Barney Frank

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. None of them occurred to me, I would assure the gentleman.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. The gentleman would have to turn around to make that analogy better.

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I would just ask the gentleman: I thought I heard him say because we had the Schiff amendment we did not need any further amendments on this subject. Is the gentleman then opposing the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hoke]?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. The gentleman is going to vote against the Hoke amendment?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

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

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, my friend from Illinois is one of the most intellectually honest people here, and he has just made clear why so many of us will be supporting the gentlewoman's amendment tomorrow. He is conscientiously, and firmly, and on principle opposed congresses legalized abortion, and he says he does not want abortion clinics or other reproductive clinics included in this bill by name because it would give them a status that he does not want them to have. Yes, I want them to have the status. The status is as entities that are known as eligible for protection against murder and protection against criminals. Once we begin to list some things--there are two and a half pages of specific examples in the bill my Republican friends brought forward--if we list some things and do not list others, we put them--apparently the gentleman agrees--in a disfavored category. There was not any controversy about a lot of what the police do in this country, but there has unfortunately been controversy about protecting Planned Parenthood and other clinics that provide these services, and at this point, having mentioned some of these things, if after the gentleman from Illinois has been honest enough to say he is opposed to mentioning abortion because he does not want to see them get that status, if tomorrow the gentlewoman's amendment is voted down, it will be correctly interpreted as one more step on the part of some people who want de facto to take away the legal protected status of abortion because they will have passed a bill in which some things have been mentioned, others will have not been mentioned, and my colleagues will have specifically repudiated, if my colleagues vote down that amendment, protection for abortion clinics. There is some controversy, as I said, at the local level. What we are doing is saying this: ``We want to send a clear signal to people at the local level, without any debate about it, that it is possible for you to use your Federal funds this way,'' and the only reason to oppose the gentlewomen's amendment that makes any sense is the one conscientiously articulated by the gentleman from Illinois. He is so strongly opposed to abortion that he does not want us to call attention to the fact that they have this status where they are eligible for protection. That, to me, is a reason to pass it.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, sometimes legislative history is more interesting than other times. This particular amendment from my friend, and the gentleman from New Mexico, has such an interesting history that I feel compelled to share it with my colleagues, because I think it is a nice effort but ultimately an unsuccessful one, and I believe it will have to be improved upon tomorrow by our colleague from Colorado. Let use even begin the education process now, because one of the major issues we now have before us is whether or not the constitutional right of women to get abortions, if they choose, will, in fact, be fully protected. That is under attack, it seems to me, with regard to the nomination of Dr. Foster, but there is also a collateral attack here in the House. What we have in this amendment is basically an effort to deflect our defense. The bill came before us in the Committee on the Judiciary with the language that the gentleman from New Mexico has described, which says, under this bill, local governments can do pretty much what they think necessary for law enforcement. But that is not all it said. If that was all it said, I suppose that would have been the end of it. But it went on to give some illustrations. It went on to say in language of the legislation, including but not limited to, and it listed some things in the bill that the Republicans brought forward. Presumably these were favored programs, programs they wanted to highlight. They were not just wasting words. They were not legislatively binding on the local communities, but they felt it was important to highlight certain things, and then when we got to committee, two Republican members for the committee felt that even further highlighting was necessary. The gentleman from New Mexico himself offered one regarding violence. I thought it was an excellent one. I thought it was a very good idea to highlight that these could be used for violence against women and domestic violence. The gentleman from North Carolina, a former police official, said well, wait a minute, some people think we are anti-drug courts; drug courts are a good idea, and I want to show that drug courts are possible under this. we thought both amendments were a good idea. We supported them. Then the gentlewoman from Colorado said, Look, we have a serious problem in this country with deadly violence being used against people who are trying to provide abortion or other health services for women, and we want to highlight that. By the exact same logic that said you highlight drug courts and you highlight domestic violence and other things that were in the bill, we are afraid in some communities people will not understand that you can use these to protect clinics. This is a matter of great sensitivity to my district where two young women were killed in the town of Brookline only recently for doing nothing other than trying to provide these services. So the gentlewoman from Colorado, quite sensibly, said, ``This is what we should do.'' It seems to me from my distance some uncertainty from the other side of the aisle as to how they should respond. The gentlewoman from Colorado was simply following their lead and said, ``This is important. Let us not have any confusion at the local level. Let us highlight it.'' She accepted an amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida to her amendment. But the chairman of the committee said, ``This is a bad idea.'' He did not want you to appear to be sanctioning in some way what goes on at these clinics. He opposed it. It became clear the gentlewoman from Colorado would bring it up on the floor. So my friends on the other side have a bit of a dilemma, because they are not men and women who like violence. They are men and women conscientiously opposed to it. Some of them had a problem appearing too specifically to be defending the right of these reproductive clinics to get safety. so what has emerged but the amendment from the gentleman from New Mexico. It was not in the original Republican bill. It was not presented when the gentleman had other amendments in the committee. It is proposed to try to deflect the gentlewoman from Colorado. I think it is a perfectly harmless amendment and have no objection to it. People should understand our friend from Colorado is harder to deflect than they may have thought. I am surprised they do not realize that. Many of us still believe, given the violence that has been very specifically directed at abortion providers on an interstate basis, given the controversial nature of that protection unfortunately in some communities, it is still important to make it clear to people beyond doubt that police overtime and other facilities can be used under this bill to protect reproductive clinics and, therefore, I welcome the gentleman from New Mexico, and I appreciate his desire to shield some of his colleagues from having to take a tough vote. I have to say it does not seem to me to work. I think that having adopted this amendment, it will still be relevant to have the amendment of the gentlewoman from Colorado.

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I further yield to the gentleman from Michigan, the ranking minority member.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Let me say, reclaiming my time, we are talking not just about public buildings. We are talking about some facilities that might be private. In committee, the gentleman from Florida said, ``Well, wait a minute, you do not want to give public funds to private facilities to buy equipment with.'' We said, ``That is right.'' The gentlewoman accommodated that. It might be appropriate, however, to lend certain facilities to certain locations for certain time. So this does not obviate the need to point it out. When you begin to look at the examples, if there is an example anywhere of violence in this country which is fairly widespread sadly, it is violence aimed at these clinics, and therefore, it is certainly, if they are going to single things out, something that ought to be singled out.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, in the Committee on the Judiciary today members of the majority, who are talking now about the absolute wisdom of the States, were talking about a piece of legislation dealing with product liability which would take away from the State powers that they have had since the Union was created. I have never seen a sharper degree of inconsistency than we get from the other side on the question of State versus Federal. Last week they were for Federal dictation on prisons. This week they are for States' rights here, but they are for Federal dictation when business is involved with product liability changes. There is one thread of consistency: They are frustrated that last year we were able to get together on a good crime bill. If we were in fact starting from scratch, this might be a better argument to have. We are well along in the process of getting the money out and getting the people to work under last year's crime bill. This is a disruption, for partisan purposes, of a program that has begun to work because the people who want to argue that Government can never work hate nothing more than the sight of government working well.

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I do think the gentlewoman from Colorado is to be congratulated, because she got us started early. I do think that absent the gentlewoman from Colorado our friend from New Mexico would not have been up with the first amendment, and I thank our friend from Colorado for getting into this so early. As I said, I understand the motivation. I understand the notion it would be nice to avoid the issue, but I think the question of safety for reproductive clinics is too important to be folded into a kind of parliamentary sidestep. Therefore, while I will vote for this, I will also vote with the gentlewoman tomorrow.

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I would also point out, Mr. Chairman, that many, many Americans would not have the benefit of having been on this floor when we had this debate. There would be uncertainty. There would be localities----

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Will the gentlewoman continue to yield?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I thank the gentlewoman again for yielding. The point is there will be differences about how to spend this money locally. Local governments are not monolithic. Some people will say, ``Well, they list this and they list that, they list schools, they do not list the clinics. It is disfavored. It is not one of the things that they wanted us to do.'' We understand it is all optional locally, but if you did not think there was any point in listing things, you would not have listed things in your bill. You would not have added amendments listing things in committee. We believe, to resolve any dispute because we know protecting reproductive clinics is an issue that is debated at local levels, whether you should or should not, unfortunately; therefore, since it is likely to be debatable, we think for you to have listed in your bill some issues and left this one out specifically by name would be a mistake. That is why, in addition to this, we think the gentlewoman's amendment would be necessary.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I thank the gentlewoman. Mr. Chairman, if this did not separately say schools, there might be an argument. But it separately says schools and a lot of other things.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, in the February 5 issue of Parade Magazine there is an excellent article by Michael Ryan about the sort of program we all describe as something we would to see, but are rarely able to point to in fact. The program in question is one which seeks to keep repeat criminals from committing further crimes, by a program which involves repeat offenders in an extensive reading program. Of course no program is perfect, and in 4 years this program has seen 19 percent of the participants rearrested. But as the article points out, the statistical expectation is that, absent this program, a far higher percentage of these participants would have been arrested again--one study showed that 45 percent would be the expected figure. The moving force in this program is Prof. Robert Waxler of the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth. I have myself benefited in my job from the enthusiasm and knowledge that Professor Waxler brings to the task of educating young people, because he is an active and creative member of the southeastern Massachusetts community. But I ask that this article be reprinted here not because of my admiration for Professor Waxler but because it is an interesting example of how creative work on the local level can help us improve our efforts to reduce the crime which is a continuing social problem. Professor Waxler, and Judge Robert Kane, who has used his judicial position to launch this program, deserve a great deal of credit. And I am glad that Parade Magazine highlighted their work, and I hope that other areas will profit by their example. To further that prospect, I submit this article from Parade magazine to be reprinted here. [From Parade Magazine, Feb. 5, 1995] These Repeat Offenders Had a Choice: Read a Book--Or Go To Jail (By Michael Ryan) Every university has students like Don Ross: bright individuals whose imaginations have caught fire with learning. ``Yesterday, everybody at my job was talking about Deliverance.'' Ross told me one afternoon at the University of Masschusetts campus at Dartmouth, Mass., near Cape Cod. He recently had read James Dickey's novel, a riveting tale of survival. ``I started talking about how the characters related to each other, and everybody looked at me and went, `Whoa,' They were talking about the movie, which was on TV.'' Ross, 27, tells this joke on himself with good humor, as amused with his newfound interest in literature as anyone else. The interest has unusual roots. In January 1992, a judge in nearly New Bedford offered him a choice: Go to school and read books--or go to jail. ``This was an experiment,'' said District Court Judge Robert Kane, 47. ``I had no confidence that it would work, but I had sufficient despair in the way we had always done things.'' ``We were seeing this same faces over and over,'' added Wayne St. Pierre, 39, the probation officer who helps screen candidates for the program. Don Ross is one of just 100 repeat offenders who have entered the program. (His last offense involved the illegal use of uninsured automobiles.) In the four years that the literature seminar has been in operation, 19 percent of its participants have been rearrested. A recent study by professors at the University of Indiana and UMass Dartmouth found that 45 percent of a similar group (matched by age, race, income, neighborhood and offense) had returned to crime. In other words, the convicts in the program were less than half as likely to commit new crimes as those not in the program. ``I have always believed in the transformative power of stories,'' Prof. Robert Waxler, 50, told me. ``They allow us to hold up a mirror to ourselves.'' A professor of English at UMass Dartmouth, he thought this power might help in rehabilitating criminals. One day, he brought up the idea with Judge Kane, his tennis partner. ``He was very receptive to the idea,'' Waxler recalled. Waxler volunteered to lead a 12-week literature seminar. His only stipulation that the convicts be fairly serious offenders. ``The average participant has 16 prior offenses,'' said St. Pierre. The group first reads a simple short story. Then, every other week for three months, they read novels of increasing complexity and meet for two-hour discussions. Only about half of the participants have completed high school or earned GED's, but Waxler gives them serious reading, such as Jack London's Sea Wolf and Russell Banks Affliction. St. Perrre thinks that the challenge is part of the success. ``I come from an athletic background,'' he said. ``I know than when you have a tough coach who pushes you beyond what you think you can do, the rewards are much greater. That's what happens here.'' ``When I first designed this, I looked for materials that would address issues of identity, of violence, of the individual's relationship to society,'' Waxler explained, ``Often, that pushes everybody to an understanding of where they fall in relation to that character.'' ``I related to Wolf Larsen in Sea Wolf,'' said Manuel Amaral, 35, a former drug addict and small-time dealer. The Larsen character is a brutal ship's captain who meets a grisly end. ``I was like him,'' said Amaral. ``Reading about it opened my mind.'' Amaral is now drug-free and a student at Bristol Community College in Fall River, Mass. The reading program has benefited more than the defendants. Along with Waxler and some of his colleagues, St. Pierre attends every session and does all of the reading. Judge Kane also attends but begins with the third session to avoid intimidating students. ``One night, we were reading Norman Mailer's An American Dream,'' the judge recalled. ``There's a scene between a judge and a prostitute, and the people in the course started talking about the misuse of judicial power. I realized that it was important that I hear that. It has made me more expansive.'' Mark MacMullen, 40, also was a drug abuser. Now he is a full-time student at rights to his two children. ``I learned that Wayne St. Pierre is more than my probation officer--he's a human being,'' he said, ``and Judge Kane is a human being, and they cared about me. That's made me care about me and start making the right choices.'' The program has strict rules. While studying, participants are on probation and live at home. Anyone who misses class or skips readings can be sent to prison. Program graduates remain on probation and must attend a one-day career workshop. They must then make a career choice or plans that will increase employment opportunities, such as obtaining a GED or going to college. If they don't, they can be sent to prison. The UMass Dartmouth program accepts only male offenders. There are now similar programs, for men and women, in the state--and more judges are studying it. ``They should try it,'' Judge Kane said, ``The things that are said here are more interesting than the conversation in the judges' lobby.'' Don Ross--the fan of Deliverance, the book--said the course taught him to accept responsibility for the first time. ``The day I came before Judge Kane was the turning point. That transformation has been gradual, week after week, book after book.'' ``This has taught me,'' he said, ``to use my mind.''

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, last week the Republican Party put through a bill to change last year's bill providing prison construction funds. They said last week that we had given the States too much discretion and we needed here in Washington to tell the States more what to do. Today and tomorrow they are going to put through a bill that is exactly the opposite. They are going to try to undo what we did last year regarding money for prevention and for police because they say it does not give the States enough freedom. What is the common threat? Why were they for restricting the States last week and for untying the States this week? Because they fear that President Clinton and the Democratic Congress has this year succeeded, and they are desperately eager for partisan purposes to undo that success. That would not be so bad if it were not for the consequences. In my district and in districts all across this country police officers have been hired for what they thought was a 3-year period under the Clinton plan of last year. For partisan purposes, the Republican program would disrupt that. It would say to the people who hire policemen and the policemen hired that they are not going to have the assurance of the 3 years. Mr. Speaker, surely they can find other areas in which to express their partisan desires.

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 object to moving the previous question.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, this urge to measure legislation by sheer volume of bills passed has really now come up against reality. This 10-hour limitation was perfectly sensible for some of the bills we have been doing this week. They were single issue bills. We did 10 hours on prisons, 10 hours on the prevention police. We bump up against it a little bit, but they are reasonable. This 10-hour model now is applying to an omnibus bill that takes in vast areas of national security, of foreign policy, and of defense. Remember out of the 10 hours comes rollcalls. If you have four or five rollcalls, you have eaten up a couple of hours by the amount of time they will take. We will debate what our relationship should be with NATO, what new nations will come into NATO, do we go back to star wars, what is our relationship to peacekeeping, what are our requirements when the United States participates in multinational peacekeeping, all in 10 hours. By the way, the hard working majority plans to leave town at 3 o'clock on Thursday. This is 10 hours compressing the most important issues this Nation faces, so we can get out of town early. Well, let us wait until next week, if the vacation is irresistible. Frankly, for those who are prepared simply to take marching and voting orders, 10 thought processes at the door and are ready to walk in here and be told what to do, I suppose 10 minutes would probably do it, if you can check them off like that. But those of us who think this country is entitled to serious discussion of these issues understand, 10 hours is the most debasing and degrading approach to the legislative process I have ever seen, particularly when it is for the convenience of an early vacation. One of the issues that I was hoping we would raise, and I have talked to Members on the other side, is burden sharing, which this House forced on the administration. It is bipartisan, the opposition to burden sharing. Republican and Democratic Presidents alike have resisted it, and we insisted on it. We cannot adequately do that in 10 hours. Mr. Speaker, we cannot deal with this large range of issues that have been put together. If you are, in fact, prepared simply to do as you are told, if you have presigned on and do not need to think about it, OK. But the notion that in 10 hours, with time out for votes, you can redefine our relationships to the United Nations and NATO, reconstruct our defense command structure, redefine the powers of the President, all within a 10-hour period, which will include general debate, which will include time for the rules, it is a degradation of the legislative process. By the way, once again we are being told that one of the reforms the Republicans brought to us gets checked at the door. One of the great reforms was the reinstitution of the rule that said we will not have you on the floor when the committees are meeting. They apparently put that reform in so they could waive it every week. They have waived that rule more than they have waived the contract. That rule has been dispensed with virtually every week, so that Members will be expected to be on the floor and deal with the questions of NATO and SDI, et cetera, and at the same time simultaneously be in committees. Mr. Speaker, this is taking the legislative process hostage so you can fulfill a political promise that turned out to be more difficult than you thought. No one would describe 10 hours as remotely adequate to deal with these very important issues. What the majority is trying to do is to cram into an obviously inadequate period of time a series of difficult issues, and in part, because this one is beginning to unravel. This one is beginning to engender opposition from Republicans who have served in high defense and national security positions. The implications of this one will not bear scrutiny. Ten hours of debate is absolutely a breach of faith with the Democratic process and it will engender, I believe on our side, an appropriate response. People who tell us that we cannot take adequate time to deal with these issues cannot expect to be treated by us as partners in the ongoing legislative process when they have so dishonored it.