Alman, said: ``He believes in the process of collective bargaining and he believes that if you pay people a fair amount of money, and give them good benefits to take care of their families, they will produce for you.'' If there is an award somewhere for a Compassionate Capitalist, this man should qualify hands-down. Because he is standing up for decent jobs for working people at a time when the vast bulk of America's employer class is chopping, slimming, hollowing-out the payroll. Job loss is the story of America at the end of the century. Wall Street is going like gangbusters, but out on the prairie, and in the old mill towns, and in small-town America, the story is not of how big your broker's bonus is this Christmas but of how hard it is to keep working. The day after the fire, Bank of Boston announced it will buy BayBanks, a mega-merger of financial titans that will result in the elimination of 2,000 jobs. Polaroid, another big New England employer, announced it would pare its payroll by up to 2,000 jobs. Across the country, millions of jobs have been eliminated in the rush to lighten the corporate sled by tossing overboard anyone who could be considered excess baggage by a Harvard MBA with a calculator for a heart. Aaron Feuerstein, who went from Boston Latin High School and New York's Yeshiva University right into the mill his father owned, sees things differently; The help is part of the enterprise, not just a cost center to be cut. ``They've been with me for a long time. We've been good to each other, and there's a deep realization of that, that is not always expressed, except at times of sorrow.'' And it is noble sentiments like those, coming at a time when they are most needed, that turns times of sorrow into occasions of triumph.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, ordinarily we would have 1- minute speeches on a day like today. I am wondering, since we are here today, it is I assume Monday for the purposes of suspending the rules, otherwise we could not take these up, what is the intention of the Speaker with regard to 1-minute speeches today?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, let me say I regret the fact that the majority leadership apparently decided not to have 1-minute speeches today. There is a fundamental issue before us now: Should we go forward and pass an unencumbered continuing resolution reflecting the appropriations levels that the majority chooses, but not seeking to use the very operation of the Government as a weapon to try and compel the President to agree with the abolition of the Medicaid Program or reductions that he thinks are too deep in Medicare. I am sorry we are not going to get a chance to discuss that. I think we ought to do that. Apparently, we will finish the suspensions, we will go into the infinite recess that the majority allowed themselves to call so it will not be embarrassed by trying to vote to adjourn the House. I think the time would be better spent discussing implications of the decisions to shut down the House and Senate and, more importantly, the whole Government, until the President agrees to the doing away with Medicaid. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, first I would say to the gentleman from Florida, and others, the President committed to a balanced budget which also protected the Medicaid and Medicare programs. So I do not think he is at all in default of his commitment. But even if you are mad at the President, and this is the nub of it, the gentleman from Florida said, the majority leader said last week, ``We do not think the President lived up to his commitment, so therefore we will shut down the Government.'' But you are punishing the wrong party. Even if you believe that the President is wrong, and I do not, because I think the President has said yes, I want to balance the budget in 7 years, while I protect Medicaid, while I protect people in nursing homes and while I protect Medicare, but why, if you are mad at the President, do you shut down the Government? They have not shut off the lights in the White House. He is not being evicted. Everything is still functioning over there. That is your error. You are mad at the President, so you shut down the whole Government. He is not trying to go to the Grand Canyon tomorrow. He is not the one who is going to have to apply for a passport or worry about a Social Security check. There is a disconnection here. You are angry at the President because you think that he is being too stubborn with regard to Medicare and Medicaid. I think he is right. But let us fight that out. Let us fight about Medicare and Medicaid and the environment and educational levels of spending without refusing to let the Governments function. Let us pass a resolution which says those departments, and there are many departments which are not functioning now because this congressional majority has passed zero bills for them. It is not a case of vetoed bill. No bill has ever gone to him from the Department of Health and Human Services or the Department of Education or the Department of Labor. Pass legislation that allows them to function, does not try to gain advantage one way or another, and then let us argue about the other things. So even if the gentleman was correct in his unhappiness with the President, and I do not think the gentleman is, why does the gentleman think we are punishing the President by shutting down the whole Government? That seems to me to be a very grave error.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the President has been clear. My friend says well, if he has a different view about Medicaid and Medicare, tell us. Gee, I thought the problem the Republicans had was that he was telling people. I heard the Senate majority leader complain that the President was talking about Medicare and Medicaid. The President does not think we should wipe out the law that was passed 30 years ago, over Republican objections by and large, that says if you are sick and old and in a nursing home, we are going to have a Federal guarantee that you will not be cut off. I think that is worth keeping. If people do not, they are entitled to. But holding the Government hostage, shutting the Government down until the President agrees with a particular position on Medicare and Medicaid, is an unconstitutional way to do it. If one thinks there should be changes in Medicare and Medicaid, the Constitution says pass it through both Houses. If the President vetoes it, you override the veto. There is nothing in the Constitution that says kidnap the Government and shut it down. You keep saying you are angry or disappointed in the President or unhappy with the President's position, and then you shut down the whole Government and punish a lot of other people. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Richardson]. (Mr. RICHARDSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I know the gentleman from Illinois is busy being chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, so it may have overlooked his attention that the President has submitted a plan about Medicare. Yes, there are competing views about how much we have to cut from what existing law would allow under Medicare; and we believe that the Republican Party, led by Senator Dole, who boasts, let us remember, of having voted against Medicare when it was first begun. Senator Dole said, I knew it was a mistake and he is proud he voted against it to try to kill it, as did most of the Republicans then in the Congress. Well, it is not surprising these are people not sympathetic. The point is we can fight about who is right or wrong about Medicare without holding the Government hostage. Mr. Speaker, I am interested to hear every Republican who gets up today say we agree the Government should function. Well, why do they not then listen to themselves? Pass a continuing resolution, unencumbered by greater debates, which will keep the Government going? We can then debate among ourselves about Medicare, about restrictions on the Environmental Protection Administration, about abortion and other issues. The majority has the power and is using it to keep from the floor such a resolution. I believe if they would agree and relent in their powers of recognition, we would pass in the House a clean continuing resolution. What we have are Republican after Republican saying, yes, I think the Government should stay open, but we will not vote to allow that because we cannot win. We do not have enough votes to override objections to these very drastic policy changes we want to make, and until our colleagues agree to these drastic policy changes that cut back in Medicaid and cut back in Medicare, while we are building the B- 2 bomber, while we are subsidizing NATO, while we are spending tens of billions unnecessarily in that area, we will make some cuts in these other areas. What we are seeing here is Republicans saying how much they want to have the Government function but refusing to do it because they have said they will not do it until the President gives in to their proposals, which they do not have the votes for otherwise. Mr. Speaker, there is a phenomenon known as the Reverse Houdini. Harry Houdini became famous because he would have people tie him in knots, and his trick was to get himself out of the knots. The Republican Party is now perfecting the Reverse Houdini. They tell us how much they want to open the Government, but they will not do it. Why? Because they have tied themselves in knots. Houdini had other people chain him up. The Republican Party says we will tie ourselves up in knots. We will not make the Government function until the President gives in to Medicaid. Then they will come to the floor and talk about how much they wish they could get out of the knots into which they have tied themselves. That is the reverse Houdini. Tying ourselves up and then talking about how much we would love to help people if we were not tied up. If the Republicans want to have the Government function, pass a continuing resolution that does not hold other people hostage. Again, this notion that we are somehow punishing the President by shutting down the Federal Government in other areas does not make any sense. So let us come forward with a unencumbered continuing resolution. Let us pass that and then continue the Democratic debate over Medicare, Medicaid, the environment, and education. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I support this legislation. I am pleased it has come back from the Senate in a form that is very close to what we sent them and we can accept it. This came to my attention, this issue, as a result of people in the town of Raynham, MA, and elsewhere. They were people who lived in manufactured housing and believed they were living in a community that was for older people only but were told that, because of the way the fair housing law had been originally drafted, they could not have that assurance. One of the problems was the fair housing law, in its understandable zeal to protect children against discrimination, and I think all of us want to reaffirm we are opposed to discrimination in housing against families with children, it would certainly ill behoove us to talk about families and children on one hand and then sanction discrimination against families with children. But what we are saying is that where you are dealing predominantly with older people, where there is a common interest in an atmosphere that may be acquired or wanted, et cetera, then it is reasonable to say no younger people, not just children; that is what we are talking about. The law originally, in fact, required or came close to requiring that to qualify for that exemption from the antidiscrimination laws to be for elderly only, you had to have special facilities for the elderly. There was in it an unintended but unfortunate implication if you had housing only for the elderly you would have to have therapeutic facilities; a notice older people might be able to live by themselves without special health care, respirators, et cetera, did not seem a reasonable one. What this legislation says is that if you are legitimately a community that has set itself aside for older people only, you can be certified for that purpose and not worry about discrimination, because you are trying to live up to that. On the other hand, it does not weaken, and should not weaken, the law which prevents discrimination against children. If you are housing open to anybody, if you are housing open for people in their 20's, 30's, 40's, you may not discriminate against children. You can, under this law, it was an exemption already in the law, it makes an exemption the law already intended more workable, less subject to obfuscation or confusion. It gives people more peace of mind so that communities that are aimed at older people only, and let us also be very clear, there are people in their 70's and 80's who want to lives with younger children, with younger people, there are people who are in their 70's and 80's who prefer to live mostly with other people of their own age. People's preferences for noise, for different levels of activity will differ. What we ought to be doing is offering people the right to choose. This legislation protects that right to choose for those older people who do prefer to live in communities of people primarily their own age. This law protects that right. It is, as I said, an example of improvement. I should add one other thing, and this is under former Assistant Secretary Achtenberg, the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development did the most they could within the statute to protect that right. It was called to their attention, they had hearings, and under Assistant Secretary Achtenberg and Secretary Cisneros, HUD did the best they could do. We did agree, however, looking at the statute, that they way to do this job of protecting the right of older people to live live among themselves, if they so chose, perfectly, it was not enough to deal with the regulatory improvements that had been made. HUD did the best they could, but there were changes that needed to be made in the statute. This statute does them. I hope, therefore, we pass it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining on both sides?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would say that I agree with the gentleman from Virginia. I believe we have an obligation to keep the Government running. What we ought to do is to pass a continuing resolution abstracting from all the other controversies. We will have legitimate differences of opinion over Medicare and Medicaid. But to shut down the Government, as Congress is now doing, because of those differences, is a very grave error. All we need to do is to pass a clean, that is, unencumbered, continuing resolution. The Government should not be held hostage while one side or the other's view of Medicare or Medicaid is put forward. But that is what Congress is doing. We could do it right away, simply get, I would hope by unanimous consent, a continuing resolution at the appropriations levels that the majority has set. They have the right to do that. But shutting down the Government, as the majority is doing, until the President agrees to the abolition of a Federal program, Medicaid, and to severe cuts in Medicare, that seems to me inappropriate. So, Mr. Speaker, I would join in the gentleman from Virginia's plea that we move, but we should be clear. What is stopping us from moving now is the argument that the President should give in on Medicaid and Medicare or else the Government will be shut down. The Constitution gives the President a right to a veto. Congress has the right to pass legislation. If two-thirds agreed, they pass it over the veto. But to say because Congress cannot muster two-thirds to make drastic changes in Medicare and Medicaid the President should therefore cave in or else we shut down the Government is wholly in appropriate. parliamentary Inquiry

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Ohio just said this is unfair to the Federal workers, and he and his colleagues are determined to continue to inflict the unfairness to the American workers. Mr. Speaker, I am surprised to hear the gentleman say that the President has not told the Republicans what he does not like about their plan. I thought he had told that to the point where they were unhappy. He thinks they are endangering the ability of Medicare to continue to fully fund what older people need. He believes that abolishing the Federal law that says Medicaid will be there and if Americans are sick and old and poor or badly disabled, their medical care will be protected, that that is a mistake. He thinks that the extent to which they are undercutting environmental enforcement is a mistake. He thinks cutting out funds that now go to help middle-income and working-class students go to college is a mistake. Mr. Speaker, my Republican colleagues have a right to disagree. But they why do they insist on shutting down the Federal Government? In fact, we have the Republican Party, with a majority in both Houses, complaining that the majority apparently is insufficient for them to accomplish what the Constitution says to do when we want to change policy. They have, therefore, decided that they will shut down much of the Government. They will refuse. Mr. Speaker, let us be very clear. Within hours we could pass a continuing resolution that simply said the Government will function at whatever level of appropriation my colleagues on the other side decide, until we agree on other things. Mr. Speaker, they are the majority. In his last State of the Union, Ronald Reagan denounced the practice of withholding basic funding for the Government as a means of exerting leverage over other policy issues. For the first time in a long time, I wish the Republican Party were true to the legacy of Ronald Reagan. Go back to his last State of the Union. He said we do not have Government by extortion, and that is what we have. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues' quarrel, they say, is with the President. They think he wants to be too profligate. He is going to spend too much money on those sick, old people. Fine. We can fight about that. They do not think he is going to cut enough taxes for wealthy people. But do not shut the Government down to punish him.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady] intend to use the 4 minutes for the closing?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Wynn].

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I hope I may not cause too much difficulty with the chairman of the subcommittee for expressing my admiration on how he has dealt with this bump in the road. Second, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say, sometimes people say things they do not really mean. People often like to talk about how they hate to say ``I told you so,'' but I have found it to be one of the few pleasures in life that gets better with age. A few weeks ago several of us cautioned against amending this bill, let it have to go back to the U.S. Senate, and some said we were exaggerating what would happen if that were to take place. We have seen now, even when we made no substantive amendment, that the U.S. Senate was capable of entangling this bill. So I think this shows that when we urge people not to vote for amendments, we knew whereof we spoke, because there be dragons, as they said in the 15th century, and I hope now this bill is free. Mr. Speaker, I would just ask, finally, of my friend, the gentleman from Florida, who has done such good work on this bill, can we now expect the U.S. Senate will allow both the base bill, the lobbying bill, and this correction, to go to the President for signature?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. If the gentleman will yield again, we all know that the gentleman does not control the processes of the Senate, because it is patently clear that no one controls what goes on in the U.S. Senate.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, we are here for a hostage- taking. The Republican Party wants to make very substantial reductions in what the law now provides for people who get sick, who are in economic distress. They brag on the one hand about how much they are going to reduce the rate of spending in Medicare that would otherwise occur and then bitterly denounce anyone who says they are cutting. My colleagues cannot take credit for substantially reducing Government expenditures and plausibly deny that they are cutting. They want to wipe out the legal guarantee that says, ``If you are sick and elderly and in a nursing home you, will be taken care of medically.'' Why do they want to do this? To balance the budget? No. To increase military spending by a substantial amount. We are going to have a defense bill on the floor today which votes billions of dollars more than even the Pentagon thinks necessary. They want to do it so they can make substantial reductions in taxes especially for wealthy people. People who make $200,000 and $300,000 a year will get a tax cut, and, on the other hand, people of 70 and 80 years old will see their Medicare premiums go up. Now they cannot win this on their own, so they will take the Government hostage to try to force us to go along, and it will not work.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I have been disappointed recently to read a number of very uninformed attacks on Indian-run casinos. A number of people have extrapolated from their own personal opposition to gambling to make unfounded criticisms of Indian casinos, to denigrate the very important economic advantages these casinos have represented for American Indians and to inaccurately claim that they have been a source of legal problems. In addition, in some cases casinos can be a very important source of economic opportunity for people in addition to Indians who live in areas which have suffered economic losses beyond their control. One such area is the city of New Bedford, MA, which I am privileged to represent in Congress. The proposal to establish a casino run by the Wampanoag Tribe in New Bedford has been overwhelmingly supported by the people of that city, who recently voted for it by a 3-to-1 margin in a referendum. It has unfortunately been the subject of a good deal of unfounded criticism. I was therefore very pleased to read in the Boston Globe for December 12 a very well argued essay by New Bedford Mayor Rosemary Tierney, in which she states the case for allowing New Bedford and the Wampanoag Tribe to go forward with this casino in very persuasive terms. I have worked closely with Mayor Tierney, with labor representatives, with business leaders, and with a wide range of citizens to support economic development for New Bedford. All of these groups share the mayor's and my opinion that the casino is a very important part of this effort. The very hard working people of New Bedford have been hit by unfavorable international trade trends, and by the conservation driven restrictions on fishing. As we deal with these issues, we agree that the economic development that would result from the casino is essential in our effort to overcome the negative effects of these other trends. As the mayor notes in her well-documented and thoughtful essay, New Bedford does not look upon gaming as a cure-all or quick fix for the local economy. The impact of the casino falls in two categories: employment and tax revenues. New jobs create new earnings and new spending. New spending, in turn, increases demands on suppliers, vendors, merchants, contractors. Thus new jobs create the need for yet more employment throughout the economy. Mr. Speaker, because Mayor Tierney speaks with great authority on the need for economic development in the city of New Bedford, and because on this issue in particular she articulates a viewpoint that is shared by virtually all of us who are seriously concerned within the New Bedford area about economic improvement, and because the merits of Indian-run gambling operations are now a subject of some debate in this body, I ask the Mayor Tierney's article from the Boston Globe of Tuesday, December 12 be printed here. [From the Boston Globe, Dec. 12, 1995] Gaming and New Bedford's Future (By Rosemary S. Tierney) The City of New Bedford is not unique among older New England cities when considering the economic challenges it is confronting as the 21st century approaches. As mayor of this proud and historic city, I believe it is unique in demonstrating a frank willingness to acknowledge those challenges and to develop a systematic, long-term plan for overcoming them. Throughout its long history, New Bedford has been bound to both national and international economic trends. Whaling and shipbuilding dominated the local economy in the early and mid-1800s. As the whaling industry declined, textiles became the dominant industry. Companies with such household names as Hathaway and Wamsutta made New Bedford their corporate homes. The manufacturing base was broadened by glass and metal- working factories, such as Revere Copper and Pairpoint Glass. In more recent times, the city's economic fate returned to the sea. For several years, New Bedford was the nation's No. 1 fishing port in the dollar value of its fleet's catch. New Bedford also became a site for quality needle trade industries, Polaroid, Aerovox and the Acushnet Co.'s Titleist golf ball plant. Today New Bedford faces a challenge from the continuing decline in manufacturing, coupled with a fishing industry in crisis. These factors may be beyond local control, but the city can have an impact on the regional economic environment by employing its potential resources to maximum advantage. Let me cite a few of those advantages being developed in New Bedford: a harbor with potential to handle increased shipping traffic; a location close to major transportation routes; and airport with a foreign trade zone and plans for a $30 million expansion; a coastal resource laboratory and aquaculture center at the University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth. In addition, plans are in the works for establishment of a New Bedford national park and a commuter-rail link to Boston. These projects are being over-shadowed today by the debate over casino gaming in Massachusetts and, in particular, the Wampanoag proposals to develop a casino/-entertainment complex in New Bedford. Critics argue that gaming will only provide short-term economic gains, while the cost to society in regulation, diversion of funds, crime and related social problems will outweigh the benefits. Implicit in these arguments is that New Bedford is susceptible to promises by developers of a better tomorrow because of the plight of its local economy. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Wampanoag gaming proposal is the most comprehensive economic development initiative in the history of southeastern Massachusetts. It will provide some 5,000 jobs (plus 3,000 construction and temporary jobs), spur tourism, generate millions of dollars in revenues for the state and cities and towns, and allow Massachusetts vendors the opportunity to contract for services and goods to support the gaming and entertainment complex. This is not just a New Bedford issue. It is a Worcester issue, a Springfield issue, a Fall River issue, a Taunton issue, a Brockton issue, a Lowell issue. It is an issue each mayor understands: job creation and economic development go hand-in-hand. New jobs can give hope and opportunity to thousands of hard working men and women--and can help build a stronger economic future for generations to come. New Bedford does not look upon gaming as a cure-all or quick fix for the local economy. The impact of the casino falls in two categories: employment and tax revenues. New jobs create new earning and new spending. New spending in turn increases the demands on suppliers, vendor, merchants, contractors. Thus new jobs create the need for yet more employment throughout the economy. If the local unemployment rate of 9.3 percent can be reduced to the statewide average of 5.1 percent, business in New Bedford and the area will certainly benefit. It has been the failure to reduce unemployment through new or expanded industry that has plagued this area for years. The Wampanoag project offers the city the opportunity to couple the project to other initiative, such as the harbor, airport and rail, to make them a reality. It is estimated 25 percent of the gross revenue at the Foxwoods casino in Connecticut comes from Massachusetts residents. Those are revenues that leave this state by the busload every day. As Congress shifts federal responsibilities to the states, I urge the Legislature not to reject revenue sources that will be sorely needed in the not- too-distant future. Twenty-three states across the nation are beneficiaries of 130 compacts with 115 tribes. Massachusetts would not be reinventing the wheel. Aside from minimizing or dismissing the economic potential of gaming, opponents employ the strategy of fear based upon threats of increased crime. As mayor of the host community, I am mindful of this threat. But there is no better prevention for crime than a job. The Wampanoag tribe not only supports strong regulation and has indicated a willingness to find its cost, it has encouraged the Legislature to maintain strict oversight over the new regulatory agency to ensure that it is composed of top professionals with knowledge of accounting and law enforcement. Instead of attempting to undermine a proposal legitimately put forward under federal law that will benefit this state and its people with economic opportunities, law enforcement personnel and prosecutors should insist the Gaming Commission be staffed by people who will have impeccable reputations and integrity and be supported by a staff adequate to meet the job. The task of rebuilding New Bedford and the region is vital to southeastern Massachusetts. The Legislature has an opportunity to make an important contribution to this effort by approving the compact between the state and the Wampanoag tribe. The area has always had an enormous potential for economic growth and development. The gaming/entertainment complex offers New Bedford a catalyst for the full economic recovery. I urge the Legislature to approve the compact expeditiously and to avoid arguments that seem more focused on scoring short-term political points than on seeking pragmatic solutions to bring to this state a well regulated and managed gaming industry.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, my question would be as to the point you just made, as to whether or not this would be recognized as a legitimate question of privilege, would the fact that a virtually identical resolution under identical circumstances offered by then- minority whip Gingrich in 1991, that that was ruled to be a question of privilege, would that be relevant to this decision?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, recently I introduced legislation which would allow physicians to prescribe marijuana when in their judgment it is medically appropriate to do so. I first became a supporter of this legislation more than a decade ago, when it was introduced by our late colleague, the gentleman from Connecticut Mr. McKinney. I was recently advised of a resolution passed by The American Public Health Association which supports the concept embodied in the legislation I have introduced and I ask that this resolution be printed here. Access to Therapeutic Marijuana/Cannabis The American Public Health Association: Being aware that cannabis/marijuana has been used medicinally for centuries and that cannabis products were widely prescribed by physicians in the United States until 1937; and Being aware that ``marijuana'' prohibition began with the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 under false claims despite disagreeing testimony from the AMA's representative; and Being further aware that the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 completely prohibited all medicinal use of marijuana by placing it in the most restrictive category of Schedule I, whereby drugs must meet three criteria for placement in this category: 1) have no therapeutic value, 2) are not safe for medical use, and 3) have a high abuse potential; and Being cognizant that the Drug Enforcement Administration's own administrative law judge ruled in 1988 that marijuana must be removed from Schedule I and made available for physicians to prescribe; and Knowing that 36 states have passed legislation recognizing marijuana's therapeutic value; and Also knowing that the only available access to legal marijuana which was through the Food and Drug Administration's Investigational New Drug Program has been closed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services since 1991; and Understanding that while synthetic Tetrahydrocannibinol (THC) is available in pill form, it is only one of approximately 60 cannabinoids which may have medicinal value individually or in some combination; and Understanding that marijuana has an extremely wide acute margin of safety for use under medical supervision and cannot cause lethal reactions; and Understanding that marijuana has been reported to be effective in: a) reducing intraocular pressure in glaucoma; b) reducing nausea and vomiting associated with chemotherapy; c) stimulating the appetite for patients living with AIDS (acquired immunodeficiency syndrome) and suffering from the wasting syndrome; d) controlling spasticity associated with spinal cord injury and multiple sclerosis; e) decreasing the suffering from chronic pain; and f) controlling seizures associated with seizure disorders; and Understanding that marijuana seems to work differently than may conventional medications for the above problems, making it a possible option for persons resistant to the conventional medications; and Being concerned that desperate patients and their families are choosing to break the law to obtain this medicine when conventional medicines or treatments have not been effective for them or are too toxic; and Realizing that this places ill persons at risk for criminal charges and at risk for obtaining contaminated medicine because of the lack of quality control; and Realizing that thousands of patients not helped by conventional medications and treatments, may find relief from their suffering with the use of marijuana if their primary care providers were able to prescribe this medicine; and Concluding that cannabis/marijuana was wrongfully placed in Schedule I of the Controlled Substances depriving patients of its therapeutic potential. Recognizing the APHA adopted a resolution (7014) on Marijuana and the Law which urged federal and state drugs laws to exclude marijuana from classification as a narcotic drug; and Concluding that greater harm is caused by the legal consequences of its prohibition than possible risks of medicinal use; therefore 1. Encourages research of the therapeutic properties of various cannabinoids and combinations of cannabinoids; and 2. Encourages research on alternative methods of administration to decrease the harmful effects related to smoking; and 3. Urges the Administration and Congress to move expeditiously to make cannabis available as a legal medicine where shown to be safe and effective and to immediately allow access to therapeutic cannibis through the Investigational New Drug Program.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, recently I was discussing Federal policy toward higher education with one of the most thoughtful students of that subject, Father Bartley MacPhaidin, C.S.C., who's president of Stonehill College in Easton, MA. I have long found Father MacPhaidin to be an important source of information on educational policy. I was particularly struck in our conversation by his forceful advocacy of the direct lending program, and of the benefits it provides for the students, whose financial well-being has always been very high on the list of Father MacPhaidin's concerns. He was so cogent and persuasive on the subject that I asked him to share with me in writing some of his thoughts because I believe that providing the best method by which young Americans can receive a college education is a very high priority for us and I think all of our colleagues will benefit substantially from reading Father MacPhaidin's knowledgeable and thoughtful discussion of the benefits of this program as he and his college have experienced them. In Defense of Direct Lending Stonehill College was one of the 104 colleges chosen to participate in the first year of the new direct lending program for student loans. Today another 1500 institutions are in the program across the country. Based on Stonehill's experience of direct lending, the proposal in Congress radically to curtail or terminate direct lending should be resisted. In the new program, students and families deal directly and solely with our financial aid office. No longer must borrowers negotiate the often confusing, frustrating and seemingly endless steps in the bank/school/guaranty agency loops to obtain student loans. In direct lending, the College determines eligibility originates loans, provides and processes pormissory notes, requests and receives funds directly from the government and credits student accounts. Virtual one-stop-shopping. Recently, a junior came to the financial aid office seeking funds to pay the rent on his off-campus apartment. The financial aid office immediately originated a Direct Loan, printed the promissory note on line, which the student completed in the office. Within one week, the funds were in the student's account and he received a check to pay his rent. In the old program, the student would have gone to his bank, obtained a form, completed the form and sent it back to the bank, the bank would send it to the college for certification, the college would send the certified form to the guaranty agency, the guaranty agency would certify the guarantee and notify the bank. The bank would then, finally, cut the check and mail it to the college. The college would notify the student, the student would come to the financial aid office to co-sign the check which would then be deposited to his account. Of course, he would probably have been evicted for non- payment of rent before this cumbersome process was completed. Direct Lending helps students manage their debt better, enables them to borrow only as much as they need when they need it. In the past, the cumbersome bank/guaranty agency process has meant that students borrowed the maximum each time to be sure they had the money they needed when they needed it. The bank/guaranty agency loop has also meant alumni may have confusion in the repayment cycle. Stonehill has an alumna who called recently to resolve a potential default status. She had borrowed each of her four years at Stonehill from the same bank. But that bank had ``sold'' her loans to three different servicing companies. She was finding it nearly impossible to figure out which bank holds her loans and how she could obtain payment deferments to attend graduate school. All Direct Lending loans are ``bundled'' and handled by the same servicer. While Stonehill's current student loan default rate is only 2.5%, the new simpler system will prevent many defaults, here and nationwide. There is controversy over whether Direct Lending is a savings or a cost to the taxpayer, the difference arising in large part from the use of different accounting principles. The banking lobby is strong and speaks in deafening tones. The only way to truly compare costs is to let the two systems operate side by side for at least ten years, allowing each school to choose the program which works best for it. Then, using agreed accounting procedures, the true costs to taxpayers for each program can be assessed, the relative default rates cmopared, and a rational decision made to keep one or both programs. Stonehill urges the Congress to permit such an experiment to take place, allowing market forces to improve both programs while giving ample opportunity for fair comparison. Students, families, and taxpayers can only gain.