Barney Frank

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, the previous remarks highlight the disconnect between reality and what the opponents are saying. There is now on the books such a mandate. The gentleman acts as if this amendment would create it. The law now says, and has for 10 years, that you must show to the employer that you are legally entitled to work in the United States. Employers are legally at risk. If they fail to ask and it turns out they have hired someone who is not legally entitled to work, they are at risk. I do not understand this argument. If you want to abolish sanctions, okay, but you cannot argue that this amendment creates an obligation which we have had for 10 years. I would point out, by the way, that it is so onerous an obligation that most people apparently do not even realize we have it.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I think it may have been someone whose initials are N.G.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, as much as I admire my friend the ranking member, his talking about the camel's nose under the tent reinforces my view that, if we were to restrict free speech at all, we should make it illegal to use metaphors in the discussion of public policy. We are not talking about camels, noses and tents. We are talking about whether or not we have a rational approach to enforcing the laws against illegal immigration. I have to say that, of all the things in my life that puzzle me, why so many of my liberal friends have such an aversion to this simple measure is the greatest. As a matter of fact, if we do not use an identification system, let us be very clear, we are not talking about a card anybody has to carry anywhere. What we are saying is what would seem to be the very noncontroversial principle, if one were applying for a job, one of the things one should be asked to do is to verify that one is legally eligible to take the job and is in this country legally. During the great period of time in life when one is not applying for a job, which for most of us is most of the time, then one will not be bothered with this. It only applies when applying for a job. Now, Mr. Chairman, what are the alternatives? If we do not do this, what are the alternatives? The alternatives are much more interference with liberty. If in fact we do not try to break the economic nexus that has people hired illegally and the only way we can do that is by simply requiring that people identify, that they are here legally, then we get into much more repressive efforts. We get into much more interference with liberty. A free society like ours with enormous numbers of people coming and going, with enormous amounts of goods flowing in and out cannot physically bar entry. We understand that most people who come here come here to work. What this says is all we are going to say is that if you in fact come here to get a job, one of the things you will have to do when you give all this information--by the way, the notion that you are now allowed to apply for a job in perfect anonymity seems puzzling. This is an invasion of privacy. What the invasion of privacy? When going and applying for a job, one has to prove that one is here legally. 1515 Now, I think they have to prove maybe what their education is, maybe they have to prove their age, maybe they have to prove a lot of things. How can it be logically argued that it is an invasion of privacy to add to all the information they already have to give, their social security number, and et cetera; and, oh, by the way, can we please establish that they are here legally? It does not make any sense. I have friends on the left who react; I do not understand why. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman talked about the Japanese roundup, one of the worst periods in American history and wholly irrelevant to this. It has absolutely nothing in common, absolutely nothing in common at all. Locking people up because of their ancestry has nothing in common with saying, by the way, in addition to social security, educational qualifications and everything else, we want to make sure that they are here legally. That puzzles me. As a matter of fact, the only way to prevent discrimination based on national origin, or to minimize it; we can never prevent anything; but the way to minimize it is to, in fact, have a better system of identification. The better the system of identification, the less likely we are to have this discrimination. So I do not understand. Yes, people are afraid of forms of national identification. That is not what we are talking about. And on the other side we have the conservative trend that has grown up that we saw in the terrorism bill, and apparently on the right wing we now have this increasing view that the American Government is the enemy and is to be prevented from enforcing any of its laws. Now, I do not believe that a purely voluntary system makes sense. If, in fact, we cannot go beyond this to adopt an amendment that makes this a binding thing, we are talking about simple rhetoric. But this is obviously the first step in that war. And let us be clear what we are talking about. We are requiring that when one applies for a job or applies for a benefit, where being legally in this country is a prerequisite under the law, they have to prove it. To turn this into some act of oppression makes no sense whatsoever, and, as a matter of fact, the opposite is the case. If we do not allow ourselves to use this simple, straightforward system of requiring verification when one applies, we will be inviting a great deal more in the way of repression. Unless my colleagues are prepared to say that all the laws on the books about illegal immigration can be flattened at will because, without this kind of verification, that is what happens, then my colleagues are to vote against this amendment and vote later for an amendment that will begin to make this a requirement.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume for what I believe will be my final comments, although I make no guarantees. Mr. Speaker, I want to say first that I appreciate the gentleman from New Mexico's point as a member of the Committee on the Judiciary. I think he has made the only appropriate statement we can make. We do not set precedents here in the way a legal court does. No Congress binds a future Congress. Mr. Speaker, the Congress retains always not the right but the responsibility to make judgments case by case, and I think the gentleman from New Mexico has fairly pointed out, should some other individuals come before the Congress and be able to make claims that Congress finds similarly meritorious, they may benefit. I do have to differ a little bit with the argument that says, well, we should not do it for anybody if we cannot do it for everybody. Mr. Speaker, we unfortunately rarely can do justice for everyone. I have myself, because I served on the Administrative Law Subcommittee which dealt with claims, on the Immigration Subcommittee, been part of bringing to this floor legislation that made some people whole when other people similarly situated were not made whole. We can never do it all, and I think it would be a mistake to say either we do all of it or we do none of it. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Mexico, who I think stated it the best way we can. This neither sets a precedent nor precludes someone. Any new case will be judged on the same merits, and I must say I think that we have dealt with this in a nonpartisan and fair manner. I believe other people who might find themselves as claimants can be assured similarly. The one thing I would take issue with was one of the previous speakers referred to this as a sordid enterprise at the White House, and I would disagree with that. I think the administration made an error. I think it was an error in several ways, in part because it happened early in the administration. I am convinced that they would know better now and would not repeat this. But an error having been made, then I think people ought to be compensated, and we ought to recognize that that opportunity will exist in the future if other people can make a similar case. We will not do justice to everyone, but I would not let that be a reason not to do some justice for some people. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the very thoughtful manner in which the chairman of the subcommittee has managed this at subcommittee. We did adopt a few amendments to tighten it up. I should note that this is not entirely unprecedented. As a matter of fact, well back in the early 1980's the Congress appropriated funds to compensate for lawyer's fees, Hamilton Jordan, because when he was working for Jimmy Carter he was, wholly unfairly, accused of things. At the point the independent counsel statute, then called the special prosecutor statute, had a very, very low trigger, and very irresponsible and inaccurate accusations against Mr. Jordan triggered the statute as it was then written. He was then compensated. Indeed, the former Member of the House who is now the Secretary of Agriculture carried the bill at the time because he chaired the appropriate subcommittee, and Mr. Jordan was compensated for his attorney's fees. So it is not unprecedented that we compensate people who were unfairly put to the need to hire attorneys. In fact, after the Jordan situation, when Congress reenacted the independent counsel statute in 1982, I believe it was, we raised the trigger because we did not want others to have to go through that. We also included a provision there which had not been in the original act, which compensates anybody who was the subject of an independent counsel investigation, the potential target who is not indicated. Indeed a great deal of money has been paid out, and I would guess millions of dollars for that as the price of this statute, because then under the independent counsel statute people find themselves investigated where they might not otherwise have been because the trigger, although higher than originally, is still lower than in some cases. Also in the course of that the late Judge George McKinnon, who was a very distinguished head of the special court that appointed independent counsel, developed a lot of law which we alluded to, I believe, in this report and in the discussion in committee to properly distinguish between lawyer's fees that ought to be compensated and other fees that should not be. Lawyers can do a lot of things for people. They can write articles; they can be public relations advisers. Judge McKinnon set down some very good criteria for differentiating between those properly compensable fees and other expenses, and I am glad to say that I think we will be building on that in that. I think the precedent that, having been set before, is useful to follow now, and it is not a binding precedent. No one can then come before us and say, ``You must do that.'' We are not governed by the rule of stare decisis the way the courts are. However, I think reaffirming the principle that people who have unfairly been put to significant legal expenses, people who were there not because they happen to be in the way of some investigation as an ordinary citizen, but people who because of their governmental position and because of a variety of factors were put to expenses that they should not have had to have been put to, that it is reasonable to compensate them. It is not the first time we have done it. In my judgment it should not necessarily be the last time, because there are other cases where people are involved. I think it is appropriate to provide the funds for these people here, and understand that we are once again affirming a principle that people who have been unfairly put to great expenses, particularly people of no great personal wealth, ought to be able to look to this Congress for some compensation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman], the ranking member of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, there is an increasing agreement in America that we suffer from the excessively violent and negative tone of political rhetoric. As is often the case when people find something they dislike, there is a good deal of discussion as to how this unfortunate situation came about. In an excellent article in the Wednesday column of the March 6 issue of The Hill, reporter David Grann analyzes this issue and makes the point, persuasively and accurately, that Speaker Gingrich bears a great deal of the responsibility for this situation, because of his creative efforts to encourage his fellow Republicans to escalate the vehemence of their rhetorical attacks on the Democrats. As Mr. Grann notes in the article, ``In 1990, Gingrich's now-famous political action committee, GOPAC, sent out a leaflet to Republican candidates nationwide * * * (which) recommended 60 of the Speaker's favorite words to demonize Democrats and the establishment,''. Speaker Gingrich in his pre-Speaker days proved very effective in using extremely negative, demeaning language about his opposition, and unfortunately, in politics as in other ventures, success often breeds imitation. We cannot effectively diminish the unfortunate excessive reliance on rhetoric of this sort without understanding what causes proliferation, and I therefore ask that David Grann's very thoughtful analysis be printed here. The Dangers of Newtspeak In 1989, Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) declared that ``nobody would notice if you decapitated the top 12,000 bureaucrats and started over.'' In 1994, sensing a GOP victory, the leader of the Republican revolution denounced the Democratic Congress as ``the enemy of ordinary Americans.'' Today, Pat Buchanan beckons his brigade of ``peasants with pitchforks'' to storm the corrupt establishment and ``lock and load'' their weapons. But this time the insurgents' guns are pointing at Speaker Newt Gingrich. If ideas have consequences, then Buchanan's peasant rebellion is the logical culmination of Gingrich's relentless rhetorical warfare against Washington. And if lawmakers need to censor TV violence with a V-chip, then Americans may soon need a V-chip for politicians. In 1990, Gingrich's now-famous political action committee, GOPAC, sent out a leaflet to Republican candidates nationwide titled: ``Language, a Key Mechanism of Control.'' Saying many people ``wish [they] could speak like Newt,'' it recommended 60 of the Speaker's favorite words to demonize Democrats and the establishment, including such poll-tested treats as ``destroy,'' ``traitors,'' ``devour,'' ``lie,'' ``cheat'' and ``threaten.'' ``This list is prepared so that you might have a directory of words to use in writing literature and mail, in preparing speeches, and in producing electronic medium,'' the leaflet reads. ``The words and phrases are powerful. Read them. [Emphasis added.] Memorize as many as possible. And remember that, like any tool, these words will not help if they are not used.'' Republicans, like kids discovering matches, used them again and again. Gingrich, who lit the biggest torch, derided the House as a ``corrupt institution.'' ``There are two realities to the current system,'' he railed. ``One is the government is trying to cheat you; and the second is the government is lying to you about what it's doing.'' Other GOP candidates mixed and matched the words, finding rich new combinations: the ``liberal'' ``welfare state'' ``devours'' ordinary Americans with its ``traitorous lies.'' These verbal assaults fueled Americans' distrust of, and disgust for, Democrats and paved the way for the Gingrich revolution. Who, after all, could trust ``a trio of muggers'' like former Speakers Jim Wright (D-Texas), Tip O'Neill (D- Mass.) and Tom Foley (D-Wash.) ? The problem is that talking ``like Newt'' has de- legitimized American democracy to the point that no one--not even Gingrich--can redeem it. Even as the GOP tries to reform the Washington culture and balance the budget, Buchanan decries the current establishment--to a standing ovation--as ``hollow to the core.'' In such an anti-Washington climate, protest candidates like Steve Forbes and Buchanan rise because they have never held public office, while the GOP freshmen, the insurgents of 1994, are suddenly derided as part of the problem. Which begs the question: How can a country be governed if anyone who governs it is unworthy of governing? Gingrich, realizing the consequences of his own words, has sheathed his rhetorical sword and tried to muzzle the same freshmen who memorized his list. He understands, more than anyone, that burning down the establishment in 1996, as some of the upstart Republicans have suggested, ``threatens'' to ``devour'' a Republican Congress, not a Democratic one. None of this seems to bother the bombastic Buchanan, who has his eye on the White House. The commentator of ``Crossfire'' has his own personal political dictionary. (Remember ``pusillanimous pussyfooters?'') But Gingrich, however ruefully, has given him something more important than works: a receptive audience. The irony is that Gingrich's revolution, despite the rhetoric, is relatively mainstream; a balance budget amendment, a line item veto and tort reform are not exactly radical. Yet, as Gingrich has long noted, words have power. And political cries for revolution, however figurative or fashionable, eventually corrode even the healthiest democracy. What can be done? To begin with, Republicans can turn to another list of words included in Gingrich's 1990 mailing. These ``optimistic positive governing words,'' the leaflet says, ``help define your campaign and your vision of public service. In addition, these words help develop the positive side of the contrast you should create with your opponent, giving your community something to vote for!'' Some gentle words for Buchananites: ``share,'' ``humane,'' ``listen,'' ``dream,'' ``peace'' and ``common sense.'' But if Republicans keep barking from the other script, Gingrich may soon look out the Capitol window and see an army of peasants with pitchforks rising over the Potomac.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I thank the senior minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary, who made such a good statement. I appreciate his reminding me that I have been on the committee, because I could have sworn I was on the committee. I went to a lot of meetings of something that I was told was the Committee on the Judiciary, and I was voting on something called the terrorism bill, but then I see the bill that is on the floor today, and it is not the bill that we worked on in committee. I very much regret the way the leadership of the House, and I do not believe this is a decision of the committee leadership, I am talking about the House leadership, the House leadership and the Committee on Rules. I regret the way they are systematically denigrating the work of the committee. That is not simply a matter of jurisdiction of turf, it is a matter of legislative procedure that goes to substance. We are dealing here with about as important a set of issues as we can. How does a democratic society committee to democracy, committed to individual rights, committed to openness, deal with the murderous threat of a small handful of people, internationally based, who are trying to wreak harm in that society? There can be no more important or more difficult task than to arm the law enforcement people, the decent and hard-working and well-intentioned law enforcement people of this country, with the tools that allow them to counter the terrorists who are increasingly a worldwide group, although obviously our domestic people contributed sadly a great deal to this, how do you arm them while at the same time preserving democracy and individual rights? That is a process that takes some balance. I did not agree with everything in the bill that came out of the Committee on the Judiciary, but the chairman presided over a very fair markup, gave consideration to legislation on the merits offered to amendments, and that bill came out that I voted for because I thought it achieved that balance, and then once it was no longer in the hands of the committee and the committee leadership, the Republican leadership made the decision that they had to conciliate their own right wing, and we therefore have a bill today which is so different than the bill that came out of committee. Let me give you an example. One of the provisions that was in the committee bill, and it was narrowed in committee. I did not agree with the narrowing. That is the way the committee process worked out. It allowed the Attorney General of the United States to call on the U.S. military if she could certify that she had no civilian expertise and needed military expertise to deal with certain weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical weapons. That was included in the committee bill. It was narrowed in committee, but no one in committee even moved to knock it out. Lo and behold, words I do not often get to use, lo and behold, the bill comes on the floor of the House, and that language is missing. I went to the Committee on Rules yesterday and said I have an amendment. I would like to restore to the bill language that was in committee, and the chairman of the Committee on Rules said, well, it is not germane. Language that the committee adopted modified, giving the Attorney General of the United States the ability to call on the military of the United States for expertise if she can find that expertise nowhere else, specifically, said the military cannot arrest, the military cannot do detention, the military expertise, special expertise in weapons of mass destruction can be made available. It was in the committee bill. The right wing, sadly, tragically, increasingly, regards the U.S. armed services to some extent as a bad guy. It is a very interesting factor here. Why did language empowering the Attorney General to ask the U.S. military for assistance that was in the committee bill not only disappear but it is not germane, it is not allowable to be offered? Because the right wing had to be palliated. The right wing, maybe they thought these military people were going to come in black helicopters. I do not know what paranoia on the American right that is involved here. I know it is tragic the Committee on the Judiciary was compelled by its leadership to give in. We are going to see this with the immigration bill, by the way. We had a very good process on the immigration bill once again. Once it left the Committee on the Judiciary, where the chairman presided over a fair and deliberative markup and we came up with a bill, balanced, although some liked it, some did not, it leaves the committee, and right wing pressures are applied through the Republican leadership to change, and presto chango, how things happen, things disappear, things appear, and this terrorism bill, things affirmed in committee have been knocked out. Things not in are put back in. Things in the committee with amendment, amended, and it is critical for this reason: We need to draw a balance. I am in favor of enhanced law enforcement powers to deal with terrorism, but I want those powers to be accompanied by safeguards tailored to make sure the powers are exercised well. I want judicial review in a reasonable way. I want people who may have had their rights interfered with able to sue in reasonable fora. I voted for the bill in committee. I am going to have to wait and see how we vote on this. We no longer have the careful product from the committee. We have something that has been jerked out of shape by the leadership of this House giving in to right wing pressure.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I have noticed a very consistent lack of consistency on the Republican side. This bill carries it out. We are worried that people will get Federal money and use it to lobby us, so we have to ask them to report it, except we exempt the vast majority of recipients. Contractors are exempted from this. Members will remember that the U.S. Senate, in a rare demonstration of an ability to pass legislation, made a mistake last year, because they passed a version of this and they included contractors, and Blue Cross went into cardiac arrest. Fortunately, they waived their own rules so they could be treated. But they then got into the CR, in a very inappropriate legislative way, an amendment to that bill, and contractors are not covered, and they are not covered here. If people want to lobby us to build a B-2 and get more money, this bill does not touch them. If people want to lobby us to build the space station or to raise provider payments or do anything like that, this bill does not touch them. Apparently, the new Republican view is if you are engaged in charity, you are suspect. We hear a lot on that side about how the private, voluntary sector should do more, but they are treated as suspects, because if you are in the private, voluntary sector and you get Federal funds lawfully to carry out a program, we are going to check up on you. But if you are a contractor and you are going to get money and then lobby for more, if you are a housing developer, if you are an aircraft contractor, if you are a medical provider, if you are an HMO, you will get money and not be reporting. What is the difference? The difference is that the people who do not report get an enormously greater amount of money than the people who do report. This looks at the gnats and ignores the camels. By the way, the tobacco companies are probably also included in the exemption, while we are at it. So you penalize the voluntary sector, who you otherwise like. When it comes to shifting important jobs from the Federal Government, you are all for the voluntary sector. But here you discriminate against them, because if this were not a problem, you would not have given it to Blue Cross when they came for an exemption and you would not continue to exempt the private contractors.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, one of the few positive issues on which much of the world unites these days is support for the Olympic games. For most Americans, the fact that the games will be held in the United States makes this year's games especially important. And for these reasons, the people of southeastern Massachusetts, and especially the people of the town of Freetown, are proud that Melissa Cornell of Freetown has been named as one of those who will carry the Olympic torch. As the accompanying article from the New Bedford Standard Times shows, Melissa Cornell is an extremely impressive young woman, and I congratulate Lisa Devlin of the I.H. Schwartz Center for nominating her and the U.S. Olympic Committee for selecting her for this honor. Mr. Speaker, the story of this young woman is an inspiring one and I ask that the article from the New Bedford Standard Times about Melissa Cornell and her selection as an Olympic torch bearer be printed here. [From the New Bedford Standard Times] Community Hero Chosen to Carry Olympic Torch (By Elizabeth Lawton) In July, the Olympics will be coming to Atlanta. For lifelong resident Melissa Cornell, the festivities have already begun. Thanks to a nomination sent in to the U.S. Olympic Committee by Lisa Devlin of the I.H. Schwartz Center in New Bedford, stating Melissa's kindness, generosity and willingness to always help others, a package arrived at her Chipaway Lane home via UPS, informing her of being selected to carry the Olympic torch on June 15 in Boston. ``I'm wicked excited, but I didn't really believe it,'' said Melissa. The road that brought Melissa here has not been without pain and struggles. Melissa, daughter of Steven and Alice Cornell, was 4 years old when a brain tumor was discovered. She endured three operations that left her partially paralyzed. She was a student at the I.H. Schwartz Center before going on to graduate in 1983 from Apponequet Regional High School in Lakeville. She has since given freely of her time at the center, and to Easter Seals and many other charitable organizations that she feels she can help. Melissa's philosophy for life is one of giving back to those who have helped her along the journey. Some might look at Melissa and see her as physically challenged; I had the privilege of spending a recent snowy afternoon watching her teach an 8-year-old to tie shoes, do origami and zipper, all with the use of only her left hand. It was I who felt challenged. Melissa doesn't allow much to slow her down. ``I like to get up every day and do things,'' she says. On Feb. 21, Melissa, along with 67 other Massachusetts residents, was honored as a community hero in a reception at Boston City Hall, with the Boston Mayor Thomas Menino welcoming his guests, along with Marion Heard, president of the United Way of Massachusetts Bay, and respresentatives of Coca-Cola Bottlers of New England. Melissa will receive an official Olympic running uniform that she will wear June 15 as she carries the 3\1/2\-pound torch and runs her half mile toward yet another goal: representing Freetown in this official Olympic event. We all need heroes to help us remember the goodness in all people. Melissa, we are proud to know you and have you as our hometown hero. We will be with you--if not in body, in spirit--on June 15 as you continue on your journey. The Olympic Search Committee lists a community hero as someone who performs outstanding volunteer work, serves as a community leader, role model or mentor, performs acts of generosity or kindness; and performs extraordinary feats locally or nationally. The statement of purpose of the U.S. Olympic Committee in Atlanta says: ``The committee for the Olympic Games seeks to honor America's community heroes, people whose service to others embraces the Olympic Spirit. For 84 days and 15,000 miles across America, Community Hero Torchbearers will bring the glow of the Olympic Flame to their communities along the route of the 1996 Olympic Torch Relay.''

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I welcome the eloquent comments of my colleague from Texas who just spoke. This is for all who care about the best instincts of humanity, a terribly sad day. The people of Israel, a democratic society represented by a democratically elected government, have been in the process for the past couple of years of taking risks for peace, of reaching out in ways that societies do not always do. The Israelis have shown a willingness to cede control of territory that was hard-earned in wartime and in a war forced on them by the intransigence and hostility of its enemies, and the effort by the Government of Israel to bring about this peace has tragically been responded to by a minority, but unfortunately a significant minority, within the Arab world, by a campaign of vicious murder. No society, and certainly no democratic society where the people rule as they do in Israel, can tolerate this sort of assault on the citizenry. We should make very clear from the outset that the Government of the United States is fully supportive of the decisions that have been made and will be made by the government of Prime Minister Peres. No one has done more to show his dedication to true peace and by that very fact, as well as by the right of self-defense inherent in any state, and particularly for a democratic society, Prime Minister Peres and his colleagues have earned the right to take the steps that they need to in self-defense with our full support, and that will include sending Israeli security forces anywhere in the area where they are required to go, because you cannot sit back and let dozens and dozens of your people be slaughtered defenselessly. You have the absolute, not just right, but obligation to defend them, and the United States should make very clear that it will be supportive of this. Arguments that somehow this is incompatible with the peace process cannot be given any weight, because what could be less compatible with the peace process than the systematic brutal murder of dozens of innocent people by the Hamas terrorists. People should understand that, again, Israel being a democratic society, it cannot go forward with a peace process until and unless its security can be provided. I thought the chance for genuine peace in the Middle East was one of the finest hours we have seen. I still hope that we will get the benefits of that. But people must understand that protecting the innocent citizens of Israel against this sort of butchery is an absolute precondition to any further progress in the peace process. No democratically elected government would try, and it would not succeed if it did try, and it would not deserve to succeed if it did try, to go forward with a peace process without securing the defense of its citizens. And an especially important burden lies with the leadership of the Arab world, of Yasser Arafat, who has clearly done far too little, we now learn, to enforce the law and true peace. The Palestinian leadership cannot at the same time profit from the steps towards peace and then fail to use the authority they are getting to put an end to this murder. If the Palestinian authority cannot put an end to this systematic, organized murder that comes from within their ranks, they will not have a moral claim and they will not have a legal claim and they will not have a claim anyone will recognize to control the territory. But it is also important for us to talk to our Arab friends, the Saudi Arabians and others. It is not enough simply to dissociate themselves from these murderers, it is simply not enough to look the other way unless there is a sustained willingness on the part of the Arab leadership to cut off funds. These are not people who are earning a living by some honorable means. They cannot go forward with this terrorism without substantial subsidies in which governments are complicit. The President of Syria, a great defender of terrorism, must be told any dream he has of regaining control of the Golan Heights totally evaporates now and for the foreseeable future until he begins a reversal and says, ``We will crack down on terrorism.'' I believe the peace process was one of the finest hours of mankind. I believe the Israeli government was distinguishing itself. I was hopeful there was within the Arab world the kind of responsible leadership that would reach out and meet that. Today that is in question. It is not enough to condemn and wink and look the other way. It is important that we get a full commitment from the Arab leadership to cooperate fully with the Israeli leadership in putting an end to these murderers' ability to murder. Otherwise, one of the things they will have murdered will be the peace process.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller], the ranking member of the Committee on Resources, which should have had jurisdiction over this bill. (Mr. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from American Samoa [Mr. Faleomavaega].

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. LaFalce], a cosponsor of the bill. (Mr. LaFALCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee]. (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Torricelli].

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, this has been the month of self-repudiation by the Republican majority. Last week, the Party of Free Enterprise brought forward a bill which said that while the free enterprise system can handle telecommunications and computers and automobiles, it is not quite up to peanuts or sugar. So peanuts and sugar remain exempt from the free enterprise system in this Republican bill. Now the party that talks about States' rights is planning to spend millions of Federal dollars on a study that will, among other things, look into the enormous national question of, and I quote from page 6, ``an examination of State lottery advertising practices, including the process by which States award lottery advertising contracts.'' Apparently the States, now we are going to test them. We are going to let them experiment with easier issues like Medicaid, welfare, a few things like that. Once they have shown that they can handle Medicaid and welfare, then maybe we will let them handle the tough issue of lottery advertising contracts. Now, how do people who purport to be advocates of States' rights tell us we are going to spend millions of Federal dollars to investigate the way the States issue lottery contracts, and tell the States how to do it better? Because on page 5 it says this commission shall look into gambling and make such changes, it says, existing Federal, State, and local policy and practices with respect to legalization and propose such changes in those policies and practices as the commission shall deem appropriate. Here come big brother and sister, not out of the goodness of the heart, by the way, under this fiscally responsible Congress. These people will be paid at an annual rate of $115,000 a year for 2 years, depending on how many meetings they have. They can self-pay. They can generate meetings for themselves until they myth the $115,000. And they will be investigating the States and proposing recommendations and changes in what the States do. This confirms my view that there is not on the other side any consistent belief in States' rights. The people on the other side believe that the issue should be decided at that level of government where they will like the outcome. There are many over there who do not think that people should gamble. The States have, from their standpoint, been lax. So forget about the States rights stuff. We will stick Thomas Jefferson back on the shelf. We will spend millions of dollars to make these recommendations of what the States are doing. I presume we will probably be then asked to act on these things. By the way, whatever happened to the notion of government not interfering with individuals? How dare these adults earn money and go out and gamble. How dare they offend the morality of some of our friends on the other side who do not think it is right. I read the Washington Post series. Do my colleagues know what it sounded like yesterday? Prohibition of alcohol. Sure, we can find in any human endeavor people who abuse it. There are people who smoke too much and drink too much and gamble too much and they buy more expensive cars than they ought to buy, and there are people who watch too much C- SPAN and become adversely affected. But in a free society, in a free society, particularly people who purport to distrust government do not answer that by saying, The government will tell you what to do with your money; you are not doing it wisely. That is obviously the premise behind this. Then, of course, we have the Indians, who have been running casinos quite successfully. And they listen to these kinds of assaults on them and, as I have said before, I believe that this kind of legislation further convinces native Americans that the only mistake in Pat Buchanan's immigration policies is that they come 300 years too late, because the native Americans have been running the gambling quite successfully and they have been benefiting from it. And here comes big brother and sister, millions of dollars, forget about the States, forget about the Indians, forget about individuals rights. We know better and we will tell you what to do. It is wholly inconsistent.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas].

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada [Mr. Ensign]. (Mr. ENSIGN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. LoBiondo]. (Mr. LoBIONDO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Richardson]. (Mr. RICHARDSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Kildee]. (Mr. KILDEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior], the minority whip. (Mr. BONIOR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)