Barney Frank

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, this amendment really goes to the heart of the kind of policy differences that the Nation is being presented with at this time. This amendment deals with the rents that are charged to some of the poorest people in this country. We have programs, subsidized housing programs, for older people. We are being asked in this bill to raise the percentage of their income from 30 percent to 32 percent of their income. Understand that that is not a 2 percent rent increase, that is a 6\2/3\ percent increase. Two percent of 30 percent is 6\2/3\ percent. Under current law, if Social Security pays people a 3-percent cost of living increase in December, elderly people's rents would go up by 3 percent. Some of them are angry at this. They say you are giving with one hand and taking with another. Many of us have talked to older people, who felt that this policy of their rent going up by the same percentage of the cost of living was a serious problem. Well, the Republican Party is going to change that. No longer, under this bill, if you are an elderly person living in subsidized housing, will your rent go up by the same amount as your Social Security. If this bill passes, your rent will go up by three times as much in percentage as Social Security, because if we get a 3 percent cost of living increase, under this bill the rent will then go up in that 1 year 9\2/3\ percent. Now, this is a habit that the Republicans have. The last time they were able to control the budget of this House, in 1981, in the Gramm- Latta bill, the rents that people in subsidized housing, and we are talking about elderly people, older people, including some who only live on Social Security or Social Security and a small pension, and they are living in subsidized housing, and they were in 1981 paying 25 percent of their rent. Under an amendment named for a Republican Senator, Ed Brooke, it was the Brooke amendment, the Republican Party, when they had control in 1981, changed that and went from 25 percent to 30 percent. Now they want to do it again. So it is very clear. We now have a pattern. Every time the Republican Party is in a position to control the budget of this House, poor, elderly people see their rent go up by a significant amount more than their income goes up. It will make them two for two. Of course, the House budget resolution called for an increase to 35 percent. So one assumes that is not their last effort to increase it. As I have said before, older people who are familiar with the literary history of this country will recognize this, because they are familiar with Dick Tracy. There was a character in Dick Tracy known as Evil-Eye Fleegle who specialized in whammies. His worse effect on you was the triple whammy. Now, under the Republican budget, the cost of living increase to be paid for Social Security recipients is going to go down. The Republican Party's budget says old people get too much money when inflation occurs, and their budget resolution, enacted by them, adopted by them, calls for a reduction in the cost of living increase later in this century. So the cost-of-living increase for an order older person living on $10,000 a year will go down. That is whammy one. Whammy two will be what they do to you on Medicare, when your copayments go up and your part B payments go up. If you are so poor and you are in such circumstances that you live in public housing, you get the triple whammy, because your rent will go up. And what the gentleman from Massachusetts is saying is that should not happen, that the 30-percent income should stay the same. It does not mean the rent, their rents will never go up. The current law says their rents will go up with their income. The Republican bill says rents will go up more than income. Originally it was going to do that to people in public housing, too. The managers' amendment fixed that so people who live in public housing will now stay at 30 percent, and I am glad. But their friends, relatives, their peers who live in a section 8 unit, who live in an assisted housing unit, subsidized housing go, who live in 202, their rents will go up by three times as much as Social Security. Their rent will go up from 30 percent to 32 percent of their income. We are not talking about people with substantial amounts of discretionary income. We are talking about the elderly poor. Raising the rents, raising the percentage of the meager incomes that the elderly poor have to pay to finance a tax cut, to finance a B-2 bomber, to finance a manned space station, to finance all these other things, is, in my judgment, quite wrong. I do not think anything more starkly illustrates the different approaches of the two parties.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I want to be fair to the Republicans. We should not just talk about the pain they are going to be inflicting by making all the people pay more for Medicare because that is only one part of it. They also plan in their budget to reduce the cost of living every elderly person gets, no matter how low on the income scale. Their budget balances in the year 2002, only because in part they cut the cost-of-living increase for Social Security. They think older people have been overcompensated for inflation. But finally, for those older people who live in assisted housing and public housing who have Section 8 certificates, they have a third gift. They are going to raise their rent. So older people are going to find that, if the bill passes that is pending before us, that instead of 30 percent, they will pay 32 percent of their income. Their income will not go up as fast. Maybe that is the consolation when the Republicans cut the cost of living, but they will pay [[Page H 7560]] more for Medicare. They will get less of a cost of living, and their rent will go up. At least older people who read the comics and remember Al Capp, Lil' Abner, and Evil-Eye Fliegal will know what is happening to them. They are about to get the Republican triple whammy.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, first, with regard to stabilizing the currency, the notion that you stabilize one currency without looking at others is a little bit odd. As a matter of fact, my recollection is that when the Mexican crisis was averted, we can debate for how long, that was good for the dollar. The dollar was threatened by this. So as a matter of fact this did have the effect, I recall, of bolstering the dollar in the short term. I am opposed to the amendment. I think what the President did was reasonable. It has so far succeeded, compared to the alternative. People forget the eternal wisdom of one of the great commentators on the human condition, Henny Youngman: The important issue is always compared to what? Having not done this, and having had the collapse in Mexico that would have occurred, would have had very negative consequences. But I also want to address the rather extraordinary history that we just heard from the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox], a member of the Republican leadership. We have been reading about the strong Speaker and the strong leadership. It now turns out that the Speaker of the House and the majority leader of the House and the Republican leadership will not bring a bill to the floor if the President does not want them to. No one knew that before. The Speaker, as I recall, supported what the President did. Now, I just read in the paper yesterday that the Speaker made a statement about Taiwan. Henry Kissinger called him up and he changed his mind. Did the Speaker change his mind? The Speaker supported this action of the President. Did Henry Kissinger call him and make him change his mind again? Maybe we will have to read tomorrow's New York Times. The notion that the President of the United States stopped this House from voting, when control of the legislative agenda is in the Republican hands, is nonsense. Did Senator Dole refuse to bring it to a vote in the Senate because of consideration for the President? Let us not debase this with that kind of partisanship. There was, in fact, joint consultation. It was one of the most bipartisan things that has been done all year. The chairman of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services was taking a very responsible decision. People might agree or disagree. He was trying to work it out. I disagreed with him on some specifics, but there was joint bipartisan leadership consultation to do this. So the notion, particularly from a member of the Republican leadership, that this was a Democratic thing thwarted by the President is really not a useful way to debate this. It really does a disservice to the Speaker. Is the Speaker some helpless child? He is tied up somewhere and he could not bring this bill to the floor? If the Speaker wanted the bill to be brought to the floor, he could have brought it to the floor. I think the Speaker would have said this was as important as rhinoceroses and tigers, and he got a vote on rhinoceroses and tigers and he probably could have sneaked this one in. So, let us not have that kind of unfair mischaracterization. Now, as far as the legislation is concerned, it is relevant to the stabilization of our currency in the broadest sense. And I believe if my colleagues will go back and check, that the dollar, in fact, benefited from the announcement of this deal. And that, in fact, let me put it this way, if we learned tomorrow that this was falling apart and that Mexico was going to be in serious trouble, I do not think that would be good for the dollar. I think that, in fact, that would destabilize the dollar. So in the broader sense, this, I think was useful. These are difficult questions. I am not happy with the internal situation in Mexico. I was not ready to vote for the legislation, because I wanted more conditions dealing with labor rights in Mexico. But it is because of the interconnection of our economy and theirs that I wanted those. As, in fact, things deteriorate in other countries, that has a negative effect on us in two ways: A negative competitive effect, because an implosion standards there has a downward pull on standards here; and it means they do not buy as much. Given the difficult situation with bipartisan consultation, the President did, I think, something that was courageous and has worked well. But to have a member of the Republican leadership make that kind of partisan attack, inaccurately suggesting that the President somehow kidnaped the Speaker, kidnaped the majority leader, hornswoggled the Senate, and kept this from being voted on is simply wrong.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield, if the Speaker had wanted it to come to the floor, it would have come to the floor. The gentleman should not make this a partisan issue, when it is not. There was a joint consultation. The suggestion that the President unilaterally can stop this House from acting on legislation that the Speaker wants to bring forward is nonsensical.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I am just puzzled by the gentleman's view of who controls the legislative schedule. If the Speaker of the House of Representatives wanted to present the bill, he could have presented it. Does the President have the right to pull any bill? Because if he does, if any time the President says, ``Pull the bill,'' the Speaker is going to comply, I will go get the list right now and we can be out of here for recess in about an hour.

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, we see a continuation of the pattern here that when amendments are inconvenient, they are simply prevented from being offered. I gather there was some reference to my handwriting, which I will concede is not much better than my diction, but what happened was I have been interested in the issue of Indonesia and its mistreatment to the people of East Timor for some time. There are currently negotiations going on now between the Portuguese and Indonesian Governments in which the Portuguese Government is trying to bring some help to these beleaguered people. Having us debate this and perhaps adopt an amendment could be very helpful. As I understand it, Mr. Speaker, during the original debate, someone on the other side was going to offer an amendment and decided not to. When I learned that, I came to the floor and offered one. I had one that was in fact offered and it was at the desk that first night. We then adjourned. I later learned earlier the next day, or later the next day, that there was a rule that was coming and we had to submit, so I hastily, it is true, wrote it and submitted it. However, in fact I had had an amendment at the desk the night before. I submitted one the next day when I was told, with very little notice that it was required to do that. The question is this: Should we be allowed to debate Indonesia? When we talked about Haiti there was great concern for democracy on the other side. Indonesia now is engaging in East Timor in the worst repression I believe that is going on in the world, a repression that is as bad as any going on in the world. However, Indonesia will be sheltered by the Republican Party from an amendment which would put some pressure on them to stop the systematic denial of the rights of the people of East Timor. As I said, negotiations are now going on trying to deal with that, but the Republican Party is going to use its majority to keep that from even being debated. having done that, Mr. Speaker, when they then talk about their concern for human rights and democracy elsewhere, it will seem hollow indeed, because one of the worst cases, the Indonesian repression in East Timor, will go unnoticed in this actual debate. I would repeat, there was an amendment that was to be offered. When that was withdrawn, I hastily tried to make up for it, and they are going to repress this and protect the Indonesian autocracy.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I have just been speaking to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the ranking Democrat on the Committee on Appropriations. The gentleman tells me that someone wondered where he was and the gentleman would like it reported that where he is is in the Committee on Appropriations. Because under the way this House is now functioning, the Committee on Appropriations is meeting and the gentleman's presence is required there while the rule is being debated. The gentleman would like to be here to object to this unfair rule, but he has been tied down by the need to be at his committee; an example of how the House is not functioning very well these days.

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. It was the people of East Timor who were the victims.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. If the gentleman would yield further, I filed it the night before. As soon as I was told that there was a requirement for putting an amendment in, I scribbled it out and put it in. It was not written well, but it was submitted to the committee before the committee voted. It had been submitted the night before and it was submitted again before the committee voted. I cannot do any more than that.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, first I want to say that to say that you are sorry that the East Timor situation is a victim of dilatory tactics seems to me an example of the kind of disproportion we can get into. We are talking about repression. Hurt feelings between ourselves should not get in the way of our being able to deal with repression. The amendment that I offered, I came to the floor during the first period of debate, found to my disappointment that people who I thought were going to offer that amendment had not offered it. I then offered it, I submitted it. It had been in fact at the desk. This is not something that just happened the morning after. As soon as I found out that that was not being submitted, I submitted it. The next day when I was told there was a rule, I submitted it again. As far as dilatory tactics, you are only doing 20 minutes of amendments, so we could hardly have been prolonging it. I submitted it, you come out with a rule that only does 20 minutes per amendment. I do not think another 20 minutes to allow us to deal with the horrible situation of repression in East Timor would have been a problem. To say to them, ``Sorry, you don't count because we're mad about dilatory tactics and we can't spare you 20 minutes,'' I think degrades the process.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I appreciate the solicitude and care with which the gentleman from Texas has helped me get attention. I would appreciate even more, however, some solicitude for the ability of the House to legislate in a sensible way. The Committee on Appropriations members will be put to the problematic task of sitting in full committee while they are in fact having bills on the floor. The Committee on the Judiciary has now called a markup on the very sensitive subject of abortion, and members of the Committee on the Judiciary will be asked to be at that full committee while there is legislation on the floor. It is a very clear example. Politicians who have been caught being inconsistent like to misquote Ralph Waldo Emerson, they leave out a couple of adjectives, about how consistency is for the small-minded. I want to congratulate my colleagues on the other side. They must feel large-minded indeed these days, because there is scarcely a principle which they brought forward on the opening day of the session which they have not violated, as the gentleman from Texas has said, routinely. Routinely we get the proxy cut aside. Routinely the notion of family friendly is ignored. Routinely the committees meet while the House is in session. Routinely, if you do not like what the States do, States rights become something you put back under the rug. Mr. Speaker, this is one more example of a failure to live up to those professions of concern.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I thank the Speaker for his efforts, but it has been my experience that when people do not want to hear something, you cannot make them listen. The Republicans do not want to hear the reminders of how short-lived their promises were about running the House. This is an example. They made a big deal about how they were changing its rules so we would not have that [[Page H 6724]] conflict between committee business in the House, and it is now routine to change it. When that is changed, of course, they make a mockery of the rule on proxies. We were told you cannot have proxy voting; be there in committee. But what do you do when a bill that you are seriously interested in is being debated on the floor and the committee on which you are a member is simultaneously meeting? Maybe it is a bill on which that committee has jurisdiction. How do you avoid missing one or the other? So what we have had is, at least in the committees I have seen, a very creative contest by the chairs of the committee on how to get around the proxy rule. Let's roll the votes. Let's hold the votes. Let's reconsider. Let's have some mock votes. In area after area, we have seen the rules disregarded. We were told we would have a strict limit on the number of subcommittees a member can be on. We are. Members are strictly limited on the Republican side to the number of subcommittees on which they wish to serve and no more. And that need bear no relationship to the basic rule. We have been told, in the substantive areas as well, that the Republican Party will honor the right of the States. They do. They honor the right of the States to make any decision with which the Republican Party is in agreement. But where the States may misdecide, they will overrule those decisions. We are here talking about a very fundamental issue.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I do take note of the fact that the majority has decided we will do no further legislative business today of any sort, and that will allow us to leave. But I was particularly struck when the majority leader said this is a routine request. Indeed, it has become so. It has become routine for the Republican Party to ignore the rules it so proudly proclaimed at the first day of the session, because one of the great reforms that they brought to us, one of the new ways of doing business, was the one that was to say that the House will not sit simultaneously with the committees. You would not, if you were on the Committee on the Judiciary, have an important markup on the terrorism bill at the same time a constitutional amendment is on the floor. You would not, if you were on the Committee on Appropriations, have a full committee markup while a bill is on the floor. That was one of the great reforms the Republicans were bringing us, and as the gentleman from Texas has honestly said, it has now become----

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I move to reconsider the vote by which the previous question was ordered. motion to table offered by mr. boehner

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Point of order, Mr. Speaker. This clearly violates the spirit of the Speaker's previous instructions. I would like to be clear that unless we are going to have one test of rules for this party and another set of rules for the other, that clearly violates what the gentleman stated to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior].

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Point of order, Mr. Speaker. My point of order is that unless the Speaker has taken the words of the gentleman from Michigan to heart, that violates the subject of the Speaker's previous instructions, Mr. Speaker. It is off the point of the issue of appointing the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Laughlin].

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I object.