Barney Frank

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

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

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, of course the gentleman may conclude. He controls the time.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I agree with the gentleman from Pennsylvania who spoke that this debate should not be trivialized. That is why I deplore seriously the refusal of the Republican leadership to make this open to amendment. Yes, this is a serious subject and it ought to be given full discussion and not trivialized. But what trivializes this more than the arrogant refusal to allow any amendment? The question is not simply a missile defense or not but what sort? Under what circumstances? With what tradeoffs? With what information? The Republican leadership ran for office to take over the House a few years ago with a long list of ways in which they were going to be better, more democratic. What we have seen since is a systematic striptease in which the Republicans have systematically discarded every pretense to ethical superiority in running the House. Term limits was, of course, one of the first to go as a serious effort. But now we have a pattern. We saw it last year when we debated impeachment. We see it now that we are debating a missile defense. The more important the subject, the less there will be democratic debate on the issue. As the ranking member of the Committee on Rules pointed out, on noncontroversial measures of little significance, the Republicans are willing to give us open rules. They would undoubtedly be willing to give away ice in February--in Alaska--but when it comes to fundamental issues of great importance, political advantage and partisan maneuvering displaces commitment to democratic ideals. The gentleman from Maine has a thoughtful alternative to the Republican proposal. It will be able to be brought up in the recommittal, because they have not yet figured out a way to snuff that one out, but there might have been other amendments. The recommittal, you only get one. There might have been other variations. There are a number of important issues here. One is, what are the costs of this? Yes, there are people who are worried about a threat from missiles from overseas. There are 75-year-olds worried because they cannot afford to pay for the medicine that would keep them alive. There are people who live in neighborhoods who are afraid they do not have enough police protection; people who are afraid of unsafe transportation; people who are threatened by environmental hazards. We are operating in an era of limited resources. Billions and billions of dollars that go for this system are billions that will not be spent for other matters. There are Members in this House who have told people they want to increase housing, they want to improve environmental conditions, they want to work harder to provide prescription drugs for people on Medicare. Yet they are going to vote today for a measure that might preempt all of those and not give us a chance to debate them. Where are the chances to have amendments? The gentleman from New York who is presiding for the majority pointed out to the gentleman from Massachusetts, he quoted the gentleman from California, there are going to be 4 whole hours of debate. The gentleman's generosity is unbounded. We can debate it. But no amendments are in order. So I guess I congratulate the majority for not having abrogated the first amendment to the Constitution. They will let us talk. But where are the amendments? Where is the legislative process? No, it should not be trivialized. By the way, this whole bill, so-called, as the gentleman from Florida said, it is a one-sentence bill. This one-sentence bill in and of itself it seems to me is of some dubious value, but even if it is simply a statement of policy, if that is considered important, why can we not debate what the impact would be on other forms of arms reduction treaties? Why can we not debate what the opportunity costs are in other funding? Why can we not debate whether or not we should do more of a study about technical feasibility? Are we talking about protecting every inch of the United States? Well, how much is that going to cost? How feasible is it? What are the chances that money spent there will be successful as opposed to money spent in fighting disease, in fighting crime, in fighting in other theaters with conventional research? North Korea is a threat. We have ground troops in North Korea who are at risk. Would this money be better spent in beefing up a conventional capability? Those are all significant subjects, none of which can be part of this debate. I take it back. They can be part of the debate. I do not mean to be ungracious. The gentleman from New York has kindly allowed us to talk about them. But an amendment to affect the bill, an effort to write them into policy, no, the Republicans will not have that, because it would spoil the partisan nature of this event. The question is not simply yes or no on missile defense. That is wholly unintelligent. The question is what kind of missile defense? Under what circumstances? Is it feasible? At what cost? The Republicans quite carefully made sure that none of those could be the subject of an amendment. Because what they want out of this, apparently, is a political statement, not a genuine democratic debate. By the way, I hope the argument is not that, ``Gee, we don't have time.'' This House has been languorous. We have not done very much. We could debate more of these things. But it is a refusal on the part of the majority to allow serious issues to be debated. What we have, yes, is a trivialized debate. It has been trivialized by the calculated decision of the majority to make this a political exercise and to refuse to allow any amendments which will raise any of the serious issues that ought to be debated. And so in advance they have devalued the statement they hoped to get because they have deprived us of the chance to do it. Unfortunately, it is not an isolated incident. We could not debate censure versus impeachment. We cannot debate the specifics of the decision factors that go into this whole question. This is a group apparently that is determined to leave as its legacy in running the House of Representatives a refusal to allow the most important questions to come before the public to be debated in a serious and thoughtful fashion. So they will get their political victory today, but it will come at the price of an informed effort to try and come forward with a policy that truly deals with the complexities and the specific questions involved.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, is the chairman of the Committee on Rules telling us that in his judgment now, the motion to recommit, which has 10 minutes of debate and which is often cast in a very partisan way, and it is better than nothing.

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, under the Rules of the House as I understood them, if the amendment of the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) had been made in order, we could have had debate on that amendment, and then we would have also had a motion to recommit.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I apparently misunderstood the gentleman saying that he would yield. I thought the gentleman said he would yield.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I apologize for misunderstanding when I thought the gentleman said he was going to yield.

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, one of the most important issues on which many of us are now working is to forge policies which allow us to get the benefits of the global mobility of capital while dealing with the negative impacts that accompany that movement of money throughout the world in the absences of sensible, humane public policies. No organization in America has done as much to articulate the important, principles that we need to follow in this regard than the AFL-CIO, and the statement on Trade and Deindustrialization issued by the AFL-CIO's executive Council last month is an excellent presentation of this problem. A significant number of us here in the House believe that unless we are able to embody these principles in legislation, the chances of adopting further trade legislation will be substantially diminished, an support for international financial institutions will be similarly negatively affected. Because the AFL-CIO does such a good job of spelling out the approach that is economically, morally and politically called for in dealing with the international economy, I ask that the Council's statement be printed here. Trade and Deindustrialization The financial crisis that began in Asia more than a year- and-a-half ago continues and spreads. The countries hit first struggle to recover, and new countries succumb to the contagion. Millions of workers have lost their livelihoods in the crisis countries and hunger and poverty have grown alarmingly. The United States is not immune, and many American workers are already paying a high price for global turmoil. It is clear that the crisis is neither temporary, nor easily fixed. The cause of the crisis is systemic, and solutions must go straight to the heart of a global trade and investment regime that is fundamentally flawed. Deregulated global markets, whether for capital and currencies, or for labor and goods, are not sustainable. They produce speculative, hot money explosions and a relentless search for lower costs that devastate people, overturn national economies and threaten the global economy itself. The so- called Washington consensus on ``economic reform''--trade and investment liberalization, privatization, deregulation, and extreme austerity--is a recipe for instability, social strife, environmental degradation, and growing inequality, not long-term growth, development, and broadly shared prosperity. The combination of the global financial crisis and long- term trends in trade and investment have inflicted deep wounds in the U.S. manufacturing sector. The United States has lost 285,000 manufacturing jobs since March of 1998. Trade-related job loss will likely grow in 1999, as the trade deficit in goods is projected to climb from about $240 billion in 1998 to close to $300 billion this year. This trade imbalance is accelerating industrialization in a broad array of industries-- steel, textile, apparel, auto, electronics, and aerospace. No region has escaped the ravages of the crisis.The impact is not only job loss, but also the quality and composition of jobs, and therefore the distribution of income. Despite the recent growth in wages, the typical American worker's real hourly compensation is lower today than it was almost a decade ago--even as productivity grew by 9 percent. We must address these problems by insisting upon a set of principles that will guide our trade, investment, and development policies at home and in all of the multilateral fora. We will strenuously oppose any new trade or investment agreements that do not reflect these principles, and we will work to remedy the deep flaws in our current policies. First, excessive volatility in international flows of goods, services, or capital must be controlled. Countries must retain the ability to regulate the flow of speculative capital in order to protect their economies from this volatility. Second, we must not allow international trade and investment agreements to be tools which businesses use to force down wages and working conditions or weaken unions, here or abroad. Third, we need to pay more attention to the kind of development we aim to encourage with our trade policy. Our current policies reward lower barriers to trade and investment, and encourage developing countries to dismantle domestic regulation. These policies encourage developing countries to grow by tapping rich export markets abroad, while keeping wages low at home. This focus on export-led growth short-changes developing countries and places undue burden on our market. As Congress considers trade initiatives this year, and as the Administration prepares to host the World Trade Organization (WTO) ministerial in November, they must adhere rigorously to these principles. This requires that: The U.S. government must radically reorder its priorities, so that our trading partners understand that enforceable worker rights and environmental protection are essential elements in the core of any trade and investment agreements. Unilateral grants of preferential trade benefits must also meet this standard. The African Growth and Opportunity Act and the proposed extension of NAFTA benefits to the Caribbean and Central America fall far short and are unacceptable. We should strengthen worker rights provisions in existing U.S. trade laws and enforce these provisions more aggressively and unambiguously to signal our trading partners that failure to comply will not be tolerated. The U.S. government must enforce the agreements it is currently party to, before looking to conclude more deals. China's failure to abide by the 1992 memorandum of understanding and the 1994 market-opening agreement must not go unchallenged, and China's recent jailing of trade unionists is yet more evidence that WTO accession should be denied. Congressional approval should be required for China's accession to the WTO. Current safeguard provisions in U.S. law are clumsy and ineffective. We must strengthen and streamline Section 201 and the NAFTA safeguards provisions, so that we can respond quickly and effectively when import surges cause injury to domestic industries. Until this can be accomplished, we should be ready to take unilateral action to protect against import surges when necessary. Immediate steps must be taken to address the flood of under-priced imported steel coming into our market. U.S. workers must not be the victims of international financial collapse. Fast track--the traditional approach to trade negotiating authority--has been decisively rejected by Congress and the American people. Trade negotiations are increasingly complex, and Congress must have a stronger consultative role. Congressional certification that objectives have been met at each stage must be required before the negotiations can proceed. Both the process of negotiation and the international institutions that implement these agreements need to be more transparent and accessible to non- governmental organizations. We need to address the problems faced by developing countries more directly, by offering deep debt relief and development funds as part of an overall program of engagement and trade. Trade preferences linked to improved labor rights and environmental standards change the financial incentives for countries seeking market access and increased foreign direct investment; debt relief and aid can help provide the resources necessary to implement higher standards. The U.S. government needs to address the problems of chronic trade imbalances and offset agreements, whereby U.S. technology and jobs are traded for market access. But before Congress and the Administration craft fundamentally different trade policies, we must take urgent steps to fix problems in our current trade agreements. NAFTA has been in place for five years now and has been a failure. We must strengthen the labor rights protections in NAFTA, so that violations of core labor standards come under the same strict dispute settlement provisions as the business- related aspects of the agreement. We must renegotiate the provisions on cross-border trucking access. It is clear that fundamental safety issues are far from being satisfactorily addressed. The safety of our highways must not be compromised for the sake of compliance with a flawed trade agreement. The safeguard provisions in NAFTA have proven ineffective in the cases of auto and apparel imports, which have surged unacceptably since NAFTA's implementation in 1994. These provisions must be corrected. We must insist on an equitable sharing of automotive production among the three North American countries, so that all three countries can benefit from growth in the North American market, as well as sharing in its downturns. And we must ensure that the investment provisions of NAFTA, which grant new powers to corporations in their disputes with governments, are fixed and not used as a model for any future agreements. In addition to fixing trade policy, we have to make sure that our policies toward investment, development, taxation, and the international financial institutions support economically rational, humane, and worker-friendly rules of competition. We must change the rules of the international economy, not so we can have more trade, but so we can build a better world, for working families here and abroad. Finally, it is important to remember that the United States has the right to withdraw from trade agreements to which it is a party. The U.S. government should undertake an aggressive review of existing trade agreements to determine whether they adequately protect U.S. interests or whether the U.S. should exercise its withdrawal rights.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, my predecessor in Congress, Father Robert Drinan, was during his very impressive tenure here an important spokesman for a sensible reordering of our national spending priorities. Since leaving Congress, Father Drinan, has continued to be a leader on issues of human rights and social justice, and his most recent article on national policy makes in a compelling way the case against the proposed military budget increases President Clinton has unfortunately requested. Father Drinan sets this in the appropriate context and I believe his reasoning is persuasive and his facts compelling. As Father Drinan notes in this article in the National Catholic Report for January 22, ``the world scene has changed, but neither the White House nor the Pentagon seems to have heard the good news.'' I ask that this important statement be printed here. The Military-Industrial Complex Just Marches On (By Robert F. Drinan) When I read in early January that President Clinton had agreed to support the Pentagon's request for an increase of some $125 billion over the next six years, I became certain that the United States had failed to produce a new foreign policy for the world after the Cold War. All my anxieties and misgivings about U.S. foreign policy in the six years of the Clinton administration coalesced into the conviction that the United States had lost an unprecedented opportunity to fashion for the entire world a policy that would relieve hunger, promote democracy and bring stability to troubled regions. Since the Warsaw Pact and world communism dissolved in 1990, the entire human family has been looking to the United States for moral leadership that could usher in a new era of peace. The military has not rethought its goals since 1990. The one review the Pentagon conducted resulted in the questionable finding that the United States must be prepared to wage two regional wars at the same time. That theory has never been approved by Congress following hearings or evaluated in the crucible of public opinion. It is self-evident that the world has changed radically since the disappearance of the Soviet Union. The nations of the world do not need military jets or sophisticated armaments; they need the skill and resources to promote economic stability and make adequate provision for health and education for their people. America could help make that happen. Instead, the White House chooses to invest the nation's wealth in the largest boost in military spending since the heyday of the Reagan buildup. The Air Force will be able to buy more F-22 fighters, and Army can acquire new Comanche attack helicopters and the Navy will build new ships. In so doing, the president may have headed off a potentially dangerous issue in the race for the White House in the year 2000. Vice President Gore will not have to face charges of letting America's guard down. But meanwhile the opportunity to rethink the military polices of the United States in a postcommunist world is slipping away. For me, the concession of 1999 to the Pentagon symbolize the failure of the White House to engage Congress and the country in a fundamental re-examination of what America should do as the human family struggles with feeding, sheltering and keeping all its members safe. The White House has rejected all the voices since 1990 that have been pressing for new foreign policy priorities. Arms control experts, activists and academics in the peace community and scores of religious organizations feel spurned by Clinton as he agrees to go along with the Pentagon with business as usual. The Council for a Livable World and similar organizations get regular assessments from military experts of what the United States needs to deal with its current challenges. Their estimate is nowhere close to the $260 billion available to the Pentagon this year. There certainly is no need for the entire world to be spending $780 billion on arms this year. The world scene has changed, but neither the White House nor the Pentagon seems to have heard the good news. The military is still operating with 80 percent of its Cold War budget and much the same attitude. The military establishment in this country is awesome. It includes 1,396,000 men and women on active duty, 877,000 in the reserves and 747,000 full-time civilians. Imagine the impact if only a fraction of this vast armada joined the 7,000 Peace Corps volunteers serving the poor in useful ways. Supervision of the sprawling world of the Department of Defense seems to be beyond even the Congress. There are 122 separate kinds of accounting used by the Department of Defense--so many that even the Pentagon's inspector general admits the need for reform. And although there is every indication that the country's military needs are shrinking, the Pentagon asked Congress for 54 new slots for generals and admirals this year. It should also be remembered that the Pentagon resisted and prevented America's acceptance of the international ban on land mines whose advocates captured last year's Nobel Peace Prize. The Pentagon blocked U.S. participation in the new International Criminal Court, a sort of permanent Nuremberg Court, and it was the Pentagon that spent $35 billion in 1998 monitoring and maintaining some 12,500 nuclear warheads. Opportunities to protest the latest surge in defense spending will probably be minimal, since the administration and Congress usually push such measures through as a matter of routine. There is no sign of hope. Dale Bumpers, longtime arms control advocate, took office Jan. 4 as the new director of the Center for Defense Information. After 24 years as a Democratic senator from Arkansas. Bumpers now head up an organization composed of retired high-ranking military officers devoted to developing a sensible military policy for the United States. Widely regarded as a leader on arms control issues, Bumpers will carry forward the center's work seeking a sensible and balanced military policy. Bumpers opposed plans for an elaborate missile defense system, fought against the F-22 and supported procurement reform at the Pentagon. The present dominance of the Pentagon and its arms merchants reminds one of the familiar but distressingly true observation of President Dwight Eisenhower in his farewell address of Jan. 17, 1961. The only U.S. general to be president in the 20th century said: ``We must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military- industrial complex.''

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I believe the most important issue, the single most important issue facing our country today and other countries in the world is how we deal with the globalization of the economy. That is a fact. It is a fact spurred by technological change and other matters beyond anyone's control. I do not believe it is reasonable to talk about stopping globalization because that is not an option we have, but we do have a choice to make as to how we will go forward, and there are at least two competing models. One is the argument that says all we need do is let capital find its highest level, let the owners of capital invest wherever in the world they think they can get the best return, urge every government to facilitate that process by making themselves as attractive as they can be to capital, and the result will be that most people will be better off. Domestically, we call that the trickle-down theory because what it says is, do not worry about negative effects on income distribution. Do not worry that to attract capital some places will cut their environmental standards and reduce taxes on the wealthy. Do not worry that this will reward the owners of capital disproportionately. In the end, we will all be better off. There is an alternative conception. It is one that Franklin Roosevelt began in the early thirties in this country and it is one that says let us have for ourselves the benefits of capitalism, let us get the wealth creation that comes from the incentive structure that the free market gives us, but let us then come together and deal with some of the adverse impacts that this system will have. Indeed, most recently that is a message that has been articulated by his Holiness Pope John Paul, II, who has called not for the abolition of a market system in the world's economy but for a recognition that the market system cannot be the only lodestar by which we make decisions. I am encouraged that the Clinton administration has been moving in the direction of understanding that what motivated Franklin Roosevelt in the early thirties, the need to preserve the best parts of capitalism while dealing with some of the excesses and inequities that can result, that that must be applied internationally. No better indication of that came than in the speech by Secretary of the Treasury Rubin at the recent World Economic Conference in Davos. Davos has not been known as a place where people come together to discuss compassion and equity and liberal principles. It has been a place where the free market and free movement of capital has been exalted. And it is thus particularly significant that in the course of a speech talking about the importance of globalization and going forward with it and creating a structure to contain it, Secretary Rubin, himself a man who messed in the markets, who for years in the private sector before becoming a very successful Secretary of the Treasury, was a leading figure in the financial community, nationally, internationally, it is significant that he included the following statement at his speech at Davos: We must do far better in enabling all of our citizens to participate in the growth and economic well-being produced by the global economy. That means not only strengthening social safety nets for those in greatest need and promoting core labor standards around the world, but also greatly increasing investment in education and health care to provide all of our citizens with the requisites for economic success. The World Bank and other multilateral development banks are deeply engaged in pursuing these objectives and deserve our full support, and here, most significant of all, from a man who is now Secretary of the Treasury of the United States and a former extremely successful leader at Wall Street. Along these same lines, and I am now quoting Secretary Rubin again, ``I do not believe that a market-based economic system and a healthy global economy are sustainable unless we take strong steps to address the tremendous income inequality that is all too evident around the world within nations and between nations.'' This is the sort of philosophy which, if it is made concrete, will be the basis on which we can come together and go forward in the areas of trade and promoting international development and promoting international economic activity. The recognition that capitalism unadorned is not enough but that a combination of the capitalist system and public policies which protect vulnerable people against the excesses that are inherent in that system, that is the basis on which we can come together, and I am delighted to congratulate Secretary Rubin. I do not think this is a message that has often been heard in Davos, and certainly not from someone of the public and private eminence of Secretary Rubin. It is a very promising move towards the policy consensus that we need.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, even those of us who have come to be of low expectations regarding Kenneth Starr's behavior were astonished on Sunday when he, through his aides, interjected himself into the current proceedings on impeachment by announcing that he thinks he has the right to indict the President. Mr. Starr has a very unusual way of operating. He sets for himself a very low standard and then consistently falls short of it. The New York Times has been a major critic of President Clinton, but they have been forced by Mr. Starr's abhorrent behavior to become more critical of him, given their dedication to the rule of law. The New York Times editorial entitled ``Ken Starr's Meddling'' in which they note, and I quote, ``Mr. Starr is already regarded by his critics as an obsessive personality. Now he seems determined to write himself into the history books as a narcissistic legal crank.'' ``The news article highlighted an underlying problem. Mr. Starr keeps flapping around, with deliberations over indictments and by meddling in the House managers' contacts with Monica Lewinsky, in ways that complicate Senate work that is more important than he is. . . . should rebuke Mr. Starr and appeal to the Federal judges who supervise him to restrain him from further disturbance of the constitutional process.'' Now, The Times understandably brushes off the fact that this was leaked illegally from Mr. Starr's office uncontestably, because they were the beneficiaries of the leak. But Mr. Starr has been guilty of this, and he has been guilty in sworn testimony before the House of misleading and perhaps lying about his role in this. Mr. Speaker, when he testified before us on November 18 and I asked him about leaks, he said he could not respond because ``I am operating under a sealed proceeding.'' I then said, ``Sealed at your request, correct?'' And here is his answer. ``No, Mr. Frank. It is sealed by the Chief Judge.'' Mr. Speaker, I insert those portions of the editorial absent such references to the President and the Senate as are prohibited by House rules, and the following excerpt of hearing testimony of Mr. Starr for the Record and urge Members to read the whole editorial. Mr. Frank. Let me ask you again, did anybody on your staff, to your knowledge, do the things which Judge Johnson has included in her list of the 24 items? Understanding that you may think that if they did, they weren't violations, but did anybody on your staff give out that information on any of those 24 instances? Mr. Starr. There are a couple of issues or instances in which we issued a press release where we do have--you know, we clearly issued a press release with respect to certain matters. But may I say this. I am operating under a sealed litigation proceeding, and what I am trying to suggest is, I am happy to answer as fully as I can, except---- Mr. Frank. To the extent that you can't answer under this particular proceeding, it is sealed at your request to the extent that it is sealed at all. That is, Judge Johnson granted a motion for an open procedure. You appealed to the circuit court, and they closed it up, so if you didn't object, nobody else will. If you didn't do anything, why not just tell us if it is wrong factually. On the other hand, you are going to say well, you successfully got the circuit court to seal it, so I suppose I can't do much, but I don't understand why you don't just tell us. Mr. Starr. Let me make very briefly these points. We believe that we have completely complied with our obligations. Mr. Frank. That wasn't my questions. Mr. Starr. Under 6(e). Mr. Frank. My question is, Judge Johnson set it forward, and they did this. They could differ as to the law. I am not debating the law, I am trying to elicit a factual response. Mr. Starr. The second point that I was trying to make is that I am operating under a sealed proceeding. Mr. Frank. Sealed at your request, correct? Mr. Starr. No, Mr. Frank. It is sealed by the Chief Judge based upon her determination of---- Mr. Frank. She granted a much more open proceeding and you appealed that and got a circuit court to severely restrict the procedure on the grounds that hers was too open. Isn't that true? Mr. Starr. Congressman Frank, what she did was to provide for a procedure that didn't provide quote, ``openness,'' it provided for an adversarial process, and this is all in the public domain. But from this point forward, no, she is the custodian and the guide with respect---- Mr. Frank. Would you ask her to release that? I think this is severe for public interest in dealing with this leak question. It does to the credibility of a lot of what you have done. Would you then join, maybe everybody would join, maybe the White House would join, and others, in asking Judge Johnson to relax that so we could get the answers publicly, because I think there is a lot of public interest, legitimate interest in this. Mr. Starr. I am happy to consider that, but I am not going to make, with all respect, a legal judgment right on the spot with respect to appropriateness----

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I just want to congratulate the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) because throughout this process he has shown a strong ability to overcome his various reluctances.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I was hoping that I would get learned, as well.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would further yield, I was about to sell tickets to the performance of the gentleman. The acrobatics that I was talking about were not those of the chairman, of course, because he has been consistent here, but some of his colleagues. So I want to make it clear. It is the intention of the chairman, if he is reappointed as a manager, and I think the early returns are looking good, he is ahead in the exit polls, if he is reappointed as a manager, it is his intention to continue to press for a full trial in the Senate, for the calling of witnesses, and to continue his posture of objecting to proposals in the Senate to short-circuit a full trial. Am I correct?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield further, I appreciate that. I think that is very straightforward from the gentleman. I would just address members of his party who are trying to have it both ways. I think it is very clear. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) has made it very clear. A vote to reappoint this set of managers is a vote for a trial. It is a vote against the efforts to short-circuit it. It is clearly a statement that the Senate ought to go ahead and call the witnesses. And Members who vote for it have every right to vote for it, but they are not then entitled to go home and talk about how they were really for something different.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I have watched with fascination the acrobatics of some of my friends on the other side who found themselves torn between pressures to vote for impeachment and pressures to vote against it. I was particularly struck by the letter written by four of my colleagues who voted for impeachment on Saturday and wrote to the Senate on Sunday asking them please not to vote for impeachment, noting that just because they had voted to put the President out of office did not mean they wanted anyone else to vote to put the President out of office. What they have argued is they are really for censure. Well, Members who have been engaging in that have to understand that with this motion the contortions have to stop. This is not an abstract motion to appoint managers in general. This is a motion to reappoint the specific managers who have gone over to the Senate and have said to them that they may not shortcircuit the trial; they must allow the managers to call witnesses, which we wish apparently they did before. We have a set of managers who have made it very clear that they are totally opposed to censure. They are opposed to anything in the Senate other than a full-scale trial. It is no longer possible for Members to engage in the game of saying that they are for censure, that they are not for a full trial and voting down the line to do exactly that. If we vote for the managers, we are voting for these particular managers. We are voting for the gentleman from Illinois and others who have been in the Senate and who have made it clear to the Senate leadership that they do not want anything but a full trial. So understand that the game is over. It is logically possible to be for a full trial and to press absolutely to the end for the removal of the President. It is possible to think that he should be censured instead and that there should not be a full trial. What it is not logically possible to do, certainly not with any intellectual honesty, is to vote for this motion, for these managers, who have made it clear they will be for an all-out trial, and then claim that that is not really what we are for.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, this House is launched on a historically tragic case of selective moralizing. By the history of this country, the appropriate response to lying about a consensual sexual affair would be censure. When Ronald Reagan's Secretary of Defense was indicted for perjury by an Independent Counsel and pardoned by George Bush, Members on that side applauded the action. When Speaker Gingrich was found to have been inaccurate 13 times in an official proceeding to the House Ethics Committee, he was reprimanded and simultaneously reelected Speaker with the overwhelming vote of Members on that side. That is why we believe censure is appropriate. The American people also believe censure is appropriate. Let me agree with those who say that simply because a large number of the voters believe something, we are not obligated to vote for it. I welcome this assertion that we have an obligation not always to follow public opinion. But while we have the right not to vote for something just because there is overwhelming public support, in a democracy, we have no right not to vote on it. We have a right to stand up honestly and say, I disagree with censure. Members have no right to hide behind a partisan leadership and not take a position. The public has a right, on this overwhelmingly important issue, to have the preferred option that the public supports voted on. That is the abdication of democracy. It is not that Members have to support what the public wants, but Members cannot hide from it in a democracy. Why will Members not take a position on censure? If they have the votes to defeat it, they should not use partisan pressure and threats to keep it from being voted on. Do not deny to the American public a recorded vote on their notion of what ought to be done, particularly since Members' own behavior in the case of Caspar Weinberger, in the case of the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Newt Gingrich), clearly makes it understandable that censure and not impeachment is relevant. The final point is this: Members on the other side understand that people think throwing someone out of office is too harsh. We have a stunningly illogical game going on. First, to get votes for impeachment from people who know that the public doesn't want it, they downgrade impeachment. Impeachment is not throwing the President out of office, the chairman says; impeachment does not end the process, it simply sends it to the Senate. But what have they already begun to do? They plan, having degraded impeachment and claimed it is no definitive judgment, once they get a partisan vote for an impeachment, where the bar has been lowered, then to say, that is the basis for resignation. First, impeachment will be insignificant, it will simply be the beginning of the process. But having used their partisan power and the power of the right wing in the country to get an impeachment through after they have dumbed it down in significance, they will turn around and use the fact that they got that impeachment as a club to try to drive the President from office. First impeachment will simply be very little, and then it will be an enormous amount. Members cannot, de facto, amend the Constitution by that distortion of impeachment, and then use it to try to drive a President out of office when they know that is an inappropriate sanction for his behavior. Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the Reverend Manuel Chavier of New Bedford, Massachusetts. Reverend Chavier, founder and pastor of the International Church of the Nazarene, is one of New Bedford's most respected and dedicated leaders. He has devoted his pastorate to the need of the Portuguese-Cape Verdean community of New Bedford and will be honored for fifty years of service to his church and community at a dinner on Saturday, October 17. Though I regret that I am unable to join in the celebration at that time, it is with great pride that I join his family, friends and the members of his congregation in saying thank you and congratulations to Reverend Chavier for his decades of valuable contributions to the spiritual and cultural life of the New Bedford area. I ask that the excellent New Bedford Standard-Times article on Reverend Chavier and his remarkable career be printed here. [From the New Bedford (MA) Standard-Times, Oct. 3, 1998] Dinner to Honor Nazarene Pastor (By Robert J. Barcllos) New Bedford.--The Rev. Manual Chavier, founder and pastor of the International Church of the Nazarene, will be honored by members of his congregation and friends at a dinner this month. The event is scheduled for 1 p.m. next Saturday at White's restaurant in Westport. In celebrating the golden jubilee of their pastor, members also will celebrate five decades of a congregation that began with 23 members and now numbers more than 600. ``Retirement is not on my mind yet,'' said the Rev. Chavier. ``I just had a physical last week and everything looks good. As long as the machinery keeps running, I'm going to keep going.'' The 75-year-old pastor was still a ministerial student at Gordon College in 1948 when he accepted an invitation from the Portuguese Free Gospel Mission to be a guest speaker. The mission, which met at Odd Fellows Hall, had been started by Adeline Domingues. The Rev. Chavier, a native of Lincoln, R.I., accepted an invitation to serve the mission as pastor in June 1948 and was formally installed in February 1949 when the mission was constituted a church as the Cape Verdean Nazarene Society. The 23 original members included seven from the First Church of the Nazarene, among them Mrs. Domingues. The church met at 223 Acushnet Ave. from April of 1949. The Cape Verdean Nazarene Society was incorporated on July 31, 1951, as the Portuguese Church of the Nazarene, and plans began for a new church to be located at 483 Purchase St. The church was dedicated in June 1956. Reflecting changes in the ethnic and racial composition of a congregation formed to serve the Portuguese-Cape Verdean community, the church was renamed as the International Church of the Nazarene in October 1976. One of the high points in the Rev. Chavier's career was the dedication of the present main church building at 278 Pleasant St. on Nov. 11, 1984. ``I'd love to put up another building,'' said the Rev. Chavier. ``I've been in three building programs with one building in two phases. My future desire is to honor a great servant of God, Carolyn Wilder.'' Ms. Wilder, who died on Oct. 4, 1997, was an adjustment counselor who also served as head of the Sunday school and Christian education program in the church for 20 years during which she was a tremendous influence, the Rev. Chavier said. The Rev. Chavier's plans include developing a good communications center for the church. Funds are being raised for that project. The pastor still travels each year, conducting Spiritual Life Crusades. Most recently, in late July and early August, he had 11 speaking engagements in Bear Lake, Nova Scotia, for a 27-church gathering of the Canada East District of the Church of the Nazarene. He is booked for speaking engagements next year in Indiana, New Hampshire, New Jersey and Pennsylvania. Assisting the pastor at the church are his son and assistant pastor, the Rev. Manual Chavier Jr., formerly a pastor in Bermuda, who serves as minister of education and outreach, and the Rev. Jon W. Heim, minister of music and counseling. They will be joined by Steven A. Margeson, the congregation's new youth pastor, who will receive his preaching license during the 6 p.m. service Sunday at the church. Mr. Margeson, 44, a real estate agent and self- employed carpenter, and his wife Michelle are members of the Rev. Chavier's congregation and have run the youth program there for 1\1/2\ years. The Rev. Chavier's son-in-law, the Rev. Edmund J. Gomes, and his daughter, Ruth, are teaching at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Va. Rev. Chavier has graduate degrees from Eastern Nazarene College and Bridgewater State College and earned certification as a teacher. He is a World War II veteran. Outside of his pastoral duties, the Rev. Chavier has been very involved in community affairs. He has worked as an English teacher at Normandin Junior High School and served as a trustee of the New Bedford Free Public Library for five years, being vice chairman for one year. He also has served as a director of the Kiwanis Club, the Legal Aid Society, the Boys and Girls Clubs, the Red Cross and the Salvation Army. At one time, he had a weekly religious program on radio station WBSM. He received the Duncan A. Doton Human Relations Award in November 1996, one of many recognitions he has received over the years. The pastor and his wife, the former Elizabeth G. McKinney of Everett, make their home in Fairhaven.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to substitute for the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer).

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, earlier this week, a very decent young man was brutally murdered by two savages. And I am particularly struck, Mr. Speaker, because given the reasons that those two deformed individuals, mentally and morally deformed, murdered that individual, it could have been me. Had I, alone and unarmed, confronted these two thugs, I could have been subjected to the same brutalization that Mr. Shepard was in Wyoming, because his crime was to be a gay man. Something in the culture in which these two young men who murdered him grew up led them, without an ounce of humanity, without a scrap of decency, to set upon this young man with a weapon, beat him to death, and leave him not quite dead, but at the point of death, alone, and in a way, that added further to his torment. Mr. Speaker, I am encouraged by the number of people who have spoken out against this savagery. I am optimistic, having spoken with leaders here on both sides in the House, that we will take an important step and add to the Federal hate crimes legislation a provision that would say that if a young man who happens to be gay, as I happen to be gay, were to be set upon by thugs in the future who are so consumed with prejudice as to lose any shred of their humanity and kill him, that in appropriate circumstances, if the Attorney General found that certain very stringent requirements were met, and if a Federal presence was necessary, the Federal presence could be there. So, I hope we will add this to the legislation. But we need to go beyond that. I do not argue, Mr. Speaker, that those who have been critical of various proposals that gay and lesbian people have put forward are guilty of murder or even of creating the climate. But this savage murder does call us to the need to improve what we as a society do to protect other young Mr. Shepherds from this kind of brutality in the future. In particular, we have debated on the floor of this House measures whereby Members of this House have sought to penalize schools, secondary schools, because they would set up programs to do two things. First of all, to offer protection to the 15- and 16-year-old Shepherds, to the young gay men and young lesbians who find themselves tormented and abused and sometimes physically assaulted in school. Some of these schools would also try to teach young people in their teens that brutalizing people because they do not like their sexual orientation is not acceptable human behavior. And we have had people in this House try to stop that, try to penalize it. I hope that one of the things that will come out of this terrible, terrible murder will be a cessation of those trying to prevent schools from trying in turn to prevent this. It is not random that the terrible murder was committed and it is shocking that a 21-year-old and a 22- year-old, that they could be so bestial in their attitude towards a follow human being. These are people not long out of high school themselves. Mr. Speaker, this underlies the importance of allowing educators to deal with prejudice. We talk about teaching values. But when some talk about teaching the value of tolerance, when some talk about condemning violence based on someone's basic characteristics, we are told we cannot do that. We have been told that we cannot let a school teach acceptance of the gay lifestyle. Mr. Speaker, think about that. What does nonacceptance mean? If acceptance is interpreted to mean approval, I and others do not care. There are bigots in this world whose approval holds no charms for me. But when nonacceptance means not accepting someone's right to live, we have a serious problem. If the two murderers who so brutally beat Mr. Shepard to death and left him in this situation to ultimately to die, if they had been in a school system where people had taught that gay men and lesbians were human beings with a right to live, maybe this would not have happened. Maybe teaching people to accept differences, not in the sense of becoming their advocates or becoming their supporters, but in refraining from this sort of assault would be a good thing. And so we will return to this. I hope we will, in the piece of legislation that is about to wrap up, adopt the hate crimes statute. But I hope also, Mr. Speaker, and I appreciate the Chair's indulgence for 10 seconds, I hope we will no longer see in this House efforts to harass educators and penalize educators who understand the importance of trying to remove from young people's attitudes the kind of hatefulness that led to this murder.