Barney Frank

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, the specific accounts mentioned in this amendment are very appealing. Many of them ought to be funded. But they ought to be funded by the military showing the same kind of fiscal discipline that Members here claim they want the government as a whole to follow. The military budget was increased substantially in the last appropriation. It will be again substantially increased. It is up to the military, in fact, to manage that money. And what we do today is, in effect, to give approval to a process by which they can so manage the money as to be able to point to some deficits in some of the most appealing accounts. Let us understand this is $4 billion taken presumably from some surplus. It is $4 billion that cannot be used then for any other purpose. Not for tax cuts. Not for deficit reduction or other spending. I understand we have problems. We all have problems. We have been told that we cannot afford to provide prescription drugs for older people to the degree that many of us want. Understand that this $4 billion is $4 billion that could have gone for prescription drug programs for Medicare. Mr. Chairman, it is $4 billion that could go to putting police on the streets. I believe there are some problems in the world. I must say I disagree with the notion, I in fact am intrigued by it, that the world became less safe when communism collapsed. I have heard that again and again. I guess maybe we should pray for the reestablishment of communism so we could all feel safer. In fact, we do not face today the threat of nuclear destruction. Reference was made to the nuclear threat we face from the Russians. In the state of the Russian nuclear weaponry today, Russians face much more of a threat from Russian nuclear weapons than anyone else does. They are much more likely to blow up on site than to be delivered anywhere. Mr. Chairman, what this does is to continue a pattern in which the military is rewarded for not spending efficiently. In which Members, as the Senator from Arizona correctly pointed out during his campaign, in which Members eat into the military budget with projects the military does not want and erode the military's ability to focus on what they should focus on and takes $4 billion away from other things. This is the time of year when people come to our offices and want help with health research and want help with prescription drugs. They want help with housing, and they want help with a lot of other issues. The $4 billion today, over and above what they got last year and what they will get next year, comes from other pots. If my colleagues vote for this $4 billion today, they should remember that when they tell people that they sympathize with them when it comes to cancer research and they sympathize with them when it comes to prescription drugs for older people, they sympathize when it comes to environmental cleanup but we do not have the money, partly we will not have the money if this amendment passes because they took $4 billion which would have been available for other purposes and gave it to the military. Again, because certain accounts sound attractive, but it is because the management has been such to put us in this position where we are told we have to spend the money here.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, would that be in order at any time prior to the vote? That is, could he offer that, if he was not ready to offer it immediately, prior to the vote being taken?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I understand the difficulty of trying to come up with an amendment for $40 million at the last minute, but we did earlier today adopt an amendment for $4 billion for the Pentagon which if my arithmetic is right is about 100 times as much. So if we could put an amendment together for $4 billion for the Pentagon after the bill came out and we cannot do $40 million for this program, I think that says a lot of unfortunate things about our priorities.

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, first I want to congratulate the Republican Party for bringing forward to this House an expansion of the Federal Government's role on American society. As we have heard today, this is a new venture to get the Federal Government involved in helping local fire fighters. I congratulate the Republican Party on sloughing off that old notion that the Federal Government was something whose influence should be resisted and restricted. Having the Republican Party bring forward a new Federal program, putting the Federal Government into a new area where it had not previously been, helping local fire fighting, shows a degree of intellectual growth on which I congratulate them. Now, as to this amendment, there is one problem with it. Most of the amendment, the part of the Republican Party getting us into the fire fighting business for the time, which I am glad to see, the problem is not how they do it. There is a mistake in the end where it says, I think a mistake in policy, it says, and here is the problem that the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek) quite cogently pointed out to some of us who had not seen it: ``An activity shall be considered to benefit persons of low and moderate income if the service provides such services to all persons in the geographical area served, including any low and moderate income persons.'' In other words, a wealthy area with live-in help, that would then be covered. If one has got maids who live in a rich area, they are covered. That is the problem with the definition. That is what has to be changed.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. But the parliamentary inquiry is that, subsequent, by unanimous consent, could an amendment to that be offered if the body gave a unanimous consent to a modification such as the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio) has proposed?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Subsequent to the closure of debate on this subject, the vote being rolled, would it be in order, then, for a Member to strike the last word and ask unanimous consent to offer an amendment to the amendment after the debate? Without extending the debate time, under the 5-minute rule, could a Member then rise and offer a unanimous consent amendment to offer the modification the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio) has in mind?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, I want to begin by expressing my agreement with the comments of the gentleman from Florida. One of the things he called attention to is a very curious publishing phenomenon. I have listened to many of my colleagues who are great supporters of free enterprise and who attribute the virtues of the market of free enterprise to all manner of people, mostly poor and working-class people who look for help. But apparently there is in every free market text ever written, Milton Friedman, Ludwig von Mises, et cetera, a secret footnote that can only be read by people who represent certain agricultural interests, which says to them, this free market stuff is great for poor people and for people who try to work in factories, but it does not apply to agriculture, because by some strange literary feat, the strongest supporters of an unrestrained free market system consistently make an exception for some protected and politically favored parts of agriculture. I will be voting for the amendment that the gentleman mentioned. Madam Speaker, I want to talk today about the recent report that was issued by the Inspector General documenting a fact that many of us already knew, and that is that the mistreatment of gay, lesbian, and bisexual patriotic Americans who have tried to serve their country has been one of the most discouraging aspects of this administration's record. Ordinarily, being able to say ``I told you so'' makes one feel pretty good. People pretend they do not like to say ``I told you so,'' but most people do. But in this case I say it sadly. I and others have been telling the President and the Secretary of Defense and others that for years now that they were allowing patriotic, honorable young men and women who happen to be gay, lesbian, or bisexual and who were motivated by a desire to serve their country to be mistreated. I do not fault President Clinton for the adoption of the ``don't ask, don't tell'' policy; I think he tried very hard to get a better policy. But he is culpable for the fact that once the policy was implemented, he did not effectively compel the military to live up even to the slight improvement it represented. Neither he nor Secretaries of Defense under him, particularly Secretary Perry and Secretary Cohen, have taken it seriously. I must say that I am particularly disappointed in Secretary Cohen from whom I expected more. For years, we have been telling the Secretary the facts that he now has to acknowledge, because a young man was tragically murdered, a young man who made the mistake of wanting to serve his country in the military, who had a flawless record, and who was tragically murdered by anti-gay bigotry, fostered by the policy of the administration. Only after that murder could we get the Secretary to say, okay, I will look into this, and he now has to acknowledge what we have been telling him along. But he must understand that part of his own actions have been part of a pattern all along. When the Navy outrageously violated the privacy of a young man named Timothy McVeigh, a patriotic member of the Navy, and a Federal judge ruled that they had violated his rights, the Defense Department resisted that ruling, sought to appeal it, and had to be overruled by the President, one of the few times that the President did get involved. Even now, in the aftermath of the murder of Mr. Winchell, we have the people at that base where absolute harassment was proven to have happened going unpunished. We had an officer at 29 Palms issue a viciously bigoted e-mail about gay people, and he goes unpunished. The fact is that the administration cannot pretend that it did not know this was happening, and it certainly has to give a more effective response, even now, with the Inspector General documenting what the Secretary should have known because people have told him this for years, his response is well, I am now appointing a commission and in July, at the end of July, I will consider implementing some corrective steps. There are things he can do right away, from his own personal involvement to some very specific policies. He has made a few steps. They have paled in insignificance to the kind of bigotry that is still there. Secretary Cohen has been there for over 3 years. Does he want to leave office with only the last couple of months of his stewardship of the Defense Department being a time when he paid serious attention to this? Let us be clear what we are talking about. Young Americans who happen to be gay, lesbian or bisexual who, in accordance with the policy that is now the law, want to serve their country, and they are treated brutally, unfairly; they are ridiculed, they are threatened, they are physically assaulted, and until now, they have not been able to get protection from the military they have sought to serve. Secretary Cohen has already waited too long. We cannot undo the terrible mistakes that were made by the Secretary that the President allowed to be made, and the President has an excellent record in confronting prejudice based on sexual orientation. He will get history's good judgment for having helped lead the fight against that prejudice. There is this one flaw. Madam Speaker, it is not too late in these remaining months of the administration to undo it, and I hope that they will.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. I congratulate the caucus for a budget that very well represents what the priorities ought to be. We have a very wealthy Nation now. We have a greater degree of power disparity between the United States militarily and the rest of the world than we have ever seen in our history. What this budget does is to make a sensible, prudent reduction in the amount of money spent on the military so that we can deal with the real threats to America's security to the problems of health, poverty, inadequate education. We have a real deadlock in this country right now. We have people telling us that we ought to participate more enthusiastically in the international economy for the World Trade Organizations and elsewhere. As long as grave disparities persist within this country, as long as lower-income people, people working at the low end of the skill level feel threatened by it, we are not going to be able to go forward. This budget takes a very big set of steps forward towards creating within the United States by reducing the excess that the military has gotten the kind of social stability that we need as a framework for going forward.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I will say that while decorum is important, it seems to me the Members were paying this bill about as much attention as it deserves. I should explain to some of my colleagues, whose amendments will be ruled out of order, that I will not be able to side with them if they appeal the ruling of the Chair, because I am afraid that they are not germane. I have looked at these amendments, and those amendments each try to accomplish something. The governing principle of this bill is to do nothing. And an amendment which tries to do something is clearly not germane to this feel-good piece of legislation. So I would have to say to my friends that I cannot be with them, because we have to uphold the spirit of this bill. Something is not germane to nothing. That is an important parliamentary point. This is a bill which the Republicans could have brought forward anything they wanted. Part of it is a ratification. This is the Republican ratification of the tax increase of 1993. Members will remember some of them and others will remember the gnashing and wailing and lamentation about the gas tax increase. It was a terrible thing, that gasoline tax increase. Well, the Republican Party had the opportunity to bring forward a bill repealing the 1993 gasoline tax increase, and their answer is a resounding ``never mind,'' in the words of Emily Litella. So we have on the part of the Republican Party a ratification of the gasoline tax increase of 1993. Better late than never. We now have on our side suggestions for taking some of the strategic petroleum reserve and making it available to the American people, who paid for it. That is not to be considered. The Republican Party is adamant, apparently, against doing anything with this strategic petroleum reserve or setting up a new one for the future. What we have, instead, is a very interesting political phenomenon: a man who is being talked about for vice president, but is still only the Secretary of Energy, apparently has coattails. Because as the gentleman who spoke said, this is an effort to mandate a diplomatic campaign to get OPEC to change its position. Well, that is what Secretary Richardson has been doing. Now, a week before the vote we come forward, and I think what we have here is an effort to take credit for what might happen anyway. So Secretary Richardson turns out to have coattails not in November but in March. Because what we have is a bill that if OPEC changes its position, as the administration has been working to have them do, we will take the credit for it. In fact, I differ with the administration. I do not think they should be simply relying on trying to move OPEC by persuasion. I think we should have been doing things with the strategic petroleum reserve. But the bill absolutely agrees with the administration. As we heard the chairman say, we have two things here: first of all, a report, a report the issuance of which no doubt is having them quaking in Kuwait. It has them terrorized in Venezuela. A report is coming. The Congress of the United States is going to issue a report. And no doubt that strikes terror into the hearts of the oil-producing nations. But beyond the report, what do we have? We have a diplomatic campaign to get OPEC to change its position. Exactly what the administration has been doing. So this bill fails to push the administration to do more and, instead, violates the copyright laws by trying to take credit for what they are already doing.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I continue to be very concerned that the Federal Reserve will unduly restrict economic growth by overreacting to the possibility of inflation, in the absence of any sign of it. Last week I introduced into the Record a very thoughtful analysis by Jeff Faux of the Economic Policy Institute, a liberal organization, refuting the Fed's analysis. Today, I introduce an article from a conservative thinker, Lawrence Kudlow, who disagrees with Mr. Faux on many points, but who agrees on the central issue that the Federal Reserve is threatening our prosperity unnecessarily by inaccurately portraying an inflationary danger in current economic trends. Unfortunately, the well deserved respect that people have for Mr. Greenspan and his record in office serves to diminish the healthy debate a democracy ought to have on the important questions with which the Fed deals. In fairness to Mr. Greenspan, it should be noted that he has not himself sought to discourage discussion, and indeed I believe he welcomes an open debate on these questions. I believe that the central thesis that Mr. Kudlow discusses here is absolutely accurate, namely that the growth we have been enjoying results from improved productivity, among other things, and does not carry with it the inflationary threats that some in the Fed see. In the interest of the sort of debate that we should be having on this central subject, I ask that Mr. Kudlow's analysis be printed here. (By Lawrence Kudlow) Alan Greenspan's harsh warnings that only substantially higher interest rates can slow down the economy are like an out-of-range cellular telephone call. They are disconnected from the reality of the new Internet economy. Mr. Greenspan, the chairman of the Federal Reserve, has repeatedly warned that we are at risk of inflation and that ``excess demand'' must be curbed by a tighter credit policy. Trouble is, the superb performance of the economy disproves these fears. Over the past fives years, rapid technological advances have generated 4 percent yearly growth while inflation has been at a minuscule 1\1/2\ percent. A virtually perfect scenario. Yet Mr. Greenspan persists in conjuring up arguments that fly in the face of both actual evidence and established economic theory. Lately he has been seeing harm in the productivity gains that policymakers have sought for three decades. Overall productivity has grown an average of 3 percent annually in the United States; the industrial sector has increased productivity by more than 5 percent per year. All schools of economic thought--Keynesian, supply-side, even socialist--agree that productivity increases are always desirable. The Fed chairman, however, now asserts that rising productivity is doing bad things, fueling corporate profits and higher stock market prices. This, he warns, poses the threat of inflation caused by increased consumer spending. So, in this tortured Alice-in-Wonderland logic, all that appears to be good is really bad. Real world statistical evidence, however, runs counter to this view. Despite the Also, a recent study by the Federal Reserve itself suggests that many investors in the bull market are actually saving more and spending less in order to reap greater retirement benefits. Indeed, it was during the 1970's, when inflation was high, that consumption went up faster than wealth. During the 1980's and 1990's, when inflation was low, wealth rose faster than consumption. And this wealth led to a spectacular surge in investment, providing more factories, equipment and services that can keep up with demand. Indeed, the very success of Mr. Greenspan's own anti- inflation policies has fostered the productivity-driven prosperity that he is now in danger of curbing. Declining inflation puts more money in the pockets of workers, investors and entrepreneurs. As a result, the efficiency of employers and employees has improved markedly. The entire economy has been retooled for global competitiveness. Most vexing, however, is Mr. Greenspan's apparent refusal to acknowledge that inflation really is caused by too much money chasing too few goods. In speech after speech--warning of potential inflation threats--the central banker never, ever mentions the word money. If the money supply were excessive, the dollar's exchange rate would decline, gold prices would increase and long-term interest rates would rise--all market signals of future inflation. But today, the dollar is strong, gold is weak and long-term Treasury rates are falling, telling us that the Internet is more important than the Fed. Technology has fought inflation much more successfully than the Fed ever could. Let's look at recent technological breakthroughs: computer chips that break the gigahertz speed barrier of one billion cycles per second, new molecular electronic chip-making systems, new open access to broadband cable transmission systems, and new business-to-business auction websites for low-cost manufacturing supplies and parts. They all promote faster economic growth at lower prices without any help from the Fed. But Alan Greenspan doesn't seem to appreciate these developments. And in this sense, the Fed is stuck in the old era--it thinks we still have a smokestack economy as opposed to the new Internet economy. The Fed keeps trying to pour old wine into new bottles. This won't work, and it might do considerable harm. If it goes too far, and raises interest rates too high, that will surely undermine this prosperity. Here's a better idea for Greenspan and Company: If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I have become increasingly concerned that the relentless drive of the Federal Reserve to cut back on economic growth will lead to serious economic problems later this year. Federal Reserve officials have heretofore stressed that there is a time lag of many months between their decisions to raise interest rates and the effect those increases will have on the economy. We have recently had four Federal Reserve increases in interest rates, and by the Fed's own previous standards, only one of those could possibly have begun to have any economic impact, and that, barely so. For the Federal Reserve despite this to continue to raise interest rates threatens us with serious economic problems later in the year. I do not at this point believe that this will lead to a recession, although if the Fed continues to raise interest rates on a regular basis that will be the result. But what their actions will guarantee is a significant slow down in the growth of our economy. That is not only bad in itself, it will deprive our economy of the one factor that has served in recent years to alleviate the increasing trend towards exacerbating inequality that has accompanied overall prosperity for much of the past decade. The justification for the Federal Reserve's action is of course that it is necessary to stave off inflation. This is a justification the Fed offers, despite what might appear to be the inconvenient fact that no inflation is in prospect. In a recent analysis, Jeff Faux of the Economic Policy Institute analyzes the Federal Reserve's argument, and delves into American economic history to show the fallacy of the Fed's approach. Because of the importance of this topic to both the economic and social health of our country, and because of the cogency of Mr. Faux's analysis, I ask that it be printed here. The Fed's Unnecessary Assault on Wages (By Jeff Faux) The Federal Reserve Board has raised its key interest rate a full percentage point since June 1999, and it has indicated that it will continue to raise rates until economic growth slows down. It takes a while for interest rate changes to work their way through the economy. But sometime this year, the nation can expect to begin paying the costs. These costs will include: An increase in joblessness and a weakening of the bargaining power of low- and middle-income families, whose wages--after being stagnant for most of the 1990s--have been rising in the last several years because of tight labor markets. Higher housing, consumer credit, and general borrowing costs. a worsening of the trade deficit, because raising interest rates will increase the near-term value of the dollar. According to Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan, these costs are justified by the benefits of slower growth, which will: (1) prevent the current boom from ``overheating,'' i.e., generating politically unacceptable levels of inflation that must then be brought down by engineering a deep recession, and (2) deflate the overpriced stock market, thereby preventing a future crash. But the slowing of the economy is unnecessary. As Greenspan himself admitted in his February 17 semi-annual report to Congress, ``inflation has remained largely contained.'' Moreover, the historical evidence for Greenspan's inflationary scenario is weak. As for an overpriced stock market, the Fed has other policy options with which to deflate it. These realities suggest that the Fed's intervention has been aimed more at preventing wage increases than at preventing inflation. If anything, lowering, rather than raising, interest rates is a more appropriate monetary policy for the current condition of the economy.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, rarely have the differences between the two political parties been more graphically demonstrated than when we debated the package of a minimum wage increase and tax reductions. The resistance on the part of the Republican leadership to a fairly small minimum wage increase in the midst of the greatest prosperity we have ever known speaks a great deal to a social insensitivity, but equally distressing to me is their decision that we should begin to reduce one of the most progressive taxes in America. And, of course, their goal is ultimately to repeal it. I speak of the estate tax. We have some unfair taxes in America, and many people feel that working people, people of average income, people who are making $30,000, $40,000, $50,000 a year pay an unfair share of the tax burden. And I believe that is true in part because of the payroll taxes. We have one tax, the estate tax, which literally applies only to millionaires. And it does not even apply to millionaires. It applies to people who have shown a rare talent. They have shown an ability to be related to millionaires. Madam Speaker, I think being related to a millionaire is certainly a great asset in life, and I would recommend it to people. If you have a chance to be related to someone very wealthy, take it. But I do not believe that being related to an extremely wealthy person who has just died is a mark of inherent value. It is neutral. It does not make you a bad person, but it does not make you a hero either. And the notion that you have an absolute right to be greatly rewarded by your good fortune in having a very rich relative seems to me a mistake. Now, what is particularly interesting is the estate tax brings in a little over $20 billion a year, and it will soon be the case that your estate has to be a million dollars or more before you pay it. And the great bulk of it is paid by people who die and leave tens of millions of dollars. Now, here is what we do if we abolish the estate tax, as the Republican party wants to do it, we say to old people who, because most of the people who pay the estate tax or over 90 percent were 65 or older when they die, we say to these older people who died rich that we will be very protective of them, or at least of their smart relatives who figured out how to be related to them. On the other hand, if you are old and alive and not very rich, but you are on Medicare and cannot afford prescription drugs, the Republican position is, well, that is tough, you will just have to learn to deal with it. In other words, the Republican party tells us on the one hand we cannot afford this wealthy Nation to provide full prescription drug coverage to middle-income and lower-income elderly people, not the very poor, they are covered by Medicaid, but people who are making $25,000, $30,000, $35,000 a year in retirement, they ought to get no aid because we need the money that would have gone to pay for prescription drugs to alleviate the problem of Bill Gates' heirs and the heirs of other people who have made millions of dollars. In other words, we are being asked to show more respect for older people who are dead and rich than for older people who are still alive and not wealthy. Madam Speaker, now, there is one other aspect of this effort to reduce and, ultimately, repeal the estate tax that ought to be called into question, and that is the negative effect it will have on private charity. My Republican colleagues talk about how much they want to help private charity. According to a recent study, I will put the New York Times article displaying this study from a couple of Boston College researchers, into the Record, for estates that are over $20 million, a very considerable number, 39 percent of the money at death goes to chart, while only 34 percent goes to taxes. And, indeed, these two professors conclude in their study, two eminent scholars from an institution mostly in my district, at Boston College. They conclude that, I am now quoting from the article, if the estate tax is repealed or significantly reduced, however, as Congress voted to do earlier this year in a bill that President Clinton vetoed, that was last year, bequests to charities might be smaller than the Boston College model predicted. The Republican approach is to go to the aid of the wealthiest 1 or 2 percent of the people in the country and not just to them, but to the people who are smart enough to be related to them or to have otherwise ingratiated themselves to them, to deny prescription drug coverage to the great bulk of middle-income Americans and lower-income Americans, and while we are at it, reduce the amount that goes to private charity. That is the difference between the parties. Madam Speaker, I include the following two articles for the Record which illustrate these points. [From the New York Times, July 25, 1999] Study Contradicts Foes of Estate Tax (By David Cay Johnston) Congressional opponents of the estate tax say it discourages savings, costs the economy more than it raises for the Government and makes it very difficult for a family- owned farm or business to be passed to the next generation. But all of those arguments are contradicted by Government tax and economic data, according to a book-length study that will be published tomorrow in the policy magazine Tax Notes. The article comes after the House passed on Thursday night the Republicans' bill to cut taxes by $792 billion, including the repeal of the estate tax. Similar legislation was being considered in the Senate but the outcome of the repeal is in doubt because President Clinton has promised to veto it. Yet the article in Tax Notes seems likely to have a profound effect on the debate over estate taxes, experts say. Data from estate tax returns and other records do not support the claims of estate tax opponents, according to the article, by Charles Davenport and Jay A. Soled, professors at Rutgers University who teach estate tax law and business management. The estate tax is projected in the Federal budget to raise about $28 billion this year. That is less than one-third of 1 percent of the gross domestic product, which is too slight to retard economic growth, the authors say. While the tax rate on the largest estates can be 55 percent, Internal Revenue Service data cited in the study show that in 1996 the average tax on estates of $600,000 to $1 million was 6 percent. It costs the I.R.S. 2 cents on the dollar to administer the tax, the authors calculate. They say the combined private and Government costs total about 7 cents on the estate tax dollar. Professors Davenport and Soled said Congressional testimony by critics of the estate tax contending that the tax costs more than it raises was based on flawed data, including a study that estimated that every dollar raised in Federal income taxes cost the economy 65 cents more. That figure was dismissed as absurd by the authors. They also disputed another contention of the critics, that rich people spend heavily in their later years in order to reduce estate taxes. Instead, the authors say, many rich people save more money to offset the tax They say that the reasons family businesses are not passed to the next generation have little to do with estate taxes. A primary reason, the authors say, is the burden on heirs who want to keep the business and must raise cash to pay off those heirs who do not. While the estate tax nominally begins when net worth at death exceeds $650,000 (1.3 million for a married couple), Congress lets a couple pass on $4.5 million untaxed if they own a business and $7.4 million if they own a farm. Only about 1 in 1,000 American families is worth $7.4 million. The estate tax will be paid this year by the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans who die. The Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation estimated last week that repeal of the estate tax would reduce Federal revenues by $75 billion over the next 10 years, even though the Federal budget projects the estate tax will raise more than that amount in the next three years alone. The chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, Representative Bill Archer of Texas, who had not seen the article, said that he was skeptical of its claims and any data drawn from I.R.S. records. ``Every dollar taken by the death tax is a dollar taken out of savings when what this country needs is more private savings,'' said Mr. Archer, the author of the House Republicans' tax bill. He said the costs of the estate tax included discouraging wealthy foreigners from moving to the United States with their capital and skills. As to whether existing exemptions are enough for farms to stay in families, he said, ``The input from the Ag Belt is totally contrary to that.'' The authors say that among the virtues they see in the estate tax are that it taxes some money that has slipped past the income tax system, it is paid only by those most able to pay, it encourages financial planning and charitable giving and it tends to ease the trend toward concentration of wealth. The richest 1 percent of Americans now one half of all stocks, bonds and other assets, a record level, according to Professor Edward N. Wolff of New York University. Experts say the Tax Notes article may be as influential as the 1994 Yale Law Review article by Edward J. McCaffery of the University of Southern California Law School, who exhorted liberals to join conservatives in opposing the estate tax as inefficient and unfair. Since then, the Tax Notes article says, ``talk about the death-tax has been a monologue by the tax's opponents.'' The article is available at www.tax.org on the internet.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 3575.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, last year, too late for inclusion in the Congressional Record for 1999, I received a very inspiring packet of material from a resident of South Dartmouth, MA, Joseph Theodore, Jr. As the accompanying article from the New Bedford Standard Times points out, Mr. Theodore decided nearly 30 years ago to respond to the anguish that our country was undergoing as a result of the debate over the war in Vietnam by flying a flag 24 hours a day from a very prominent spot in the city of New Bedford, which I am privileged to represent. As the column by Hank Seaman notes, every day since 1971, a total of 341 flags--``which had draped the coffins of SouthCoast servicemen, have flown from the former fire station observation spire overlooking Route I-195'' in New Bedford. In addition to his wonderful gesture with regard to the permanently flying, illuminated American flag, Mr. Theodore has devoted his efforts to calling attention to the 44-year-old U.N. Peace Tree. Mr. Theodore three years ago called attention to this tree, which had been planted by 25 New Bedford residents in 1955, as a symbol of dedication to world peace. At a time when some have unfairly doubted the importance of the United Nations, I think it is worth some attention that thanks to Mr. Theodore's efforts, the city of New Bedford has re-dedicated this tree as a symbol of our hopes for world peace. John Doherty's article from the New Bedford Standard Times describes the impressive ceremony in which Mayor Frederick Kalisz, Jr. and members of St. Paul's Methodist Church congregation joined Mr. Theodore in rededicated the tree. Mr. Speaker, the efforts of Mr. Theodore to celebrate our country through the permanently illuminated American flag, and to reaffirm our dedication to world peace with the U.N. playing an important part, are good examples of how a citizen can take actions which bring out the best in us. I commend Mr. Theodore's example to others and hope that it may be an inspiration to people elsewhere in the country and submit the aforementioned article for the Record. Hometown Snapshots (By Hank Seaman) If ever New Bedford has had a super patriot, Joe Theodore is the one. The man is so committed to the concept of love of country that he'd like to see a United States flag fly from every public building and private home--at all times. ``In the 1960s and early '70s the Vietnam war was tearing this country apart. I was ashamed * * * angered * * * saddened by the division. I thought the country was dying. I wanted to do something to encourage our fighting men, and promote peace and unity at home.'' He hit upon the idea of flying a flag 24 hours a day-- ``Illuminated from dusk to dawn with a light for peace''--in what is now known as Old Glory Tower. Every day since 1971, a total of 341 flags--which had draped the coffins of South Coast servicemen--have flown from the former fire station observation spire overlooking Route

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, marginally, to delay proceedings, but I do not think that significant deaths should go unnoticed. Unmourned, yes, but not unnoticed. And I am talking about the caps of 1997. In 1997, this House engaged in a great orgy of self-congratulation by adopting a budget bill which not only cut Medicare, apparently without anybody here realizing that that was happening, but which enacted a set of restrictions on total spending. They would have lasted from 1997 until 2002, and they would be a template for the future. Alas, they did not last very long. The great balanced budget accomplishment of 1997, the caps, which were unnecessary and unrealistic at the time, have died. And it does not seem to me in this Chamber, where we are so given to ceremonial oratory, that we ought to allow that death to pass unnoticed. The premature passing of the caps, as I said, is not an occasion for mourning. I think it is an occasion for celebration that reality has finally broken through the ideological miasma, but it ought to be noted. And it ought to be noted for a couple of reasons. First of all, there were many of us who, in 1997, thought that the caps were, to use technical parliamentary language, a very stupid idea. They were clearly unrealistic, unsustainable, and they were a farce. And I find, Mr. Speaker, having been one of those who said that in 1997, that as I get older one of the few pleasures that increases with age is being able to say, ``I told you so.'' So I do want to say that I and others told you so in 1997. Welcome to reality. But it also is important because it shows that the vision of the role of the public sector that motivated this House, and particularly the majority in 1997, was flawed deeply. The American public understood better than this House did that there are needs that can best be served by private expenditures, but for a civilized society to achieve the right quality of life, some things have to be done together; transportation, the environment, compassion for people in need, public safety. And the reason the caps died unceremoniously, hopefully unnoticed, according to the people on the other side, they have a new thing about Social Security spending, but I urge people to go back and read the budget debates of 1997. Never has an entity, the caps, been so widely praised and so quickly thrown over the side when reality broke in. But the important point is that this is simply not a mistake made in numbers. It was a miscalculation about the American people's understanding of the importance of a public sector. The problem the people who put the caps had is this. It is a mathematical problem. They tried to construct a whole that was smaller than the sum of the parts. All year we have been dealing with the parts. And as we look at those parts, public safety, education, the environment, highways, et cetera, et cetera, as we look at the parts, we find that they add up to more than that whole. And, therefore, the whole with the ``W'' has become a hole with an ``H.'' It has become a hole in the ground into which the caps have been interred and over which today we will shovel the dirt. So Members should be aware that when they vote today on the major bill, the multi-omnibus appropriation bill, they are funding the government at a reasonable level. And funding the government at a reasonable level means the end of the caps. And I hope that we will not again put ourselves through that. Now, of course, it is also the case that that bill will undo part of what we did with Medicare. And as I look at the extent to which this bill today will repudiate what was so enthusiastically held in 1997, I do wonder whether or not the crack investigative team, assembled by the gentleman from Indiana on the Committee on Government Reform, ought not to be set forward. Because there is a possibility that in 1997 imposters invaded this House, impersonated Members and voted into public policy Medicare and spending programs that were so foolish that today we have to repudiate them. Now, back in 1997, DNA evidence was not as developed, so we may never know whether it was the real Members of the House or a group of mass invaders who did it. But whatever the reason was, the fact that the bill today will be a thorough repudiation of the mistakes of 1997, is something to be noticed, although not mourned.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, I am here so that a very important death should not go unmourned. Indeed, I must say that if it were not for me, I think it would go not only unmourned but unnoticed. I am talking about the demise of the caps. Madam Speaker, in 1997, this House passed, along with the other body and it was signed by the President, a piece of legislation, and I have just gone back and read the debates, which touched off a vast orgy of self-congratulation. That bill did two things. First, of all it imposed discretionary spending caps. It said that the amounts we were spending in 1997 on discretionary programs of the Federal Government would be the same amounts we would spend for the next 5 years. That was widely hailed as the way in which we would get to a balanced budget. We also made serious cuts in Medicare. The caps were going to balance the budget for us. The caps in Medicare were to pay for a capital gains tax cut. Now it is 1999. With 1997 as the reference point, the wonderful, marvelous Balanced Budget Act, which was a source of such pride to so many of my colleagues especially on the Republican side, lies in complete ruin. It is time to say taps for the caps. The caps of 1997 were to put limits on discretionary spending. They have now become a severe embarrassment. They do not even get talked about. The budget resolution paid some homage to them and was promptly disregarded. Madam Speaker, the appropriation we are about to pass, the omnibus bill that we are about to pass, absolutely repudiates those caps. Indeed, we do not even hear them talked about. The caps are gone. Many of us felt at the time that the caps were totally and completely unrealistic. We felt that they substantially undervalued government. They did not give us the resources to do important functions that the public wanted done. But we were told by our Republican colleagues that the caps were essential as methods of fiscal discipline. In less than 2 years, I take it back, 2 years later the caps are gone. They are dead and they die unmourned. They die unnoticed with regard to the 1997 Act. 1999 is the year of Emily Litella: ``Never mind.'' Never mind that we put these caps on. Never mind that we cut Medicare. This has been a year in which we have been undoing it. That leads me to a problem, Madam Speaker. Certainly, it would be odd to think that thoughtful, knowledgeable, well-informed Members of this House in 1997 would have enacted public policy which 2 years later they would be repudiating and hiding from. Certainly, we could not expect thoughtful Members of this Congress to be doing things and then 2 years later thoroughly repudiating the absolutely foreseeable consequences of their own actions. So there is only one explanation. Madam Speaker, 2 years ago this House was infiltrated by impostors. Two years ago, taking advantage of the undeveloped state of DNA evidence, people impersonating Members of this House took over the place and foisted on this country cuts in Medicare that nobody today wants to defend and caps that were unrealistic. This calls, Madam Speaker, for serious investigative work. Where is the gentleman from Indiana and his crack investigative minions in the Committee on Government Reform when we need them? This certainly seems to me to be worthwhile shooting a couple of pumpkins to find out how we got to this situation where the United States House of Representatives was taken over by impostors, by people who pretended to be Members of this House and passed legislation so negative in its consequences that once the rest of us were able to wrest control back from these invaders, we pretty much got rid of it. Madam Speaker, there is obviously something lax about our security. There is something that has gone completely wrong when legislation passed in 1997 is celebrated by the people on this floor, and 2 years later the rest of us have to undo it. So I hope, Madam Speaker, over this break we will try to find ways to prevent any recurrence, because the situation in which people, and we do not know who they were, but in which these masked men and women came in here and replaced the thoughtful Members of this House and inserted themselves into the voting machines and passed irresponsible cuts in Medicare and passed caps that have become a joke, we must not allow that to happen again. Madam Speaker, eternal vigilance is all that stands between us and a repeat of that 1997 debacle.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I was saddened to learn yesterday of the death of Padre Pio Oliva Gottin. Nho Padre Pio, as he was known to many, was a pastor of St. Patrick's Church in Roxbury, Massachusetts, and was one of the most respected and dedicated leaders of the Cape Verdean Community both in the United States and in the Republic of Cape Verde. A native of Italy, and a missionary of the Order of Capuchins, he devoted his pastorate and life to responding to the needs of the community, and he was an important spokesman and advocate of the Cape Verdean-American and Cape Verdean immigrant people living in the Northeast, and in particular, Massachusetts. As a Member of the U.S. Congress, with the proud honor of representing one of the largest Cape Verdean-American constituencies in the United States, it is with great sadness that I join his family, friends, the members of his congregation, and the entire Cape Verdean Community both here and abroad in remembering and paying tribute to Padre Pio for his decades of valuable contributions to the spiritual and cultural life of the Cape Verdean people from around the world. Mr. Speaker, I ask that the statement by the Prime Minister of Cape Verde, Dr. Carlos Alberto Wahnon Veiga, on the death of Padre Pio Oliva Gottin, be printed in translated form.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, this is half a bill, and it is not enough. It does a very good job of creating the conditions in which the capitalist institutions can flourish, and that is a good thing. We want capital to move freely. We give the financial institutions everything they have asked for. Having done that, it is especially inappropriate that this bill treats Community Reinvestment Act institutions, volunteers, lower- income people, people concerned about equity, as if they were suspect. Now, the ranking members of the committees in the House and the Senate, the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce) and Senator Sarbanes, tried to prevent this from happening, but they were not successful given the odds that they faced. This bill is a very significant expansion of financial institution activity, and it is a grudging recognition of CRA. Indeed, as the banks are deregulated and give more freedom, low-income volunteers who put effort into trying to preserve some social fairness in their communities are burdened with excessive regulation. It is entirely unfair for us in this piece of legislation to express unbounded confidence in the ability of the financial institutions to make our lives better and at the same time express suspicion of community investment groups. Because that is what this bill does. It treats them, over the objections of many, but, nonetheless, it treats them as if they were suspect. It deregulates the banks and over- regulates people whose only crime was to offend powerful political interests because they cared about equity. It is a paradigm of a mistake we make too often here. Yes, we should create the conditions in which capitalism can grow and enrich us all. But we should know by now that capitalism alone, the movement of capital, unbounded will create wealth but it will create inequities, it will create social problems. And we must always be careful to accompany that, it is a lesson we should have remembered from Franklin Roosevelt, we should accompany that by measures which empowers those who are trying to offset some of the ill effects, who are trying to preserve some social justice. This bill does not do this. It gives a complete Christmas list to the financial institutions but treats the people who are trying very hard to preserve some equity and some social justice as children who would misbehave. We should do better and we should reject this bill and try it. Madam Speaker, I ask that the very thoughtful letter explaining how this bill weakens the Community Reinvestment Act be printed here. November 4, 1999. Congressman Barney Frank, House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman Frank: Having tracked the so-called ``financial modernization'' legislation currently pending before you through both the House and Senate over the last two years, we are writing to strongly urge you to vote against the passage of this bill. This legislation stands to dramatically alter the nation's financial services industry by allowing cross affiliation and redistributing powers among banks, securities, and insurance companies. Despite serious misgivings regarding the impact this bill would have on low and moderate-income communities and communities of color, we might have been willing to accept these changes if Congress simultaneously agreed to modernize the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 (CRA). Currently applicable only to banks, the CRA might have been strengthened by extending this obligation to securities and insurance companies as well as newly authorized Wholesale Financial Institutions. This would have allowed communities like the ones we represent to build on the success of the bank. CRA that has helped to generate critically needed dollars for home mortgages, rental housing, and commercial/ industrial real estate development. We recognize that, throughout this debate, supportive legislators--including members of the Massachusetts delegation--worked to support CRA and to limit the damaging changes demanded by Senator Phil Gramm (R-Texas) and other opponents. We therefore very carefully reviewed the complicated changes that were finally adopted in the conference committee report. Unfortunately, we have reached the conclusion that they do not adequately serve the needs of the low and moderate-income families and individuals who live in the communities we serve. Specifically, the current bill would hurt these communities by: --allowing cross affiliation between financial service companies without giving the public opportunities to provide input through an application process. The House version that passed earlier this year would have required public hearings for cross industry mergers and very large bank mergers. This language is no longer included in the bill. --allow cross affiliation without extending CRA requirements beyond banks. It is therefore possible for critical and substantial lines of businesses to be shifted away from banks and away from any CRA responsibility. --requiring no effective penalty for banks that cross affiliate and do not maintain a Satisfactory or higher CRA rating. Language previously included in the conference committee report allowed federal regulators to require divestiture for failure to maintain a minimum Satisfactory CRA rating. This language has been removed. Even if effective penalties were included, the provision requiring bank affiliates to maintain a Satisfactory CRA rating is of limited use--98% of all banks meet this standard because the regulations require minimal CRA activities comparable to a bank's competitors. Often, banks can achieve such a rating despite an obvious lack of adequate performance and a failure to substantially invest in low and moderate-income and minority communities. --damaging the current CRA at its foundation by extending the examination cycle for all small banks. Federal examinations already lag behind the current schedules, often by 18 or more months. Small banks, particularly in rural areas, often need the most encouragement through a public input process to help identify and meet the needs of the low and moderate income communities. --damaging the core of the CRA by significantly discouraging public input into a bank's future CRA activities. Because of the broad scope of the so-called ``sunshine'' provision, anyone who even raises the issue of CRA with a bank and subsequently succeeds in developing a cooperative and meaningful (i.e., more than $10,000 value) CRA agreement with that bank will be subject to burdensome reporting requirements under severe penalties. Federal regulatory agencies that often cite the lack of CRA comments in a bank's public file may soon be hard pressed to find even a handful from those organizations who risk the cost of scrutiny. This will lead to less information generated, particularly from small grassroots organizations, and possibly even more inflated CRA ratings. --providing no regulatory monitoring or enforcement of CRA commitments by banks even if they are cited as a reason for approval for applications by the regulatory agency. For example, in a recent case the Federal Reserve cited Fleet Bank and BankBoston's $14 billion CRA commitment as a reason to approve their merger. Yet, the Fed would have no meaningful ability to oversee this commitment and to encourage compliance. In summary, while this legislation may not sound the death knell for CRA, it does weaken its future health so substantially that we must urge you to oppose its passage. Sincerely, Marc D. Draisen, President/CEO, Massachusetts Association of CDCs. Tom Callahan, Executive Director, Massachusetts Affordable Housing Alliance. Aaron Gornstein, Executive Director, Citizens Housing and Planning Association.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, while many of us privately grumble from time to time about the directions in which Congressional districting takes us, it is also the case that this process can introduce Members to places with which they were insufficiently familiar. In my own situation, in 1981, the Massachusetts Legislature drastically revised my district and sent me in exactly the opposite geographic direction from where I was situated after my first election. While this exercise in creative cartography was in fact meant to be something done to me, it turned out to the surprise of everyone, including myself, to be one of the best things that ever happened for me. Quite aside from how it worked out politically, it brought me into close and continuous contact for the past 17 years with the people, places, and activities in Southeastern Massachusetts, and this contact has been a source of education, stimulation, and enjoyment for me ever since. Among its great attractions, Southeastern Massachusetts is becoming an increasingly important gastronomic center. The presence of the fishing industry in New Bedford has led to a great deal of creative cooking of seafood. The large number of Portuguese-Americans, including a continuous flow of immigrants from the Azores and other parts of Portugal, has also enriched the local culture in many ways, including in the food that is offered. I was very pleased to see a recent article in the Boston Herald take full account of these trends, and as an example of one of the somewhat still hidden assets of a part of Massachusetts I am very proud to represent here, I ask that the Boston Herald article be reprinted here. Foodville, USA Massachusetts' tourist havens seem to be well known and well defined. You head to the Berkshires for music and mountains, Cape Cod for beaches and lobsters, Cape Ann for beaches and witches. But where do you go for wonderful ethnic food, a professional cooking school, a gourmet-food outlet that carries nearly any foodstuff you can think of, a vibrant farming community, a winery and an unspoiled shoreline that yields freshly caught seafood? That would be southeastern Massachusetts, a sometimes- ignored region that's emerging as the foodiest corner of the commonwealth. From the Portuguese restaurants of Fall River and New Bedford down to the farms and coastal villages of Westport and Dartmouth, near the Rhode Island border, there's plenty here to draw those interested in locally grown and produced food and wine. That's especially true this weekend, when the Westport Harvest Festival will be underway. Use that as an excuse to explore and eat your way down toward the coast. Start your day at Sid Wainer & Son in New Bedford. Henry Wainer, the firm's current president, is a third-generation produce man; his grandfather started the company in 1914. Wainer has long supplied many of the country's--and the world's--top restaurants with fresh produce, and Henry Wainer is particularly proud of what he has done to diversify and improve the region's selection of fruits and vegetables. ``I was the first to bring mesclun in,'' he says. But Wainer's vision has taken the company way beyond its produce-stand roots. Six years ago, he opened a retail gourmet outlet, offering the same products his restaurants clients buy. ``This area has a lot of talented people who eat out and entertain, and a vast number of people who love to cook,`` he says, by way of explaining his rationale for opening the store. And this is a must-see for those who love to cook. ``We've got everything,'' says Wainer sweepingly. As he escorts a visitor through the store and warehouses with the energy and enthusiasm of a gourmet-food Willie Wonka, it's easy to believe that claim. White anchovies, trays of grilled artichokes in oil, black trumpet mushrooms, baby sweet potatoes, nopales, sea beans, white asparagus (``52 weeks a year!'' Wainer exclaims), quail eggs from Connecticut, baby coconuts and bananas, edible orchids, squash blossoms flown in daily from Israel, eight varieties of unpasteurized imported olives--the variety is overwhelming. ``I've got 146 varieties of dried beans and grains!'' declares Wainer, racing past cartons in the warehouse. ``Purple sticky rice! Butterscotch beans! Himalayan red rice.'' The store is in a former blanket factory on Purchase Street, not far off Route 195. Bring a cooler, in case you buy anything perishable. You've still got a long day ahead. If you've worked up an appetite walking through Wainer's store, how about a lunch break? Both New Bedford and nearby Fall River are home to numerous Portuguese restaurants that are unmatched in the area for authenticity. This is a cuisine that's lately become the darling of trendy foodies--it was the highlighted aspect of the James Beard Foundation's recent Mediterranean Culinary Festival in New York--but in Fall River and New Bedford, it's a well-established tradition. Sagres restaurant on Columbia Street in Fall River is one of the oldest, run by the Silva family, it has been serving the community for nearly 24 years. ``Everything here is 100 percent Portuguese,'' says Victor Silva proudly. That means the focus is on seafood, olive oil and fresh ingredients. A popular specialty is the seafood stew, fragrant with garlic, but don't miss the traditional salt cod dishes or the pork alentejana--stewed with littlenecks--which Silva says his chef father introduced to the area. Also popular are the T.A. Restaurant on South Main Street and Terra Nostra on Rodman Street. Fall River remains more gritty that pretty, but the economic picture there, as elsewhere, has improved in recent years. Terra Nostra proprietor Manuel Cardoso says that the city's ``going in the right direction''; his one complaint now is that low unemployment makes it hard to find wait staff. But if you're not in the mood for Portuguese, Fall River holds at least one other interesting option. A couple years back, chef George Karousos, whose family owns two restaurants in Rhode Island, fulfilled a long-held dream and opened the International Institute of Culinary Arts in Fall River. Housed in a beautifully restored former church, the school trains future chefs in both the classroom and in the kitchen. Students staff the Abbey Grill restaurant, turning out creative American fare under the direction of their instructors; the open kitchen is also largely in view of the customers. Try the sweet-salty coconut-crusted shrimp, the creamy clam chowder or the swordfish in a chunky sauce of olives, capers and tomatoes. Then roll yourself away from the table and press on; the Westport Harvest Festival only runs until 5 p.m. In Fall River or New Bedford, it might be hard to imagine you're in one of the most agricultural counties in the state; head south on Route 88, and you'll quickly find yourself in farm country so rural and pristine it could be western Massachusetts--but with a seacoast flavor. Festival vice president Lorraine Roy says of the event, now in its ninth year, ``Our primary theme is fishing, farming and agriculture.'' A farmers market displays the bounty of the region, but the fair's events are as far-ranging as a pumpkin weigh-off, a poetry contest, a juried craft fair and an animal tent. Non-profit groups and restaurants will field food booths with fare Roy describes as low-priced and family- oriented: ``Anywhere from clams and lobster rolls to spareribs and chicken barbecue dinners.'' How did the festival get its start? Like many other agricultural-oriented projects in the area, the road leads to Rob Russell, proprietor with his wife, Carol, of Westport Rivers Winery. Roy says a local businessman approached Russell with the idea after seeing a similar festival on a trip to California. The winery is another noteworthy stop on your itinerary; you could fit in a visit after the festival. The Russells bought the land in 1982 and planted it with a variety of classic wine grapes. Today, they turn out a number of award- winning wines and have added a wine-and-food-education center and, most recently, a brewery. As important as the products at Westport, though, is the philosophy: The Russells have thrown themselves into efforts to protect the area's agriculture. That aim requires both effort and commitment, because, like many rural areas, this one is threatened by development. When the farm that now houses the brewery, for instance, was up for sale, the Russells bought it to keep it from being turned into another subdivision; they plan eventually to grow the hops that go into their Buzzards Bay beers. A place this rich in resources--the Russells call it a farm, fish, food and wine region unique in the United States--was bound to attract the attention of chefs. Many local chefs visit the area and buy from the farmers. Chris Schlesinger, owner of Cambridge's East Coast Grill, has gone so far as to open a restaurant there. Dinner at the Back Eddy, where the focus is on ingredients that are locally grown and caught, would be the perfect way to wind up your day of exploring. Actually, Schlesinger's Westport roots go back much farther than the opening of the restaurant in April. He has owned a house there for seven years, and worked as a chef at the Sakonnet Golf Club, just over the Rhode Island border in Little Compton, 17 years ago. It reminds him of the Virginia coast, where he grew up, both in its farm-and-ocean terrain and its low key character. ``It's not like other coastal areas that have been developed for more elite situations,'' he says. ``Everything is low-key and calm; nobody's trying to make the scene, nobody's in your face.'' As a restaurateur, he appreciates the access to ingredients the waterfront location lends: ``We have fishing boats in front, (farmers') pickup trucks in back.'' He buys seafood right off boats that swing by the dock. Schlesinger borrows an analogy from Bob Russell when describing the area's present, and possible future. To remain sustainable, the farms themselves have to be part of the draw; the Heritage Farm Coast, as it's sometimes called, could be promoted as something like ``the Sonoma of the East Coast.'' Meanwhile, though it isn't glamorous, there's something wonderfully unspoiled about this underappreciated area of the state. ``It's funky, not pristine beautiful,'' says Schlesinger, ``I want to spend the rest of my life there.''

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, to begin, I will respectfully dissent from the notion that this should be settled by the moral views of the Founding Fathers. They were very wise people in deciding how government should be structured, but people who spent a lot of time protecting the institution of slavery are not my moral instructors in all things. What we have is a decision that we have to make, not people who lived 200 years ago, and the question is: does an individual who has been found competent, not a third party, because the Oregon law that is here under assault from the majority, the Oregon law that would be effectively repealed by this action of the United States Congress, the Oregon law twice passed by a referendum by the people of Oregon that would be undone, makes it clear that there is not a third party involved. The person themself must have made the decision that they want assistance in committing suicide and they must be found competent to do so. Now we can argue about the role of the DEA and this and that, but that is not what got any of us here. We are talking about two fundamental philosophical questions. One is the right of a State to make decisions. We have traditionally said that where there is no need for a national uniform policy we will leave it to the States, and Members have said, ``Oh, no, we have to have a uniform drug policy.'' Well, we have to have uniform policy sometime for manufacturing. It is true if we are talking about manufacturing a substance in one State to be sold in every State it has to be uniform, but why the need for uniformity here? Is it the fear that someone will be in Idaho and mistakenly think she is in Oregon? Is it that someone will be in Oregon and forget and think they are in Washington? We are talking here about a specific discrete physical act, the act of someone being assisted in ending a life which he or she has decided, being of sound mind, that this life is no longer supportable. There is no confusion. Everyone will know where the person is. There is no need for uniformity except, as the previous speaker said, if we decide to impose nationally the moral judgment of the Federal Government on this issue, and clearly the people of Oregon knew what they were doing; they were put to this twice. They have twice decided that a sound individual, an individual of sound mind who finds life insupportable, who finds pain overwhelming, who finds paralysis in which they could do nothing but lay in bed intolerable, that that individual has the right to ask for assistance in committing suicide. And remember what I assume we are talking about, people who clearly would have the right, and I assume no one is interposing a Federal objection to suicide if the individual is capable of doing it. So the question is whether individuals who are not physically capable themselves and would otherwise have the right to commit suicide can ask someone, being of sound mind, to do that. Now clearly there is no reason why the Federal Government has to intervene. There is no need for uniformity here. The existence of a right of assisted suicide in Oregon has no effect in Massachusetts or Oklahoma or Washington State unless someone wanted an individual to be transported there. But clearly the need for uniformity simply reflects a desire of people here to impose their moral views on the people of Oregon who have been found to be morally deficient in this particular regard. Now that is a perfectly rational argument, but it is not one we can make and still be a States' rights proponent. Let me also say, by the way, that the arguments about including palliative care, et cetera, those really cannot be made here because the gentleman from North Carolina pointed out he had a perfectly sensible amendment that would have preserved every aspect of this bill except its impulse to overturn the Oregon law. His amendment would have allowed every single other factor of the bill and say and because of that the Committee on Rules unfortunately would not allow it. So the only thing that is at issue between us is this decision to overturn the Oregon law, and now we get to the philosophical issue: Does an individual have the control of his or her own life; does an individual have the right to say it is my life and I am in charge of it, and that includes the right to decide that it should be ended? And we have people who believe philosophically, some out of a religious belief, some out of some other set of philosophical belief, that that is not true, one's life does not belong to them. We, the government, the national government of the United States, we, the Congress, can say to them: no, they may not do that. We do not care how much pain one is in. We do not care how much one is tormented. We do not care how much, and I believe in many cases the psychological pain of being confined, rigid, being only a mind and nothing else, being totally dependent on others for everything else, and perhaps combining that with some pain, that is irrelevant. We will decide. We will decide under what conditions one will live. We will compel one to live against one's will. That is what we are saying here, we, the United States Government, will compel one to live against one's will even though the people of one's State decided otherwise, because we have a moral framework which excludes one's right to end one's life. I do want to have one other point here. We say, well, this is not interfering with States' rights, because these are federally controlled substances, so the Federal Government has the right to control them. The fact that we regulate something in one regard does not mean the Federal Government owns it. What is at stake here is a decision by the Federal Government to impose the moral views of a majority of this House on the people of the State of Oregon.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as a cosponsor of House Joint Resolution 2, of which I am not particularly fond, and to which my name was added without my knowledge in error.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased once again to call the attention of my colleagues to the excellent work that is performed by ROFEH International in Brookline, Massachusetts, and to join with ROFEH in recognizing two outstanding individuals, Dr. Sumner Slavin, and Mr. Allen Rodman, for the work they do in the context of ROFEH. ROFEH is sponsored by the New England Chassidic Center, and owes its creation and its ongoing inspiration to the Grand Rabbi Levi Horowitz, widely known as the Bostoner Rebbe. Rabbi Horowitz, in addition to his religious scholarship, is a leader in the field of medical ethics, and he is widely respected for his work in this area. And when I talk of Rabbi Horowitz's work in the medical ethics area, I speak not simply of intellectual activity, but of practical efforts, exemplified by Project ROFEH. This important activity brings people from all over the world to Boston so that they can benefit from the outstanding level of medical knowledge and skill which is available in Boston to a degree greater than almost anywhere else in the world. As we know, good medical care has two parts--the first of course being the existence of high quality care; but the second being access to that care, which is, sadly, very unevenly distributed. ROFEH International does an excellent job in extending access to people who would not have it otherwise, and I salute Rabbi Horowitz and his colleagues for this work. Indeed, I use this occasion to publicize this effort in the Congressional Record not simply because it is worthy of recognition, but because it is even more worthy of emulation, and I hope through this means to stimulate some interest in this notion because it is an activity that could be repeated elsewhere. And I know that Rabbi Horowitz and his colleagues would be glad to share with others if asked what they do and how it could be replicated. This year, on November 7, the annual dinner of ROFEH and the New England Chassidic Center will take place, and at that time, the 1999 Man of the Year award will be presented to Allen Rodman. Mr. Rodman is a leading member of the Bar in Malden, Massachusetts, and among his other distinctions, he has been a strong supporter of the work of the New England Chassidic Center--work which stretched through five generations of his family. The family affiliation is particularly strong through his mother, Cecile, who is a close friend of Rabbi and Rebbetzin Horowitz. In his 45 years as a member of the Bar, Mr. Rodman has undertaken notable legal efforts, including important work in asbestos litigations, and in the extremely significant class action litigation launched against the tobacco companies five years ago. The Lillian and Harry Andler Memorial Award will be given on that day to Dr. Sumner Slavin. Dr. Slavin and his family similarly have a long association with the Rebbe, and he has been very active in the work of the New England Chassidic Center. His distinguished medical career has been marked by a number of awards, and he is now representing the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center on the Executive Council for the new Harvard Medical School Program in Plastic Surgery. He has been recognized for his expertise in the important and sensitive area of breast reconstruction and has been a leader as well in the efforts to combat lymphedema, a condition that causes swelling in the limbs after cancer treatment. Dr. Slavin and Mr. Rodman are leaders in their respective professional fields, and leaders as well in contributing to the great work of the New England Chassidic Center and Project ROFEH. The honor they receive from these very distinguished institutions is a high one, and reflective of their willingness to work hard for the welfare of others. I am glad to join in pointing to them, and to ROFEH International as examples of the way in which citizens can reach out to others in need.