Barney Frank

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I do not think we should flinch either, and I do not see how denying any authority to continue this is nonflinching. I want to pay tribute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) whose efforts forced this House against its will to stop hiding. There were 2 aspects to this issue. One, what is the policy choice in Yugoslavia? It is an unhappy choice. I believe that the policy of continued bombing in conjunction with our allies, and it is awkward to carry out an allied policy, but it is better than an unilateral one. When we accept the strength of an alliance, we take constraints with it. I think that is the best policy in a set of bad choices. The House now has to make a choice, and it is inappropriate for this great elected body of representatives, when confronted with a difficult choice, to say: None of the above. But if we vote down this resolution, that is what we are doing. Thanks to the efforts and the integrity of the gentleman from California who insisted we face up to our responsibilities, we voted. We voted not to pull out. Now 139 people who voted not to pull out can consistently vote against this. But are we to be told that there are dozens, maybe 100, 125 Members who do not think we should pull out but simply do not want to be blamed for staying in? We had one comment say: Oh, well, we should not take ownership of this. That is an inappropriate attitude for people who are elected. The draft does not work here. We all ran for this job, and a lot of it is fun, and sometimes it is not, and having to help ratify this unpleasant choice is one of those moments when it is the least fun, the least attractive. But we do not have the option of simply copping out. Members could be against this, they can be for it, but they cannot vote for none of the above. They cannot conscientiously say it is too hard, I will vote over here, and I will vote over there. I am delighted that we have a chance here to pass a concurrent resolution to have a combined policy, House and Senate, which says we support this current military policy. Members may be opposed to the military policy, and then they should have voted for the resolution offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell), or they can be in favor of it and they should vote for this. But punting is not an option; it is not football season. We cannot simply say: Let this one pass from us. I voted for the resolution offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling). I voted for it because I do think before we commit ground troops, this House ought to vote. But I must say I have some second thoughts about putting that authority into the hands of a group of people, some of whom say, ``Gee, can I duck the hard one?'', and that is what we are talking about now. If people thought the policy was wrong and we should pull out, they had a chance to vote that way. Mr. Speaker, I hope people will not simply try to duck a tough issue and will vote to ratify the least unpalatable choice.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. My only question is why is the gentleman not willing to let the American people decide that by a majority? The gentleman may be right or wrong substantively, but why this fear of letting the majority decide by majority rule?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to interrupt the latest episode of ``Leave It To Beaver,'' but I have never really been a big fan of reruns. What we are seeing today is the end of a romance, and it is a sad day. This should not have come on tax day; maybe it should have come on Valentine's Day. The romance that we are seeing come to an end is that between the Republican Party and their view of the people. When the current majority first took office in 1994, they were full of announcements that they were here to carry out the will of the people. They were, they said, the embodiment of the American public's will. Well, they have run into some rocky times. The public has not been nearly as supportive of their agenda as they wish. And, increasingly, their irritation with the public comes through. It reached, of course, a high point last year on impeachment. And by the time that impeachment came to the floor, we had Republicans talking about their duty to disregard the public will because they knew much better than the public what should be going on. Now, this is the logical conclusion of that. We have had a system in this country called democracy, in which a majority of the people vote for Members of Congress. It is not strictly majoritarian in the Senate, obviously, because of the two Senators per State, but the notion was we would get a majority and the majority would then decide. Well, the Republicans are here telling us today what they told us in December: ``That majority of the American people ain't all it was cracked up to be. You can't trust them. You can't trust the American people through the electoral process to have representatives who will do the right thing.'' So let us say when it comes to a policy the Republicans do not like, such as taxes, then we will have to have a supermajority. The gentleman from Arizona said we now collect more in taxes than we did in 1950. That is true. There was no Medicare program in 1950. Of course, if it was up to the Republican Party, there still would not be. They were opposed to it. And it is true that because we have a Medicare program, that requires taxes that were not levied in 1950. We did not have any serious environmental programs in the United States in 1950. I notice the Charles River has now just been declared open for swimming to a great extent. We can give people a tax cut, and there is not much they can do to clean up the rivers or clean up the air. So it is true, the billions we spend on environmental protection, cleaning up Superfund sites, cleaning up the air, cleaning up the water, those take taxes and they did not exist in 1950. But this is not a substantive argument, it is a procedural one, and we should go back again to the fundamental issue here. The Republican Party is making it clear today that they have lost trust with the American people. Indeed, it became very clear during impeachment that if the American people worked for us instead of the other way around, the Republicans would have fired them. They were very disappointed in the people. And they are institutionalizing today, if they are successful, in the Constitution their distrust of the people: ``Don't let a majority make these important decisions. You can't trust a majority of the voters. You take a majority of the voters who elect Members of the House of representatives; we don't like what they are going to do.'' Now, I have to say, in fairness to the Republicans, they did not rush to this repudiation of the public will. They were much happier when they could claim to be the tribunes of the public. The problem was that the public ran out on them and they were upset. I noticed that during impeachment, and I think these are very connected, because it was the dislike of the American public's decision that came out in impeachment that is really the same force that we have today. Now, I can say, because I was there in the Committee on the Judiciary, that the Republican Party did not start out to repudiate the public. In fact, when the impeachment thing started, they were sure the public was on their side. To their horror, they saw the public moving away, so they tried to make a virtue out of necessity by saying how proud they were to stand up to public opinion. Having the Republicans announce during impeachment that they were pleased to show that they could resist public opinion would have been a little bit like Pharaohs' soldiers, as the Red Sea closed in on them, announcing that it was a wonderful day to go swimming. This was not something they wanted to happen, but if it was happening, they had better make the best of it. Now they are taking it one step further. It is one thing to find ourselves embarrassed by the public differing with us and to announce how wonderful we are because we have stood up to the public, but it is another to write it into the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution of the United States leads us to ask on this fundamental public policy question, and here it is, do there need to be some things that are important for the quality of our life that we do jointly? I do not know how we provide public safety with a tax cut. I do not know how we clean up the air or the water or take care of the health of poor children. There are some things we can only do, that are important for this country, if we do them jointly. There is, I think, a difference on the part of some people in the public. It is true if we ask people about government spending in general, they will be very negative. But if we ask them about the specific parts of government spending, they are often quite positive. People, I think, would like to see more spending in the Medicare program. They would like to see a prescription drug program. If we are going to do a prescription drug program, that is going to take taxes. If we are going to keep cops on the street, that takes taxes. If we are going to clean up the air and the water, that takes taxes. Now, people can say, ``No, we don't want to see that happen. We don't want a prescription drug program in Medicare. We don't want to help people build new schools with Federal money. We're against any revenues.'' That is a legitimate decision. But why are they unwilling to let it be decided by majority rule? Why this repudiation of the majority? By the way, when it comes to majority rule, among the majorities they do not trust, apparently, is the very House Committee on the Judiciary, that bulwark of Republican rectitude against an improvident public, because this bill did not get voted on in committee. I am on the Committee on the Judiciary; I am even on this subcommittee. I must have been absent that year because we did not have a hearing on it this year. We did not have a markup in subcommittee. We did not have a markup in committee. This radical revision of the notion that a majority should rule, which the Republicans used to hold when they still thought the majority was backing them up, comes to this floor untouched by human hands. This comes to us without a hearing, without a markup, without a committee meeting. Not only have the Republicans decided to repudiate the notion of majority rule in representing the public, whom they do not trust on this, they have apparently forgotten what they said a few years ago about procedural regularity, about committees. This one just comes right to the floor. Now, I understand why. I understand that there are members of the committee who have more regard for the majority principle, who would have been a little embarrassed by it. But when we try to accomplish a bad idea by a bad procedure, two wrongs do not make a right. And I hope this effort to right the repudiation of the public's right to make decisions by a majority into the Constitution is defeated.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I recently received a letter from Mae Greeley of Fall River, Massachusetts, enclosing an article that had been written by James Holland, a former resident of the city. Mr. Holland's article is a warm reminiscence of what life was like in that neighborhood decades ago, and presents an excellent picture of American urban history. I agree with Mrs. Greeley that it is the kind of reminiscence that ought to be shared so that people get an understanding of the positive aspects of our urban history, and I ask that the article be printed here. First of all, it was a place with a rich ethnic heritage-- the first American home of many immigrants from that part of Ireland from which the name Corky Row derives. I recall at an early age being told proudly by relatives and older neighbors that a certain person who became a priest, or a judge, or a doctor, or other prominent member of the community once lived in this tenement (they were never called apartments) on Branch Street or was born in that house on Third Street. Most of these successful men and women were reared in large families by hard-working parents, living side-by-side with others of the same cultural background without the social problems prevalent today. Corky Row meant to me St. Mary's Cathedral, the veritable soul of the neighborhood! Most of the boys and girls received their early training in the parish school where the values inculcated in the home were reinforced and codified by the Sisters of Mercy. I recall the streams of men, women and children, who literally poured out of their yards on Sunday mornings to fill the church at the hourly Masses as the bells from the lofty tower sent forth their familiar sounds up and down the street. It meant going to South Park to aspire for the parish baseball team in the then flourishing and highly competitive Catholic League. The team was then under the dedicated tutelage of the young Reverend Francis McCarthy and was made up of such talented players as Billy Sullivan, Eddie Callahan and Jimmy Padden. Or it meant practicing basketball with a peach basket nailed to my Uncle Jerry's barn on Fourth Street with fellows like Ted Devitt, because someday you might be asked to play for St. Mary's under the hart twins just as Ray Greeley and Tommy Sullivan were then doing. It meant spending endless hours on Saturday afternoon playing ``peggy ball,'' truly a Depression game, which required the lusty swing to try to drive it over the north fence of the Davenport School yard. It also meant belonging to a ``gang,'' being accepted by ``the guys'' such as Mike Kearns and Jeff O'Brien. This meant being allowed to ``hang around'' the corner with them, not to molest or harass others, but just to be together to enjoy the banter and the camaraderie which such gatherings provided. I recall that a certain unwritten code of conduct prevailed among the gang and you were accepted if you complied. Corky Row meant for me personally a very special place with a peculiarly warm neighborhood feeling. The house where I lived at the southeast corner of Fourth and Branch streets was in a yard with two others--10 tenements in all. The door to each was as open to me as my own--baked beans from Maggie Sullivan every Saturday, homemade rolls from Julia Devitte, rich fudge from Esther Harrington. I visited one of these tenements daily as a boy because they always had the Boston Post which I would read, spread out on the kitchen floor in front of the Glenwood coal range--the front room was always closed off, of course, in the winter. And on the first floor of our house at 486 Fourth St. lived my Uncle Jerry and Aunt Be, who were like second parents to me. Jerry was a familiar figure in Corky Row as he drove or rode his spirited horse through this high-density neighborhood. It meant a place of family stability. Seldom, if ever, did I hear of a divorce or separation in those days. The same families, it seemed, occupied the same tenements forever. Even today as I ride through Fourth and Fifth streets, I can recall the names of the families who lived in certain tenements so many years ago. These lessons were translated into political action in the form of youthful parades through the streets of the neighborhood in behalf of Jeff O'Brien's father-- Representative James A. O'Brien, Sr., then of Second Street. Corky Row meant the Davenports Schoolyard, now the Griffin Playground, with its superb softball league and teams from every corner of the neighborhood--Corky Rows, Davenports, Mitchells, Hodnetts, Levin's pets, Trojans, etc. Nightly, young and old would gather in and around the school yard to watch such great players as ``Red'' McGuinness, George Newberry, Johnny Cabral, Mark Bell and Tom Harrington, to name but a few. It meant the proximity to South Park and the old Grid League on Sunday afternoons, where the two keenest rivals were the Royals of Mark Sullivan from the corner of Fifth and Branch and the Corky Rows of Joe DePaola from Third and Branch to blocks away. It meant playing touch football on the cinder-like surface of the Davenport School yard where two complete passes in a row made a first down and where players like Henry Paul and George Bolger made it awfully difficult to complete one. Or, it meant playing the game on Branch Street when there were only two players around, with the curbs forming the sidelines and the Fourth and Fifth Street intersections being the end zones. It meant playing marbles, ``pickers,'' we called them, with Eddie Myles under the street pickers--most of them formerly mine. It meant all the kids in the neighborhood sliding down Third Street in the winter when sometimes you could make it from Lyon to Rodman Street if the surface was good and icy. Of course, you had to get out of the way of the ``bulltops'' steered by one of the big guys seated bravely on the front with an ice skate for a rudder. I could go on and on with similar recollections of the joys of growing up in Corky Row. I often ask myself what made it such a happy place? The answer has to be--the people. There was, in a word, a neighborhood spirit evidenced by pride in the achievement of friends and concern for their adversity and sorrow. Remember the wakes and funerals? But they are a story in themselves. The women standing at the gates talking or going to St. Mary's on ``rosary nights'' greeted you by your first name. The older men, many of who belonged to the Corky Row Club, were always ready to encourage you in your athletic or scholastic pursuits. It was, in a way, like belonging to a very large family. When you returned from the show at the Capitol or Plaza Theaters, or from a walk ``down street,'' as we always called Main Street, and when you turned the corner of Fourth and Morgan streets and saw the closely packed houses, and as you hurried to get to the game whatever it might be, then going on in the school yard, there was a feeling of being home and with your own--you were back it Corky Row.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, no issue facing us is more important than how we respond to the question of adapting to the new global economy. Until fairly recently, the accepted wisdom was that all governments had to do was to allow capital to find its most profitable niche, and we would all reap the benefits. Increasingly people understand that this is an incomplete approach to governance and an inadequate response to the social economic and political problems posed by the new global economy. In the interest of fostering discussion of this important set of issues, I ask unanimous consent to insert into the Record at this point three commentaries on this issue which while diverse in the perspective from which they are made, share a common understanding of the general direction in which we should be going, and are also distinguished by a strong intelligence. First, I insert a speech given by John Sweeney, President of the AFL- CIO, at Davos. John Sweeney's thoughtful leadership in trying to find a way to reconcile the strengths of the market with policies that offset the negative effects of a pure market approach is a genuine asset for the United States in our efforts to deal with this matter. Second, I insert an article by Bruce Freed who has been writing very thoughtfully in commentary aimed at the enlightened leadership of the business community. Third, I insert a very thoughtful article by one of the most thoughtful of our contemporary journalists, E.J. Dionne, on the theoretical aspects of this broader question. Remarks by John Sweeney, President of the AFL-CIO, 1999 Annual Meeting World, Economic Forum, Davos, Switzerland, January 30, 1999 It is a delight to be here once more, and to have this opportunity to share with you some of the perspectives of the 40 million working men and women in households represented by the AFL-CIO. We've been asked to talk about how to ``manage the social impact of globalization.'' But let us not think of globalization as a natural phenomenon with regrettable social side effects. The forces of globalization now wracking the world are the creation of man, not of God. Our task is not to make societies safe for globalization, but to make the global system safe for decent societies. This is not a quibble about words. As we meet, about a third of the world's economy is in recession. 100 million people who thought they were part of a growing middle class have been brutally thrust back into poverty. And, as recent events in Brazil have shown, the crisis is far from over. Global deflation is now the nightmare of central bankers. Too many goods, too much productive capacity chasing too few consumers with too little money. In the crisis, the US is the buyer of last resort. But US consumers are already spending more than they make. US manufacturers are in recession. In recent months, 10,000 steelworkers have lost their jobs to a flood of imports, their families disrupted, their communities devastated. The US trade deficit is headed to unsustainable new heights. The terrible human costs can have one good effect. They can sober the debate about the global economy. For two decades, conservative governments have been on a binge, dismantling controls over capital, currencies, and corporations. Now we awake the morning after, our heads aching, our hearts burdened by the destruction that we see around us. Globalization--in the extreme, corporate dominated, de- regulated form we have witnessed--is not the scapegoat of the current crisis; it is the cause of it. After two decades, the results are very clear. The global casino of capital and currency speculation has generated booms and busts of increasing severity and frequency, as World Bank economist Joseph Stiglitz has warned. And it has produced slower growth and greater inequality in countries large and small, developed and developing--as governments scramble to protect themselves from the global storms. In its current form, globalization cannot be sustained. Democratic societies will not support it. Authoritarian leaders will fear to impose it. The so-called Washington consensus is no longer the consensus even in Washington. Over the last year and one-half, workers, environmentalists, consumers--reflecting the opinion of the vast majority of Americans--came together to block the president's request for fast track trade authority not once, but twice. We insisted that enforceable worker rights and environmental protections be central to any new round of trade negotiations. And we were right. Now US Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin calls for a new ``architecture'' to limit instability. President Clinton pushes new initiatives on child labor, on core labor rights, and on the environment. America`s voice, I suggest to you, will either sound a new note in any future round of trade negotiations, or it will be muted in spite of itself. When you are in a hole, the first thing to do is to stop digging. If the newly sobered global community has stopped digging, we`re still left in the hole. Working people across the world understand that if nothing is done, corporate globalization will continue, unchecked and uncontrolled. We need to go a different way. Calls for greater transparency, better accounting and more generous safety nets are satisfying, but not sufficient. The essential building blocks of a new internationalism can be seen in the struggles of workers and citizens across the world. People are demanding protection from the havoc caused by currency and capital speculation. If this is not done at a global level, it will be done at a national level--as we've seen from Hong Kong to Malaysia to Chile. While curbing speculators, we must get the global economy going again. Recent efforts to lower interest rates in Europe and the United States, and to pump up demand in Japan should be seen only as first steps. In this crisis, as the IMF recently admitted, enforcing austerity on indebted countries only makes things worse. The Fund and the Bank should help restructure debt and stimulate growth. And as the growing Jubilee 2000 movement has called for, industrial nations should move to relieve the debt burdens on the poorest nations, while increasing investment in sustainable energy, education and health care. At the same time, we need to create the conditions for sustainable growth. That is why it is vital to empower workers--to enforce core worker rights in the global market--the right to organize and to bargain collectively to improve one's lot, the prohibitions against child labor and forced labor, the elimination of discrimination. Empowering workers strengthens democracy. It is also vital to sustaining prosperity, to making markets work. When the famed US labor leader, Walter Reuther, visited Japan in the 1960s, he saw that Japanese autoworkers were riding bicycles to work. ``You can't build an automobile economy on bicycle wages,'' he warned the Japanese. But of course they could, by exporting their automobiles to the United States. No limits of that export-led growth model are apparent. A vibrant economy requires consumers--workers who capture a fair share of the profits that they produce. The struggle to do just that is taking place in offices and shop floors across the world. As President Clinton has said, global rules are crucial if we are to keep the global market from becoming a race to the bottom. Finally, this debate can no longer be contained in closed rooms in luxurious hotels. It is already being waged on the streets, the shop floors and the computer screens across the world. As the cloistered negotiators of the Multilateral Agreement on Investment discovered, trade and investment agreements must gain public support if they are to go forward at all. Open covenants, openly arrived at is not simply a slogan--it is a growing reality. We are entering a new era. We will either build a new internationalism that empowers workers, protects consumers and the environment, and fosters sustainable growth--or we will witness a harsh reaction as desperate peoples demand protection. I urge of all you to join us in our effort to bend the forces of globalization so they help workers everywhere build a better future.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I was interested to hear the Members on the other side talk about how they are planning to save Medicare. Never has salvation looked so unattractive. Medicare is today hurting. The people in the State I represent, Massachusetts, used to have prescription drugs through their HMOs. Then the Republicans passed the Medicare bill in 1997 and they lost it. There was a reasonable home health care program in Massachusetts and elsewhere, and then the Republicans ``saved Medicare'' in 1997 and wrecked home health care along the way. Hospitals are hurting, hospitals that are teaching hospitals and hospitals that deal with poor people. In 1997, the Republicans gave a capital gains tax cut and paid for it by cutting Medicare. So their notion of saving Medicare comes after they already, in 1997, made serious restrictions. People listening ought to understand, if they think Medicare is perfect now they can thank Republicans for saving it in that fashion. I find it to be a serious problem. And then the gentleman from California said, ``We are going to fix it.'' How are they going to fix it in their plan which, fortunately, did not get enough votes? Well, for one thing they were going to raise the age from 65 to 67, so that people who are now working and do not have medical care could wait another 2 years. Some fix. They fix the system by breaking the people. Then we said, well, prescription drugs. We will provide prescription drugs for people up to 135 percent of poverty, because if they are in poverty they probably can be on Medicaid. Well, what is 135 percent of poverty? For an elderly couple whose income is about $20,000 a year, they get no help with prescription drugs. So what we have here is a Republican plan to continue the damage with Medicare. And that is one of the most central differences now between the parties. The Republican plan of 1997 already weakened Medicare's ability to provide adequate service. I know very few people in my part of the country who are in the business of either providing or consuming health services who think Medicare is tenable the way it now is. And what they will do is, of course, leave all that damage that they did undone.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Speaker, I am a little bit curious now, having heard the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations saying that these in fact are real offsets but, as I understand it, they will not affect spending in this fiscal year. Now, they are offsetting, as I understand it, spending that will be in this fiscal year. So I would like members of the committee to explain to me where, at what point will they be offsetting spending? What spending will these offsets avoid? When would that spending have occurred, and what will be the consequences of these offsets? Because I would like to get a focus. So they apparently will not have an effect in this fiscal year but we will be offsetting next year. Would someone from the Committee on Appropriations, I will be glad to yield, explain to me exactly what is being offset? If not this year, when will it be offset and what will be offset? Well, I guess I will go unsatisfied in my quest for specifics.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield, what struck me was not that they were speaking out of both sides of their mouth but that they were equally inaccurate. Usually people get it right one out of two.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I hear the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) say, the way this bill is worded, this cancellation of the callable capital will not prevent any money from being spent that would otherwise have been spent this year, that is, it does not cancel any proposed spending for the year and it does not reduce our obligation. The gentleman is the chairman of the committee. He says the full faith and credit is still there. So if it does not stop any spending that was going to happen this year and it does not prevent any spending in the future, how did it become an offset? What is it offsetting?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I am puzzled.

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for that. In other words, we are just as obligated to spend the money without this so-called offset. So now the offset is getting to the diminishing side. The gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) has just said, as he understands it, whatever our obligation is under our full faith and credit is the same, so the offset has suddenly disappeared.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I do want to note, and I am interested, the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) has learned a lesson from the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) about the cancelability of callable capital but he has apparently learned it too well. And at some point I guess the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) is going to explain the difference between $640 million of callable capital which does not mean anything and $800 million which does. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt).

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I will yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin in a minute, but I want to say two things. First of all, it is not a real outlay in this fiscal year. It is not a real dispute. No one says it is going to be a real outlay. The chairman said we are not planning to spend it; we are going to set it aside. I believe what the Secretary of the Treasury was citing was the uncertainty and confusion it will cause in the international community and the financial community if we rescind our obligation to make that available when it is going to be needed.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Reclaiming my time, I have to respond to that point, and then I will yield further. I understood that, but I understood the chairman to say with regard to a couple of the offsets that they would not stop us from spending any money that we were going to be spending in this fiscal year, and I guess that is a wonderful kind of offset. Let us have offsets that we can claim as offsets but do not reduce any spending. Maybe the gentleman from Florida could suggest a diet for me, because I would love to find the caloric equivalent of those fiscal offsets.

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, and I will yield to the gentleman from Kansas in a second, but I just want to say, and I appreciate this, it does seem to me we have seen an unusual logical feat here. The majority has presented two very inconsistent arguments, both of which are wrong. It is hard to do that. It is hard to be on opposite sides of the question and get it wrong from both directions. Because it sounds to me like for much of what the chairman was describing these are offsets which will in fact save no money this year, but will cause us some harm and some damage in the understanding in the international community about what is available to the World Bank and the other banks. So we will accomplish nothing concretely but cause some difficulty in the process of accomplishing nothing.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin, the ranking minority member of the committee.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, perhaps this is a new civility. When there is a sharp division, we try to please both sides equally, and the fact it does not make any logical sense is simply a quibble.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from Wisconsin. He is known for a number of things here, his insight and his parliamentary sharpness, but he is not always known for his sense of etiquette. That is his problem here. He has been eavesdropping. The people on the other side have been making two arguments; one is for the conservative Republicans, in which they talk about how they have offset this bill; then there is another argument they make for everybody else in which they point out that the offsets will have no impact, either fiscally or any other way. The problem is the gentleman from Wisconsin has, inappropriately perhaps, eavesdropped on the arguments that were not meant for his ears. Those were meant for the CATs, and it is not surprising that the gentleman's hearing did not quite understand it. So when the other side is arguing that these offsets are really very important offsets, they are talking to conservative Republicans. Naturally, my friend from Wisconsin would not understand that. But when they talk then about how the offsets really do not mean anything, that they do not really save any money or really prevent any spending that would have occurred anyway, then they are talking to the other side. So that, I think, might help the gentleman with his dilemma.

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, last fall, when we received the terrible news of the brutal murder of Matthew Shepard, who was savagely beaten to death simply because he was a gay man, one of the calls I received which heartened me came from Peter Simpson from the University of Wyoming. Mr. Simpson is not only a distinguished individual in his own right, he is the brother of the former Senator from Wyoming, Alan Simpson, whom many of us remember with great respect and fondness from his years of leadership in the United States Senate. At that time Mr. Simpson shared with me an eloquent speech that had been made by Philip Dubois, President of the University of Wyoming. Tragically, another gay man was a victim of brutal prejudice recently in Alabama, when Billy Jack Gaither was beaten to death by two vicious thugs in a manner sadly reminiscent of the murder of Matthew Shepard. In a grim coincidence, this was the week that we had planned to introduce a new version of the Federal hate crimes legislation which does not seek to supersede State law enforcement, but does seek to add a weapon against brutality based on prejudice. With Congress about to take up consideration of hate crimes legislation, I think it is appropriate that the eloquent words of President Dubois be shared with the Membership. I am appreciative of Peter Simpson sharing them with us, and I hope the Members will read this and pay close attention to the wise words included. Matthew Shepard Memorial Service (October 19, 1998) Good Evening. Let me thank each of you for being here, and for the tremendous amount of support you have shown over the past ten days to the family and friends of Matt Shepard, the University community, and the city of Laramie. As your program indicates, we have attempted tonight to assemble just a few of the literally hundreds of people affected by this tragedy--those personally involved because they were Matt's friends and those who came to be involved as the events of the last ten days have unfolded. I very much appreciate--as does the planning committee--the understanding of the many individuals and groups who wanted to be represented in this program but who also recognized the limitations of time. A little over a week ago, we gathered on the lawn outside the Newman Center. Joined at that time around a common purpose, we found ourselves united as a community to pray for Matthew, to demonstrate our concern for his family, and to speak out against the kind of hatred and bigotry that found expression in the vicious attack upon him. When I finished speaking that evening, I stood next to my new friend, Jim Osborn, and realized that both of us were shivering. It was a chilly night, but it seemed colder than it really was. I looked around at the hundreds of men, women, and children gathered there. With each speaker the crowd seemed to draw closer together, perhaps fighting the cold or perhaps chilled by the thought that somehow we might have been able to prevent the attack upon Matt. We closed that evening with the singing of ``We Shall Overcome,'' knowing in our hearts that Matt would probably not win his battle. He would not overcome. I was awakened the next morning at 5 a.m. with a telephone call. A news organization was calling me to get my reaction to the word of Matt's death. The reporter's voice was filled with emotion. He had watched this community for several days. He had seen the pain on the expressions of nearly everyone on campus and in town. He knew how much this hurt. But he needed a quote. I recall only that my mind flooded with an unimaginable mix of personal emotions and professional responsibilities. What must Dennis and Judy Shepard be going through right now? Did I have the authority to lower the flags on campus? How could I get a statement out that would provide comfort and reassurance to our gay students? What would I ever say to my children if I had to tell them that their brother had died? The rest of this past week has been a neverending repeat of that dreadful morning. Other than the death of my own father three years ago, I cannot remember a week in which I have felt such overpowering sadness. The sadness of thinking about Matt, his parents, his brother, and his close friends. The sadness of thinking about Matt's gay colleagues, struggling to express simultaneously both their resistance to this violence and their fear that it could have been them in Matt's place. The sadness of the University faculty and staff who have struggled so hard to create a truly inclusive climate here, only to have others tear down years of work in just a few hours of unspeakable horror. The sadness of a closeknit community trying to defend itself against ignorance and stereotypes. The sadness of occasionally hearing expressions of such ignorance. Life is not fair, we've all been told, and this week we lived that lesson again. But with this sadness have come some small moments of triumph. The Homecoming Parade and the march for Matt. A moment of silence as the football game, broken only by the sound of tears. The Sunday community vigils and the coming together of this community to ``Remember Matthew'' on Monday afternoon. Gay Awareness Week, and the courage of our Lesbian, Gay, bisexual, and Transgendered Association (LGBTA) to stay the course and not to let fear ruin their plans. The leadership of our student organizations, ASUW, the Multicultural Resource Center, the Residence Halls, the Greek Community, and our student-athletes to find ways to express their solidarity and support for Matt and their collective opposition to violence, discrimination, and bigotry-- regardless of any personal philosophical differences or religious beliefs they might have about homosexuality. And the professional and personal involvement of our faculty and staff in counseling students and in three days of teach-ins on campus to demonstrate that education and free expression are the most powerful weapons we have against forces that would divide us as an academic community and as a society. What now can we do? The answer is not simple, but we must begin. We must begin by reaffirming that UW and Laramie welcome all people, without regard to who or what they are. We must reexamine all that we have done to cultivate an appreciation of diversity and make sure that we haven't missed a teaching opportunity. We must find a way to commemorate this awful week in a way that will say to the entire state and nation that we will not forget what has happened here. And, working closely with the leaders of the local community, we must be vigilant in making sure that the climate for those who are different--whether defined by their sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion, national origin, disability, or any other personal characteristic--not only meets the letter of the law but lives up to the standards of our hearts. I hope that our elected legislators will also seize this moment. I recognize that the question of hate crimes legislation is a matter over which reasonable and thoughtful people who are neither homophobic nor bigoted can and will disagree. No hate crimes statute, even had it existed, would have saved Matt. But Matt Shepard was not merely robbed, and kidnapped, and murdered. This was a crime of humiliation. This crime was all about being gay. No group of people should have to live in this kind of fear. I speak only for myself and not this University, but it is time our state makes a public statement through the passage of such legislation that demonstrates our values, our commitment to the state motto, and our collective zero tolerance for hatred. Once was more than enough. All of us have reacted to the events of the last ten days in our own personal way. Matt meant something different for each of us. That is how it should be. Matt could have been my son. He could have been your brother. He was our friend. All of us will remember him.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman, because I just want to comment on the strangeness of my colleague from Pennsylvania's understanding of parliamentary procedure. My objection was, and my assertion that this has been made partisan, was due to the refusal to allow the gentleman's amendment to come up on the floor of the House, the House of Representatives, the whole body, the body that represents the people. The gentleman from Pennsylvania's answer, was well, he could have offered it in committee. That is another one of those gracious concessions that is offered only because it could not have been withheld. There are under our rules no way to stop an amendment from coming up in committee. But the notion that because the rules allow amendments to be offered in committee, and the gentleman said he withheld because there had not yet been a hearing held that he wanted have to take place, that that is some justification for shutting off discussion of this amendment and a vote on this amendment as an amendment, not as a recommittal, on the floor of the House, makes no sense. This is the place where the ultimate Democratic decisions are made, and the notion that oh, okay, one could have offered an amendment in committee, committees are not wholly representative of the House. They are not supposed to be. This is the body in which public policy is supposed to be discussed, and the majority's refusal to allow a fair debate and vote as an amendment on the gentleman's proposal is what makes this unduly partisan, in my judgment.