Barney Frank

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. We had a conversation about the Starr report, and I think it is an open question as to whether or not the Starr report would have violated that provision. The problem is this, and here is what we worked on: We have in this country the freest speech in the world, if it is oral, if it is written, if it is printed, but we are developing a second line of law which says electronically-transmitted speech is not as constitutionally protected. We must reverse that trend or we will erode our own freedoms.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) for yielding, and I want to thank my colleagues on that side for rescuing this very important bill from the attempted mugging that some Members of the Republican leadership had in mind. That was not one of the finest hours of this institution when this bill got derailed because of a dispute about a job. Madam Speaker, I want to express my satisfaction with what we worked out. As Members have mentioned, we have a tough situation here in which we want to protect intellectual property rights but not interfere with freedom of expression. In the Committee on the Judiciary, we worked very hard in particular in trying to work out a formula that would protect intellectual property rights and not give the online service providers an excessive incentive to censor. That was the difficult part. What I believe is a very important sign is that we were able to do that. I want to take this time to contrast this with the failure to do a similar reasonable compromise in the bill we passed recently dealing with child pornography or, rather, pornography in general, because in contrast to this very careful compromise, and we in the Committee on the Judiciary were very focused on this because of our concern for free speech, the House passed a bill which includes language which purports to protect children against pornography which, in fact, goes way beyond that. I am speaking now because I hope the President will be persuaded to veto that bill. We had a bill which says if someone puts on to the Internet material which is harmful to children, and children can see it, they are criminally liable. In other words, we are not dealing with people who are aiming at children. We also said, by the way, that that prohibition applies to material which is not obscene. It is going to be stricken by the Supreme Court, but we should not have to depend on the Supreme Court to defend us. So I do want to contrast. It seems to me very important to note the care that we took in the Committee on the Judiciary not to impede on free speech and the lack of care that we have elsewhere.

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I agree with the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Coble. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), one of the cosponsors of the bill.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, someone inaccurately, well- intended but inaccurately, said the Democrats were agreeing there should be an inquiry. No, let me define what we say. We accept the fact that the statutorily designated Independent Counsel sent us a referral, and we are obligated to look at it. But what our resolution says is, let us first look at what he has alleged, and assuming that it is true, decide whether or not those things are impeachable. There is a very real question. If we look at the dismissal of the charge that Richard Nixon did not pay his income tax because it was a personal matter, that would suggest some of these are not impeachable. If we get to the question of lying, in fact, both the Speaker and I have been reprimanded by this House for lying before official proceedings. That has not kept either of us from continuing to do our duty to our best possible. We will have to look at whether or not these are impeachable issues. But the question is, do we look at those, or do we look at a whole lot of other things. I think my Republican colleagues fear that there is not enough in those accusations to meet the impeachment standard. That is why they refuse and refuse and refuse to limit it, to get into not just a fishing expedition, but the deep sea fishing expedition of Whitewater and the other matters. Scope affects time. It is because they are holding out the hope that something will turn up after 4 years about Whitewater and the FBI files and the travel office and all of these other accusations that have to date proven to be dry holes for those trying to get Bill Clinton, they want to not limit the time because they need to keep it open. Here is what that means in terms of time. Under our resolution, which calls for a December 31 deadline, we would begin work right away, on our time. This Congress is about to adjourn, and on our time, which would otherwise be not dealing with the public's business, we are ready to get into it. Under their resolution, let me make it very clear to the Members, they have no real plans to do anything during October. We have read about that. They are not going to start until after the election. They are not going to start until 2 months after we got Kenneth Starr's report, because they think it will not play out well in the election, so vote for their resolution, and Members will find that the American people's time will be taken up again next year. We are ready to do it now on our time and get it out of the way. They are asking us to give them a mandate to stretch it out, wait until after the election, and let it dominate next year, to our detriment, just as it has so far.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, our former colleague from Oklahoma, Mickey Edwards, has gone from service in the House of Representatives to a very distinguished career teaching at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard. He has combined this with a role as a thoughtful commentator on public affairs. Mr. Edwards is as those who served with him know a very thoughtful conservative, and I disagree with him on many policy issues. Indeed, I disagree with his assessment of the policy impact of the Clinton administration, in foreign policy and elsewhere, which is included in this article. But on the whole it seems to me an extremely thoughtful essay that sheds a good deal of light on the difficult task we face in the coming weeks and months in dealing with the Independent Counsel's investigation of the President. Both because of the thoughtful nature of this work, and because of Mr. Edwards credentials as one of the most intellectually honest of our political commentators, I ask this his thoughtful essay from the Boston Herald be printed here. Starr Elects to Topple 1996 Election This is what we know: First, that the president has committed adultery and is accused of lying about it before a grand jury. Second, and even more disturbing, we know that we now have in the United States a prosecutor to whom our civil liberties are an inconvenience. As a conservative, I have dedicated my adult life to opposing the spread of statist power. I have feared, and fought against, the intrusions of Big Brother into the private lives of American citizens. That is why I am disturbed by Bill Clinton but frightened by Kenneth Starr. Here is the situation: The Constitution grants to the people, through their representatives, the power to remove a president who is guilty of criminal behavior. It is a discretionary power; it has been delegated to a political branch of government and the decision is intended to be based on political as well as legal considerations. Bill Clinton has twice been elected president. Many of the facts we know about his patterns of behavior were known before the people placed him in office. Perhaps citizens have learned more about the president's tendencies, about his behavior, but if there is any surprise it is about the extent of that behavior, not about its existence. Because we know all this, the questions that matter most are not whether we should be appalled by the behavior of this president, but about how reluctant we should be to overturn the results of an election, and, second, the extent to which we should sanction the activities of an extra-constitutional inquisitor whose activities threaten not merely our sensibilities but our civil liberties as well. I am not among the president's defenders. For his indiscretions and lies, he alone is responsible. Even had his activities been less unsavory, he would still be judged by history to be a president of modest accomplishment. His ineptitude in foreign policy alone would doom him to the ranks of mediocrity. But--this is a big distinction--even though I might wish Mr. Clinton had never been elected, he was; he defeated a sitting president and a prominent senator. His election was not a fluke; it was a decision. Prudence dictates caution in removing from office a man or woman whom the people have placed there. A president's activities may be so heinous that he must be removed at any cost, but in a democratic society, the overturning of an election must rest on more than shocked sensibility. What Mr. Clinton has lied about is an adulterous affair. If he is found to have lied to the grand jury, his actions may be oath reprehensible and illegal. But there is a question of context: what he lied about was whether he carried on a consensual sexual relationship. It may be enough to make one gap; it is not enough to overturn the will of the people that he should be the president. This brings us to a more serious matter. When Richard Nixon was our president, a Democratic Congress, asserting that a Republican Justice Department could not be trusted to act in the public interest, circumvented the existing governmental structure by creating a special prosecutor (the title is ``independent counsel,'' but as Kenneth Starr has demonstrated, it is an office with the power to function in a disturbingly aggressive manner). We should all be concerned about the danger inherent in giving the state the ability to trample underfoot the rights of a citizen on behalf of some presumed ``greater good.'' There are ``greater goods,'' those common national interests that sometimes transcend narrower individual interests, but even in the pursuit of such common interests the civil rights of citizens must be preserved. Kenneth Starr has no such sensibility. He began with a mandate to consider such matters as the possible misuse of secret FBI files, but from that starting point, he ended up in Bill Clinton's bedroom (or, in this case, his Oval Office). He intimidated witnesses. He looked into what books his witnesses read and what movies they watched. He subjected the public to the kind of voyeurism he has publicly criticized. (If he felt the need to illustrate what Mr. Clinton and Monica Lewinsky did, to prove that Mr. Clinton had lied, one example would have been sufficient; even that would not have been necessary if one assumes members of Congress can decide for themselves what does, and does not, constitute ``sex.'') Bill Clinton may be an embarrassment, but the Congress should not overturn a national election simply because a president lied about matters about which he should have never been questioned. And whatever Mr. Clinton's flaws, the real danger here is not Mr. Clinton's flaws, the real danger here is not Mr. Clinton's immaturity but Mr. Starr's casual disregard for those considerations which protect the citizen against the excessive intrusions of the state.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, as I read this, I do not believe filtering equipment would be a complete affirmative defense, as I read the line about affirmative defenses. But I then had a question. It says material that is harmful to minors, and I gather in a picture or text that would be describing sex and would appeal to prurient interests. A question would be if a commercial entity took the Starr report, which was not copyrighted, and put it out on the web as part of their business-making enterprise, would a commercial business that put the Starr report out on the web and did not restrict it with filtering information, would that commercial enterprise be subject to a penalty under this bill?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman is talking about the Starr report, I guess maybe he is right. It certainly does not have any literary value or scientific value or artistic value. But from the standpoint of his party, it has political value, so maybe it would get off.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Massachusetts on the privacy protections here. They are very, very important. I wish they were coming up as a separate bill, because they are attached to a bill which I believe will be found unconstitutional and which ought not to be passed. Obviously, it is important to try to protect minors from being exploited and abused and exposed to inappropriate material on the internet. But it is important to do that in a way that does not interfere with the constitutional right of adults to communicate with each other. The operative part of this bill, on page 4, says it is a crime to make any communication for commercial purposes available to any minor. That does not mean that the communication was aimed at the minor: to make it available to a minor. That means an entity is held responsible for anybody who has access to the internet. Now, here is the problem we have. We have in this country a great deal of free speech. If we are writing or speaking or communicating ideas in a nonelectronic context, we have more freedom in America than in any other country. But we began in the 1930s, because of the limited radio spectrum, a second doctrine on freedom of expression. Freedom of expression does not fully apply, we said, if it is electronically communicated. Well, the courts are no longer maintaining that strict definition, because the basis, the limited spectrum, the notion of the public interest, does not quite control. We are in danger now of having two separate standards because, clearly, this standard where we would be committing a crime if we made any communication for commercial purposes available to a minor, that was harmful to a minor, that would not obviously even be offered for a newspaper, for a magazine or for a book. And the notion that we should give a lesser standard of constitutional protection for freedom of expression because it is electronically communicated is not only mistaken, but given that we will increasingly communicate with each other electronically, it will erode our freedom. In the definition of harmful to a minor it says obscenity or another category. This bill specifically says it regulates nonobscene material if the material appeals on the whole to prurient interests. And, again, it does not only deal with material aimed at minors. If we put something on the web that is not obscene, and it has an appeal to prurient interests and is then judged harmful to minors, we can be guilty of a crime. This will further erode the notion of freedom of speech. So I welcome the privacy protections here, and I understand the importance of trying to protect children, but doing it in a way that says, and let me be very clear that this is what this says, nonobscene material that is constitutionally protected, because the bill explicitly says it is banning obscene material and nonobscene material if it is harmful to minors. If we put that on the web and a minor sees it, we can be criminally liable even if we were not even making any efforts to try to aim it at the minor. This is far too broad. I believe it will be held unconstitutional. That is why the Justice Department asked us to hold off. I think it would be a grave error to do this today.

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I was privileged last December to join with Vice President Gore and the Massachusetts Senators in a unique celebration to recognize an outstanding public- private partnership between Targeted Marketing Solutions Incorporated (TMSI) of Newton Upper Falls, Massachusetts and the United States Postal Service. At this ceremony, TMSI and the Postal Service were presented with the National Performance Review's Hammer Award, which honors civil servants and private groups that have implemented innovative programs that improve government efficiency and save the government money. As we finish our work this Congress and look ahead to the turn of the century, I wanted to share with my colleagues part of the story of this innovative relationship, which I think exemplifies extremely well the power and potential of public sector-private sector cooperation. Indeed, I am hopeful that this model will serve to inspire other agencies and private groups to explore innovative ways to increase consumer satisfaction, in an efficient manner. In 1993, TMSI approached the Postal Service with a way to help the Postal Service further their goals of reducing costs, using sound business principles to increase efficiency, while increasing customer satisfaction. In order to facilitate the process by which millions of Americans fill out a change of address card in order to get their mail forwarded when they move, TMSI proposed that they would print and distribute the Change of Address cards, making them more user-friendly, including moving tips and public service information. Moreover, their concept included the recruitment of move- related advertisers in order to reduce costs. The Mover's Guide was launched in 1994 nationally and is now saving the Postal Service millions of dollars in direct costs, as well as mail forwarding and increased postage costs each year. This success was followed by the launch of the Welcome Kit in 1997, which is now sent to every mover at their new address to confirm change of address information, as well as public service information on motor vehicle registration, voter registration, federal moving related information, tips on settling in, and savings offers from move-related advertisers. Here again, this is all accomplished while saving taxpayers millions of dollars annually. I was proud to take part last year in the celebration of this unique business relationship, including visiting TSMI's headquarters, and to witness the enthusiasm the people of TMSI and the Postal Service bring to their work in this area. I congratulate TMSI and the Postal Service on their innovation and determination. I hope, as I've said, that other individuals, companies, and agencies will be able to draw strength and inspiration from this success story. I look forward to learning of many similarly effective public-private alliances, which will no doubt be forged in the coming months and years ahead.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding time to me and for accommodating me, as I have some other scheduled things. I want to thank him and the other members of the conference committee particularly on the part of the House for insisting successfully on inclusion in this bill of the amendment we adopted overwhelmingly to put a cap on American contributions for the expansion of NATO. I do not understand why the administration fought us, but we did them a great favor by overcoming their opposition. I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Sisisky), the gentleman from Missouri, and others for putting it in. I understand that we have a problem with not enough money for defense. If we take as a given all of the missions we have undertaken and assigned to our defense establishment, then we have a problem in paying for them. But there are two solutions to that: One is to pay a lot more money, to cut into the surplus, to take money away from other possible uses in the budget by ramping up defense spending. The other is to ramp down what we have undertaken to do. Yes, we must not ever compromise with our national security. Yes, there are other parts of the world where we want to go and offer assistance. But 50 years after the end of World War II, we continue to overdo it vis-a-vis our allies. We have today around this world wealthy allies capable of doing more. Part of the problem we have is this unilateral assumption by America of responsibilities beyond which are reasonable. That is why I am delighted to have the committee today bring us a bill which for the first time puts a congressionally mandated binding limit on what we can spend for NATO. We have to explain this to our Western European allies, and we continue, even with this, to be spending tens of billions of dollars for the defense of Western Europe, unnecessarily. The Russian enemy which called this into question has crumbled as a conventional military power. The Europeans themselves, unlike the end of World War II, are numerous and prosperous. They could do more. I hope this is an example we will follow in the future.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul), a real doctor. (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself my remaining time. Mr. Speaker, while I was glad to hear my friend express such indignation at the large amounts of money George Soros is spending in a referendum, that is the first support we have heard from that side for campaign finance reform, at least in principle. Of course we have people on that side who think spending unlimited amounts of money is a good thing when they agree with the cause. It only becomes bad when they disagree with the cause. That is where we are with States' rights. The gentleman from New York who spoke on the left said he was for States' rights, and that is true. I can say now that I know this Republican majority very well. They are for the right of any State to do anything they agree with. But let a State diverge, and that State is going to be spanked. The gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) who spoke is a little embarrassed, perhaps, because there is a resolution that talks about how dumb his own State is. He said, well, there is nothing in this resolution which criticizes the State. That is only partially a good description. It is the case, and I will give the majority this, they did recognize that the resolution that they put through committee was a little too explicit in spanking the State. The Committee on the Judiciary passed a resolution calling the States all kinds of names in effect, and telling the States not to do this, and wagging their finger at the States. They get a little embarrassed about it, but I am going to put it in the Record anyway, Mr. Speaker, because I think people ought to know what they were really trying to get at. So then they cleaned it up some. But they did leave in this telling phrase, ``Congress opposes efforts to circumvent this process.'' They are talking about California's referendum. What effort is that? To circumvent the process. So this resolution does say to the States, ``Naughty, naughty. How dare you differ with us?'' The fact is it also goes on to say, and I think this is important for Members to understand, this is not just about marijuana, Congress continues to support the existing Federal legal process for determining the safety and efficacy of drugs, all drugs. I know there have been Members on both sides who have been questioning whether the FDA ought to have the kind of control it has where efficacy is involved. We all believe the FDA should say that is not safe. Indeed, this Congress passed a bill, I think it was sponsored by the gentleman from Utah and, I know, our former colleague, the gentleman from New Mexico, recently which relaxed FDA control. There were others who wanted to relax FDA control further. If my colleagues have told constituents that they want to relax some FDA rules on determining efficacy, and if they vote for this resolution, they better write them an apology, because they have just undercut that statement. The final thing I want to say, in addition to saying that it seems to be that States ought to be able to make some decisions in this matter, and this resolution is clearly an effort to stop the States from deviating from whatever the national orthodoxy is, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) who spoke made a very important point. People get up and they talk about how terrible the drug problem is and then talk about the importance of continuing our current policy approach. There is a great inconsistency here. When we talk about poverty, public housing, welfare, we have a tendency to have people look at the amount of money spent, then look at the fact that the problem has, if anything, gotten worse, and say therefore we must stop. That method of analysis has turned on its head for drugs. There is a real problem in the way we have fought drugs. Obviously trying to diminish drug use particularly, but not only among young people, ought to be a very high public policy goal. But this current extremely punitive approach, this current approach of not differentiating in this between marijuana use for medical purposes and drugs that are instantly mind altering doesn't work. It undercuts. One Member complained about the diminution of funds for interdiction. Interdiction seems to me a prime example of money wasted. Given the scope of this country, the size, the commerce, the people who come and go, physically keeping out terribly small amounts of things is fruitless compared to money that could go into law enforcement, that could go into prevention, that could go into education. So what we have here is the latest, as the previous resolution was, the latest endorsement of more of the same, and a failed policy, a policy that says you can shoot drugs out of existence, you can outlaw them. It did not work for alcohol. It would not work for tobacco. This approach of being exclusively punitive and not allowing any differentiation does not work here. The document referred to above is as follows: Referral to the Committee on Commerce extended for a period ending not later than March 18, 1998. Committee on Commerce discharged; referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed. Resolution expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that marijuana is a dangerous and addictive drug and should not be legalized for medicinal use Whereas certain drugs are listed on Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act if they have a high potential for abuse, lack any currently accepted medical use in treatment, and are unsafe, even under medical supervision; Whereas the consequences of addiction to Schedule I drugs are well documented, particularly with regard to physical health, highway safety, criminal activity, and domestic violence; Whereas marijuana--which along with crack cocaine, heroin, PCP, and more than 100 other drugs, has long been classified as a Schedule I drug--is both dangerous and addictive, with research clearly demonstrating that smoked marijuana impairs normal brain functions and damages the heart, lungs, reproductive, and immune systems; Whereas before any drug can be approved as a medication in the United States, it must meet extensive scientific and medical standards established by the Food and Drug Administration, and marijuana has not been approved by the Food and Drug Administration to treat any disease or condition; Whereas a review by the Annals of Internal Medicine of more than 6,000 articles from the medical literature evaluating the potential medicinal applications of marijuana concluded that marijuana is not a medicine, that its use causes significant toxicity, and that numerous safe and effective medicines are available, which means that the use of crude marijuana for medicinal purposes is unnecessary and inappropriate; Whereas on the basis of the scientific evidence and the testimony of the American Medical Association, the American Cancer Society, the National Multiple Sclerosis Association, the American Academy of Ophthalmology, the National Eye Institute, and the National Institute of Drug Abuse, marijuana has not met the necessary standards to be approved as medicine; Whereas the States of Arizona and California, through State initiatives in 1996, legalized the sale and use of marijuana for `medicinal' use, while the State of Washington in 1997 rejected an initiative to legalize the sale and use of marijuana for `medicinal' use; Whereas after the initiative in Arizona, the legislature of the State of Arizona, with the support of a majority of the citizens of the State, passed legislation to prevent the dispensing of any substance as medicine which had not first been approved as medicine by the Food and Drug Administration, thereby preventing marijuana from being dispensed in the State; Whereas these States and a majority of States in the United States, as well as the District of Columbia, have been targeted by out-of-State organizations which advocate drug legalization for `medical' marijuana initiatives in 1998 and 1999, and these organizations have provided the majority of the financial support for these State initiatives; Whereas some individuals and organizations who support `medical' marijuana initiatives do oppose drug legalization, prominent pro-legalization organizations have admitted their strategy is to promote drug legalization nationally through State `medical' marijuana initiatives, and, as such, are seeking to exploit the public's compassion for the terminally ill to advance their agenda; Whereas marijuana use by 8th, 10th, and 12th graders declined steadily from 1980 to 1992, but, from 1992 to 1996, such use dramatically increased--by 253 percent among 8th graders, 151 percent among 10th graders, and 84 percent among 12th graders--and the average age of first-time use of marijuana is now younger than it has ever been; Whereas according to the 1997 survey by the Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University, 500,000 8th graders began using marijuana in the 6th and 7th graders; Whereas according to that same 1997 survey, youths between the ages of 12 and 17 who use marijuana are 85 times more likely to use cocaine than those who abstain from marijuana and 60 percent of adolescents who use marijuana before the age of 15 will later use cocaine; Whereas the rate of drug use among youth is linked to their perceptions of the risks which are related to drugs and, in that regard, the glamorization of marijuana and the ambiguous cultural messages about marijuana use are contributing to a growing acceptance of marijuana use among adolescents and teenagers; Whereas surveys taken in the wake of State `medical' marijuana initiatives indicate a more approving attitude toward marijuana use among teenagers than prior to the initiatives; and Whereas the evidence of the last 2 years indicates that the more the public learns about the facts behind the `medical' marijuana campaign, the more strongly opposed the public become to such initiatives: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That-- (1) the United States House of Representatives is unequivocally opposed to legalizing marijuana for medicinal use, and urges the defeat of State initiatives which would seek to legalize marijuana for medicinal use; and (2) the Attorney General of the United States should submit a report to the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives before the end of the 90-day period beginning on the date of the adoption of this resolution on-- (A) the total quantity of marijuana eradicated in the United States beginning with 1992 through 1997; and (B) the annual number of arrests and prosecutions for Federal marijuana offenses beginning with 1992 through 1997.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to say there is one part of this resolution that specifically affirms the FDA's current rules for determining not just the safety of a drug, but efficacy. So if one votes for this and if one has told people in their district that they think the FDA has been too restrictive on certain kinds of drugs, if one thinks they have been too much interfering with people's rights to make their own choices without regard to safety, understand that this resolution contradicts it. Because one of the specific things in this resolution is an explicit endorsement of the rules of the FDA, not just regarding safety, but efficacy. Now, I know Members have written in and said, oh, yeah, the FDA has been too harsh on this drug and too harsh on that drug. I know Members have told people that they think the FDA has been too restrictive. Understand that this resolution is not just about marijuana; this is an explicit endorsement of current FDA procedures for dealing not only with safety, but efficacy, telling people that the FDA will tell them whether or not they can take a certain substance, even if it is not going to do them any harm. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, as the Representative of New Bedford, Massachusetts for nearly six years, I am always pleased to have the opportunity to discuss the city's remarkable history. Indeed, New Bedford's marvelous heritage has been recognized by the U.S. Congress with the passage in 1996 of the legislation establishing a National Park in the city to commemorate its role as an international whaling center. A lesser known, but also important, element of New Bedford's history is its role as a way station on the Underground Railroad. That legacy will be celebrated in the city on Thursday, September 17, the 160th anniversary of the arrival in New Bedford of Frederick Douglass and his wife. As part of that celebration, New Bedford Mayor Frederick Kalisz, Jr. has issued a proclamation designating September 17 as ``Frederick Douglass Day'' in the city. Frederick Douglass (who took that surname after arriving in New Bedford), is of course known to history as one of the prominent escaped slaves and abolitionists. However, he also lived and raised a family for four years in New Bedford before his personal and political journeys took him elsewhere. Though we are today many decades removed from both his arrival in New Bedford and from the terrible period in our history when slavery existed in this nation, the issue of race relations remains a major problem in this country. And I believe it is important for us to keep the memory of that time alive for several reasons. Obviously, we must never forget either the absolute violation of every conceivable notion of human rights that slavery represented or the stirring achievements of those who traveled on, or helped other travel on, the Underground Railroad, at an extraordinary risk to their lives. But is also important for us to focus on the past because the lessons of that period in our history are still with us today, and as we attempt to alleviate the racial inequities which still exist in our society, we must not forget what came before. For these reasons, I am very pleased that, as part of the ongoing work of the New Bedford Whaling National Historical Park, the National Park Service has been helping improve our understanding of the city's role in the Underground Railroad. This effort will be supplemented in many valuable ways now that the President has signed into law the National Underground Railroad Network to Freedom Act, a bill I cosponsored and strongly supported. These two initiatives, along with the continued fine work of the many residents of New Bedford who have done so much to keep the Underground Railroad legacy alive for years without federal assistance, will ensure that this important history is preserved for future generations. Though I regret that I am unable to join in the celebration in person because the House will be in session on the 17th, I am especially pleased that New Bedford will be taking the time to publicly celebrate the 160th anniversary of this important date in the city's and our country's history, and I ask that the Mayor's proclamation on Frederick Douglass Day be reprinted here. Proclamation Frederick Douglass Day Whereas: New Bedford was an important station on the ``underground railroad'' and Whereas: Frederick and Anna Johnson arrived in New Bedford on September 17, 1838 via the underground railroad and Whereas: Frederick and Anna Johnson were given refuge by Nathan and Mary Johnson at their 21 Seventh Street residence and Whereas: Nathan Johnson was responsible for giving Frederick his last name of DOUGLASS and Whereas: Frederick received one of his first jobs as a freeman, on the wharves of New Bedford and Whereas: Three of the Douglass children were born in New Bedford, Rosetta, Lewis, and Frederick Jr. and Whereas: Frederick Douglass gave his first speech in New Bedford, at the Third Christian Church and Whereas: The Douglass family resided in New Bedford until 1842 and Whereas: September 17, 1998, marks the 160th anniversary of the escape of Frederick Douglass from slavery to New Bedford. Therefore, I, Mayor Frederick M. Kalisz Jr., hereby proclaim Thursday September 17, 1998, as FREDERICK DOUGLASS DAY and urge all its citizens to appropriately commemorate this day.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased on behalf of the minority to give my strong support to this legislation. The gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson), who is one of the sponsors, very eloquently outlined what the bill does. We have been the beneficiaries in recent years in particular of the excellent work done by law enforcement people. There is no greater responsibility for government than the protection of its citizens. Until fairly recently, there were serious gaps in our ability to provide that protection in many parts of this country. We still are not where we should be. But across this country there has been significant improvements in this government and State and local government's ability to protect its citizens against those who would prey on them. And, obviously, one of those entities most responsible for this are law enforcement officers. We have ended a sterile debate, I hope, as to whether we needed more law enforcement officers or better procedures. Obviously, the answer is both. And to a great extent we have had both. I do want to note that providing well-trained, well-equipped law enforcement officers in adequate numbers is a function of government. It is supported by taxes. It is one of those things which, if we are going to do it well we will have to have a government that has the resources to provide it, because this is not something that we can do in our own individual capacities. As part of that effort, it is entirely appropriate that we single out for a medal of this sort individual officers who from time to time show extraordinary valor. We should be very clear, there are no nonvalorous people in law enforcement. One does not strap on a weapon and put themselves out front as a target for the criminal element; one does not insert themselves as a shield between law-abiding citizens and their property and those who would viciously take advantage of it if they are not a person of valor. We saw that in the murder of those two brave officers here in the Capitol that my colleague alluded to. The first one noted, Officer Chestnut, was at his post and he was unfortunately the target. Because we say to law enforcement officials, ``Arm yourself and put yourself out there,'' and sadly we have no alternative to this, the vicious will get the first shot. So we do not mean to suggest by this that we are singling out those who are brave and not others. There is an inherent bravery in anyone who undertakes that job of being a law enforcement officer. And that is why it is appropriate that we talk here about extraordinary demonstrations of bravery. So as a way of honoring all those in law enforcement who literally put their lives at risk every single day to protect the rest of us, as we were so tragically reminded here, and to recognize as a mark of the gratitude of a generous society those extraordinary efforts, this is an entirely reasonable piece of legislation and I support it. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining on both sides?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley), an eminent historian.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for making that correction. I want to acknowledge that the gentleman does stand as the superior executioner of this particular dragon.

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