Barney Frank

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. That answer is astounding.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the constitutional scholar from Florida.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding the time. The Chairman, I am voting against term limits. People have talked about the effect on the competency of the body, and I agree; and they have talked about other things. For me there is one overriding reason. I believe in democracy, in representative democracy, untrammeled, unrestricted, unrestrained. What this amendment does is impinge on the right of a given group of voters at a given moment in time to make whatever decision it wishes. People have said well, how can it be undemocratic, a majority is for it. I did not think in the 20th century, after all that we have seen, in which majority have people temporarily taken away democratic rights from others and indeed even yielded up their own, I did not think that needed to be explained. But democracy is not simply what a given majority in a public opinion poll thinks at a given time. It is an entire structure of government, it is majority rule with minority rights; it is the prevention of permanence, because with majority rule you recognize the right of a later majority, a differently composed majority of newer people to change things. What you would do if you amended the Constitution today in this manner or began the process is to lock in what today's majority thinks as a restriction on any future group. Second, you would take away the rights from individuals. Particular groups of individuals may not want to have their Representative limited. That is what you are doing, what you are saying. And we are being told 80 percent think that. It has not been my impression that 80 percent has been the uniform vote in referenda, so maybe it is 50 percent plus 2, maybe it is 65 percent, but the number is not the relevant factor. What is relevant is that democracy says at any given time the voters should be allowed to make up their minds. What this amendment is fundamentally is an effort to find a shortcut around tough decisions. We have had a number of these coming in the contract. Cutting the budget and reducing the deficit is hard, because the deficit is an agglomeration of programs that got there because they got political support. Rather than talk about the specifics of cutting, the majority leader said you do not want people's knees to buckle when they see what is really up. People provide procedural approaches to try to get around tough issues. This is one more of those. But it is a procedural approach that restricts democracy. What is the matter with a system that says the voters can do whatever they want to do whenever they want to do it? And the honest thing I have heard is constant invocation of the Founding Fathers, the people who wrote the Constitution, to be told that they are really for something that is in there. I have to ask the brilliant constitutional scholars who have been advancing that, is it your contention that the Constitutional Convention meant to include term limits but they forgot? Was it a drafting error, did they run out of time? If they wanted to do it, why did they not do it?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to myself. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from South Carolina, or perhaps it may have been the gentleman from Maryland, raised the question about the 22d amendment, which prohibits the President from running for more than two terms. Several of us, I first cosponsored an amendment to repeal that with Mr. Vander Jagt several years ago under the Reagan administration, and several others to repeal that. So, yes, that is many of us have amendments here to repeal it. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of our time to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Engel].

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi]. Apparently, alligators are not subject to term limits, or we would have heard about that.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Tanner]. (Mr. TANNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer]. (Mr. ROEMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Coleman]. (Mr. COLEMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's intellectual honesty, but my understanding of the contract was the contract simply called for this to be brought to the floor.

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I have never said that I was for term limits. I do believe one should listen to the people and that people in my district in a referendum voted against term limits, and I think they were right. I understand why they did that. But I have said this. As many of you who oppose OSHA voted to cover Congress under OSHA, there are two principles here. Do you have the term limits and if you have them, do you give a special exemption to sitting Members who will be the only ones hereafter who will not be subject to a strict 12-year limit? So, no, I am not for term limits, but I am also not for a double standard that protects sitting Members.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. First, 40 years ago I was recovering from my bar mitzvah so I cannot be held accountable for what happened then. But I will say this. The gentleman is apparently joining us. I heard people on his side say anybody who votes for this amendment is a saboteur and is trying to undermine it. I am glad the gentleman is going to vote with us. I just want to defend him from his fellow South Carolinian who was suggesting that in voting for this he is somehow trying to undermine it. I think he has effectively repudiated that unfair accusation. I welcome his vindication.

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, this is not the first time our Republican friends have held out the view that virtue is a good idea, but you should not rush into it all at once. With the balanced budget amendment it was 2002. This one will take effect in 2009. Unfunded mandates, it is again for the future, while at least for Massachusetts, they are making worse the unfunded mandate under which we currently struggle. People have said ``You can't be for making this apply immediately unless you are for the concept.'' Many Members in this House who do not like OSHA and do not like the Fair Labor Standards Act and NLRB voted to apply it to Congress. Many of us feel Congress has suffered from the perception of seeking special treatment for itself. We are saying that if you are going to do something, do not single out the institution or the current Members of the institution from being covered by it. That is all this says. That is all this says. But I am especially intrigued by the argument that this, if it passes, would kill the amendment. Understand what that means, because a lot of Democrats are for this substitute. Therefore, there must be Republicans who are prepared to vote for this and impose it on others but whom if they become immediately susceptible to it will vote against it. Because I submit there is no other logical basis on which this could damage the amendment. After all, it is not going to turn away State ratifications. The State legislatures will not be affected by this. This deals only with Congress. So to the extent that you argue that this hurts the process, it must mean that there are, as we have long suspected, some very unenthusiastic supporters of term limits over there, and they will vote for it if it will lose and they will vote for it if it will have no effect, but God forbid that it should actually go into effect and affect them. So, therefore, we have an admission. They tell us if this amendment becomes the pending one, it will not do well. Why? Because we know there are Democrats who will vote for only this version. Therefore, what the Republicans are telling us is that if this applies immediately, not retroactively, this does not say that Tip O'Neill only served 12 years and he has got to give back 30, this says it applies immediately, it means that there are Republicans there who are for it in theory but do not want to have to live with it.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, before yielding, I just want to note for trend watchers, today a lot of Republicans are talking about how we must do what the public wants. Next week when we are dealing with the tax cut, which I believe public opinion polls will show is much less popular, look out for a change. We will be told then that it is important to stand up for what is right no matter what a temporary poll shows. So enjoy the allegiance to the short-term popular vote. It will pass with the weekend. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell]. (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I do not have my copy of the contract. Would you show me the footnote in the contract where it says this one is dependent on getting 50 percent of the Democrats?

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I have heard some fascinating arguments today. My favorite though is the one where Republicans get up and say that they could pass this very important item in their contract if they only got 50 percent of the Democrats. Now that is a fascinating concept. Mr. Chairman, the University of Massachusetts', my home State, basketball team did very well in a recent tournament, and they lost, but, if they had only gotten 50 percent of the points of their opponents, they would have won. I mean Massachusetts lost a congressional seat in the last redistricting, but, if we could have only gotten 50 percent of the population of our friends from Connecticut, we would have a couple more seats. I say to my colleagues, I think this is a wonderful concept. You promised to do something, and then you say, ``By the way, my promise is conditioned,'' after the fact of course, after they get people to do what they want, they then say, `Oh, by the way, if I can get 50 percent of the opposition to be with me, then I'll win. Well, I think that is pretty good odds, and I will make this statement on behalf of the Democratic Party, and I do not, I do not often, speak for the whole Democratic Party, but anytime we get 50 percent of the support of the Republicans, we will accomplish our goal. I say to my colleagues, Now, if this is your idea of a contract, that you tell people you're going to do something, you forgot to mention that you wouldn't be able to do it unless you got 50 percent of the opposition--if this is your idea of the contract, no wonder you don't like the Federal Trade Commission, no wonder you want to make it harder for people to sue, because you would be in serious difficulty, but let's get beyond this wonderful concept that I can do anything I promise you if 50 percent of the opposition would be with me. We are told this is the first time this has come to the floor. Last year, what about a discharge petition? Well, finally toward the end they filed a discharge petition. They got about a hundred Republicans to sign it. Mr. Chairman, there are more people in this body voting yes and praying no Yes, term limits gets a lot of lip service, but there are not many teeth behind it. The people here got the longest extended lips I have ever seen, and I suppose, if they had 50 percent of our lips, they would go even further on that wonderful, give me half of what you got and I can have more than you have policy, which I think is a very attractive policy. I mean we would not have an export-import problem with Japan if Japan would give us half of their exports. Our balance of trade would be 100 percent. That would be very good. I keep going back to that concept because I love it, and I am going to borrow from it from time to time, but it is also clear that the Republican Party's commitment to term limits is rather slender. Now I understand the problem. They had to really break some arms to do welfare last week. They are going to have to break some arms to do taxes next week. Do my colleagues know the problem that the Republican leadership has? Their Members only have two arms. The grab one arm for welfare, they grab one arm for taxes. They got nothing left. But do my colleagues know what? If they would take 50 percent of our arms, then they would all have three arms, and then they could do it because they could twist three arms. That is the problem. Once again it is the magic 50-percent solution. I say to my colleagues, If you could take one arm for welfare, and one arm for taxes, and then you could take 50 percent of our arms, then you could twist a third arm for term limits, but the term limits supporters should know that they're getting the third arm. That's what you're giving the term limits people; you're giving them ice in the winter. You are saying, yes, you'll give them some votes. There's very little energy on the other side. By the way, I think that makes perfect sense because one of the things we would be doing wrong, if by some miracle we pass this, and no one, including their side, expects that--one of the things we would be doing wrong would be for the first time amending the Constitution in a way that detracted from popular choice. Constitutional amendments have expanded the options of the voters. Women have been allowed to vote. Blacks; we erased that terrible sin in America. Eighteen-year-olds. This would be the first time the Senate went to popular election. This would be the first time we took something back. So, Mr. Chairman, I say, ``In this case I'm glad you don't have our 50 percent.''

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. A parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker. What question? If no one had made a motion, what is the question?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I have another parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker. There was no question if the Chair had not put the question. Someone made a unanimous-consent request. But then I do not understand the ruling. No one made the motion. so how can the Chair put a question on an unmade motion? There was a unanimous-consent request which was objected to. Unanimous consent requests have never, in my experience, transmogrified into motions unless someone makes them. So the question is, may the Speaker make a motion?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I understand that the ruling the Chair had the right to make a motion in this case. My question is, may the Chair make any other motion as well? I mean, in the middle of the debate if we had an open rule, could the Chair make an amendment during the 5-minute rule?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Yes, I said, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I understand the explanation was that the Chair had the right to make a motion, is that, because that is what the Chair did.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. A parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds. I am sorry my friend did not yield to me. As he described the terrible things that happen to the attitude of Members who have been here too long and if they have been here, especially after 12 years, I was going to ask him when in his 15 years of service this terrible thing happened to him. But I guess I will have to wait for my answer until later. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].