[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 26 (Tuesday, March 4, 1997)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E370-E373]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     AMERICANS FOR DEMOCRATIC ACTION PROVIDES IMPORTANT LEADERSHIP

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. BARNEY FRANK

                            of massachusetts

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, March 4, 1997

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, last week I joined several 
of my colleagues in celebrating the 50th anniversary of a very 
important organization in the fight for a fairer America, Americans for 
Democratic Action. As examples of the vital role ADA has played and 
continues to play, I ask that two very thoughtful articles be printed 
here. One is by Jack Sheinkman, former head of the Amalgamated Clothing 
and Textile Workers Union, who is now the president of ADA and a great 
fighter for social justice in our country. The other is an interview by 
Kenneth Adelman with one of the most important non-Members of Congress 
in history from the standpoint of people who have affected the course 
of this institution. Evelyn Dubrow, who recently retired as vice 
president and legislative director of UNITE, the successor union to the 
Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers and the International Ladies 
Garment Workers has an unparalleled record of accomplishment in 
fighting for the rights of working people. I believe that these two 
articles make an important contribution to our debate on public policy.

                  [From the Washingtonian, Jan. 1997]

                            Made in the USA

                       (Interview by Ken Adelman)

       The new session of Congress will be the first since the 
     Eisenhower administration without Evelyn Dubrow treading the 
     halls of Capitol Hill on behalf of garment and textile 
     workers.
       The International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union sent her 
     here in 1956, when the minimum wage was a dollar, and she's 
     lobbied for everything from protection against imports to 
     civil-rights legislation. Soon, she'll be stepping down as 
     legislative director of the union, now called UNITE (Union of 
     Needletrades, Industrial, and Textile Employees), but she'll 
     stay on as special assistant to the president.
       Liberal politics came naturally to Dubrow. Her parents were 
     socialist immigrants from Belarus who raised four daughters 
     and a son. Her father was a union man. Her sister Mary 
     picketed the White House as an early suffragette. Sent to 
     prison, she went on a hunger strike.
       Dubrow grew up in New Jersey and studied journalism at New 
     York University. After her graduation in the late 1930s, she 
     pursued journalism and then union work, with a brief stint in 
     Washington in 1947 to help organize the liberal Americans for 
     Democratic Action and campaign for Harry Truman. She joined 
     ILGWU in 1956 and was sent to Washington the same year. She's 
     been here ever since, living on Capitol Hill to be near her 
     work.
       Among her many awards in the Lifetime Achievement Award 
     from Citizen Action. Ladies Home Journal has named her one 
     of the 75 most important women in America, and The 
     Washingtonian has named her one of the region's most 
     powerful women.
       Dubrow is single but has loads of nieces, nephews, great-
     nieces, great-nephews, and now great-greats, whom she 
     considers her children.
       In her free time, she plays poker with a group of longtime 
     friends. She also plays plenty of gin rummy, reads the 
     classics--especially Dickens and Trollope--and used to adore 
     going to baseball games.
       In her office in the AFL-CIO building, one block from the 
     White House, we discussed what she's learned.
       Why is ``lobbyist'' such a dirty word?
       I don't consider it a dirty word at all.
       American citizens are constitutionally entitled to petition 
     the government through their representatives for any purpose. 
     The term ``lobbyist'' arose when members of Congress didn't 
     have offices. So everyone seeing them had to meet in the 
     House or Senate lobby.

[[Page E371]]

       Now as government grew, organizations found they had a 
     bigger stake in what happens in Washington. So they hired 
     people like me to represent their members. That's perfectly 
     legitimate.
       But lobbyists tend to work for, or even become, fat cats.
       Well, I'm not. And I don't.
       I work for more than 350,000 union members and 250,000 
     retirees. They're far from fat cats. They're hard-working 
     citizens who can't trot up to Capitol Hill and meet their 
     representative directly. However, they can and do write 
     letters and call.
       How has Congress changed in your time?
       Members are much younger. Some, sadly, don't know much 
     about the institution and haven't learned much.
       Many of these young Republicans distress me. After the 1994 
     election, I even broke my own cardinal rule of going to visit 
     each new member. I was so upset at their ignorance and small-
     mindedness about anyone in this country not like them.
       They have less knowledge of the institution, of how to 
     legislate or understand their constituency. They are narrow-
     minded on guns and the right to choose, affirmative action--
     oh, you name it!
       Has the caliber of members declined?
       Yes, it has. Some of these guys obviously decided to run 
     for Congress because they were bored with what they had been 
     doing.
       Others run because they hate things. That's what bothers me 
     most--the atmosphere of hate that's grown here. I was used to 
     Republicans and Democrats opposing each other on issues but 
     with some on each side voting for the other position. That 
     happens less nowadays.
       And, no matter what, members were friendly. They'd talk to 
     each other. They'd kid one another. There was an overall 
     feeling of being in this together. They'd disagree on issues 
     but never be nasty about it.
       Members need that civility. Every issue is different. An 
     opponent one day will be your supporter the next. But there's 
     been a big decline in civility--above all, a decline in 
     respect for the government of the United States of America. 
     That, to me, is saddest.
       How do you expect the new Congress to differ from the 
     104th?
       I suspect that it won't be as mean-spirited as it was in 
     the last two years. I think the Republicans as well as the 
     Democrats realize it's going to be important to produce 
     legislation that will be helpful to the people of this 
     country. The Republican leadership realized that their 
     attempt to dictate what the legislative program would be in 
     the 104th Congress didn't work.
       I assume, along with everyone else, that there will be more 
     cooperation. However, I see some evidence that members in the 
     leadership of the Republican party still are determined to 
     attack the Democratic leadership. I also think they are 
     likely to try to attack the labor movement through 
     legislation that would be detrimental not only to union 
     members but to American workers generally--such as campaign 
     reform to prevent the unions from raising money from their 
     members, or compensatory-time legislation that would deprive 
     workers of the chance to earn overtime pay.
       What works best to persuade members of Congress?
       Always be honest. Never play games. Never pretend you know 
     everything about a bill or issue. You don't.
       Use constituents, since they're always the best lobbyists. 
     We succeed most when our union members contact their own 
     representatives directly.
       Folks at the grassroots, if they ever realized it and 
     wanted to, could run this country. People really do have 
     power. The smart congressmen or senators assign a top staff 
     member full-time to take constituent calls and read mail. 
     Then the member can respond to constituents.
       Many times over the years I've asked our folks to send me 
     any correspondence from Congress. When doing so, many attach 
     a note saying, ``Please return this. I'd like to keep it 
     since it comes from my member of Congress.'' That means a lot 
     to them.
       What should a lobbyist avoid?
       Three things, which I call ``my BAT.''
       One, don't Beg for votes. Second, don't Assume you know 
     everything. And third, don't Threaten anyone by saying you'll 
     work to defeat the guy or gal or anything like that.
       Always remember why you're there. As a lobbyist, you're 
     there to get votes. This means you approach anyone who has a 
     vote, regardless of whether you're likely to succeed or not.
       I rarely go into an office just to be there. I'm in to talk 
     about an important issue.
       I like to win because I'm convincing on the merits. But I 
     know that sometimes a member will vote as a personal favor to 
     me. I don't kid myself about that.
       Many of these members I've known for a very long time. They 
     know by now that I won't ask them to support something 
     horrendous. That isn't my way.
       I'm very conscious of time, which is their most precious 
     commodity. Members are terribly busy so it's best to have the 
     staff in there too. A good staffer knows the issue as well, 
     if not better.
       They'll often ask me to send background or briefing 
     materials. A major part of my job is providing information 
     they can use in the committee or even in floor debate.
       When a new session begins, I go in to see new members and 
     their staffs. I try to introduce myself to everyone in the 
     office. Sometimes I'm successful in that, sometimes not. But 
     at least I've made the effort.
       So you really like Congress.
       Oh, yes. This negativism towards the institution bothers 
     me.
       I think Congress is the greatest institution in the whole 
     wide world. I'm corny enough still to be thrilled each time I 
     see the Capitol--day or night. I think it holds the fate of 
     America in its hands.
       I do distinguish between the institution and the people in 
     it. Nonetheless, I have great respect for members. Some 
     who've disagreed with me are still people of great stature. A 
     good number are first-rate historians or scholars.
       Tell us the best three since you came here in 1956.
       That's too hard.
       Go on. Try.
       Okay. The guy who did most for the people of this country 
     was Tip O'Neill. He understood his job as member and then as 
     Speaker, and he knew his people very well. Lyndon Johnson 
     used his position as majority  leader, vice president, and 
     then president to pass many laws that were good for 
     ordinary Americans. He was a consummate politician but 
     still had faith in the people.
       Third was my great friend Richard Bolling, who was a 
     protege of Sam Rayburn's but a great liberal. I worked with 
     Bolling at Americans for Democratic Action and then here. He 
     was a real student of government, especially of Congress.
       Any Republicans you respected?
       Oh, sure, Senator Charles Mathias of Maryland was a real 
     statesman.
       John Sherman Cooper was a great student of the issues. So 
     whenever he spoke, he gained respect on both sides of the 
     aisle.
       Third, strangely enough, was Barry Goldwater. He was 
     honest. He'd always give you a direct answer. When he was on 
     your side, he'd fight all the way.
       How good a Speaker is Newt Gingrich?
       Good in that he sounds like he knows what he's talking 
     about. He has a fine ability, as a former teacher, to express 
     himself with great panache. In fact, he's rare--a Speaker of 
     the House who's actually a good speaker. Now, what he says is 
     something else again.
       Why don't you like Newt?
       I don't like him he's backed more proposed laws that would 
     harm Americans than anyone I've seen here.
       His Contract With America, his opposition to family and 
     medical leave, to healthcare reform, to Social Security, and 
     to the minimum-wage increase were unconscionable. All these 
     laws are good for Americans, especially for the poor.
       What most bothers me in his Republican Congress is how they 
     make it seem a crime for anyone to be poor. Like the poor 
     want to be poor.
       Some of those folks on the Hill can't get it through their 
     thick heads that, as representatives in a democracy, they 
     should care about the people who most need their help.
       As a staunch Democrat and liberal, you must be disappointed 
     in Clinton.
       No, I'm not. I always knew he as an economic conservative 
     and a social liberal. Clinton cares about people and about 
     education. He understands our need for good government 
     programs.
       But when it comes to economics, he's long been 
     conservative. Remember, he came out of the Democratic 
     Leadership Council. I know those guys over there. I've even 
     worked with them. But I don't kid myself. They're not my 
     brand of liberal.
       So Clinton hasn't disappointed you?
       He has in missing our passion for fair-trade laws. We've 
     lost hundreds of thousands of jobs because we now must 
     compete with countries that bring their products into America 
     very cheaply.
       NAFTA still burns.
       It sure does. I tell my people that when we elected 
     Clinton, we didn't elect somebody from the labor movement.
       Well, there's never been a president we haven't been 
     somewhat disappointed in.
       How great a president is he?
       He's been a good president so far. Maybe he can approach 
     greatness.
       Who were the best three presidents you've known?
       Harry Truman was number one. He did more for the people 
     than anyone. Truman understood better what America's all 
     about. Though he came from the Pendergast mob, he was the 
     most honest man I ever knew.
       Then John Kennedy, who exuded concern and a complete grasp 
     of what a president had to be. Kennedy didn't have time to do 
     much, but he left a legacy of turning the US into a young and 
     wonderful country. There were so many things we all had to do 
     back then. And Kennedy had a sense of humor, which you need 
     when you're president--or anything else for that matter.
       Third was my great friend Lyndon Johnson. He passed the 
     first civil-rights law and education measures. Johnson had 
     deep respect for the labor movement and liked people of all 
     backgrounds. He used his power to develop programs.
       Who was the worst president?
       Richard Nixon, without question. He came to the Congress 
     after making Jerry Voorhis, really a very great member, seem 
     like a Communist. Jerry Voorhis actually had an impressive 
     record of fighting Communism from his socialist base.
       Nixon did the same thing to Helen Gahagan Douglas when he 
     ran against her for Senate. And what Richard Nixon later did 
     to the institution of the presidency was dreadful.
       What was your saddest day?

[[Page E372]]

       The day Kennedy was assassinated. I had a funny feeling 
     right before that day. Adlai Stevenson had gone to Texas and 
     told Kennedy, ``Don't go. The atmosphere down there isn't 
     good.'' So I woke that morning with a heavy heart. I was 
     attending a conference, but all day long I thought about 
     Kennedy. So when the news came. . . .
       Gone was a leader in whom we all had great faith and hope, 
     cut down before he had a chance to make his mark.
       I had sad days whenever people tried to enact right-to-work 
     laws, the whole business of 14B in the Taft-Hartley Act. They 
     were trying to deny people their inherent right to belong to 
     unions, a right given them in the National Labor Relations 
     Act. The right to join together and do things for the common 
     benefit is what democracy's all about.
       I've been saddened by our inability to get equitable trade 
     laws passed. I work for a low-wage industry with probably 
     more immigrants and people of diverse backgrounds. They're 
     just trying to make their daily lives a bit better.
       Our fight isn't against the workers of other countries. 
     We're against the sweatshops abroad, as we are here.
       What episodes from your career will you best remember?
       The day Speaker Tip O'Neill instructed the House doorman to 
     give me a chair at the entrance to the House floor because I 
     deserved it. That was a great moment in my life.
       I remember fondly being up in Albany making a speech when I 
     got a call at the airport from the White House. Juanita 
     Roberts, President Johnson's secretary, said he was going to 
     sign the education bill and would like me there, along with 
     the president of my union. So I called our union president, 
     Louis Stylberg, and we arranged to meet in Washington.
       We were there along with members of committees that had 
     pushed the legislation through. After signing the bill, LBJ 
     walked off the platform, pulled me up from my seat, and said, 
     ``This little lady is responsible for this bill.'' Now I 
     don't think that was entirely true, but it sure was nice to 
     hear.
       Another happened right after I came down to Washington in 
     1956 to lobby an amendment to the Landrum-Griffin Act. The 
     act, part of the whole Taft-Hartley approach to unions, among 
     other areas outlawed the use of the secondary boycott. It 
     should not have applied to the garment industry, where there 
     is a direct relationship between the jobber (the main 
     employer) and the contractor who manufactures the garment 
     product. My job was to get the amendment to permit our union 
     to be an exception to that section of the act.
       John F. Kennedy, then a senator, agreed to introduce it in 
     the Senate. One of his top staffers told me, ``Ev, you're 
     asking him to put his political head on the block.''
       I said, ``Oh, come on. What are you saying? Massachusetts 
     has plenty of garment workers affected by this. It won't 
     hurt Kennedy one bit.'' And it didn't.
       Barry Goldwater had been calling my boss, David Dubinsky, 
     head of our union, who was a very great man. I told Dubinsky 
     to let me see what Goldwater wanted. So I saw him and asked.
       He said, ``Look, Ev, my family knows the rag business. My 
     sister and I spent a year in the garment district. I 
     understand the problems there.'' So I called Dubinsky and 
     told him to talk with Goldwater.
       Later Dubinsky told me Goldwater said to him, ``Hey, that's 
     a smart little girl lawyer you've got down here.'' I said, 
     ``Did you tell Goldwater I wasn't a lawyer?'' Dubinsky 
     laughed and said, ``No. If he thinks you're a lawyer, that's 
     okay with me.''
       That began a wonderful relationship. Whenever I'd see Barry 
     Goldwater after that, he'd ask me: ``Well, Ev, what are you 
     on today?'' I'd tell him, and most often he'd say, ``Sorry, I 
     can't vote with you on that one.'' We became very good 
     friends.
       What have you learned about how Washington works?
       Washington's a special little enclave in the grand United 
     States. Too many Washingtonians think they're running the 
     country when they're not. The government still reacts more 
     than it acts.
       Here, more than elsewhere, personalities count. Personal 
     relationships matter most. Technologies like e-mail and faxes 
     and the Internet bring the rest of the country much closer to 
     Washington, which is beneficial. Many members now must think 
     of those they hadn't paid much attention to before.
       In Washington you should never write off anybody. You'll be 
     surprised where tomorrow's allies come from.
       I've learned there's a lot of the patina of Washington 
     social life; it's often who you know--not what you know--that 
     goes a long way. Invitations from certain people mean a whole 
     lot.
       I've learned I don't know as much as I thought I knew. 
     Living here's a very humbling experience.
       Money plays too large a role here. I resent how much it 
     costs to run for office nowadays. So many members or 
     candidates must go out and beg to be elected.
       That's why I've always supported public financing of 
     campaigns. I've never been comfortable with forming PACs. Our 
     strength should be in the people we represent and not the 
     money we hand out.
       The first year after a representative gets elected is spent 
     trying to make laws. The second year is spent raising money 
     to be reelected. This means their productive time is cut in 
     half.
       Tell us three big lessons of life.
       One is not to think that friends have to agree with you. A 
     broad swath is great. Some of my friends think I'm loony and 
     disagree all the time.
       Get to know what this country's all about. I've studied the 
     American Indians, as they fascinate me. I began working with 
     the Congress of American Indians in the 1950s, teaching some 
     of them how to organize their members, how to register, and 
     how to vote. The Navajos have power now because they learned 
     these skills early on.
       Get to know our senior citizens. They're wonderful. They 
     vote. They're interested. They'll call. They express 
     themselves honestly.
       I've learned that no one's as important as he or she 
     thinks.
       It's hard to accept that you'll have to get out of the 
     picture and let somebody else take over some day.
       I'm lucky to have lived so long and so well. I try to enjoy 
     every day. So many people touched my life.
       Other lessons of life?
       My greatest lesson is not to take life so very seriously. 
     You can make a difference, but never think you're Joan of 
     Arc.
       Great people came before you. Great people will come after 
     you. If you have an opportunity to make any contribution, be 
     grateful for that.
                                                                    ____


             [From the St. Petersburg Times, Jan. 19, 1997]

                  Liberals Work From the Vital Center

                            (Jack Sheinkman)

       As President Clinton prepares to deliver his second 
     inaugural address on Monday, the political landscape seems 
     remarkably familiar to liberals.
       A half-century ago, on Jan. 3, 1947, about 130 of the 
     nation's leading liberals met at the Willard Hotel in 
     Washington, D.C., to discuss challenges which, in a broad 
     sense, are similar to those faced today.
       A hostile Republican majority controlled Congress. The 
     president, Harry Truman, was a Democrat, but one whom many 
     considered insufficiently liberal. A new American economy, 
     marked by technological change, was emerging. In the area of 
     race relations, America's reality failed to match its ideals. 
     Abroad, the United States confronted a rapidly changing new 
     world order.
       Liberals who attended the meeting included former first 
     lady Eleanor Roosevelt; theologian Reinhold Niebuhr, perhaps 
     best remembered today as the author of the ``Serenity 
     Prayer''; historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr.; economist John 
     Kenneth Galbraith; labor presidents Walter Reuther of the 
     United Auto Workers and David Dubinsky of the International 
     Ladies Garment Workers Union; Sen. Paul Douglas, D-Ill.; and 
     Hubert H. Humphrey, the mayor of Minneapolis, who in 1948 
     would be elected to the U.S. Senate and then as vice 
     president in 1964.
       Nelson Poynter, former editor and president of the St. 
     Petersburg Times, also was present, as was Barry Bingham of 
     the Louisville Courier-Journal.
       Out of the meeting, Americans for Democratic Action, today 
     the nation's oldest independent liberal organization, was 
     born. In her syndicated newspaper column, ``My Day,'' on 
     Jan. 6, 1947, Mrs. Roosevelt declared that ADA was needed 
     ``to carry on the spirit of progress'' in America. ``We do 
     not believe that what has been done in the past is the 
     highest attainment that can be hoped for in a democratic 
     nation.''
       The following year, in 1948, ADA led the successful fight 
     for a strong plank in the Democratic Party platform defining 
     the party's commitment to civil rights. It was only the 
     beginning, as ADA also participated in the civil rights 
     struggles in the South in the 1950s and 1960s. On May 4, 
     1963, after Sheriff Bull Connor turned police dogs and fire 
     hoses on marchers in Birmingham, Ala., ADA leaders met with 
     President John F. Kennedy in the White House and pressed him 
     for greater federal action in support of civil rights. The 
     moment was a turning point, leading up to Martin Luther 
     King's March on Washington in August 1963 and passage of the 
     Civil Rights Act of 1964.
       Over the years, ADA pushed for increases in the minimum 
     wage, full employment, Medicare, abortion rights, 
     environmental protections, arms control and an end to 
     apartheid. It also was distinctly anti-Communist in origin, 
     and supported the Marshall Plan, the Truman Doctrine and the 
     North Atlantic Treaty Organization early in the Cold War; 
     but, in the 1960s, opposed the Vietnam War.
       In the 1970s, the organization was attacked by Vice 
     President Spiro Agnew and its members were included on 
     President Nixon's infamous ``Enemies List.'' In turn, ADA 
     became the first national organization to call for Nixon's 
     impeachment.
       Though many Americans consider liberals to be heroes, we 
     often are pointed as ``pinkos,'' socialists, Marxists or 
     worse. During the 1996 campaign, Bob Dole and other 
     Republican candidates attacked Democrats as ``liberal, 
     liberal, liberal,'' they were singing an old song, one 
     perfected by Joe McCarthy, Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew in 
     past elections; only this time it didn't play. Americans 
     instead were looking to core values.
       And, in fact, America's core values are liberal values. I 
     believe that many Americans are more liberal than they 
     themselves realize.
       Let's look at some basic definitions. First and foremost, 
     liberals believe in liberty, equality and opportunity for 
     individuals. We

[[Page E373]]

     also believe in the Constitution, which created a national 
     government to act for the common good, along with a Bill or 
     Rights to protect the freedoms of ordinary citizens. We 
     believe in the legacy of Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal, which 
     includes a commitment to economic security for all Americans, 
     and the need for American leadership within an international 
     community.
       Liberalism does not mean big government. Liberals instead 
     want effective, efficient and caring government, and 
     therefore have supported many of President Clinton's and Vice 
     President Gore's ``reinventing government'' initiatives.
       Liberals believe in a progressive tax system in which 
     people (and corporations) pay a fair and equitable share 
     relative to their benefits from our economic system. We also 
     believe in rational budget priorities--including deficit 
     reduction--but not necessarily a balanced budget as any kind 
     of absolute, magical economic cure.
       Since 1994, the Republican vision has been to dismantle the 
     federal government and the liberal foundations that sustained 
     America's progress over the past 60 years. It is a vision 
     that would return America to 19th-century laissez-faire 
     capitalism, leaving ordinary people and communities at risk.
       It is a vision that is incompatible with helping Americans 
     cope with rapid economic and technological change.
       Although the economy has improved since 1992, Americans 
     still suffer from a steady decline in their standards of 
     living. Each year in the 1990s, real wages decreased among 
     even the most highly educated workers. Fully 80 percent of 
     American families were worse off in 1995 than in the 1970s. 
     Nonetheless, from 1973 to 1995, there has been a 25 percent 
     gain in productivity, with significant increases in profits 
     for corporate America and increases in compensation for 
     corporate executives.
       Even though unemployment seems relatively low, unemployment 
     rates for blacks and Hispanics remain at about 10 percent, 
     almost double the rate for white workers. When discouraged 
     workers and people working part-time due to economic 
     conditions are included, the ``real'' rate of unemployment 
     jumps to about 10 percent.
       These economic trends represent not only economic hardship 
     for individuals, but also the unraveling of America's social 
     fabric: straining families, pitting generation against 
     generation, and worsening relations between races. As a 
     nation, we increasingly are at risk of coming apart, rather 
     than pulling together to build a common future.
       In 1995, the Republican Congress sought to cut funds for 
     Medicare, Medicaid and education, President Clinton 
     successfully resisted; however, he acquiesced to giving the 
     Pentagon billions of dollars that it had not requested, and 
     the, after two vetoes, signed a welfare reform bill that 
     eliminates assistance to many poor Americans, without doing 
     anything meaningful to help them find jobs.
       Last year, ADA was the first national organization to 
     endorse President Clinton for re-election. In doing so, we 
     called on liberals to join moderates and true conservatives 
     to fight for the vital center of American politics. Our cry 
     recalled ADA founder Arthur Schlesigner's 1949 book The Vital 
     Center, which presented liberalism as middle ground between 
     the rigid ideological doctrines of left and right.
       As the president approaches his second inaugural, liberals 
     can celebrate with him, but we still expect to disagree with 
     him from time to time. Liberals who were not afraid to 
     confront Harry Truman and John F. Kennedy, in order to move 
     them toward a more forthright embrace of civil rights, will 
     not hesitate to confront President Clinton and the Republican 
     Congress whenever we disagree with them on vital policy 
     matters. Just as liberals gathered in 1947 out of concern for 
     America's future, we must do so again, 50 years later, to 
     chart a course for the next 50.

                          ____________________