REFERENCE: Vol. 134 No. 114

TITLE: CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 442, CIVIL LIBERTIES ACT OF 1988

SPEAKER: Mr. AKAKA; Mr. COBLE; Mr. FRANK; Mr. HOLLOWAY; Mr. LOWRY of Washington; Mr. MILLER of California; Mrs. SAIKI; Mr. SHUMWAY; Mr. SWINDALL; Mr. WEISS

TEXT:
Text that appears in UPPER CASE identifies statements or insertions which are not spoken by a Member of the House on the floor.

[*H6261] Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 442) to implement recommendations of the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians.

The Clerk read the title of the bill.

The SPEAKER. Pursuant to the rule, the conference report is considered as having been read.

(For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of July 26, 1988.)

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Mineta). The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] will be recognized for 30 minutes and the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Swindall] will be recognized for 30 minutes.

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I oppose the bill, and under the rule I demand 20 minutes.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Swindall] opposed to the conference report?

Mr. SWINDALL. Mr. Speaker, I am in favor of the conference report, and I am amenable to the gentleman's request.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Coble] will be recognized for 20 minutes and the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Swindall] will be recognized for 20 minutes.

Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to conversations among the three of us, I make the unanimous-consent request that pursuant to what the majority leader asked earlier, the time be divided as follows: that the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Swindall] and myself have up to 14 minutes today and up to 6 minutes tomorrow, the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Coble] 12 minutes today and up to 8 minutes tomorrow.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Massachusetts?

There was no objection.

Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, this is a very important day, and I thank all Members for allowing us to accommodate in a busy schedule this important piece of legislation. There are a number of Members who are very much concerned.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller].

(Mr. MILLER of California asked and was givern permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.

MR. SPEAKER, I RISE IN SUPPORT OF THE CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 442.

[*H6262] THIS IS LONG OVERDUE LEGISLATION DESIGNED TO ADDRESS THE PERSONAL AND FINANCIAL INJURIES CAUSED BY THE INTERNMENT OF OVER 120,000 AMERICANS OF JAPANESE ANCESTRY DURING MOST OF WORLD WAR II.

SOME ERRONEOUSLY VIEW THIS LEGISLATION AS A "GIFT" TO INTERNEES. NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH.

THIS LEGISLATION IS A GIFT FROM THE INTERNEES TO EACH AMERICAN WHO LOVES AND RESPECTS OUR CONSTITUTION. BECAUSE WHAT THIS LEGISLATION SAYS IS THAT WE, IN THE CONGRESS, RECOGNIZE THE ENORMOUS BLUNDER AND DISRESPECT FOR CONSTITUTIONAL LIBERTIES WHICH THE INTERNMENT WAS, AND THAT WE VOW NEVER TO PERMIT IT TO REOCCUR.

THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES GUARANTEES THE RIGHTS OF ALL CITIZENS, INCLUDING JAPANESE-AMERICANS, IN TIMES OF PEACE AS WELL AS DURING TIMES OF WAR. THIS LEGISLATION SENDS A CLEAR MESSAGE TO OUR PEOPLE THAT AS A COUNTRY, WE WILL CONSTANTLY UPHOLD THESE RIGHTS FOR ALL THE RACIAL GROUPS, THE ETHNIC GROUPS AND THE SOCIAL GROUPS WHICH ARE PART OF THIS COUNTRY.

THE INTERNMENT OF JAPANESE-AMERICANS WAS ORDERED AS A RESULT OF THE CONCLUSIONS OF MILITARY LEADERS THAT JAPANESE-AMERICANS -- REGARDLESS HOW LONG THEY HAD LIVED HERE OR THEIR UNQUALIFIED LOYALTY TO AMERICA -- POSED A MILITARY THREAT TO THE UNITED STATES. THAT CONCLUSION WAS NOT BASED ON FACTS; IT WAS NOT BASED ON LAW. IT WAS BASED ON RACISM PURE AND SIMPLE.

IN FACT, DURING THE WAR, NOT A SINGLE PERSON OF JAPANESE DESCENT WAS CONVICTED OF ESPIONAGE. JAPANESE-AMERICANS WERE NO DIFFERENT FROM THE AMERICANS OF GERMAN AND ITALIAN DESCENT WHO HAD COME TO AMERICA SEEKING POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC FREEDOM. YET THEY SUFFERED A FATE FAR MORE CRUEL AND UNJUST THAN ANY OTHER IMMIGRANT GROUP.

I TAKE THIS MATTER VERY PERSONALLY, BECAUSE AMONG THE CHILDREN WITH WHOM I GREW UP THE NORTHERN CALIFORNIA IN THE 1940'S WERE MANY WHOSE PARENTS AND SIBLINGS WERE ASSIGNED TO INTERNMENT CAMPS. MANY OF THESE JAPANESE-AMERICANS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY WERE FARMERS AND SMALL BUSINESS PEOPLE WHO LOST THEIR POSSESSIONS BECAUSE OF THE INTERNMENT POLICY.

IN MY DISTRICT ALONE, THE INTERNMENT FORCED 1,200 PEOPLE TO LEAVE THEIR JOBS, FRIENDS AND POSSESSIONS TO SPEND UP TO 4 YEARS IN PERMANENT RELOCATION CAMPS. ONE OF THOSE CONTRA COSTANS, CHIYEKO TAHIRA, WAS LUCKY ENOUGH TO HAVE CAUCASIAN FRIENDS WITH WHOM SHE HURRIEDLY STORED FAMILY CHINA AND OTHER HEIRLOOMS BEFORE SHE LEFT FOR OVER 3 YEARS INTERNMENT IN TOPAZ, UT. MANY OTHERS WERE NOT SO LUCKY AND RETURNED TO FIND THAT THE BARNS WHERE THEY HAD HIDDEN THEIR BELONGINGS HAD BEEN LOOTED OR BURNED.

BEYOND THE MATERIAL LOSS WAS THE PHSYCHOLOGICAL DAMAGE OF HAVING BEEN SUDDENLY UPROOTED AND LABELED A POTENTIAL TRAITOR. OVER 7,000 OF THE INTERNEES WERE CHILDREN LESS THAN 5 YEARS OLD. THESE CHILDREN WERE SCARED BY THE STRAINS OF OVERCROWDED, IMPOVERISHED LIVING BEHIND CHAIN-LINK FENCES. MOST OF THEM FORTUNATELY SURVIVED THE INTERNMENT EXPERIENCE, RETURNED HOME, AND BEGAN RECONSTRUCTING THEIR LIVES, BURDENED BY FINANCIAL LOSS AND SOCIAL STIGMA. AND ADMIRABLY, THEY MAINTAINED FAITH IN A COUNTRY THAT HAD BROKEN FAITH WITH THEM.

FORTY YEARS AFTER THAT TRAGIC PERIOD OF AMERICAN HISTORY, IT FALLS TO THIS CONGRESS AND THIS GENERATION OF AMERICA TO MAKE AMENDS FOR THE PAST ERROR. IN AUTHORIZING $20,000 TO EACH SURVIVING INTERNEE, WE MAKE ONLY A SYMBOLIC EFFORT TO COMPENSATE THESE JAPANESE-AMERICANS FOR THEIR YEARS OF HARDSHIP. TWENTY THOUSAND DOLLARS IS NOT A GREAT SUM WHEN WE CONSIDER THAT SETTLEMENTS OF UP TO $10,000 WERE MADE FOR ONLY 1 NIGHT OF FALSE IMPRISONMENT DURING THE VIETNAM PROTESTS OF THE LATE SIXTIES.

I AM PROUD TO BE A COSPONSOR OF THIS LEGISLATION, AND WE AS AMERICANS SHOULD BE PROUD THAT WE HAVE FINALLY THE COURAGE TO CONFRONT THIS UNPLEASANT CHAPTER IN OUR NATION'S HISTORY AND ATTEMPT, HOWEVER SYMBOLICALLY, TO RIGHT THE WRONGS. IN APPROVING THIS CONFERENCE REPORT, WE DO FAR MORE THAN ACKNOWLEDGE OUR DEBT TO THE INTERNED JAPANESE-AMERICAN CITIZENS OF THE 1940'S.

WE REITERATE OUR NATIONAL COMMITMENT TO THE PRIMACY OF OUR CONSTITUTION AND THE RULE OF LAW WHICH CAN BE DIMINISHED NEITHER BY RACIAL DISTINCTIONS OR THE PASSAGE OF TIME. BY ADMITTING TO OUR PAST MISTAKES, WE ARE A BETTER AND MORE UNITED COUNTRY TODAY.

IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT WE GIVE THIS CONFERENCE REPORT OUR OVERWHELMING SUPPORT AND NEVER AGAIN ALLOW THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF ANY GROUP OF CITIZENS TO BE SWEPT AWAY BY THE POWERFUL TIDES OF PREJUDICE AND IRRATIONALITY.

Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, a number of people have been very concerned with this bill. We have benefited from the support of the Speaker, the majority leader, the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary who exercised their leadership. One of those who was entitled to claim authorship of this bill because he filed the first version consistent with his genuine concern for the rights of all people is our colleague, the gentleman from the State of Washington [Mr. Lowry].

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Lowry].

(Mr. LOWRY of Washington asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LOWRY of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding time to me.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference report on H.R. 442. I think most of us in this country realize that the real strength of the United States is our Bill of Rights and constitutional protections of individual liberties, that that is what really sets our country apart from types of governments that we really do not agree with.

So the basic issue that is before us and is addressed by the successful passage of this conference report tomorrow and the President signing it into law is that in 1942, when in that time of panic the due process rights and the Bill of Rights rights of the Americans of Japanese ancestry were violated, we are saying that was wrong and this conference report is to address that. It was, of course, especially unique and ironic that the historic and heroic 442d Battalion battle group, made up totally of Americans of Japanese ancestry, were in Europe fighting fascism, fighting for the freedoms that this country so stands for, while at that time other Americans of Japanese ancestry were having exactly those freedoms violated by being put into internment camps, just one of the many examples of the tremendous service that these Americans have been doing for our country, their country, and that their rights were being violated.

I stand in strong support of this conference report. I hope that it will pass tomorrow by an overwhelming margin whereby we will say that this is what America stands for, the Bill of Rights, those constitutional protections for all individuals in this country.

Again I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. SWINDALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Hawaii [Mrs. Saiki].

Mrs. SAIKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my full support for the passage of this conference report, and to urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this historic measure.

I believe this legislation is the fulfillment of a promise, Mr. Speaker, the promise of our country to provide basic civil rights to all.

Governments make mistakes, and our government is no exception. What is different, however, what distinguishes our form of government from others, is that in a democracy based on the inherent constitutional rights of individuals, mistakes must be acknowledged and compensation awarded. Acknowledgment and compensation for the tragic mistake of the internment of loyal, decent Americans is what this legislation is about.

When this legislation was considered on the House floor last year, I spoke about growing up as a young person in Hawaii, and witnessing firsthand the forced relocation of many friends, neighbors, and relatives. Those memories are still with me, Mr. Chairman, and with those who were interned. I believe that the passage of this legislation will help to close this particularly unfortunate chapter in American history.

A great wrong was committed when nearly 120,000 American citizens were forced from their homes and placed in desolate "relocation centers" throughout the West and South. Nearly half of those who were interned have died. Let us not let more time pass before we do what is right.

Mr. Speaker, justice delayed is justice denied. We have waited nearly five decades for justice to be done. The time is now.

I urged my colleagues to support this measure, for with its passage we shall come one step closer to fulfilling the promise of America.

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Shumway].

[*H6263] (Mr. SHUMWAY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SHUMWAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the conference report, and in doing so I realize that my postion here tonight is going to be a minority view. The bill will pass when the vote is taken tomorrow. It will be signed by the President. This measure will become the law.

But nevertheless, I feel that I must speak out and at least express the reasons that I have used to come to the particular conclusion that I have come to. It seems to me that to support this bill, in good faith, one must find a cause and effect relationship, and I simply cannot find it. I have searched desperately. I cannot recall another bill that we have considered in recent years that I have given as much study to as I have this bill. I have done that because I have among my constituents in California many people who are vitally affected by this bill, very interested in it. I have done it because I have colleagues here, notably my good friend, the gentleman from California, Mr. Bob Matsui, who have urged me to consider my position and who have given me some very thought-provoking reasons to do so.

I have studied it because I have read books that have been supplied to me, one of them by John Tateishi called "And Justice for All" containing some very touching stories about those who were kept in these camps.

I really do not have any quarrel with the facts. There was a serious wrong done to many good American citizens, and there are some resulting emotional scars. I can feel the hurt many of the Japanese-Americans feel today and will describe during this debate.

But I do not see the remedy, the payment of $20,000, as the right answer to the equation. Search my conscience and the facts as I might, I simply do not find the justification for that.

This payment will go to some who suffered great harm and, therefore, the payment of $20,000 would be but a token payment to them. It will go to some who suffered very little harm, and to those for whom maybe it will be nothing more than a windfall. It will go to some who made claims under claims statutes in prior years and received payment from the U.S. Government in return for which they signed full releases of any further liability. It will go to some who perhaps had greater allegiance to Japan during those difficult war years.

In spite of these differences in status, the proponents say that we must pay a lump sum to all to address the wrong, that this is the only fair, the only just way to proceed, and they say that this bill, by doing so, reflects our sensitivity to that wrong.

Mr. Speaker, it is at this point that I think the cause and effect relationship really breaks down. I simply cannot match that proclaimed sensitivity with the very arbitrary, cold, mechanistic formula contained in this bill. Those two things just do not jibe and equate, and they do not properly recognize the nature of the wrong.

In my view there are other, more appropriate ways to redress the wrong done to loyal American citizens, and I offered some alternatives during the debate, including the granting of scholarships, perhaps a lasting memorial, and of more interest, a formula that was individualized based upon age and length of detention that would take into account different factors that applied to those who were detained. All of those alternatives were resisted and indeed rejected by the proponents of this legislation, and therefore, we find ourselves tonight facing an arbitrary formula, one which to me does not really address the differences in the level of need and wrong done to different people.

It is ironic to me that many of my friends have said the money does not matter, but at this point, Mr. Speaker, I think the money does matter. I think that we should not pass this legislation on waves of emotionalism, but on sound reason, and for that reason I intend to vote "no" and I would urge my colleagues to do so as well.

Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Hawaii [Mr. Akaka] and I do so for sound reasons on behalf of this sound and reasonable bill.

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the House and Senate conferees for their diligence and determination to complete the conference report on H.R. 442, the Civil Liberties Act of 1987. As you know, on September 17, 1987, the House of Representatives voted in support of this legislation. The Senate followed with passage of S. 1009, a companion bill, on April 20, 1988.

The conference report before us today is a compromise which will begin to address the grave injustice committed against those Japanese Americans who were interned and the Aleuts who were relocated from the Aleutian and Pribilof Islands during World War II.

The conference report extends a formal apology to the more than 120,000 Americans of Japanese ancestry, including at least 1,000 Japanese Americans from Hawaii, who were interned and deprived of their civil liberties. It also authorizes $1.25 billion in reparations to the Japanese Americans living on the date of enactment.

On December 1982, the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians issued their report, "Personal Justice Denied." The Commission found that the evacuation and relocation of Japanese Americans was a "grave injustice" caused by "race prejudice, war hysteria and a failure of political leadership." Since that time Congress has deliberated long and hard on this issue. The time has come for Government to recognize its mistake and provide those interned with just compensation. I know my colleagues will support this bill.

The laws of this country are based on a simple premise, "innocent until proven guilty" However, this basic law was violated when Japanese Americans were relocated and interned. These Americans of Japanese ancestry were "guilty until proven innocent." They were denied their liberty and property without due process of law, a violation of their constitutional right. We cannot ignore this travesty of justice.

I strongly support passage of the conference report; it is a compromise which deserves the full support of the House of Representatives. Passage of this legislation will provide a long overdue apology and a token restitution; it demands our support.

Mr. SWINDALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

First of all, Mr. Speaker, let me say that I differ with some of my colleagues with respect to what this bill is all about. This bill is not about Japanese-Americans. This bill is about the Constitution of the United States of America. This bill is about what each and every one of us does as our first official act when we walk into this Chamber. We raise our right hand and we take an oath of office that says that we will uphold and defend the Constitution.

The Constitution was not enacted in this country until such time as we ratified 10 very fundamental articles. The fifth amendment to the Constitution is what specifically this bill is all about. The fifth amendment says no person can be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. We are a nation not of men but of laws.

What does that mean? What it means, in simple terms, is what thousands of young children see every day when they walk across the street and look up at the facade of the Supreme Court and see the words inscribed, "Equal Justice Under the Law." It is what young children see when they see the statute that has come to symbolize our system of justice where Lady Justice is blind, colorblind, blind in terms of country of natural origin.

What really perturbs me as I look at this bill is many people are making the same mistake that I made when I first heard this bill argued. We are making the mistake of looking at it and saying this is the ethnocentric bill, this is a bill about how macho we are, this is a bill about how American we are. It had nothing to do with that, and I do not think I really understood that and [*H6264] grasped that until a Japanese-American came into my office before we even heard the first bit of evidence about this and he sat down and he said, "I want you to hear this personally, because I know you are going to be hearing the evidence, and I know you are going to be deciding on this."

I said "I want you to imagine -- I know you are the father of a child" and at that point I had one child, and he went on and said, "I want you to imagine how I felt when I walked to my door, opened the door and there stood American soldiers that said, 'We are coming to take your father."' I looked at my father as he was taken off and I said, "Why are they taking you?" And he said, "Because I am Japanese." And I said, "No, we are American, we are not Japanese, we are Americans." And the little boy was right. In this country you are an American citizen the day you are naturalized.

I have spoken at so many immigration swearing-in ceremonies that I could virtually repeat the speech here. I will not.

But one of the points that I always make, no matter the color of the skin, no matter what the national origin is, that the day they take that oath and become a citizen of the United States of America, they can bank on this Constitution.

The gentleman from California earlier said some of this money may go to individuals whose allegiance was still to Japan. I would say to him that may be true, but in this country we do not assume that. That is why we have due process of law. Due process says that if there is some reason that an individual can be deprived of life, liberty, or property, then bring them before our judicial system and prove it. It does not mean in any way that you will not be able to deprive them of life, liberty, or property, but it means there is a proper way.

We cannot embrace this Machiavellian concept that the end justifies the means and that is what we got carried away with a number of years ago.

I want to say that I think this is very important not only for those individuals who are concerned about the Constitution, but I made this argument earlier and I had a number of individuals who told me they had never quite thought in this direction.

I want to focus this debate on those individuals who come into this Chamber and speak from a prolife position, specifically they speak against abortion, constitutional perspective, because the argument they have very simply is that we cannot in this country allow individuals, whether they are born or unborn, to have their life taken without due process of law. And I would just remind my colleagues who have made that position known that if they vote in this instance differently, what they are saying is that they want selective meaning to be placed on the word "person."

You cannot have it both ways; we are either a nation of laws, as Thomas Jefferson said we were, or we are a nation of men where the majority rules irrespective of what this Constitution says.

I do not think there is anything fruitful to go back and try to determine what caused our Government to make the decision that because certain groups of individuals were identifiable that we could throw the Constitution out, we could throw the fifth amendment out.

But I do think that any nation that is grounded on the principle of the rule of law has to understand that when rights are violated, reparation is appropriate. Why is it appropriate? Because it says we are going to repair in a monetary fashion the damage done.

Many times I have argued before juries where I said "I wish I were not asking for money because frankly I think money is a very imprecise way to compensate and try to repair damage." But let us face it, there is very little other ways that you can say, in a meaningful way, that we are sincere when we say we want to repair damage.

If the FBI searches someone's home they are responsible for coming in and repairing the damage; basic restitution.

Why can we not look at the fact that, first, we are talking about a pittance -- in fact, if you take the $20,000 and commute it to cash value back in terms of 1945 to 1950, you are talking about $7,000 roughly. You are talking about individuals who gave up their livelihood, you are talking about individuals who gave up their citizenship and you are talking about individuals who gave up their property, many of them never to reclaim it.

What price can you place on citizenship? What price can you pay to repair the damage that was done to that young boy 45 years ago when his Dad was carried off and he said, "But Dad, you are an American citizen"? There is not a price. But I really and truly think as a fiscal conservative that it is ludicrous to stand in this body and try to nickel and dime what ought to be paid.

Not a single penny of this money goes to a single person who was not personally interned.

Do you realize every day juries come back with verdicts for false imprisonment of an hour, 2 hours, 3 hours, of $10,000 to $20,000?

So we are not talking here about money.

In conclusion, we are talking about this Constitution. I want to close with a conversation I had this morning.

I had breakfast this morning with Judge Robert Bork -- I should say former Judge Robert Bork. We all know that Judge Bork's views are fairly clear in terms of the Constitution.

I said, "Judge Bork, we are going to be debating a bill today on the floor, the Japanese internment bill." He said, "Yes, I am familiar with it." I said, "Let me ask you a question. I know you are an individual who believes in strict construction, original understanding. What is your opinion about that?" His answer in a nutshell was that he thinks it is a constitutionally correct thing to do.

That is what this bill is all about.

I would just ask my colleagues to set aside any predisposition that they may have had, to set aside the thoughts or even some of the statements that they may have made back home to civic groups before they knew what this bill was all about, and think in terms of what is right, but more importantly think in terms of whether we really and truly want to send a message to future generations that when we say we are a nation of laws and not men we mean it and we are willing to put the pittance that it is, our money, where our mouth is.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Mineta). The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Swindall] has consumed 10 minutes.

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Holloway].

(Mr. HOLLOWAY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HOLLOWAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the conference report on H.R. 442 whose purpose is to make $1.25 billion in reparation to the Japanese-Americans as a result of the World War II internment.

I voted against this legislation once before and I will do so again. Maybe I will not address this House quite as gracefully as the former speaker did, but I do not think there is anyone that opposes this bill who does not believe in the fifth amendment rights of people.

But yet as long ago as 1948, Congress enacted legislation to make restitution for the difficulties which the internment caused the citizens of Japanese ancestry.

Some $38 million was paid. In 1972, the Social Security Act was amended to give some benefits -- eligibility for time served in relocation camps. The U.S. Suprme Court also granted internees the right to sue for property losses suffered because of this relocation.

We acknowledge our mistakes. We pay for it. We have learned from our actions.

No amount of money can adequately make up for the suffering which the Japanese-American citizens endured.

Now I do not know where we go from here. I mean, are we going -- the gentleman spoke of the future -- are we going to address this issue again in 10 years? Are we going to start looking at [*H6265] maybe saying, well, the $1.25 billion was not enough? Maybe we need to see if we can bring it up again and give another $22 billion, $180 billion. There is no figure to put on this. To me what was done, we realize at this point was wrong. Maybe at the time I would have done the same or I would have felt the same.

I often wonder what would have happened if we had agreed to pay this $1.25 billion a few years after the many millions of service boys were lost in this country due to World War II.

What were the feelings of the people then? I am sorry, but I cannot see where we go as a House, where we plan to go in the future as a House. I do not know if we are trying to buy the votes in the State of California from the people of Japanese ancestry, to try to bribe the people to vote one party or the other. Undoubtedly, we are not, because both parties seem to agree to this.

But it is just very hard for me to understand and go face veterans in my district who have suffered from World War II and to see the benefits that they are losing, to see that we have over $100 billion deficit every year and yet we choose to try to vote a bill like this in.

I am sorry, I do not see where we are trying to go. I plan to vote against this bill and I encourage every other Member of this House to do so.

Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds at first and then I will yield to others.

I have to express my disappointment that the gentleman from Louisiana would suggest that those of us who conscientiously differ with him are trying to bribe somebody's votes. I do not run in the State of California, I never plan to run in the State of California.

The gentleman from Georgia who made an eloquent statement today does not plan to run in the State of California. I think his colleagues deserve better of the gentleman from Louisiana than the entirely unwarranted suggestion that somehow this is a vote-buying effort.

Disagreement is one thing. I am disappointed that he does not even understand what seems to me to be the principles at stake.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished libertarian, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Weiss].

(Mr. WEISS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. WEISS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference report on H.R. 442, the Civil Liberties Act. It is a modest proposal which acknowledges and redresses the wrongs our Government perpetrated against American citizens of Japanese descent during World War II.

The internment policy undertaken by this Government during World War II was a tragic error on the part of the U.S. Government at that time. Under the policy, U.S. Army troops rounded up literally thousands of Japanese Americans on the west coast and forced them into relocation camps on the ludicrous grounds that they might collaborate with the Japanese Government. It was a policy driven purely by wartime hysteria and racial prejudice.

I recall that during my assignment to Japan in 1946-47, as a member of the U.S. Army, I met a number of first generation Japanese-Americans. These individuals were so distressed by their treatment by the United States during the war period that they left this country, the country oftheir birth, and returned to live in Japan. That people should emigrate from the United States to flee persecution demonstrates how far the U.S. Government had strayed from the principles upon which this Nation was founded.

Mr. Speaker, we are responsible for the ruining of lives beyond our comprehension. There is no adequate financial compensation for the fundamental violation of civil liberties and the humiliation that those individuals suffered. However, the payments to the surviving internees that this legislation contains are a symbol of the strong affirmation by this Congress that a terrible mistake was made, and a commitment by the U.S. Government that such a mistake will never be repeated.

I urge my colleagues to support the conference report.

Mr. SWINDALL. Mr. Speaker, we have no further requests for time now, so we will reserve the time for tomorrow.

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I have no requests for this evening.

Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, I have nothing further directly on the bill, but I yield myself 1 minute, because I just want the Members to know that one reason we are here today is because, with the leadership role of the chairman of the full committee, our colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Rodino], we know he will be leaving, and I just wanted to note that I have had the privilege to work as a subcommittee chairman under him.

These are his last 2 years, and this has been a time when we have done massive legislation in the area of protecting other people's constitutional rights. And again I am indebted to our colleague, the gentleman from Georgia, for his eloquent discussion of the subject of constitutional rights here. We have done the Fair Housing Act, and we have done the Grove City Act. I just wanted to note this and not let this debate go by without noting the leadership role of the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Rodino], one of the sponsors of the bill, and his presence is in this as it has been in so many other issues. He has in 40 years done an enormous amount to make our Constitution a living reality.

Mr. Speaker, this is one very important example of that, and I wanted to acknowledge it.

Mr. Speaker, I believe at this point all of us have yielded back our time, and we will resume tomorrow with out 6-6-8 agreement.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Mineta). Pursuant to the previous order of the House, further proceedings on the conference report will be postponed.