Barney Frank

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I am touched by the endorsement of the Republican chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the Clinton policy in this regard, but I have to disagree with it. In fact, we are being told a couple of unbelievable things. Essentially we are being told that the collapse of the Soviet Union means that there is no opportunity to save money in intelligence. We are told there is, after all, Iraq and Iran and Libya. I agree. I disagree with the implicit assumption that there was no Iraq in 1986, that Libya was created in 1983, and that Iran just floated down. All of those other threats were there at the same time. Ten years ago we were dealing with the terrorist threats in Syria, in Iraq, and Libya. Those were not the Andrews sisters a few years ago who suddenly turned ugly on us. Those countries and the threats they projected were a fact 10 years ago. We also had, as the primary focus of our national security expenditure, a Soviet Union which led an unwilling empire of many other nations that were being held captive, that threatened our very existence. Yes, there are problems in the world today. There are people who run countries today who in a good world would not even be allowed to drive cars. They mean us harm and we need to defend ourselves. However, we have succeeded in helping bring about the collapse of our single greatest enemy, so that the vast amounts of money and technology we had to spend to watch the Soviet Union and its capacity to make nuclear war on us, to deal with the Warsaw Pack and the millions of men under arms that threatened us there, they are substantially diminished. The notion that with this collapse of the major part of the threat there is no grounds for savings is nonsense, but it is not simply abstract nonsense. It is now nonsense that drives us to say that college students will not get the kind of student loans they used to get, that drives us to say that we cannot afford enforcement in environmental areas, that drives us to take money away, so that public housing projects have recently been told, thanks to the rescission that the other party put through, that needed repairs to elderly housing will have to be deferred. The argument that we cannot make substantial cuts when the substantial threat has diminished is nonsense. Everything that is now a threat today was a threat 10 years ago. There are no brand new threats in the world. What is new is that we do not have this ongoing likelihood of thermonuclear war, and what we are saying is we believe that at least a 10-percent cut is possible, given the collapse of that central threat. I was also struck when the chairman of the subcommittee, my elevator buddy that I travel with up and down, said ``We have cut 16 percent,'' because I do not believe we have cut 16 percent in nominal dollars. That is, I do not think the dollar amount today is 16 percent less than what it was. I think he was saying that in real terms it has been cut. That is, it has not been allowed to keep up with inflation. That is very striking, because my Republican friends in particular, when we are talking about a program that they like, suddenly start talking about real terms, and the failure to keep up with inflation is considered a cut. When they are talking about programs they do not like, that gets reversed. In fact, there has not been a 16-percent reduction in the dollars. What they are saying is it has not been allowed to keep up with inflation, but it has not been aimed at inflation, it has been aimed at the Soviet Union. One other point. If any other agency of government had had the kind of disaster that the Central Intelligence Agency had with Aldrich Ames, we would be talking about the need to cut back on their money because they were so badly run. They employed a Russian spy. If HUD had working for it a person who was secretly demolishing good housing, HUD would be held to account. If the NIH had somebody who went around and spread the plague we would say ``We have to control them.'' The CIA is like the Defense Department. If they screw up badly, this house will reward them with more money, the theory apparently being that since they wasted so much of what we gave them, we had better give them some more to make up for it. It is an absolute reversal of the normal rules. If a domestic agency misspends money, they are in trouble. When others in national security do, they get rewarded. If our national security was at stake, that would be a factor, but in this bill we are ignoring the savings that the American people are entitled to by the collapse of that threat to our national security.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, sadly, just before we left for recess, the President of Zimbabwe, Robert Mugabe, engaged in an unjustified wholly prejudicial attack on gay men and lesbian citizens of his country. The attack was in sharp contrast to the leadership of, for instance, Nelson Mandela, who has included in the Constitution of South Africa, with the support of that country, protections against discrimination. I am very pleased to say that at the request of myself and the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Waters] about 70 Members of this House have joined in sending a letter to Mr. Mugabe objecting strenuously to his bigoted attack on people who simply have a different sexual orientation, noting that this kind of denunciation of people who are decent citizens is contrary to the respect for human rights that we had hoped Mr. Mugabe would show. I am including at this point in the Record the letter and the list of signatures, as follows: His Excellency Robert Mugabe, President, Harare, Zimbabwe. Dear Mr. President: We were distressed to read your attack on people who are gay and lesbian. As Members of Congress dedicated to protecting the human rights of all people, we believe that you are gravely mistaken in your denunciation of people based on their sexual orientation and your assertion that they should be excluded from the protection of their ``individual freedom and human rights.'' When individuals are mistreated by government because of some basic characteristic of their nature, human rights are violated. Attacking decent individuals who are fully respectful of the rights of others, who are productive and responsible citizens, but who happen to be gay or lesbian is wrong. As strong supporters of the struggle of the people of South Africa against the oppressive, dehumanizing apartheid system, we welcomed the inclusion in the Constitution of South Africa of recognition that discrimination based on an individual's sexual orientation is wrong. We strongly urge you to re-examine this issue and to follow the example of the new government of South Africa in respecting the human rights of all people. Barney Frank, Member of Congress, Maxine Waters, Member of Congress. cosigners of the letter to president robert mugabe of zimbabwe Neil Abercrombie, MC; Xavier Becerra, MC; George Brown, MC; Ronald Dellums, MC; Lloyd Doggett, MC; Anna Eshoo, MC; Elizabeth Furse, MC; Steven Gunderson, MC; Alcee Hastings, MC; Steny Hoyer, MC; Patrick Kennedy, MC; Zoe Lofgren, MC; Edward Markey, MC; Marty Meehan, MC; George Miller, MC; Joseph Moakley, MC; Eleanor Holmes Norton, MC; Frank Pallone, MC; Jack Reed, MC; Martin Sabo, MC; Charles Schumer, MC; Gerry Studds, MC; Melvin Watt, MC; Sidney Yates, MC; Gary Ackerman, MC; Howard Berman, MC; William Clay, MC; Norman Dicks, MC; Richard Durbin, MC; Sam Farr, MC; Sam Gejdenson, MC; Luis Gutierrez, MC. Sheila Jackson-Lee, MC; Tom Lantos, MC; Nita Lowey, MC; Jim McDermott, MC; Carrie Meek, MC; Norman Mineta, MC; James Moran, MC; John Olver, MC; Nancy Pelosi, MC; Lucille Roybal-Allard, MC; Bernard Sanders, MC; David Skaggs, MC; Edolphus Towns, MC; Henry Waxman, MC; Thomas Barrett, MC; Sherwood Boehlert, MC; Peter DeFazio, MC; Julian Dixon, MC; Eliot Engel, MC; Thomas Foglietta, MC; Henry Gonzalez, MC; Jane Harman, MC; Maurice Hinchey, MC; Eddie [[Page H 8543]] Bernice Johnson, MC; John Lewis, MC; Carolyn Maloney, MC; Cynthia McKinney, MC; Kweisi Mfume, MC; Patsy Mink, MC; Jerrold Nadler, MC; Major Owens, MC; Charles Rangel, MC; Bobby Rush, MC; Patricia Schroeder, MC; Louise Slaughter, MC; Nydia Valazquez, MC; Lynn Woolsey, MC.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I have been puzzled recently by Speaker Gingrich's actions in certain regards. In particular, he seems to me to have been engaged in flirtations with some of the more extreme, unreasonable conspiracy theories that rattle around the right wing these days--for example, his support of the manner in which the Waco hearings were conducted and his refusal to accept the conclusion of several independent investigators that Vince Foster was a suicide. We also have the erratic way in which the House is being run these days, with important legislation being considered in the middle of the night, with debate and votes separated, and with the general sense of discombobulation. A recent column by Robert Novak in the Washington Post suggests some of the reasons--the Speaker, having benefited greatly from the energies of the very conservative elements that helped him take control of the Republican Party now is bothered by their insistence on his paying attention to their agenda. Since Mr. Novak has long been one of the in- house historians for the right wing in America, his discussion of the Speaker's rage at those on the right, and his frustration over his inability completely to control them explains a great deal. Because I think it is useful for people to be able to understand some of the puzzling things that have been happening in the House recently, which are otherwise inexplicable, I think it very useful that Mr. Novak's article be reprinted here. Anger at the Dinner Table (By Roger D. Novak) After spending three hours behind closed doors with the House Ethics Committee answering nuisance allegations by the Democratic leadership, Newt Gingrich last Thursday night erupted in anger at the dinner table--against his friends, not his enemies. The speaker of the House was the guest at a dinner hosted by R. Emmett Tyrrell, editor of the American Spectator, and attended mainly by conservative journalists. The immediate cause for Gingrich's ire was my column that day suggesting that he and other Republicans were flinching on affirmative action. But his complaints were much broader. For the first time in the 104th Congress, the speaker seemed at bay. His ill humor, his own aides said, was in no small part the product of fatigue. But beyond that, Gingrich is vexed with conservatives, inside and outside the House, who are crossing him on the highly charged issues of race and abortion. A major political leader is in grave danger when he assails his base. Gingrich's aides, who had never seen him as out of control for so sustained a period as he was last Thursday night, attribute it to an unbelievably heavy work load. Republican colleagues in the House, at the point of exhaustion trying to enact their revolutionary program, wonder how their leader fulfills that schedule while also running a shadow campaign for president and promoting his best-selling book, Fatigue can be cured by a little rest. Gingrich's bigger problem lies with the ideological heart of his party. His long-time supporter and sometime critic, conservative activist Paul Weyrich, worries that Gingrich is following the bad example of the Reagan White House in setting parameters of permissible conservatism. In effect, the speaker is saying: Nobody can be to the right of me and be respectable. From the speaker's office come complaints that conservative congressmen want him to force passage of proposals that do not command a majority in the House. At the American Spectator dinner, historian Gingrich compared the course of Republicans in Congress today to the way U.S. forces temporarily bogged down in France in 1944 after the Normandy landing. Democratic defenders of big government, he said, are fighting for their lives. This is a struggle of seven-day weeks and 16-hour days. But unlike his hero, Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower, Gingrich feels he is facing fire from his own troops. His voice rising, the speaker pointed to journalists at the table and said they were acting like, well, like journalists. He was ``infuriated,'' he said, by my column on affirmative action and asserted that I was wrong in saying his book, ``To Renew America,'' does not mention the subject. (He cited a two-page chapter on ``Individual Versus Group Rights'' that never mentions affirmative action or quotas or proposes a specific solution.) Gingrich went on to repeat what Jack Kemp said: that Republicans will rue a race-based campaign for president in 1996. He angrily lamented that black Republicans feel they are losing a golden opportunity to bring African Americans into the party. He described fears of such blacks as his Georgia congressional colleague and fighter for civil rights in the '60s, Rep. John Lewis, and warned against instilling apprehension about ``resegregation.'' Warming to his subject, Gingrich complained about conservatives bringing the party to ruin by opposing a rape- and-incest exception to federally financed abortions (another subject he avoids confronting directly in his book). He did not say so, but word has spread that he will cast a rare vote (the speaker usually does not vote) on the rape-and-incest exception. In less than eight months, Gingrich has established himself potentially as one of the most powerful and effective speakers in the nation's history. He is unquestionably the most visionary and charismatic figure in the Republican Party. But the strain of ``renewing America'' is showing. He seems more tolerant of the 25 or so House Republican moderates who oppose key elements of the party program than of some 200 conservatives who feel deeply about reverse discrimination and abortion on demand. That is not how the Republican majority was built, and it is not how it can be maintained.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I have been discussing with some other Members what the schedule is. I think we are close to an agreement, which would obviate the need for the nine separate votes and reconsiderations on the amendments that were adopted in the Committee of the Whole, most of which were perfectly nice amendments. I wondering if anyone could give me any guidance on what we are likely to be doing next, because that would have some influence on what we would be doing now. I would be glad to yield. I know we are making a lot of progress. I do not insist on everything, but I would like a little comfort level before I sit down.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, for the first time I have all this time and I have nothing to say. [[Page H 8419]] Can we go back on the Solomon amendment while we are waiting?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I do, and I would yield to the gentleman.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Before we pass the point at which separate votes cannot be demanded, I was trying to get some kind of comfort level about the chances of working out a schedule which would have us come back in first thing in the morning to do the telecommunications bill and whatever else we could finish, and I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that. This is, obviously, not the only bus in town, so I will give up the time here, with the understanding that we are trying hard to work this out, and if we are not able to work it out, I think we will have some difficulty. I would relinquish the time, and I certainly have no pressing need for separate votes at this point, apparently.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. [[Page H 8415]] The balanced budget that the Republicans have put forward is balanced only because in part it assumes that older people who get Social Security cost-of-living increases will get less than they would get under the current rules. What the Republican budget proposes is that the amount by which older people are compensated for inflation be substantially reduced. As my friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin, said in the House budget that went through, the cumulative total in 2002, the first year of budget balance which comes from a reduction in what would otherwise have been paid to older people under the Consumer Price Index cost of living, is $22.6 billion. Members will remember we tried to say you could not count a reduction in Social Security cost-of-living payments as part of your budget balancing, and that was rejected, and it was rejected for a good reason, because the Republican budget is not in balance unless they succeed in getting a lower Consumer Price Index compensation. What the gentleman from Wisconsin is saying is we should vote on that, and the reason I think that justifies it is this: We did not politicize that CPI. The Speaker said earlier this year that he would abolish them if they did not reduce the CPI. He backed down on that, but that threat is still hanging over there. So we have had the high-level Republican leadership tell the CPI they would be abolished, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, they would be abolished if they did not cut it back. We have the Republican budget resolution, which assumes the Bureau of Labor Statistics will reduce the CPI that older people living on $8,000, $9,000, $10,000 a year will get less for inflation. If they live in assisted housing, their rent will go up when they get less money to pay for it. What we are saying is, given the threats that have been made, given this budget assumes the cost-of-living increase will be reduced, given that the Republican budget is balanced only if you assume older people get less money than they would now be entitled to get for inflation, we should vote on that, because we do not think the Bureau of Labor Statistics should be pressured without a vote, but by political threats and other things, into making that downward reduction. That is all the gentleman is saying. I think it is the least we can do.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] mentioned Senator Stanley Rosenbaum. It is Rosenburg. That may not be an important difference to you. The point is they are State legislatures. You mentioned a State Senator and a State representative. You said before, only one Government had the guts. That is the crux of it, the State legislatures. They should do it. You do not believe in States' rights. It is a phoney.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, previously Members on the other side said, ``We did three appropriations bills in 2 days last year.'' There is a difference. Last year we did not have the systematic abuse of authorizing process. We did not have appropriations bills that preempted totally the authorizing process. We had a senior Republican from one of the authorizing committees today complaining about this. Those three bills that only took 2 days last year all had completely open rules with no restriction, and they were done easily because they were appropriations bills, and they only dealt with the money. They did not, as this side did in VA-HUD this year. Try to rewrite and cripple EPA. They did not rewrite the legislation. What they have done is they have been unable to have the authorizing committees function. The Republicans control the authorizing committees, but they have not been able to get them to function. They have not been able to get them to function. They have, therefore, used the appropriations bills to a degree unprecedented in my experience as legislative vehicles, and then we run into this terrible problem. It is one thing to deal simply with the money. It is another to get into the degree of legislating that they have gotten into.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, the last interchange between my colleague from Massachusetts and the gentleman from New York indicates the problem that now faces the House. We are about to make the most important decisions a civilized democracy can make in about 2 days. We are being told that we will appropriate the two largest amounts, the Defense Department appropriations bill and the Labor-Health and Human Services appropriations bill, totaling more than $500 billion, more than $300 billion discretionary, more than half of the discretionary account. Plus we will deal with the telecommunications future of this country in about 2 days. Nothing better illustrates the absolute incompetence with which the majority is now running the House. This is not the fault of the Committee on Rules. They have been given an impossible job. We have heard Members on the other side, the gentleman from Wisconsin, the gentlewoman from Florida, objecting at the constricted nature of the debate that faces them. It happens because we have a Republican leadership that has so mishandled things that we come to 2 days before a recess, having taken time out for Republican fund raisers and other things, and we are told that we will go all night, if necessary, we will do the most fundamental decisions. Yes, we will take money away from the poor and the needy and the elderly and give it to the B-2 bomber, and give it to defense. We will make all these decisions on American telecommunications. There is a kind of a book that comes to mind. When the Mets played their first year, somebody wrote a book about the Mets and they quoted Casey Stengel as having said, as he looked at his team, ``Can't anybody here play this game?'' This is not a game, this is more serious; but can not anybody on this side run this House? Mr. Speaker, to come to this late date, we have 2 days and 3 hours, 51 hours, 2 days and 3 hours to do the telecommunications bill, the Labor-HHS appropriation, and the Defense Department. This is not just incompetence, it becomes an abuse of democracy. If we were not cramming all this in so quickly we would have time to debate it adequately.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, this is not legislation. This is three card monte. First we started with the appropriations bill on Labor-HHS, now we are going to slip in a telecommunications bill. But just when we get a focus on that, they will switch to the defense bill. This is an absolute degradation of the legislative process. We also have the problem that we are now going to have the debate first and then the votes. I think they ought to try it other way around. Why do they not have the votes first and then the debate? They have obviously decided that the two are totally unrelated. They have totally degraded the legislative process. They have borrowed their sense of procedure from the red queen. Verdict first; debate afterwards.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I was appalled to read last week a statement from Speaker Gingrich suggesting that House Counsel Vince Foster was murdered, coupled with Mr. Gingrich's statement that he plans to do nothing at all about that. In other words, the Speaker apparently plans to suggest to the American people that an official in the White House was murdered, despite the fact that several investigations involving professional criminologists and others, forensic experts, have concluded that he was, tragically, a suicide. Mr. Gingrich chooses to call that into question but then do nothing about it. Remember that Mr. Gingrich has a good deal of influence over the agenda of this House, including the House Committee on Banking and Financial Services. The House Committee will be having hearings on the Whitewater matters. The Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs is having hearings on Whitewater. The Republican party apparently plans to have hearings about what happened before Mr. Foster, sadly, killed himself; they plan to have hearings about what happened after Mr. Foster killed himself, and they are having those now; but they will not have any hearings into that question. Why? Because everyone who has looked at it has concluded, without question, that Mr. Foster was a suicide because of the enormous pressures he was under. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Gingrich chooses to ignore that overwhelming evidence and to suggest that he was murdered, but he is very careful to make it clear that he will do nothing about it. In other words, he will leave that terribly destabilizing, awful suggestion there, with its unstated implications of who was responsible. Despite the fact that he has control over the investigatory bodies of this House, he will not have them look into it because he does not want to know the truth. Mr. Speaker, it has, unfortunately, become part of the right wing paranoia that circulates in this country to state, in defiance of the clear facts and pattern, that Mr. Foster was murdered. Mr. Foster's suicide has been investigated by two Republican independent counsel, first Mr. Fiske and now Mr. Starr. It has been investigated by police, by the FBI, by a whole range of officials. Overwhelmingly, everyone has concluded, tragically, that he committed suicide. The Speaker decides to ignore that, to reinforce one of the worst, craziest, most paranoid rumors now circulating and poisoning the American political atmosphere, but is careful to leave it at a suggestion. He is careful to avoid any forum in which that outrageous suggestion of his could be proven. What this shows, Mr. Speaker, is, unfortunately, the extent to which the right wing, in its most extremist form, demands increasing tribute from the Republican party leadership. We see it in public policy on the floor of this House and we see it in their rhetoric. The Speaker apparently feels compelled to give credence to one of the most contemptible, vicious, and inaccurate stories now circulating in American politics. It is an effort by the right wing to use the tragic suicide of a very decent man under great pressure for political purposes. Mr. Speaker, where is the Speaker of the House? Does he exercise leadership? I know Chairman D'Amato, former chairman of the Senate committee, has said, yes, it was a suicide. He stipulates to that. That is the responsible position. The Speaker is not willing to do that. The Speaker will, instead, fan one of the most irresponsible flames that threatens now to consume civility in the American political discourse. Mr. Speaker, I understand the need of the Republican leadership to keep happy those on the right wing who have been their most active troops, but can there not be a more decent way to do it? Must there be an unfortunate, unjustified, terrible effort to play with the facts involving this man's life? Does the Speaker really, genuinely believe this was a murder? No one, even the Speaker and even the people on the right are suggesting it was an act of God. The man was shot by his own hand. It is either murder or suicide. If the Speaker really believes it is murder, then where does he get the authority not to investigate it? Mr. Speaker, anyone who seriously believes a White House Counsel may have been murdered for political purposes, who does not use his or her authority to look into it, seems to me to be guilty of a dereliction of duty. What we are clearly talking about, then, is not a serious effort to get to the bottom of what would be a terrible crime. It is the most discouraging example of right wing influence in the Republican party that I have seen, and I have, unfortunately, seen many.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, these two documents are very relevant to our discussions on the HUD budget. The article by Keith Regan from the New Bedford Standard Times documents the need for housing, and demonstrate how ill-advised the cuts in this budget are for HUD. The statements from Judge Adams and former Secretary Pierce remind us that HUD is not inherently flawed, but rather harmed from the corrupt, incompetent administration it received during the Reagan years, and is in fact improving greatly under Secretary Cisneros. Office of Independent Counsel, January 11, 1995 Independent Counsel Arlin M. Adams announced today that former HUD Secretary Samuel R. Pierce, Jr., has admitted that his ``own conduct contributed to an environment'' at the Department of Housing and Urban Development in the 1980s in which his subordinates could engage in ``improper and even criminal conduct.'' In a statement provided to Independent Counsel Adams, which is attached to this release, Secretary Pierce ``fully accept[s] responsibility for [his] role'' in the mismanagement and abuse at HUD in the 1980s, and acknowledges that his meetings with former Secretary of the Interior James G. Watt and other personal friends who were seeking HUD funds were inconsistent with ``the HUD Standards of Conduct prohibiting actual or apparent undue or improper favoritism.'' Secretary Pierce also accepts responsibility ``for the necessity for the Independent Counsel's investigation,'' and states that he ``deeply regret[s] the loss of public confidence in HUD that these events may have entailed.'' Adams also announced today the completion of the major investigative phase of his probe of HUD in the 1980s, which to date has resulted in sixteen criminal convictions of former high-ranking officials and others, and has obtained more than $2 million in criminal fines. Adams stated that ``Secretary Pierce's admissions comport with the proof that the government would have introduced at trial, and inform the public of these events without the uncertainty and great expenditure of time and money inherent in such a trial.'' ``In light of these admissions,'' Adams further stated, ``and in consideration of other factors--including Secretary Pierce's age and multiple health problems, the conflicting evidence regarding the intent with which he acted, and the absence of any evidence that he or his family profited from his actions at HUD--this Office has declined to seek a criminal indictment of Secretary Pierce.'' ``These factors,'' Adams noted, ``distinguish this case from those previously prosecuted by this Office.'' Adams stated that while further details of Secretary Pierce's actions at HUD would be addressed in the Office of Independent Counsel's final report, ``Secretary Pierce's statement acknowledges what was demonstrated by both the Lantos Committee's hearings and this Office's prosecutions: that by his abdication of responsibility, and by his own conduct, Secretary Pierce made it possible for his subordinates to commit crimes and to profit from their betrayal of the public trust.'' The Independent Counsel's investigation and prosecutions have revealed, and Secretary Pierce's statement acknowledges, that HUD was an agency corrupted by the activities of many of its own officials. These high-ranking political appointees took control of HUD's increasingly scarce federal housing funds and then awarded those funds to benefit their friends, their families, and themselves, without regard to the actual housing needs of this nation or its low-income families. ``The HUD scandal,'' Adams stated, ``is the story of high- ranking political appointees who put their own interests ahead of the underprivileged persons whose interests they were charged to protect. The consequences of that scandal continue to be felt today, both in increased cynicism about our government in general and HUD in particular, and in the everyday lives of the poor.'' Secretary Pierce permitted the conditions to exist that allowed the corruption of HUD. He did so in two ways. First, he failed adequately to supervise the appointees who served under him. As Secretary Pierce admits, during the 1980s, a group of high-ranking political appointees at HUD whom he ``trusted with authority clearly were not deserving of either the powers of office or [his] trust.'' In particular, he ``failed to monitor and control the Moderate Rehabilitation Program, commonly referred to as the `mod rehab' program, when it was being operated, at least in part, to benefit certain consultants, developers, and ex-HUD officials.'' As a result, many HUD political appointees, ``including Deborah Dean and certain other members of [Pierce's] staff, used the program to see that their friends or political allies received mod rehab projects.'' Secretary Pierce admits that he has ``no doubt that the manner in which the mod rehab program was administered was flawed, and was not consistent with how the program was portrayed to Congress and the public. Second, Secretary Pierce acknowledges that his ``own conduct failed to set the proper standard.'' On a number of occasions, he ``met or spoke privately with personal friends who were paid to obtain funding for mod rehab projects,'' including former Secretary of the Interior James G. Watt, former Ambassador Gerald Carmen, and others. These meetings and conversations, and Secretary Pierce's follow-up discussions with his staff members, ``created the appearance that [he] endorsed [his] friends' efforts and sent signals to [his] staff that such persons should receive assistance.'' Secretary Pierce acknowledges that these contacts with his friends were not only inconsistent with ``the HUD Standards of Conduct prohibiting actual or apparent undue or improper favoritism,'' but also with Pierce's own instructions to his staff. Secretary Pierce also acknowledges that his answers during the congressional hearings before the Lantos Committee ``did not always accurately reflect the events occurring at HUD several years earlier. Adams stated that while this concludes the major investigative phase of the probe, ``Secretary Pierce's statement, coupled with other evidence recently made available to this Office, raises the issue whether certain individuals may have committed perjury or obstructed justice during the course of this investigation.'' Noting that the Office already has secured numerous perjury and obstruction convictions, Adams stated that ``[t]he length of this investigation is attributable to the efforts of those who attempted to obstruct it. But, as previously pledged, such obstruction, when uncovered, shall be dealt with appropriately.'' To date, the Office of Independent Counsel's investigation has resulted in sixteen convictions following trials or guilty pleas, and has secured more than $2 million in criminal fines. Statement by the Honorable Samuel R. Pierce, Jr., December 15, 1994 From January 1981 through January 1989, I served as the Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development. I was responsible for the overall administration of the Department, which employed thousands of people in numerous divisions. During the time I served as Secretary, a number of HUD staff members engaged in improper and even criminal conduct. I realize that my own conduct contributed to an environment in which these events could occur. Many people I trusted with authority clearly were not deserving of either the powers of office or my trust. My management style, developed after years of working in a law firm and other legal environments, was to delegate details. This style exacerbated the problems at HUD because I did not exert sufficient control over the individuals who [[Page E 1553]] reported to me. In particular, I failed to monitor and control the Moderate Rehabilitation Program, commonly referred to as the ``mod rehab'' program, when it was being operated, at least in part, to benefit certain consultants, developers, and ex- HUD officials. As a result, a number of political appointees, including Deborah Dean and certain other members of my staff, used the program to see that their friends or political allies received mod rehab projects. In addition, my own conduct failed to set the proper standard. On a number of occasions, I met or spoke privately with personal friends who were paid to obtain funding for mod rehab projects, including, among others, James Watt, Gerald Carmen, and Robert Rhone. These meetings and conversations, and my following discussions with staff members, created the appearance that I endorsed my friends' efforts and sent signals to my staff that such persons should receive assistance. While I never financially benefited in any way from these projects, these meetings and contacts were inconsistent with the HUD Standards of Conduct prohibiting actual or apparent undue or improper favoritism, and my related instructions to my staff. I was the person entrusted with the duties of Secretary and I was the person responsible for the Department. If I am to take credit for its successes, I must also take the blame for its problems. I have no doubt that the manner in which the mod rehab program was administered was flawed, and was not consistent with how the program was portrayed to Congress and the public. Despite certain warning signs, and my own meetings and conduct, as described above, I failed to ensure that the mod rehab program operated properly. I have come to some of these conclusions as a result of facts revealed by the investigation and the prosecutions conducted by the Office of Independent Counsel. Prior to that investigation, I had testified before Congress. I was ill- prepared for the congressional hearing and appeared without counsel. Reviewing my exchanges with Members of the Lantos Subcommittee, I see that I answered certain questions with broad responses that did not always accurately reflect the events occurring at HUD several years earlier. Similarly, one of my answers to inquiries made by the Public Integrity Section of the Department of Justice was not completely responsive. These last five years have been difficult ones for me, but my parents taught me that I must not shrink from my duties. I was the guardian of the HUD gates, and I rested on my post when vigilance was most needed. In light of my conduct and that of others at HUD, I fully understand and accept responsibility for the necessity for the Independent Counsel's investigation. However, in my forth years of public service I never received a single improper benefit for my actions--no money, no tickets, no trips, nothing. Nonetheless, I fully accept responsibility for my role in what occurred at HUD, and deeply regret the loss of public confidence in HUD that these events may have entailed. [From the Standard Times, July 25, 1995] Housing Crunch Hits Poor Most--Waiting Lists for Affordable Units in Area Keep Growing (By Keith Regan) New Bedford.--A drop in the number of affordable apartments is sending record numbers of low-income families to area housing authorities for help. But housing officials say budget cuts are forcing them to turn people away or add them to already lengthy waiting lists. As many as 1,000 individuals and families are waiting for spaces in the city's 3,900 units of public or subsidized housing, according to Joseph Finnerty, executive director of the New Bedford Housing Authority. Mr. Finnerty said the fact that few new units of affordable housing have been built by private developers in recent years has contributed to the influx of applicants. ``The apartment buildings you see built on the edge of town aren't aimed at low-income residents,'' he said. Meanwhile, as those buildings went up, many older apartment buildings that once housed affordable housing were being demolished in New Bedford and other large cities. ``There's a decrease in the number of affordable apartments at the same time economic conditions mean more people need them,'' said Mr. Finnerty. The problem is not limited to the city, however. In Wareham, the wait for one of the town's 32 units of public housing ranges from six to 12 months, according to Housing Authority Executive Director Pamela Sequeira. ``We don't have the funds to offer any new housing programs,'' Ms. Sequeira said. ``And these families can't find affordable apartments on their own.'' A report issued Monday by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities finds the national shortage of public housing reached record levels in 1993, with low-income families out- numbering affordable housing units by a two-to-one margin. Based on ceasus data, the report found 11.2 million low- income renters and just 6.5 million units of low-income housing. Affordable housing is defined as taking up less than 30 percent of a resident's income, low-income is defined as any family or individual earning $12,000 a year or less. The report cites a decrease in the number of low-rent homes due to the gentrification of some urban areas and the abandonment of run-down housing in others. Mr. Finnerty said he has witnessed the decline of affordable housing units over the last decade since Congress eliminated a tax break in 1965 that encouraged private developers to build low-income housing. ``They took away the incentive for developers to include low-income housing in their buildings,'' he said. Fairhaven resident Joaquin ``Jack'' Custodio said public housing programs have long fallen short of their goal of providing families a way out of poverty. ``It's the strong versus the weak,'' Mr. Custodio said. Residents of housing projects ``aren't given any power'' to improve their lives, he added. Housing, unlike other public assistance is not an entitlement program, meaning families who do not receive public housing or federal subsidies must fend for themselves, Mr. Finnerty said. Still, he said, the need for public housing is tied to other programs, such as Aid to Families with Dependent Children, with cuts in those forms of asssitance making it even more difficult for families to afford housing. Ms. Sequeira cited the report's finding that most families who do not receive public housing assistance spend more than half of their income on housing. Many, especially elderly families on fixed incomes, can ``end up in a deficit in their first month,'' she said. ``Something else has to give,'' said Mr. Finnerty. ``An elderly person might spend less on medicine or a family might not eat as well as they should to make up the difference.'' Mr. Finnerty also said the study's timing is crucial. Congress is currently considering a $7 billion reduction in the Department of Housing and Urban Development's budget for next year. The New Bedford Housing Authority is already facing a 14 percent cut in this year's budget and a 28 percent cut for the next fiscal year, which begins in October. ``It's only going to get worse,'' Mr. Finnerty said.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I will support this amendment. We know the old saying that a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. Well, this bill is a couple of thousand miles short, and this is the single step. It is not the fault of the chairman, I believe, of the subcommittee. I think left to his own, he would have done better. But given the priorities that he had to work with, he has had to bring forward a bill that is savage in the negative effect it will have on elderly poor people and others. They correct the rent increase that they wanted to give to people in public housing, but elderly people in assisted housing, elderly people in section 8, will get a significant rent increase in this. At the same time their Medicare costs will go up, and that is unworthy of us. One thing I wanted to address: We are going to be told one part of the problem here, one of the reasons HUD has to take such savage deep cuts, is that HUD has been badly run. That is true. From 1981 to 1989, under the administration of Ronald Reagan, and specifically Secretary of HUD Samuel Pierce, HUD was one of the worst run departments in the history of the Federal Government. When we are at the appropriate point in the full House, I will insert into the Record the statement of the Independent Counsel and the statement of Samuel Pierce which he issued when he was not indicted, and that was part, I think, of the deal, in which he said, ``I fully accept responsibility for my role in what occurred at HUD and deeply regret the loss of public confidence in HUD that these events may have entailed.'' HUD suffered grievously from the maladministration, the corrupt and inefficient administration from 1981 to 1989 under President Reagan. Now the poor people are paying the price. It is a classic case of blaming the victim, first for the Republican Party to have trashed HUD the way it did for 8 years, and now when Secretary Cisneros is building on the efforts of Secretary Kemp, Secretary Kemp did the damage control, and Secretary Cisneros is trying to move ahead and be positive, and we are being told HUD will be cut enormously, elderly people's rents will go up, people in need will not be helped, and it is partly because of the legacy of absolute corrupt inefficiency that we inherited from the Reagan administration.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. If the gentleman will yield, I just wanted to make the point there was some question as to when the authorization lapsed. Someone had suggested that authorization for the drug elimination program had lapsed a long time earlier. The information I received from the very able staff of the minority on the housing subcommittee is that, in fact, this was authorized through 1994. The question was whether this had been some previous problem. It is the failure of the Congress this year to authorize the drug elimination grants that caused the dilemma the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur] has been caught in. That is, through the end of last year it was authorized. So we were not previously appropriating for an unauthorized program, and it was the failure of the housing subcommittee to do anything this year that resulted in that problem.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. If the gentlewoman will yield further, you may need three or four Republicans.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. The next time you want to fight drugs, you are going to have to ask a Republican to do it for you. Then maybe you will get permission to get your amendment up here.

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, although this was not in the Record, I did share a copy with the majority. Mr. Chairman, this is the companion to the amendment offered by my colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy]. What he did addresses this 30- to 32-percent increase for the elderly. This one addresses it for other residents of this kind of housing: families and disabled individuals. It is a similar argument. The argument is that when we have decided that people are on limited income, and certainly the disabled would be, some of the families would be, when we are talking about people at the lower end of the spectrum, and I want to agree, the majority, and I congratulate the gentleman from California, because I think this reflected what he would like to do in the manager's amendment, he did relieve this for the poorest of the poor, and I acknowledge that. The amendment of the gentleman from California, working with the gentleman from New York, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Housing of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services, did undo this for the poorest of the poor, the people who live in public housing. We now have a situation where people who live in public housing [[Page H 7864]] will pay only 30 percent, which is fair, but people who are in certificated housing, people who may be a notch or two above, will have to go to 32 percent. This will include families, this will include the working poor. These are the families who are here, working poor people. To tell them once again that they will get an increase in their rents of 6\2/3\ percent, if they are making $20,000 a year, then the 2-percent increase is a $400-a-year increase. I have had my colleagues on the other side say that some of us were not appreciative of how important a $500 tax cut would be to a middle-income family. If you are making $40,000 or $50,000 a year it is very serious. If $500 is a very serious amount of money to a family making $50,000, is $400 a year then for a family making less than half that not even more serious? That is what we are saying to people. We are saying to precisely those people on whom we were trying to focus public policy attention, people who are above the welfare roles, people we are telling, ``Get off the welfare roles and get into a work situation,'' because very few will go off of welfare into a $100,000 a year job. Many will be in the low-wage jobs. Some will be eligible for this sort of housing. What we are telling them is getting $18,000, $20,000 a year and trying to support a family, we will now, if you are making $20,000 a year, raise your rent by $400 a year. Think what the disposable income is for a family in that category. We are not talking, now, as I said, about welfare cases on the whole. The people who are on welfare have probably been protected by the manager's amendment, the manager's amendment which protected the people on public housing, where we were likely to have a higher welfare percentage. We are likelier here to be talking about the working poor, because the average incomes of the people in the assisted housing projects will be higher on the whole than the public housing. We are talking about people who get section 8's. What we are saying is, ``You have done nothing wrong, you have worked very hard, we know times are tough, and by the way, your rent just went up $400, without any increase in income.'' If their income goes up, then the rent goes up $400 plus the increase in their income. Why? So we can make sure the tax cut extends to people who make $200,000 a year. My guess is, I have not done the arithmetic, but my guess is if we limited the tax cut to the people who are making only $50,000 a year, we could afford this amendment. This amendment cannot reach the taxes, so I do reduce funds for NASA. I would have preferred to take a piece of the B-2 bomber, to take a piece of some of the other unnecessary military spending projects to deal with the tax cut. If and when we get this to conference if people then want to make these kind of adjustments, I would be supportive. But we again come to a fundamental difference, I think, in approach: Tell working people who are making $20,000 a year that as we increase military spending beyond what the President has asked, beyond what anybody needs, as we subsidize the defense of others. I have to say, because these things are relevant, you may have noticed that the French were very frustrated. They wanted to send some reinforcements into Bosnia but they could not do it without American helicopters. How come France does not have enough helicopters to transport its own troops? Because the American defense budget has been subsidizing it. Members who want to continue the American defense budget subsidy of the French economy, a very generous act of international cooperation-- ``Merci,'' I say, on behalf of the people of France--are going to make up for that by telling Americans who make $20,000 a year and live in subsidized housing and who work very hard--we are talking now about hard-working people--who make $20,000 a year with a couple of kids and that are in this kind of housing, they have got a section 8 certificate, and their rent goes up by 2 percent. There is no reason to do that other than, I think, a distorted set of priorities, and I hope the amendment is adopted.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. First, Mr. Chairman, understand that under the Republican budget they would only get a 3-percent increase in Social Security if the cost of living increase by current standards was 3.8 percent, because they want to reduce that. However, yes, the gentlewoman is correct. The first year this is implemented the increase in rent that an elderly resident of subsidized housing will pay will be the percentage of Social Security increase plus 6\2/3\ percent of their income; so on a 3 percent figure, that would be a 9\2/3\-percent rent increase when they only got a 3-percent increase in income.