Barney Frank

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, the point I was making is that the gentleman's concern with his own personal reputation did not seem to me to be all that relevant to the debate. The question is, what has the House been able to do? And the compliance bill was considered under a procedure which allowed no amendments whatsoever. Similarly on the balanced budget amendment, which the gentleman talks about, some amendments were allowed and some were not. I went to the Committee on Rules with an amendment which got the most votes of any amendment offered in the Committee on the Judiciary. It is the one that allowed a full debate on the question of separating out the receipts and outlays of Social Security from the balanced budget. And the Committee on Rules, under the gentleman's direction, refused to allow that amendment, a freestanding Social Security amendment, not linked with other things, to be voted on.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, the gentleman makes a distinction that is absolutely without any point or purpose whatsoever. The fact is, if the gentleman wants to take this personally as a commentary on his record, he is free to do that on his own time. But the question is, how has the House considered things? And in fact, considered an important piece of legislation, the compliance bill, under a total closed procedure.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I will yield to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer] in the first place, but I suggest, to economize, maybe the gentleman from Michigan can ask unanimous consent to change his name to Volkmer. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I just want to share my sense of happiness that my Republican colleagues have succeeded so soon in improving American Government. We have just heard virtually every one on the Republican side rise to speak in praise of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, to defend the actions in Waco, to defend the actions in Idaho. Now, it had not previously been my experience that Republicans were as supportive of the law enforcement efforts of the Clinton administration. And I guess Republicans said that once they got into the majority, things would get better. Well, they have apparently gotten better more quickly than I had thought, because we have been hearing from our Republican colleagues today words of praise and support for the law enforcement Federal agencies that I had not previously heard. I appreciate this. The simple act of the Republicans switching from minority status when they got to offer amendments and be critical, to majority status where they are now really responsible has apparently had the wondrous byproduct of improving the quality of the executive branch. Republicans, who on the whole when they were in the minority were quite critical of virtually all the actions of the administration, now they are in the majority, with the responsibility for running this operation, find virtues heretofore unchronicled in various of the Clinton administration entities. I want to say that I am pleased to welcome this spirit of constructiveness. There is a higher degree of support coming forward than I have heard before. I am glad they have found on a second look that there is a lot more to be supported. I have myself not been critical of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. I had not previously recollected such Republican support. I hope it will be noted the extent to which the Republican leadership finds that the Federal law enforcement people at Waco and Idaho should be praised. I thank the gentleman.

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would just ask my friend, ``This unwillingness to let the gentleman from Missouri take credit for his amendment; was it something he said?''

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I will reclaim my time to say that I am sorry that the people on the other side continue to want to deny Mr. Volkmer the credit to which he is entitled for bringing this amendment forward. But I do think that it is clear enough to say that this was the idea of the gentleman from Missouri. Apparently, not try to steal credit from the gentleman from Missouri.

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I apologize for being unclear. The gentleman from Missouri, having come up with this, the notion that he has to come up with the amendment, having decides to put his name on it, seems to me unfortunate. But if the gentleman insists that that is what the rules allow, I suppose that is what happens.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. So the gentleman would have to satisfy himself with that flattery which imitation is the sincerest form of?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, then I misunderstood. There is no effort to try to preempt the gentleman's right to offer that amendment as his amendment since he is the one who came up with it.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, several things the gentleman said made some sense to me, but then I thought I heard the gentleman say some members of the majority might want to offer the gentleman's amendment. That one seemed a little disturbing. The gentleman from Missouri has been working on this amendment. The gentleman is saying that some members of the majority have plans to sort of show the respect for intellectual property rights of the Chinese Government and steal the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear the Republicans talk about how they want us to be able to work, because I take that to mean that they will not try to bottle up the President's thoughtful, compassionate proposal to raise the minimum wage. Now, I was a little concerned when I read the Speaker's opposition to it. I was especially puzzled when I saw that he said that one reason we could not afford to raise the minimum wage of American workers to a living wage, and it is well below that now, is that wages are so low in Mexico. I am puzzled because when we were dealing with the question of an American guarantee for Mexican loans, many of us on the Democratic side felt that we should address in that context wages in Mexico, and we made the point that we wanted to insist on mechanisms in Mexico that would no longer arbitrarily depress the wages of Mexican workers, but allow them to rise. We were told that that was really none of our business. But now the Speaker tells us that precisely because Mexican wages are so low, he cannot support giving American workers $5.15 an hour. This is validation of the point we made with regard to Mexico, and it is further argument for raising the American minimum wage.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say that the chairman of the Rules Committee, he said the first four bills would not be restricted and the last two might. I believe that the sixth bill, the one that would redo the program and do the block grants is in fact one of the most important and in fact took the longest time in the Judiciary Committee. So I would hope that they would not be subjected to that kind of restriction simply, because it would not make sense just because that is the number in which they were ordered to take a more important bill and restrict it more just because it comes later rather than earlier on.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Chairman, the rules of the House are not enough, I would say to the gentleman very simply, when we are dealing with a matter which includes the U.S. Senate. That is not hard. The rules of the House do not bind the Senate, they do not impress the Senate, and if you are serious about this you do it by statute.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Now, I am surprised because the gentleman has not said that all the time we spent on the unfunded mandates was a waste, because he is saying in effect we do not need an unfunded mandate bill, all we need is not to vote on unfunded mandates.

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I have several problems with the logic there. First of all, arguing that something should not be included because it is not necessary, if there is any ambiguity, it seems to me a weak argument. None of those arguing in opposition said it would do any harm. They said it is not necessary. In other words, we are getting the argument from literary elegance, not from logic. Let us not be redundant. Fortunately the rule against redundancy does not apply to our speeches, or we would be in better shape. On the other hand, there is a reason to apply this here. Among other things, we are not the only institution in this capital that treats appropriations legislation. Yonder lies the Senate. They have no such rule. We have sometimes been confronted, as the gentleman understands, with situations in which, in conference, we have had to agree to that. So to argue that we should not put something into a statute which is intended to last indefinitely, because we have a House rule provision that does the same thing, is no argument at all. If you are serious about the principle, then the fact it is in the House rule is a good idea, but hardly a sufficient protection. Putting it in the statute does no harm and arms us against a Senate where there is no such rule whatsoever.

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

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