Barney Frank

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Let me say to the gentleman who has been very responsible for this, and I appreciate our ability to work together, while we would have the power under this unanimous-consent request to roll votes when we resumed, I would assume that a spirit of comity would govern whether or not we use that; that is, if there was not agreement on both sides, we would not roll the votes when we come back at it on the next time.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Will the gentleman yield to me further under his reservation of objection?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Let me give the gentleman further assurance. It is my guess that there being a significant majority of Members left that have any brains, that within about 20 minutes after this unanimous-consent request there will not be any Members left in this place. Therefore any amendment that is offered would be at the suffrage of people who did not want to suggest the quorum problem, so I would assure my friend, if there was any problem, that all of a sudden we would be deterred by the lack of a quorum.

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I would say two things. First, I am debating now because we only have an hour on the overall bill, so I am glad to sue the debate time. But do I have an objection to the rule? In this sense, no rule, no bill. So I object to the rule because of the company it keeps, and if the rule is going to hang around with a bill like that, it is going to damage its reputation. I would ask the gentleman from Colorado, who has the time, if he would yield to my friend from Wisconsin.

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, this is a very important debate, because we have been told that we can balance the budget within 7 years and we should vote for that concept of a balanced budget within 7 years and then we can debate how to do it. But if you pass this appropriations bill today with the excessive and unnecessary procurement that is in it, that the gentleman from Wisconsin has talked about, if you commit to the weapon systems he talked about in [[Page H 13045]] those numbers, then you are guaranteeing that if you balance the budget within 7 years, you will drastically reduce spending for a whole lot of areas. We are in a zero sum game. We all agree that the budget is going to be balanced. There is some question about when. But this is partly why some of us have a problem with being told, ``Well, just agree to a balanced budget in 7 years and then we can work it out.'' If this appropriation passes, we are committed to a level of expenditure for weapon systems procurements in the tens of billions that will inevitably have to come out of other programs. What we have is the worst case of cultural lag I have ever seen. For more than 50 years, the United States sensibly led the free world to defend against enemies who were powerful enough to deprive us of our freedom. Fortunately, today in the world, as the gentleman from Wisconsin has documented, we do not have any threat to our physical existence. Yes, it would be convenient to do this, it would be beneficial to do that, but there is a qualitative difference. What we have here is the old cold war argument where our survival was at stake. Now we have had a transfer. We are not talking about survival. Indeed, people on the other side are opposed to many of the uses for the military. We have the paradox where people on the other side want to spend more and more on the military and use it less and less. I think there is reason to use it less and less. My final point is this: This is the real foreign aid bill. More money is spent by U.S. taxpayers through this bill to subsidize the economies of other nations than in the foreign aid bill many times over, except that we do not have poor nations here. This is a subsidy to wealthy nations. The military budgets of Japan and Germany and England and France and Denmark and Norway and the other wealthy nations are a fraction of what they should be. Yesterday's, Tuesday's New York Times has an article about a book which says one reason the rapidly increasingly prosperous Asian nations have done so well is that America has, for free, provided them with defense. So we subsidize their defense while they build up big trade surpluses. We continue, in this bill, the pattern of greatly excessive spending, not for America's military security but in part as a form of foreign aid to the wealthy nations of Europe and Asia. As a consequence, if you pass this bill, you get into a situation where every dollar spent for the B-2 bomber, for unneeded weapons, weapons the Pentagon does not want, it is only logical it has to come out of medical care, out of education. It is why the Republicans are voting to raise the rents of older people in public housing, which is part of their legislative package. If we adopt this conference report, we then make it very clear that a balanced budget will consist in substantial part of excessive spending on the military, subsidies to the budgets of Western Europe, subsidies to the budgets of our Asian trading partners. So we defend them, and in return we will make up for those subsidies by cutting medical care, cutting education, cutting housing. It is a very bad deal.

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Kennedy].

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady].

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays].

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I agree with the thrust of the gentleman from Florida's comments. I would add a couple. Let us stress this is not within the Committee on the Judiciary's jurisdiction, and it is not about the regulation of private lobbyists. We have a bill brought out by the Committee on the Judiciary that deals with private lobbyists. This has in common the word ``lobbying'' but it is a different set of issues. This is a potential abuse of public funds by the executive branch. That presents a very different set of issues than the question of disclosure and influence from various private interests, and putting the two together really does not have a great deal of legislative justification except there is a train leaving the station, and people who have a good idea would like to jump to it. That would not necessarily be a problem except that it can jeopardize passage. The gentleman from Pennsylvania fairly said this is not partisan. This kind of lobbying has been done by Democratic and Republican administrations in the past, they do it in the future, but that is part of the problem because Democratic and Republican administrations will oppose this bill. This is not simply a Senate problem. This invites a veto. It invites a veto from President Clinton, it would have invited a veto from President Bush, it would have invited a veto from President Reagan. So, I would hope the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger], using his chairmanship of the committee, would bring up a piece of legislation separately and let us deal with it, but I acknowledge what he says is true. This is not a partisan one, this is an interbranch one, but we have got a piece of legislation that addresses a real problem that we have been assured, because we have got a letter from the White House, they will sign it. The Senate has passed it. We send it to them, they will sign it. Now the gentleman asks to add to that a matter not of partisan strife, but of interbranch strive, and to take where we have a consensus bill, to regulate and improve the regulation of private- sector lobbying and add to it a bill, which as my friend from Pennsylvania candidly said, and I agree with him, it is more of an executive branch versus a legislative rather than a partisan one, to add that is to invite a veto or to have people in the Senate who are like this, suddenly become defenders of executive branch prerogative and lobby against it. So far that reason, because it is a different subject, and because the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] has the ability to bring the bill out--the gentleman from Pennsylvania can bring this bill out at any time, it can come to the floor, we can debate it. I have some questions about some of the substance. It says, for instance, that press releases or oral statements can be done by the direct appointee but they cannot delegate it. As I read this, the problem the way it is drafted is, if the Secretary of State asked a non-Presidential appointee to draft a press release on an issue that was pending before the Congress, that would be a violation. I think that is overdrafted. I would like to deal with that, but let us deal with it in a separate bill brought out by the gentleman's committee, because to take this matter of executive versus legislative prerogative and add it to this other bill is probably more complicated than almost anything else. That is not to go to the merits of it, but it is clearly inviting a veto or a Senate filibuster before we get to a veto, and it will, I think, endanger the bill. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the amendment. We have not had a chance to see it yet.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman, I agree with him; we can work on a bipartisan basis. It is just not as much fun.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I have not in my 15 years as a Member of this House felt sadder on taking the well. The murder of Yitzhak Rabin is one of the most despicable, frightening acts we have witnessed, because it was not simply the murder of one of the genuinely great men of our time; a man who, having excelled in war, a war forced on him and forced on his countrymen, a war they never wanted but a war of self-defense, a war [[Page H 11771]] which they had to fight from the moment of their birth for their very existence; a man who, having excelled at that war, excelled at peace; but of a man who, which is rare in politics, risked everything to make peace. We talk of those who stand up to their enemies, but that is easy to do. Standing up to your friends, to your brothers and sisters, to the people to whom you have been closest, that takes a real kind of moral courage. Yitzhak Rabin did it. It is not simply the murder of this great man. It is an assault on democracy. It is an assault on one of the great accomplishments that we have seen in this world, in this century. That was the creation of the democratic State of Israel out of the terrible horrors of the Holocaust. It is appropriate for us today, in expressing our deep sorrow at the murder of this great man, to remark on the extraordinary society which gave birth to him, not in the physical sense but in the political sense, because he is one of the man who brought Israel into existence, but his political career then thrived within Israel. It is a terrible tragedy that just as he appeared to be on the verge of success in bringing about a true peace, a thoughtful and sensible peace, he was murdered. Israel was created, through no fault of its own, in the midst of war. This small nation had to fight for its very existence from the moment of its existence. After five decades, nearly, of a war of self-defense, Israel society was taking great risks for peace. We in the United States can be very proud of the role that has been played by the United States, by the Clinton administration, by this Congress, by American society, in giving Israel the necessary support that it needed as a small nation in the midst of what was once a sea of hostility to go forward to making peace. Mr. Speaker, in addition to mourning the death, in addition to condemning the despicable act, and condemning also those who condoned this in advance, I think it is appropriate to pay tribute to Israeli society, and at this moment of greatest sorrow for Israeli society, to express my confidence, my pride as a Jew, as well as an American, in the relationship that our country has had with Israel, but also in the ability of Israeli society, in the midst of an effort to wipe it out before it came into existence, to foster its own security and at the same time democracy. Many have argued at times of stress that democracies have to give up on their basic rights. The Israeli experience is, of course, a repudiation of that, because the Israeli society has been one of the freest and most democratic in the world at the same time it has been under attack. Now that society, that great democracy, is going to be called on, as few societies have been called on. But that is not new for the Israelis. They have had to go through this before. I am confident that in the midst of this terrible tragedy and mourning, the strong democratic nation of Israel will rise to the task, and those who tried to murder peace by murdering this great man will fail. I believe that the democratic society of Israel will repudiate this effort, and I am proud to say that as a Member of the United States House of Representatives, I look forward to working with all of my colleagues in continuing to provide Israel with the kind of support and reassurance it needs to go forward on the path that Yitzhak Rabin had begun.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I hope intellectual honesty is still in order. ERISA, schmarisa, this is not about ERISA. This is about people who want to show a dislike and disapproval of gay men and lesbians, and for some odd reason, apparently they find gay men and lesbians more obnoxious if we happen to be in a stable relationship than if we are not. This is the ``Promote Promiscuity Act,'' I suppose, but people sometimes get into unintended consequences. Let us also be clear the nitpicking of the statute, it is a District of Columbia ordinance, is besides the point. If it were tightened, if it in fact said this is for gay men and lesbians who could not otherwise be married, they would be just as angry. I did agree with the gentleman from California, who pointed out how many people have died of AIDS, who were well below the normal age at which people die. I welcome his support for greater AIDS funding. Maybe he will explain to the Senator from North Carolina the relevance of that, when more people have died of AIDS than died in World War II. But I want to address this notion that somehow this undermines the family. Members have said ``Well, people are here looking for their approval.'' Herb and I have been together for 8 years. I want to assure those who have spoken in favor of this, we do not seek your approval. It is of no consequence to us whatsoever. What we seek is to protect ourselves, and, even more, people more vulnerable than us, from the bigotry and interference that would harass them, belittle them, and deny them basic rights. And you say ``Well, you have got to do this. It is not meanness, it is not bigotry. You have got to do it, because it would undermine the family.'' That is bizarre. Is your faith in the family of such fragility that you think people are going to learn that Herb and I live together, that Dean and Gary live together, and they are going to leave their wives? I have said this before. There was a commercial before about V-8 Juice, and there would be this cartoon character. And he would drink an apple juice, and he would drink a tomato juice, and he would drink a carrot juice. And someone would give him a V-8, and he would say, ``I could have had a V-8.'' What are we, gay men, the V-8 of American society? Are you so frightened that people will see two men living together in a loving relationship, or two women living together in a loving relationship, and that will undermine the family? Shame on those. You are the ones who undermine the family when you trivialize it like this. If you want to compare, if your view of the family is that materialistic, apparently some of them believe on the other side that if you do not bribe people, they will not stay in their families. If you have that materialistic view, I would say do not worry, because there will still be many, many more advantages. The right to visit someone who is very ill, and that right has been denied to gay partners. It is not purely academic, it has been denied to people. The material balance will still be on your side. But I have to know what it is, how does this mechanism work? How are we undermining families? And you say, ``Well, we don't want the Federal Government to give this stamp of approval.'' That is a very totalitarian concept of the Federal Government. What happened to your libertarianism? Is it not the role of the Federal Government in fact to let people make their own choices. Are you saying that the people you represent, the people for whom you speak, do not think what they do has value, unless it is stamped ``kosher for Passover'' by the Federal Government, the necessary changes being made? I do not understand the logic here. In fact, what has happened is the District of Columbia, and, by the way, I am also struck, I guess maybe the New York Times is going to have to recall the issue of a couple weeks ago with the picture of Marion Barry and Newt Gingrich on the cover, the two pals. Speaker Gingrich said he is for home rule. What, until bigotry says otherwise? We are not talking about the constitutional right to do things. We have a constitutional right to do a lot of things. The question is whether or not we should do it. What is it that drives us to say that we will strike from the books something that was democratically done by the elected people of the District of Columbia? ``Well, it is going to undermine the family.'' I have asked and asked and asked again, how does the fact that Herb and I share a residence in the District of Columbia, and care for each, and love each other, and wish to spend our time together, how does that undermine your family? What is it about our life that is going to tear asunder these family ties? What we are talking about, and this makes it very clear, we are not talking about a threat to the family. We are talking about people who cannot abide, apparently, people differing with them. That is what we are talking about. I have no desire to abandon families. Ten days ago Herb and I were hosts to his sister and brother-in-law and their two children, and then my niece came down. We are both members of loving, extended families. We interact quite well with our families. This is an absolute tissue of lies, this assertion that you are doing this to protect the family, because anyone who understands families, who understands what the emotion really is that brings families together, could not think that we undermine the family. I would ask the Members to vote with the earliest speaker in favor of home rule, and not with this effort to impose bigotry on the people of the District of Columbia.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, first, let us underline again the outrage of bringing up this bill under an absolutely closed rule. No Member was allowed to offer an amendment to explicitly allow for the protection of the life or serious health of the mother, except in the convoluted way in this bill because of only an hour of debate. I have rarely seen so important a subject so shabbily treated procedurally. Second, this once again shows the great gap that exists between the Republicans' profession about States' rights and the reality. This bill makes criminal procedures which the States could make criminal, presumably, if they wanted to or not. What this bill says is that States are not smart enough; they do not care enough about these children. We, the Federal Government, will step in. It does try to deal with that. It say this only involves abortions as crimes which are in or affect interstate or foreign commerce. How does the woman know that she is in foreign commerce or interstate commerce? Is her head in Canada and her feet in Detroit? What kind of nonsense are we talking about? What they are is embarrassed that they are so blatantly preempting the States, because they know how much it differs with what they profess. It says we will make it a criminal procedure if it happens to be in interstate commerce. Mr. Chairman, it also has a supposed defense if the doctor is worried about the life of the mother, but it becomes a defense that the doctor has to prove. To avoid a criminal proceeding here, a doctor will have to show that he was in interstate commerce. Nothing in here tells the doctor whether he is in interstate commerce or not. Second, the doctor would have the burden of proof before the jury to show that he was trying to save the woman's life. Obviously, it will keep people from doing it. This, obviously, once again shows that all that we hear about States' rights is just cover. When Republicans think the States are wrong, they will preempt the States. This is a disrespectful bill towards States' rights as well as the rights of women.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I am glad the gentlewoman mentioned pension. The gentleman from Pennsylvania made the preposterous statement we are putting pension money into public housing. That is, of course, literally impossible. Public housing is wholly public funding. What he may be talking about, and I have to say on this issue, if a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, the gentleman from Pennsylvania is quite safe, because he has none whatsoever. This House voted, with support of Republicans on the Committee on Banking and Financial Services, to allow building trades to invest their own pension funds in housing, not public housing but assisted housing, which would help build housing and help their jobs. Some of those projects have already been built. He made that argument before; he was repudiated by the Republicans on the Committee on Banking and Financial Services, as well as over two-thirds of the House. Some of that has been done, and there is not any evidence whatsoever that anybody is trying to put any money into public housing. It is a matter that involves poor people and so, [[Page H 11420]] therefore, it is one he is not familiar with.

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, because we in Congress must often focus on legislation and issues which pose problems for communities in our districts, we too rarely note those cases where municipalities we represent have complied with Federal laws in an effective manner to the benefit of their residents. I would like to take a few moments to recognize one community which has done just that: the town of Bridgewater, MA, which was recently selected as a recipient of the Environmental Protection Agency's 1995 national first place award for outstanding operation and maintenance program in the medium advanced category. According to the letter announcing the award, ``EPA based this selection on the facility's demonstrated innovative and cost-effective achievements.'' The town has a lengthy history of this type of accomplishment and recognition in water treatment, having already won the EPA regional award in the same category, an award which made the town eligible for the national award. The town became eligible for the regional award by virtue of having exceeded the EPA operating standards for the past 2 years. In fact, the town has been recognized for its innovative operation and maintenance procedures--particularly in the areas of septage and odor handling, which of course constantly present themselves to a facility of this kind--since the current wastewater treatment plant first went on line in 1989. Mr. Speaker, while any award of this kind is inevitably the result of a team effort, a great deal of the credit for this exemplary work should go to Joseph Souto, the wastewater treatment plant superintendent. In addition, the following town officials also made important contributions to this success: Charles J. Kane, Allan S. Knight and Fawn L. Gifford (chairman, clerk and member, respectively of the board of water and sewer commissioners); Robert A. Correia, (assistant superintendent); Richard W. Boss, John E. Garabee, and Michael J. Studley (plant operators); and Katharine T. Dumas and Eileen J. Weinberg (water and sewer secretaries). I offer my congratulations to the town of Bridgewater and the hard- working people involved in the operation of the wastewater treatment plant for their work in improving their community and for showing us the positive role government can play in our society.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hoke] has accurately stated both the history that led up to this bill and its purpose. As a member of the Committee on the Judiciary conference, I thought the Assistant U.S. Attorneys Association was dead wrong in what they were arguing. Why they insisted on keeping people locked up for many, many years, whose sole crime was the possession of relatively small amounts of marijuana, I will never understand. But this institution defends in part the right of people to do things that do not make a great deal of sense, and certainly to say things that I disagree with. I believe the response of the Justice Department was erroneous, in that it did lead to a curtailment of the rights of Federal employees. We have taken some steps to expand the rights of employees, and we certainly should not be going back, so I was glad to cooperate with the chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady], and others, in moving this bill quickly forward. As evidence of the importance of this bill, Mr. Speaker, I will include into the Record a letter from Leonard Hirsch, president of the board of directors of the Gay, Lesbian or Bisexual Employees of the Federal Government, who testified in this letter to the importance of this kind of right of free expression for the kind of efforts that they and other organizations engage in. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] was the moving force behind this bill, and is entitled to a great deal of credit for it. Mr. Speaker, I include the letter referred to for the Record. Federal Globe, Washington, DC, October 20, 1995. Hon. Barney Frank, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman Frank: I want to take this opportunity to thank you for your past support for H.R. 782--To amend title 18 of the US Code to allow members of employee associations to represent their views before the US Government--and to urge you to continue this support as the bill comes to the floor this week. As you know, this law returns basic rights of free association and speech to federal employees. These rights were inadvertently removed during the important process of streamlining the Federal Personnel Manual. This legislation simply returns these rights to federal employees. Good business practice, in addition to the base ideals of this country, undergird the need for this small but important piece of legislation. Federal agencies must be able to gather information and advice from the most knowledgeable and useful sources. This often means their own employees who by joining cooperative, voluntary, professional organizations bring together information and wisdom that can, through consultation and discussion, make for better and more efficient workplace policies. Absent this bill, all employee groups--senior managers, women, African-Americans, Native Americans, health care professionals, scientists, etc--cannot as a group give advise, or advocate for better policy implementation within their areas of purview. This makes for bad process and bad policy. Employees must feel free to join groups and know that they can speak within the workplace for these groups and the knowledge they bring forward. As the federal workplace strives to make itself free from harassment and discrimination against its lesbian, gay, and bisexual employees (which it sadly is not), it is vital that the GLOBE groups in the agencies are able to work with the department and agency administration in developing workable and useful procedures and programs. This bill will enable such cooperation to continue without fear. Thank you for your continued support and we look forward to working closely with you on future issues. Sincerely, Leonard P. Hirsch, President Board of Directors.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, Members on the other side have said at the committee and here: well, the answer is to raise, if you think the disparity is unfair, the penalty for powder. Some of us do not think that is the answer, but let us be very clear. Neither do they. Because I never saw people with a worse case of the gonnas. They are gonna do it, but they do not do it. Nobody on that side has put out such a bill. They have put this bill before us in a way that makes it out of order. So for people to try to argue that the real way to deal with disparity is to raise the penalty for powder and then do nothing to accomplish that, they are rebuking that argument.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, let me say, we heard this before at the Committee on the Judiciary, our colleague from Virginia, Mr. Scott, tried to offer an amendment to do what the gentleman said, to raise the powdered penalty, and a Republican made a point of order and was ruled out of order. The majority carefully drew this bill so that any effort to raise the penalty for powder would be out of order. So the gentleman says that, but we are presented with the situation where no one can do it.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, this amendment becomes, I think, even more logical with the adoption of the amendment of the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller]. What we have here is the establishment of the individual quota system. it has been the individual transferable quota, but I guess it is no longer that, thanks to the gentleman from California. Mr. Chairman, what this does is mandate in the bill before us that the Secretary impose fees on the fishermen who receive these individual quotas, not simply to recover the cost to the Government of administering it, but as a revenue raiser. Now, the law, without this bill, gives the authorities the ability to recover any costs. So, fees imposed for the purposes of cost recovery will not be affected by my amendment. The policy question is: should we go to the fishermen who are receiving these individual quotas and make them pay revenues that will help support other parts of the Government? It is true that from one perspective the individual quotas are a benefit. They are a benefit compared to the people that do not have individual quotas. But they are a reflection of the restrictions we have imposed for conservation purposes. In other words, it is looking at only half the picture to say, ``Oh, there are these people and they get the quota and they can fish and other people cannot.'' Mr. Chairman, I think we all agree that the people involved would rather not have the quotas. They would rather there not be such a system. They would rather simply be able to fish. The individual quotas come in as part of a very restrictive scheme. Restrictions are required, we can debate exactly how much, because of conservation. But what we have is this situation: Fishermen today, compared to some time ago, are being significantly restricted in what they can catch. That is mandated by the needs of conservation. To logically organize this restrictive system, we are giving individual quotas. The question is, should these fishermen who represent an industry that is already being hit by economic problems, an industry that is already being put upon, should they then, as they are being told they can fish less, have to pay more? Should they pay an additional tax? So, Mr. Chairman, saying to people that have individual quotas, ``You are lucky,'' remember, these are people who would rather not have the quota. Telling them they are lucky is like the people who told George Orwell, who fought in the Spanish Civil War and was shot in the neck and when he got out of the hospital some people said to him, ``You are a lucky person, because you were shot in the neck and recovered.'' And he said, ``Well, I have to think that all the people who were never shot in the neck in the first place are even luckier than I am.'' To tell the people who have individual quotas that they are lucky, I think that they would say, ``You know who is even luckier? The people who are allowed to go about their businesses and their lines of work without these restrictions.'' Individual quotas are not a benefit. They are an effort to make a restrictive regime more manageable. To go to the people who have received this restrictive regime, the people in the fishing industry, and say to them as part of what they are getting in terms of restrictions, we are going to make them pay for the cost of administering their system, not simply what it cost the Government, this goes beyond recovery. But we are going to make some money off the fact of their restrictions. [[Page H 10231]] We are going to impose this restrictive regime which individual quota is a part of on them, and as part of that we are going to make a profit. We, the Government, because we are going to mandate that a fee be charged. Mr. Chairman, in the prior situation, if they could sell the quota, then I think they should have to make a percentage payment to the Government. I was going to have my amendment reflect that and if we still had the quota as a salable item, like taxi medallions, yes, the Government should get a share of that. But thanks to the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller], the quotas are not transferable. So, Mr. Chairman, what we are talking about is in this restrictive regime, we are saying to fishermen that they cannot fish as much as they used to. They are under restrictions. But in consequence of our not driving them totally out of business, in recognition of the fact that we are going to let them fish some, although less than they used to, we are going to make them pay a fee not simply to administer this, but for the Government to make a profit off of it. Mr. Chairman, I think that is inappropriate and, therefore, my amendment leaves everything else in this bill in place, but it says to the fisherman who was not driven out of business entirely, but instead restricted, he will not be required to pay a fee over and above what it costs us to administer this. We are not going to make any money off of him. Mr. Chairman, I hope my amendment is adopted.