Barney Frank

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I thank the very able ranking minority member for yielding time to me. I apologize for speaking a little bit out of order. If it is 4 o'clock, it must be Bulgaria, which means I missed Cambodia. I admire the dispatch. I do not mean to get in the way of it. I think we sometimes take too long on things, but I did want to address a couple of words to the situation in Cambodia and, with the indulgence that the ranking minority member has given me, I will do that now. I was supportive of a letter that was sent by Lane Kirkland, president of the AFL-CIO, to the Government of Cambodia in which he makes some very cogent objections to the proposed labor law. The gentleman from Florida has quite correctly pointed out that most- favored-nation treatment is a misnomer, since it does not mean that you are given preferential treatment. On the other hand, it is something which it is within our power to confer and you are better off with it than without it. And I do believe as a matter of course, we should now be doing everything we can to urge better labor laws among other things, better respect for working people in our trading partners as one way of preventing an erosion of the rights that have been gained by people here, in eastern Europe, and elsewhere. I do not oppose the Cambodia resolution, which is a good thing, since it is already over, but I do want to take the opportunity to have in the appropriate Record my concern. I have been told that the Cambodian Government has given assurances to Mr. Kirkland and others that they intend to correct the labor law that they are going to promulgate so that we will genuinely reflect the rights of workers to make their own choices and to advocate for their own rights. I would just note that many of us are supportive of the most-favored- nation treatment for Cambodia on that assumption. I hope that by the next time it comes up, when it is time to be renewed, if it has to be, we will have that assurance. I thank the ranking minority member for yielding time to me.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to acknowledge a woman from my district whose life is an example of dedication and service to those in need. Agnes E. Raposa spearheaded the founding of the I.H. Schwartz Children's Rehabilitation Center in New Bedford, MA in 1950. For four decades, Ms. Raposa served as executive director of the center, a nonprofit agency that annually serves about 500 children affected by cerebral palsy and other medical conditions. Under her leadership, the center has helped thousands of children meet the challenges of their disabilities and strive to their greatest potential. As her community gathers to celebrate her 80th birthday, I take this opportunity to wish Ms. Raposa a very happy birthday and to thank her for showing us how much one life, filled with a spirit of purpose, can benefit and change so many others.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. It is in writing at the desk.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, today, as the 20th anniversary of the Republic of Cape Verde's independence approaches, I want to take a moment to commemorate this anniversary and mention the people that have made it possible. As a nation committed to protecting individual freedom and establishing economic stability through democracy, the country's independence celebration is a testament to the will of the Cape Verdean people who, brought together by their struggle for freedom and the archipelago's environment, remind us of their American counterparts. Indeed, Cape Verdeans are very familiar with American history; they are, in fact, an integral part of it. Since the 18th century, Cape Verdeans have represented an assiduous and determined part of the American spirit, particularly in New England. Cape Verdeans were builders of the whaling and fishing industry, cultivators of the cranberry bogs and workers in the textile mills. Their arts and crafts have enhanced the beauty of our lives, and their songs and dances have touched our hearts and our souls. So this year we celebrate the Republic's independence and our own acknowledgment of the Cape Verdean role in American culture at the 29th annual Festival of American Folklife, which opened last week at the Smithsonian in Washington, DC. In the future, we look forward to participating in the growth of a nation abroad and the celebration of its traditions at home.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I am very disturbed about the free speech aspects, but not of the constitutional amendment, but of the rule. I do not think that this pattern of shutting us up and stopping substantive debate ought to go forward without comment A pattern has very clearly developed, no matter what the intentions of the chairman of the Committee on Rules. And I do not question his intentions, but unfortunately I am not governed by his intentions, but by the actions he is required to take within the context of the whole House. We have had a pattern of more restrictive rules for debate recently than in any previous time. We just debated the military authorization bill under the most restrictive terms in my 15 years in Congress. We were told we did not have time to debate fundamental issues in that bill, and then we adjourned on Thursday afternoon, I believe, with hours to go when we were still in session on a Friday. We have had these rules where you get a fixed time, and quorum calls take away the chance of Members to offer important amendments. Today it is almost a mockery when we are discussing free speech, and this is a difficult issue, and I have great admiration for the patriotism that drives many with whom I disagree, but to debate this under so restrictive a situation. No amendment was allowed. The Committee on Rules used its discretion to say no to any alternative. It then had the inconvenient fact that the minority is entitled, entitled, to the motion to recommit. And what do they do? They even played with that, because the motion to recommit is usually available to any member on the minority side in descending order, the ranking member of the committee on down. They said only if it is the minority leader or his designee. Apparently some ploy to try to engage the minority leader. Why was it not the usual recommit? That does not say the minority leader or his designee. We in the past have said OK, look, here is our major amendment, and you use the recommit, frankly, for strategic or tactical purposes. You engage in debate. You have always had the right on the recommittal motion to come up with something and suggest it and come forward with it. And that has been taken away. It is unseemly in the defense of the great American flag, symbolic of the freest nation in the world, to come forward in the legislative body with debate under such restrictive terms. I think this is a very grave error.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I am glad to yield to the gentleman from Michigan, the ranking minority member, who has always been victimized by this undemocratic rule. (Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I am glad the gentlewoman made that point about the budget. The chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, in his plea for not interfering with the sacred deliberations of the holy committee and not profaning it with our individual judgments, said ``We are just doing what the budget said. First, the budget is a ceiling. It is not a floor, it is not a command. The budget is a ceiling.'' Second, as the gentlewoman said, the House budget figure is almost certainly going to be higher than the Senate budget figure, than the final budget figure. The House is $9 billion in this account, the overall military account, higher than the Senate. No one thinks the conference report is coming out at the House number. The chairman of the Committee on Rules said there were delicate negotiations going on with the Senate now, so we are not going to have a final budget resolution that is at this higher number, and we are anticipating that in a reasonable way. I thank the gentlewoman.

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I have not heard such a touching plea for the sacrosanct nature of anything a committee does since Jack Brooks left. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder].

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3\1/2\ minutes. First, the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Hefner] is wrong when he says if we take this 5-percent cut and then have a budget conference reduction of a half a billion, they will be additive. No, this will be a way of reaching that. The budget conference would lower the number that this goes to. My amendment would be a way of reaching that lowering, so they would not be added. It would not be cumulative. This would be a way of dealing with that.

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, as was just made clear, I was prepared to give the subcommittee more power to cut NATO but they do not want to do that. This does not mandate cuts in barracks or child development. It does cut, and I agree, as worded it has less flexibility than it should have with regard to NATO. I would agree to changing that, but as I said, they don't want to do it. Here is where we are. We have broad agreement that we are going to get to a balanced budget soon. We are in a zero sum situation. If we do not make [[Page H 6145]] reductions here to get the deficit down, then either we raise taxes somewhere else, which is very, very unlikely, or the cuts in Medicare are deeper than they have to be, the cuts in aid to college students are deeper than they have to be, the money to reimburse communities trying to meet existing Federal mandates is less than it has to be. We talk about no further unfunded mandates. I am for that, but the legislation we passed does not touch any of the existing Federal mandates that are unfunded. I would like to make some more money available to do that. If we pass legislation like this without this amendment, if we lavish the $161 million on NATO, if we go more than the Pentagon asked for for construction elsewhere, we mandate deeper cuts in all these other programs. Members will go to their districts and say, ``Gee, I want to balance the budget, and I am sorry we have to really cut the National Institutes of Health. I am sorry we will do much less research on disease. I am sorry transportation will get hurt. I wish we didn't have to cut Medicare so much. I wish we did not have to insist that the cost of living increase for Social Security be reduced as their budget resolution says.'' Well, this is why it happens. You cannot claim helplessness when you are talking about these cuts and then vote to insist on spending on military construction, other than housing and other than BRAC more than the Pentagon asks for. I am sure that many of these projects, most of this money, would be usefully spent, but that is no longer the criterion. What we have here is a view that says we will exempt the ordinary operations of the U.S. military from the discipline that everybody else gets. Mr. Chairman, a few years ago a great thing happened in the world. The Soviet Union collapsed. Yes, it is still a threat in some ways, but our major enemy now just failed to take a military hospital, with their crack troops, manned by 50 irregulars. There is simply no qualitative comparison to be made between the nature of the threats that face us today and those that faced us 10 years ago. There are bad people in the world, there are people who run countries who should not even be allowed to drive cars in a rational world, but they have not got the power to threaten us. What we are doing is acting as if the United States was still threatened. I heard a Member say during the debate on the military bill, ``Well, the world is a more dangerous place now because the Soviet Union collapsed.'' That nostalgia for a major enemy capable of destroying us is nonsensical in any other context than trying to put more money here, and more money here will inevitably mean less in Medicare, less in college student loans, less in the National Institutes of Health, less in helping people comply with environmental mandates, less in law enforcement. Vote to give this $148 million to the Pentagon, vote for the full funding of the NATO infrastructure gift from America to the economies of western Europe, vote for other additional military construction at a time when the threat has diminished, and you take away from every other account. You deprive yourselves of the argument that you regret the other cuts in important programs that help people because you are voluntarily taking the money from Medicare, taking the money from student loans, taking the money from the National Institutes of Health, taking the money from Head Start, taking the money from pollution enforcement, and putting it here where it is at a much lower level of social need.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Well, I tried.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. If the gentleman would yield for a unanimous-consent request, I would ask unanimous consent that the amendment be amended so that at the subcommittee's discretion as much as possible could be taken out of NATO. I ask unanimous consent for that amendment.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I would tell the gentleman, not if the subcommittee does not want it to. My amendment gives full discretion to the subcommittee, and would not mandate any reduction in barracks at all.

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. It would be a way of reaching that number. It would not be on top of that number, of course. It would not automatically reduce it by 5 percent plus $500 million, of course not. Mr. Chairman, let me continue with a couple of other points. The gentleman read some very appealing things here: child development. Child development is very appealing. It gets $57 million out of the $3 billion. NATO alone, Mr. Chairman, NATO alone gets more money in this bill than the entire amount my amendment would cut. NATO in this bill get $161 million. My total amendment cut is $148. It is true, Mr. Chairman, if they decide, and the 5-percent cut leaves it to the discreation of the committee. It is 5 percent, not in every single number that the gentleman mentioned. It does not mandate a 5-percent cut in child development or in barracks. It says find 5 percent of cut. Cut NATO by half and we have met already 2\1/2\ percent. Cut some of the other construction. What we are saying is, Mr. Chairman, they are going to spend $161 million on NATO along when this House has felt that it is the Europeans who owe us, rather than the other way around. We think with some cut out of NATO and elsewhere we can find it. Mr. Chairman, we have a terrible budget crisis, we keep being told. Yes, there are things we would like to do, but we cannot exempt any part of the budget, in my judgment, and then reach an sensible zero figure., Just to reiterate, this does not affect family housing, it does not affect base closing. It need not affect hospitals or child development if the subcommittee does not want it to. We can make it all up out of NATO. We can make half up out of NATO. Mr. Chairman, as far as the budget resolution is concerned, if the budget resolution reduces the budget authority, we are going to have to cut by more than this amendment. This amendment will not then be relevant if the budget authority is so substantially reduced, except it is a way of saying yes, we are going to cut in the NATO account, but we are not going to cut family housing in BRACC. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I assumed the gentleman [[Page H 6144]] was talking about the budget conference. My point is the amount that we are going to be able to vote is contingent on the budget resolution, and the budget resolution is way above this. Yes, the final figure will be a compromise in this particular account between what we vote and the Senate votes, but what I was talking about was the budget resolution. The budget resolution is the one where there is going to be a reduction on what the House voted, and this is not additive to that, this is going to be a way of reaching that.

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would cut 5 percent from those accounts in this bill that do not affect housing or the Base Closing Commission. Those two accounts are most of the bill. The amendment is to almost 3 billion dollars' worth of new construction. The 3 billion dollars' worth of new construction, other than housing and other than base closing, includes regular military construction and it includes the NATO infrastructure. And it does seem to me, time NATO could come here and build some infrastructure. It would save $148 million. The bill is significantly over the President's recommendation. And even if my amendment is adopted, this bill will still, in these accounts, have more money than the President recommended. And it will also have a significant increase over last year. We are talking here about military construction at a time when we are closing things down. I leave 95 percent in the bill. I leave more than the President asked for. I leave more than we had last year. I am struck, Mr. Chairman, by my own moderation in this particular amendment, but I am trying to get something accomplished. This would go into reducing the deficit. It is an appropriation. If we save this $148 million, the deficit at $148 million less, housing is not affected, base closing is not affected, and I do not believe the American people will be one bit less secure. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. The gentleman voted against last year's legislation and is ill-suited to invoke it now.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time, 3 minutes. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Connecticut has made a very important point. This will lead to American troop withdrawal only if you believe that the Europeans are unprepared to pay anything at all. I think that is wrong. I think the Europeans would be getting the great bargain of the world, because contrary to the suggestion that these would be mercenary troops, America will still pay the salaries of these troops. What we will be asking the Europeans for are the basing costs, part of the basing costs. Every single argument advanced against this amendment today has been made against every burden-sharing argument ever put forward. In fact, we have this great paradox: Members who voted against burden sharing a couple of years ago when the House passed it now want to take credit for what the House did and use that as an argument for not doing it anymore. But the day we stop passing the amendments is the day they will stop helping. We are in a terrible budget crisis. We all acknowledge that. We have differences about how to deal with it. But all of them are painful. The question is, should we tell our European allies that they alone in the world will get a free ride. Because we do this with Japan. We are cutting foreign aid elsewhere. The wealthiest nations in the world, those in Western Europe, will do this. Members have said well, you know, we started this in 1949. It was necessary in 1949. In 1949 they were poor and Stalin was strong. But have they not outgrown that position of dependence on us? It is not time for the Europeans to have a turn to make a contribution? Again, the argument is that if we ask them to contribute, they will somehow break off this alliance. Apparently the notion is that America has nothing to offer if we do not heavily subsidize them. Apparently the notion is that they have no interest in being our allies. Apparently America is the baby that is so ugly that if you do not put a lamb chop around its neck, the dog will not play with it. You know what? The troops in Europe we pay for, that is the lamb chop. We have to approach the Europeans and say, ``Please let us protect you and we will pay for it.'' You know what the most popular book from Europe is? Tom Sawyer, because they have figured out not only how to get America to paint the fence, but to get us to pay for it. As far as using that for the Middle East, yes, we were able to use it in the gulf war. But when Ronald Reagan wanted to bomb Libya, Europe was off limits. The Europeans have in fact been obstreperous and objected sometimes when we wanted to use our troops there for the Middle East. We recognize that there is a partnership. These arrangements that now exist date from the time when we were all powerful and all wealthy and they were devastated by World War II and the communists were very powerful. We are prepared to cooperate now. But wealthiest nations in the world, the Europeans, pay very little for their defense. None of them has a defense budget that remotely approaches ours. Most of them have percentages much less than ours. The only way this will cause us to withdraw troops is if they say ``Take it and get out.'' In fact, I will predict to my colleagues they will cause a troop withdrawal if they do not get some support from the Europeans for keeping them there.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would just say that being for burdensharing in principle while you promise to keep the troops there is a very unpersuasive way to get the Europeans to put up any money. As long as they can have the troops for free, they will not contribute. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior] who began our successful effort to compel burdensharing by offering an amendment to require burdensharing from Japan, which drew every single negative argument we have heard today back then.

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