Barney Frank

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. The defense of a bigoted remark, and it was one of several remarks, makes even less sense than I had expected. I am talking about the formulation. It was bigoted, and I would hope it would not be repeated.

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Let me say to the gentleman I do not want to get diverted. I am not here debating the substance of the policy; we have done that, and we will do it again. I am particularly calling attention to the formulation, the gratuitously, I believe, bigoted and insulating formulation, and I am very disappointed to see that language on the floor of the House.

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I come to Congress prepared to do a number of things that are difficult. I like the job, and I will undertake them, but trying to prove anything to the gentleman from California goes beyond the pale of my oath, and I will not try. I will say again that we are not here talking about the merits of that issue. We are talking about the gratuitously bigoted formulation of it by which it was injected into this debate, and I find that to be beneath the dignity of the House.

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I was not on the floor during the last debate, but I was informed of some of the remarks that I want to address. I am here, Mr. Chairman, referring to the comment of the amendment in which he said that this was to be expected from those who supported homos in the military. Mr. Chairman, I very much regret taking the time away from Members on this serious subject, but the time is over when I will let that kind of gratuitous bigotry go unchallenged, and I take the floor simply to express my contempt for the effort to introduce such unwarranted and gratuitous slurs on decent human beings on the floor of this House.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, the Republicans are solving something that has bothered all the people, but I do not think they are doing it the right way. Older people have complained to me; I am not talking about the wealthy older people who will be the beneficiaries of the Republican tax cuts but the average older person for whom Social Security is a major part of their income. And they have complained that, as the Social Security cost of living has gone up, Medicare has come and taken it away. And they have been virtually equal in many cases. Well, no longer under the Republican budget plan will the cost-of- living increase that older people get be equal to the increase they have to pay in Medicare. But the Republicans are solving this in the wrong way. Older people are going to have to pay more for their Medicare, and under the Republican plan they will get less for their Social Security. So every year older people will see under the plan an erosion in their incomes because the Republicans will reduce the cost of living. They want to cut taxes for wealthy older people who will be making $150,000 or $200,000 a year, but they will cut the cost of living for an older person living on $9,000 or $10,000. That is the wrong way to go.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I am fascinated with the process by which right-wingers have become devotees of civil liberties. A few years ago, when a lot of them were getting indicted, they became great supporters of such procedural protections as due possess and the fifth amendment. Now we have seen a great rightwing rush, late in life, but I always like conversions, to embrace the principles of free speech. They have now decided that people who say crazy, irresponsible, dangerous things under the first amendment should be allowed to say them. I agree with them. I have always felt that way. The problem is that they only imperfectly understand that. Because the fact is that the right to say these kinds of things--irresponsible and obnoxious and in some cases threatening--cannot only go to their rightwing caricatures. It goes to the left as well. I am particularly struck by the fact that many of those who wanted the rapper Ice-T to be shut up and taken off the air, because he talked about killing policemen--and he certainly was, in my judgment, obnoxious and irresponsible--turn around and want to honor G. Gordon Liddy. Now, they got a little embarrassed after the Oklahoma bombing, so they backed away from Liddy a little bit. But the fact is, there is very little difference morally or in the nature of the rhetoric between Ice-T and G. Gordon dinner, we will see both of them doing a duet.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I feel a little bit like the character in the Moliere play who learned that he was speaking prose all his life without knowing it. I find that I am here advocating a part of the contract. That is not a posture I have previously found myself in very often. I did not know that this was part of the contract. It just goes to show that even a stopped clock can be right twice a day. This is an important piece of legislation. What we did in 1988 was, sensibly, to try to protect children, families with children against discrimination. As the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw], who is the author of this pointed out, this in no way weakens or repeals that substantive legislation. What we are dealing with here is basically how you establish a certain fact. We recognize, first, that the general principle should be that you do not discriminate against families with children in the sale or rental of housing. Second, we did not mean that this ruled out the ability to create a community of people who were older. Older people, like the rest of us, differ in their tastes and preferences. Some of them want to live just like everybody else. Others, by the time they reach a certain age, do not ever want to hear another ball bouncing against a wall, they do not want to be awakened by music they do not understand at midnight. They want to be able to get up at 6 o'clock in the morning and not worry about waking up other people. People's patterns in life can change. Congress sensibly said in 1988, and President Reagan agreed, let us have a protection for children, but let us also say that we can have a separate situation for older people only. To define that, people put in at the time, trying to prevent abuse, a requirement that you had to have special facilities for the elderly. That is wrong, I think now, for a couple of reasons. place is in the sixties, that automatically means that they are people who cannot get around very well, that they need special facilities. There are communities of people in their sixties and seventies and eighties who do not need any special facilities. Some do, some do not. Beyond that, and this is where I have found this to be a problem, it is especially a burden on people who live in manufactured housing. In the district I represent, there are a number of very attractive communities of older people in manufactured housing, people living in separate units. They may have one building which is kind of a community room, but they do not have the kind of facilities that you might find in a high-rise building. They have found themselves at a disadvantage. It is to the credit of Assistant Secretary Roberta Achtenberg at HUD that, given this set of rules, she has shown a great deal of flexibility and understanding in interpreting them. She had one proposal which people pointed out was problematic, and she withdrew it, as has been noted, and she deserves credit for that. She then came out with a second proposal. I agree with the gentleman from Florida, her second proposal was a considerable improvement. Indeed, I believe that given the framework of the statute, it was about as good as it could be. Therefore, it is not a criticism of her that we have said ``You have done a pretty good job of trying to be flexible within the statute, but there is a problem with the statute itself. That is what this is here to amend. Therefore, we should be very clear, this is not a repeal of the protection for children, this is not any weakening of the substantive rules. It does remove one piece of evidence that you have to have to qualify for an exemption in the law. which remains essentially unchanged. Finally, I want to note, and I appreciate the good words of the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] about my efforts, the original bill as it came forward or as it came to committee had some language which we thought was too broad in terms of a good faith effort. What we do here is to say if you are an individual citizen, you are not going to be held to a very high, sophisticated standard in terms of dollars, but if you are a real estate professional, we can hold you to a somewhat higher standard, so we put real estate professionals on notice that they have to be fully cognizant of the facts. If they are not cognizant of the facts and are found to have been deceptive, they might pay a penalty, but that does not apply to individuals. I think it is a very reasonable piece of legislation, and I thank the gentleman from Florida and others for letting us bring it forward.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about an aspect of the circus that we usually see in the sideshow, but it has moved in here, in the big top. That is the India rubber man who can be bent and twisted all out of shape, no bones, no resistance. One can just make all kinds of shapes out of them. Well, we have about 150 of them represented here. They are, among others, the people that used to be known as moderate Republicans. About a hundred Republicans signed a letter saying they did not like a tax credit for people that made $200,000, but, like the India rubber man, just because they signed the letter does not mean they cannot be twisted into voting the bill. There will probably be a majority of Republicans who will vote for this bill, having told us how much they do not like some aspects of it. Just like the India rubber man, they will start standing up straight, but the leadership will come, and twist them, and move them, and push them, and, by the time they are through, they will be all bent out of shape, but they will vote for it. Actually the circus is probably the wrong institution to talk about when we talk about moderate Republicans. The place where they will be found hereinafter is in museums, because there will not be any more left. The pressures that the right wing is able to generate on Republicans means we will continue to see the kind of ultimate flexibility which leads them to sign a letter saying they do not like the tax bill and then get twisted into voting for it.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I thank the ranking Member for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I want to express my appreciation to the chairman of the full committee and to the manager of the bill. The gentleman from New Mexico has explained the amendment, and I appreciate that. I was the one who offered at the committee level the amendment that would strike the RICO provision dealing with obscenity on cable television. I was unhappy to learn that this was going to be done on suspension, and when I raised the issue with the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Illinois, he was very gracious and very fair, and I appreciate it, in leaving that part out of the bill. So we have a bill now that deals just with improving our ability to deter and punish, if deterrence fails, the abuse and exploitation of children. It is a very worthy goal which I assume will be unanimously supported, and I want to express my appreciation to the majority for accommodating my concern. I have some very strenuous objections to the RICO extension to the cable TV situation. As I said in committee, I was particularly surprised, that I thought that I shared with many of my friends on the other side a deep skepticism about RICO, and it therefore seemed to me odd that we would be extending it at this point. In particular, we are dealing here with some consensual decisions by people to turn on their own television sets, but we can let those arguments go until a later time, if ever. If the bill never comes up, I would not be too upset; but it is not here. My main purpose today was to express my appreciation for the fairness that the majority showed, particularly the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, many more people talk about making Government more efficient than actually doing anything about it. One organization that has done something about it is the housing authority in the city of Fall River, MA. Recently I was privileged to attend a ceremony in which the Fall River Housing Authority announced an agreement among itself, the Citizens Conservation Corporation, the Eastern Utilities Corporation, and HUD which will promote energy conservation, and provide additional funds for the improvement of public housing at no cost to the taxpayers. The major recipient of these funds will be Cardinal Medeiros Towers, a high-rise development for people with handicaps which was built 24 years ago, and is in need of improvements. This program is an excellent example of how public officials, citizen groups, and private corporate entities can work together for our mutual benefit. Because I was so impressed with this, I asked Richard Viveiros, executive director of the housing authority, to prepare for me a summary of this effort, which I wish to insert at this point in the Record. I do so because I hope this will encourage others to emulate the excellent work of Mr. Viveiros and his colleagues. And I want to offer my congratulations to all of those involved. Summary On March 20, 1995, the Fall River Massachusetts Housing Authority signed a contract with Eastern Utilities Corporation/Citizens Conservation Corporation [EUA/CCC] enabling both parties to enjoy the benefits of private investment in a public housing authority. CCC will invest $2.1 million to implement a host of energy efficiency improvements that will save the authority at least $7.5 million over the next 15 years. The authority will pay CCC for the cost of design, construction, and legal fees associated with this project out of energy savings projected as $500,000 per year as a result of improvements to 7 federally aided developments for elderly/disabled. Cardinal Medeiros Towers, a 208-unit high-rise development for the physically impaired and constructed in 1970, will be the major recipient of the CCC investment. Approximately $600,000 of CCC moneys is slated for the replacement of an antiquated and inefficient steam heating system with new high-efficiency boilers, which will dramatically improve the comfort level of the building and dramatically reduce energy costs. Other improvements for this facility include new thermostats, new windows, and upgraded exterior lighting. The 6 other federally aided developments for elderly/ disabled will enjoy similar physical improvements and energy savings. The Fall River Housing Authority experience marks the first time that private money's have been leveraged for public housing energy conservation and physical improvement tasks and was hailed as an avenue for other public housing authorities to consider, in light of dwindling HUD resources. Both the authority's director, Richard J. Viveiros, and congressman Barney Frank, advocated increasing private/public ventures as funding alternatives. Viveiros, at a formal, public contract signing ceremony, termed the partnership as a win-win situation for all involved. ``There are no losers here,'' stated viveiros, ``CCC gets a reasonable return on its investment, our housing stock is substantially upgraded, and residents enjoy a safer and more comfortable housing environment--all without any governmental funding.''

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. If the gentleman will yield further, simply by having this brought up and defeated you have satisfied the contract?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I did not know the gentleman was going to say that. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Further reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Further reserving the right to object, I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I take this time just because I had had some questions. Previously some of us talked about the gentleman's amendment being one more substitute. If he gets unanimous consent, as I hope he will, that will be withdrawn as a substitute and we will go immediately to a vote on whether or not we adopt his version as the amendment. So there will be no more vote about substitutes. The next vote then would occur on whether or not we adopt the joint resolution.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I congratulate the Republican leadership, because they have outmaneuvered the U.S. term limits people. They have gotten where they wanted to be. The Committee on the Judiciary reported out a bill which preempted State term limits less than 12 years. That caused a great hullabaloo. What ensued was not a charade, because charades do not have words that are spoken. It was an elaborate grand opera. The result is, we are right back just about where the Committee on the Judiciary was because, be very clear, this amendment is intended to preempt. The gentleman from Arizona who spoke against it on this ground was correct. It is silent on the question, but the Supreme Court is now dealing with it. If it is true the Supreme Court would decide that States have the right to set their own, then this will not preempt, but if the Supreme Court decides that the States cannot do it on their own, then this would preempt the States. If Members doubt that, they have to ask why 90 Republicans voted against the Hilleary amendment, because the Hilleary amendment differed from this one in one particular: It explicitly allowed the States to do what they want. The only difference between the McCollum and the Hilleary amendments is that the McCollum amendment is intended to preempt. What does that mean? First of all, all this invocation of public opinion gets invalidated because, as has been pointed out, the States, 20-some-odd States that have voted by referendum for term limits, have voted for less than 12 years, so vote for this amendment and you probably overrule all those States. How are you going to claim to wrap yourself in the mantle of pure democracy and public opinion when you will be overruling the States? California will get 12 years instead of 6. Massachusetts will get 12 years instead of 8. Therefore, this amendment cleverly puts it right back where it was. It is intended to preempt. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] said that, and the previous Speaker said that. They said, and I have heard the gentleman from Florida say it, ``This is too important to be left to the States to make their own decisions. We have to state it uniformly. This is not poor people's income, some trivial subject like that. This is not whether or not kids get enough to eat. This is our careers. We cannot allow that to be done on a State-by-State basis.'' There goes the democratic argument, because Members are going to overrule 20-some-odd States. The leadership, I understand the Speaker is going to close, and that is a great day, because the Members of the leadership have been as scarce on the floor of this House as it is possible to be. The gentleman from Mississippi showed us a list of Members who cosponsored a 12-year limit who have been here more than 12 years. They may have been here more than 12 years, but they were not on this floor for 12 seconds today. Not one of them spoke except the gentleman from Florida. This side of the aisle is full of Members who are in their 15th and 20th year, and they are very consistent. In their 15th and 20th years, they have been saying for 12 years, ``You have got to get out,'' but they do not want to make it effective immediately. My friend, the gentleman from Florida, said ``You know, if you are here more than 12 years you start to get sour. You start to lose your integrity to the process.'' I asked him at what point did this happen? I want to know. Maybe they did not tell us this. Maybe the rest of us could benefit from the superior moral fiber that has enabled so many on this side to resist the corruption that inevitably occurs when you have been here 12 years, but they will not tell us how, because all of them who have been here more than 12 years skedaddled. They did not want to be here. They did not want to be asked ``How can you do this?'' Let us be very clear. We have an amendment which would preempt the States, so we have no democratic argument here, because you are overruling every referendum if you vote for this amendment. Every referendum will be overruled. In fact, the philosophical argument comes down again to this: Yes, the majority of the public in a poll says they are for this today, but democracy is not permanently enshrining what a majority thinks at any one time. Democracy is a system which guarantees to people the right to participate, the right to debate, the right to change the minds of others, and a majority cannot give away the fundamental democratic right of others. If some people think that you should not serve more than 12 years, and others think you should, let them contest that at the polls. Do not rig our basic document and say ``From now on we will not have free and open elections, we will from here on forever have elections that reflect one particular viewpoint, and we will lock that in.'' This is the most restrictive amendment ever adopted to the Constitution. The Constitution began somewhat restrictively. I do not believe we never change it, but almost every other change has gone to the expansion of democracy: so black people could vote and women could vote and 18-year-olds could vote. This one says that because Congress recently fell into disrepute, and because we had during the 1980's a large deficit, we will lock in forever under our constitutional system a restriction on the right of the voters. This is not about the individuals here. No, we are not the important ones, although we were important enough for you all to vote for preemption because you want to protect your uniformity, but we are not the key. The key is the right of the voters. Do not enshrine in this Constitution the biggest restriction on the untrammeled right of the voters to vote for whomever they want. If some voters think that someone should be here for more than 12 years and others do not, the place to solve that is in debate and at the ballot box. Don't rig that contest now by this particular amendment. I hope that you will be consistent to democracy in the broadest sense, that you will not overrule all those State referenda and that you will not for the first time put the Constitution in reverse and say the result of this particular amendment will be less democratic choice and not more. seconds for the purpose of asking unanimous consent in a few minutes to withdraw the substitute amendment, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to close the debate to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich], the Speaker of the House.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I thank the gentleman for clearing that up.

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Reclaiming my time, I have to say to the gentleman the answer gets less and less intelligible. The fact is he says, oh, the explanation for that not being in there is that there are other things that were not in there. I understand that. There were a lot of things that were not in the Constitution and argue that its absence really meant that they meant it. This is fundamentally a derogation from the democratic process. It is an argument that you really cannot trust elections on a year-in, year- out basis, and it deprives individuals of their right to vote for whoever they want to vote for whenever they want to vote for them, and for that reason more than any other, I oppose it.

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I say in my question if the Founding Fathers wanted to put it in the Constitution, why did they not? The gentleman said well, after the Constitution was over and it was not in there, in the Federalist Papers, one member of the Constitutional Convention said he liked it. Maybe he liked the idea later. Maybe he did or did not. But the notion that the later reference to a concept in a series of essays somehow explains why that concept was not in the document is mindless. The gentleman did a better job before. Again, the question was if the Founding Fathers meant to do this, why did they not. That would seem a simple question. The answer is, well, they did not, but one of them mentioned it in a book. If the gentleman thinks that is an answer, he understands even less than I thought.