Barney Frank: “there is a technical point and a more substantive one. The technical point is this: the gentleman from New York says…”

“there is a technical point and a more substantive one. The technical point is this: the gentleman from New York says that if the legislation is not authorized, then the money does go back to the recipient municipalities the way my amendment says. The problem is that that does not happen in the bill until June 30, 2002, and this appropriation becomes effective on October 1. So from October 1 of 2001 until June 30, the money will be mandated and not available freely. The gentleman said well, he would hope, recognizing it was the President's priority, they would authorize it. I know that motivates many on the gentleman's side. But the President's priority was not to have the Patients' Bill of Rights of Ganske-Norwood-Dingell, and the President's priority has been a different campaign finance reform. I am pleased to say from time to time this House constitutionally differs with Presidential priorities, and the argument that something is not a Presidential priority, as my friend from Michigan has said, is not an argument. So I think if the gentleman concedes that we should not be doing this without authorization, then he has it backwards, because his amendment language says as of October 1, if my amendment does not pass, there is this mandate and the mandate stays in effect for most of the fiscal year. I think that is the wrong way to deal with it.”