John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce the introduction of the National Film Preservation Act of 2003, which reauthorizes the National Film Preservation Act of 1996. We all know that motion pictures are amongst this nation's cultural treasures, going beyond entertainment to represent American ideals and values to people across the world. Unfortunately, the films on which many motion pictures are created are easily susceptible to physical deterioration; in fact, over fifty percent of movies made before 1950 have deteriorated and over ninety percent of movies from before 1929 have disintegrated. The 1996 Act was designed to ensure that we could protect the treasures we still have. It created the National Film Preservation Board and the National Film Preservation Foundation. The NFPB generates public awareness of a national film registry and reviews initiatives to ensure the preservation valued films. The NFPF issues grants to libraries and other institutions that can save films from degradation. The program has received accolades from organizations such as the Directors Guild of America and the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. Noted filmmakers Martin Scorsese and Ken Burns also have praised the NFPB and the NFPF. Unfortunately, the program officially expired October 11, 2003, and was not reauthorized. The legislation being introduced today would remedy that oversight by reauthorizing both the NFPB and the NFPF. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this valuable effort as we move it through the House.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit the Department of Defense Inspector General's public report on Richard Perle, an editorial from the Wall Street Journal, and a clip from The Washington Times. [Editorial from the Wall Street Journal] Perle's Vindication One obligation of editors is to distinguish phony political scandal from the genuine article. On that standard, any number of writers and editors owe Richard Perle an apology. The noted defense intellectual voluntarily resigned in March as chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee after his enemies pumped up a few anecdotes into allegations about ``conflicts of interest.'' The Pentagon's Inspector General has been investigating those charges and last week issued a report absolving Mr. Perle of even the ``appearance'' of impropriety. The accusations, fanned by Michigan Democrat John Conyers, had received especially prominent coverage in the New Yorker magazine and the New York Times. They boiled down to the all- purpose Washington smear that Mr. Perle has exploited his position for personal financial gain. But Pentagon investigator Donald Horstman concluded in a letter to Mr. Perle that ``all of your activities with respect to those private entities complied with statutory and regulatory standards.'' There were no ``quid pro'' offers or attempts to leverage his (unpaid) Pentagon access. In Washington, of course, people are often run out of office merely for the ``appearance'' of a conflict of interest. But Mr. Horstman says he also examined that ``more elusive issue'' and concluded that Mr. Perle's ``activities did not create such an appearance'' under the ``perspective of a reasonable person with knowledge of the relevant facts.'' Mr. Perle's accusers knew all the facts, so the only conclusion is that they are not ``reasonable persons,'' which will not come as news to most of our readers. Mr. Conyers is now trying to compound his political felony by proposing to close what he claims is a ``loophole'' that requires someone to work more than 60 days a year before certain, more stringent Pentagon ethics rules apply. But this would essentially bar anyone with private expertise from advising Defense officials even in a voluntary, unpaid capacity. How this would enhance U.S. national security is not obvious. Then again, U.S. security was the last thing on the mind of Mr. Perle's critics.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, for the first time in history Congress has voted to protect known polluters from legal liability. H.R. 6, the ``Energy Policy Act of 2003'', not only implements a restructured energy system that would harm consumers and provide unaffordable subsidies to energy companies, but Title XV of the bill, the Ethanol and Motor Fuels title, would particularly immunize the producers of a toxic contaminant from liability for its effects on those people who have been harmed by it. These provisions were unilaterally inserted into the conference report without the benefit of a single committee hearing or markup. MTBE (methyl tertiary butyl ether) has been classified by the EPA as a possible human carcinogen and can render water undrinkable in concentrations as low as two parts per billion. Due to the synthetic chemical properties of MTBE, when it leaks into water, it moves and dissolves through water rapidly, resists natural degradation, and causes water to take on the taste and smell of turpentine. According to the General Accounting Office, MTBE, a chemical which has been shown to cause liver damage, kidney damage, and even cancer in humans, has now been detected in the groundwater and drinking water in every state in the nation. The Ethanol and Motor Fuels title in H.R. 6 contains an outright and retroactive liability waiver for MTBE producers that knowingly polluted the tap water of millions of Americans. Specifically, the title would: Protect responsible parties from liability--The title would give MTBE producers a special liability waiver from strict product liability suits. Because these strict product liability suits have been the only effective measure of holding MTBE producers accountable for polluting public water supplies, denying water districts and city and county governments the right to bring defective product lawsuits against the MTBE polluters would effectively end their accountability. Shift cleanup costs to taxpayers--The MTBE provisions in the bill would shift the burden of paying for the cleanup of the polluted water to the water consumers. An estimated $29 billion in clean up costs will fall squarely on states, cities, and their citizens. MTBE manufacturers and gasoline companies will not have to pay for the contamination of the water supplies that they caused, nor will they have to pay to acquire new water sources for hundreds of thousands of customers. Nullify pending litigation against MTBE producers, leaving hundreds of thousands of people without recourse--There are currently 130 communities and water suppliers across the nation that have litigation pending to reclaim damages for MTBE pollution of public drinking water sources. Because this bill is retroactive, taking effect for lawsuits pending on September 5, 2003, all of these lawsuits would be nullified. The MTBE provisions contained in the Energy Policy Act of 2003 benefit the wrongdoers and have a number of harmful consequences for the victims of drinking water contamination. Any policy that has the effect of leaving hundreds of thousands of victims without any recourse against their wrongdoers is bad policy.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to state my opposition to a provision in this conference report that intrudes on our civil liberties and will do little, if anything, to protect us from terrorism. I think it is important that law enforcement have the powers it needs to investigate acts of money laundering that are connected to terrorism and espionage, but we must ensure those powers are reasonable and appropriately crafted. Current law already gives the FBI the ability to obtain financial records from various financial institutions, which are defined as banks, savings and loans, thrifts, and credit unions, with little or no judicial oversight. In fact, the government can delay notification to a court that it has sought such records if it merely certifies in writing that it required emergency access to the documents. Now, the FBI is seeking investigative authorities beyond what are necessary for terrorism and intelligence investigations. Section 374 of the conference report would give the FBI even more unfettered authority by subjecting a broader group of ``financial institutions'' to the FBI's special investigative authorities. The FBI would be able to seek financial records not only from traditional financial institutions but also from pawnbrokers, travel agencies, car dealers, boat sellers, telegraph companies, and persons engaged in real estate transactions, among others. The record of the Bush administration demonstrates that this provision is a significant intrusion on our civil liberties that will not be used to protect us from terrorism. In the days after September 11, the administration demanded from Congress expanded powers to root out terrorist activity. Congress granted much of those powers in the form of the USA PATRIOT Act, but the administration has yet to justify how it has used those powers to find the planners of the 2001 attacks or to thwart other, planned attacks. Instead, the administration returns to Congress with requests for more authorities, such as this one, in a grab for power. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this conference report.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation, which would provide greater access to Federal courts for litigants in various counties in Texas. One provision of the bill adds the city of Plano as a place of holding court; current residents of Plano must travel to the city of Sherman. It is my understanding that, with respect to the courthouses in Plano and Sherman, the courts will ensure that the civil and criminal dockets will be divided equally.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Sensenbrenner, Representative Delahunt and Members on both sides of the aisle for their hard work in developing this bipartisan, bicameral compromise. H.R. 3214 takes the first of hopefully many steps toward improving the integrity of our criminal justice system. First and foremost, the bill provides Federal inmates with access to DNA testing, thereby enabling them to establish their innocence after being subjected to a wrongful conviction. As many of you know, over the past few years, more than 110 innocent Americans have already been exonerated thanks to post-conviction DNA testing. This provision will ensure that others wrongfully convicted will also have an equal chance at obtaining justice. Second, the bill authorizes grants to be awarded to States with the express purpose of improving the quality of legal representation afforded indigent defendants in capital cases. Experts have indicated that many of the most egregious cases in which an innocent person was wrongfully convicted involved attorneys who were incompetent, ill- trained, or simply ineffective. These grants will dramatically alter this situation by providing defendants with defense counsel that meet a minimum standard of competency. Finally, the bill contains a provision--not often mentioned--but of extreme importance to those that have been subjected to a wrongful conviction. I'm speaking of the provision in the bill that increases the maximum amount of damages an individual may be awarded for being wrongfully imprisoned from $5,000 to $50,000 per year in noncapital cases and up to $100,000 per year in capital cases. Having pointed out the many virtues of the bill, I must admit this bill remains far from perfect. I would prefer the legislation include an outright ban on the use of the Federal death penalty. I also think the bill would have been considerably better if it addressed some of the many factors that contribute to the unacceptably high rate of wrongful convictions, including eyewitness error, perjury, false confessions, and police torture. Nevertheless, I strongly support the delicate compromise that has been reached today. And, I urge my colleagues to support this worthwhile initiative.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation, of which I am a cosponsor. This bill provides the Federal judiciary with a much needed cost of living adjustment (COLA) for their salary for fiscal year 2004. I also would like to thank Chairman Sensenbrenner for his leadership and bipartisanship on this issue. The Constitution mandates that the pay of Federal judges ``shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.'' Unfortunately, by failing to provide judges with annual COLA's over the last decade, they have faced the equivalent of a $77,000 reduction in salary. Currently, Federal district court judges earn $150,000 per year. This is much less than they could earn in private practice; in fact, it is less than an attorney right out of law school can earn in private practice. Even the judges' employees, those who work at the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, can make more than their employers. In the last 30 years, while average pay has increased 12 percent for most workers, it has decreased 25 percent for Federal judges. This issue can seem to be just a matter of salary, but it extends deeply into our concept of a democracy and judicial independence. The Constitution establishes a system of checks and balances, granting independent judges lifetime tenure and the right to an undiminished salary, in order to ensure the judiciary remains independent of financial, political, and social pressures. Unfortunately, many Federal judges are leaving the bench for private practice, and many experienced and qualified private practitioners are deterred from serving in the judiciary. The pay disparity has diminished the independence of our third branch and made it difficult to attract and retain qualified attorneys. The timing for this legislation also is critical. Last year, Congress passed a continuing resolution that provided a cost of living adjustment to most Federal employees except judges. The omission required us to pass a law early this year to extend the COLA to judges. To ensure that we do not let this issue fall by the wayside again, we must pass this bill today. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this legislation.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, today 16 of my colleagues and I have introduced a resolution calling on the President of the United States to censure and reassign General Boykin for his religiously intolerant remarks against people of Islamic faith. As Members of Congress, we should all be embarrassed and disturbed by General Boykin's controversial remarks made in uniform over a period of time which includes such statements as, quote, ``Our spiritual enemy will only be defeated if we come against them in the name of Jesus.'' ``I knew that my God was a real God and the Muslim God was an idol.'' ``Islamic extremists hate the United States because we are a Christian nation.'' And, ``President Bush is in the White House because God put him there.'' These remarks do untold damage to our efforts to reach out to the Iraqi people and the Muslim world and to battle terrorism. Last week the President rightly criticized the Prime Minister of Malaysia for his anti-Semitic remarks by telling him his comments were, quote, ``wrong and divisive,'' end quote. I agree with these criticisms, but the administration must show the world that it is willing to condemn all religiously intolerant remarks, including those that occur within our own military. President Bush's failure so far to criticize General Boykin's remarks make it imperative for Congress to demand action. Our Nation must show the world that we will not stand for the type of intolerant behavior exhibited by General Boykin. House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC, October 17, 2003. Hon. Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense, The Pentagon, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Secretary: I am writing to express my extreme displeasure over Lieutenant General William Boykin's remarks about the war and the Muslim religion. Lt. Gen. Boykin serves as deputy undersecretary of defense for intelligence and is charged with heading a Pentagon office that focuses on finding Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and other targets. This is a critical policymaking position, and it is outrageous that someone who holds such extreme, closed- minded, zealous views would be allowed such a prominent position in our military. Lt. Gen. Boykin's remarks over the past few years, including remarks that Islamic extremists hate the United States because ``we're a Christian nation,'' that ``our spiritual enemy will only be defeated if we come against them in the name of Jesus,'' that President Bush ``is in the White House because God put him there,'' and that Boykin's ``god was a real god and [the Muslim god] was an idol,'' are disgraceful and wholly inappropriate for a man in his position. These remarks are inflammatory to Muslims in our communities and abroad. While every American has the freedom to speak his mind and express his opinion, it is essential that those who hold high profile, policymaking positions in our government exercise judgment in their public speaking. Lt. Gen. Boykin clearly lacks such judgment. I urge you to reassign or reprimand him; we cannot afford to have such an extremist speaking on behalf of our nation and our military. Sincerely, John Conyers, Jr. Ranking Member

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my concern regarding the $87 billion supplemental appropriation that President Bush requested on September 7, 2003. I want to make clear that I will support the 130,000 thousand United States troops currently stationed in Iraq and that I am committed to exiting Iraq in an appropriate manner. As a Korean War veteran, I always will insist that our servicemen and women have whatever they need to protect themselves and execute their missions. I will vote for the sums they need once President Bush accounts for what has already been spent. However, we must prevent wasted or padded expenditures and war profiteering and ensure that our troops get critical equipment and support, which the administration has failed to provide them. The $87 billion requested for military operations and reconstruction of Iraq and Afghanistan is troubling on many fronts. It is troubling that $20 billion of that $87 billion would be spent on Iraq's reconstruction when billions are needed domestically at home. It is troubling that on March 27, 2003 Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz told a House defense subcommittee that ``We are dealing with a country that can finance its own reconstruction.'' Furthermore, Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing on the same day said, ``I don't believe that the United States has the responsibility for reconstruction, in a sense * * * funds can come from various sources I mentioned--frozen assets, oil revenues and a variety of other things, including Oil for Food, which has a very substantial number of billions of dollars in it.'' If Iraq can pay for its own reconstruction, why is the administration returning to Congress with a $20 billion request for reconstruction in Iraq? I am concerned that the money the administration has requested may only be the tip of the iceberg in regards to total monies that the United States will spend in Iraq. On December 31, 2002, the New York Times reported, ``The Administration's top budget official estimated today that the cost of the war with Iraq could be in the range of 50 to 60 billion dollars.'' Lest we forget, last year Congress appropriated $79 billion for the war effort in Iraq, almost $10-20 billion more than the administration initially estimated. Based on these concerns I am only prepared to vote ``yes'' for the $87 billion request if the following conditions are met: (1) The President specifies to Congress how the money will be spent and how its prudent distribution will be assured. The President is asking for $87 billion to stabilize Iraq, a second installment for Iraq's reconstruction that has no geographical, time, or force limitations. It has cost the lives of American men and women that were bravely performing their military duties in Iraq. The President and his advisors have not been reliable or trustworthy in handling their gravest responsibility: sending American soldiers in harm's way. As Members of Congress we must stand up to the President on behalf of the American people. Even if Congress is unfairly labeled ``non-patriotic'' or ``non-supportive'' of our troops, we must require the President to clearly outline how he plans to spend American tax dollars in Iraq. It is not reasonable for the President to present us with a request that includes: $33,000 each for pickup trucks required for the effort; $360,000 for 600 radios and telephones; $800 million to train 1,500 Iraqi police officers at $530,000 per police officer; and $100 million to place five Iraqi families in a witness protection program at $200,000 per person. It is important that the American public be aware that $87 billion equates to $300 for every man, woman and child in the United States. When we are spending monies of this magnitude, we must have the courage to challenge policies until they are clear in purpose and direction. (2) The President provides sure-fire strategy for exiting Iraq. I, along with many others, believe that for the President to go to war in Iraq without international support and without an exit strategy was a fatal flaw. Given those tragic failures thus far, I am in ``shock and awe'' that the President has failed to fully explain how he plans to secure Iraq, achieve Iraqi self governance and share the burden of rebuilding the industries and society of Iraq. How can we be expected to endorse blank checks with no idea as to the overall plan for Iraq. (3) The President exercises diplomatic leadership in convincing other nations to join us in the effort in Iraq. Even now, with the benefit of hindsight, the President has not learned from his diplomatic failures. The United States refuses to relinquish appropriate levels of authority to the United Nations, and this refusal has significant diminished prospects for gaining international aid and support in Iraq. Two weeks ago, the United Nations greeted President Bush and his resolution coolly, finding that the resolution did not go far enough in the role it assigned to the U.N. and its timetable to transfer power to the Iraqi transitional government. Many international leaders, including United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan, supported an accelerated timetable for the turnover of power to Iraqi leaders. However, the U.S. balked at their request. Secretary of State Colin Powell told the 25 Member U.S.- appointed Governing Council in what has been characterized as ``very direct terms'' that the U.S. intends to resist the request that a U.S. backed Security Council Resolution place Iraq's political future in the hands of the U.N. Based on the President's unpersuasive speech and the U.S.'s weak resolution, it is expected that when donor countries meet in Madrid later this month, financial support will not be forthcoming. (4) That these funds will not divert the necessary resources from being used for priorities in the war on terrorism, such as homeland security in the U.S., the pursuit of Al Qaeda leaders and cells throughout the world. Though Mr. Bush has depicted the war in Iraq as the ``central front'' in the war on terrorism, it is important to note that the Iraq supplemental request is more than double the President's request for homeland security in fiscal year 2004. If these monies were utilized for the true war on terrorism, then: Port Security could be increased, the anti-missile system for commercial airliners could be put in place, and stricter security over unscreened air cargo could be implemented. Moreover, adequate training and equipment for emergency response personnel could be provided, and public health officials would have the resources to identify and treat people attacked by weapons of mass destruction. In my opinion, it is unacceptable for the U.S. to allocate billions to a war of choice in Iraq while we fail to allocate funds to secure America's borders from a myriad of dangers. Similarly, the primary objective in our war abroad against terrorism must remain the destruction of Al Qaeda and to capture its leadership. The war in Iraq has already diverted many key resources including, Special Forces, Intelligence personnel and specialized equipment from the search for bin Laden in Afghanistan and Pakistan. It was bin Laden and his Al Qaeda agents, not Saddam, who carried out the 9/11 disaster, despite discredited efforts by Vice President Cheney and others to suggest the contrary. Iraq is not the heart of the war on terrorism, despite President Bush's claims to the contrary. We must keep our priorities straight. (5) The President and Congress commits to a willingness to allocate funds to desperately needed programs vital to U.S. citizens. It should be known that the $20 billion reconstruction includes $9 million for a zip code system, $20 million for a month long business course at $10,000 per pupil and $53 million for state of the art landfills. We should not forget that charity begins at home. How can we rebuild Iraq, if we refuse to acknowledge the social ills in the U.S.? Within our borders, we are faced with a troubled economy, scores of hungry children, millions of uninsured, deteriorating infrastructures, and devastating homelessness. The American public should know that $87 billion would: 1. Finance the educational needs of all 50 states. 2. Provide health care for the elderly and those without health insurance. 3. Provide incentives to Corporate America to generate jobs and bring unemployment levels back to where they were in December 2000. In conclusion, I would like to vote for this legislation because I want to support our troops in Iraq. I want to believe that these funds would provide our citizens with better protection from terrorism. I want to believe that the Administration has a plan and not just a price tag to protect our soldiers and to return Iraq to its citizens. However, at present, I remain unconvinced and cannot vote for the President's $87 billion supplemental until the above concerns are resolved.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, it is clear to me that the administration has fallen into an ethical and moral quagmire with regards to its policies in Iraq and its efforts to paper over its deceits. Yesterday, I asked the political director, Mr. Karl Rove, to step down for his role in the outing of Ambassador Wilson's wife. Last week, I asked the Attorney General to appoint a special counsel, in large part due to the possible conflicts the investigation of Mr. Rove would cause. I reached these conclusions because of the following. It was just reported in Newsweek that after the initial leak, Karl Rove sought to give the leak wider dissemination by contacting Chris Mathews and stating that Mr. Wilson's wife and her undercover status were ``fair game.'' It was also reported that a White House source confirmed that Mr. Rove had been working the press on the story but had merely told the press it was reasonable to discuss who sent Wilson to Niger. It is very possible that his actions were illegal under title 18 United States Code 793. If one knows that national security information has been leaked, the person is required to report it to authorities, not to further disseminate it, as Mr. Rove has done. But even if he has not broken the letter of the law, Mr. Rove's actions are morally indefensible. He has used his influence to smear and intimidate a whistleblower, an ambassador to the United States Government, and to further publicize Mrs. Wilson's name, in fact, a CIA covert operative, and to impugn the Wilsons' integrity. As a matter of fact, according to the New York Times, a Republican congressional staffer said the administration strategy for dealing with the Wilsons was to slime and defend. There is a clear conflict when one is investigating the White House staff; and as a matter of fact, it has been reported in Time magazine that Attorney General Ashcroft over the years has paid Mr. Rove $746,000 for campaign consulting in his political races. It has also been reported that Mr. Rove was the driving force behind Ashcroft's nomination as Attorney General. ``How the religious right pushed for Ashcroft's nomination,'' written in the New York Times, January 7, 2001, by David Johnson and Neil Lewis. We also know that Mr. Rove was reportedly fired from the campaign of President George H.W. Bush over a leak to Robert Novak. ``Why are these men laughing,'' published in Esquire magazine, written by Ron Suskind, January 2003. Wayne Slater, a Karl Rove biographer, notes a pattern of unethical behavior. He says, ``I don't know who leaked what to whom. Most people don't know the facts here. And both Bob Novak and Karl Rove have said it didn't happen. But I have to say that it certainly was consistent with the Karl Rove that I know. If he didn't do this, he certainly has a pattern of activity over the 15 years, 20 years that I've known him where he has done similar things.'' See CNN, October 1, 2003. Another Rove biographer, James Moore, thinks that he must have known about the leak and says, ``After having watched Mr. Rove for all of these years, I know full well, and anybody who knows the way he works, that something of this nature does not happen without Karl checking the yes box. I'm saying that if Mr. Rove is not involved, I'll eat the paperback copy of my own book because this is a guy who controls everything, and he has a history of putting a layer of protection between himself and other people, using other operatives to get things done.'' Buchanan and Press, MSNBC, October 1, 2003. Finally, let us not forget that many have received information that Mr. Rove is the source of the initial illegal leaks themselves. According to the London newspaper, The Guardian, on October 1, several journalists have confirmed off the record that Mr. Rove is the source of these leaks. We know from The Washington Post that fully six journalists were called with the initial leak. The above information is all publicly available. I do not possess a team of investigators. All one needs to do to gather this information is read the New York Times, Newsweek, The Washington Post, Time magazine. I will insert my full statement at this point. Mr. Speaker, it is clear to me that the Administration has fallen into an ethical and moral quagmire with regards to its policies in Iraq and its efforts to paper over its deceits. Yesterday I asked Karl Rove to step down for his role in the outing of Ambassador Wilson's Wife. Last week, I asked the Attorney General to appoint a special counsel, in large part due to the possible conflicts in the investigation of Mr. Rove. I reach these conclusions because of the following: It was just reported in Newsweek that after the initial leak Karl Rove sought to give the leak wider dissemination by contacting Chris Mathews and stating that Mr. Wilson's wife and her under cover status were ``fair game.'' It was also reported that a White House source confirmed that Mr. Rove had been working the press on the story, but had merely told the press ``it was reasonable to discuss who sent Wilson to Niger.'' It's very possible that his actions were illegal. Under 18 USC 793 if you know national security information has been leaked, you are required to report it to authorities, not to further disseminate it, as Mr. Rove has done. Even if Mr. Rove hasn't broken the letter of the law, his actions are morally indefensible. He has used his influence to smear and intimidate a whistle-blower. It is quite obvious he has sought to further publicize Mrs. Wilson's name and to impugn the Wilsons' integrity. As a matter of fact according to the New York Times, a Republican congressional staffer said that the Administration's strategy for dealing with the Wilson's was to ``Slime and Defend.'' There is a clear conflict whenever you are investigating White House staff. As a matter of fact, Time Magazine has reported that AG Ashcroft paid Mr. Rove $746,000 in the 1980's and 1990's for campaign consulting on his Senate and Governor's races. It has also been reported that Mr. Rove was the driving force behind Ashcroft's nomination as Attorney General. ``How the Religious Right Pushed for Ashcroft's Nomination,'' David Johnston and Neil A. Lewis, New York times, January 7, 2001. We also know that Rove was reportedly fired from the campaign of President George H. W. Bush over a leak to Robert Novak. ``Why Are These Men Laughing?'', Ron Suskind, Esquire Magazine, January 2003. Wayne Slater, a Karl Rove biographer notes a pattern of unethical behavior: ``I don't know who leaked what to whom. Most people don't know the facts here. And both Bob Novak and Karl Rove have said it didn't happen. But I have to say that it certainly was consistent with the Karl Rove that I know. If he didn't do this, he certainly has a pattern of activity over the 15 years, 20 years that I've known him where he has done similar things.'' (``Paula Zahn Now,'' CNN, Oct. 1, 2003). James Moore, another Rove biographer thinks he must have known about the leak: ``After having watched Mr. Rove for all of these years, I know full well, and anybody who knows the way he works, that something of this nature does not happen without Karl checking the yes box . . . I'm saying that if Mr. Rove is not involved, I'll eat the paperback copy of my own book because this is a guy who controls everything, and he has a history of putting a layer of protection between himself and other people, using other operatives to get things done.'' (``Buchanan & Press,'' MSNBC, Oct. 1, 2003). Finally, let us not forget that many have received information that Mr. Rove is the source of the initial illegal leaks themselves. According to the London Newspaper the Guardian on October 1, several journalists have confirmed off the record that Mr. Rove is the source of these leaks. We know from the Washington Post that fully six journalists were called with the initial leak. The above information is all publicly available. I don't have a team of investigators. All you need to do to gather this information is read the Washington Post, the New York Times, Newsweek, Time and the like. Its not rocket science, and its all public information. If you add it up, it's an overwhelming case for resignation and the appointment of a special prosecutor. President Bush promised to return ``honor and integrity'' to the White House and ``change the tone in Washington.'' Instead, Mr. Rove's actions are akin to the type of abuse and vendettas we saw during Watergate. When it comes to ethics, this is an Administration that has gone to extremes to avoid independent scrutiny. Whether it is investigating the President's friend Ken Lay or his Secretary of the Army Thomas White for their involvement in the Enron Fraud; Vice President Cheney for his involvement in financial fraud by Halliburton; or the involvement of top Republican legislators in trading campaign contributions for legislative favors on behalf of Westar, in the instances the Attorney General has not seen fit to open a single independent investigation.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, if I could say to the gentlewoman from Texas and the gentleman from Florida, the truth ultimately always comes out. I do not know why so many people hide, run for cover, obfuscate, manipulate, spin, but in the end, it may take a little longer and they may be able to put it off, they may be able to do it long enough to get out of town, but in the end, there are too many people of conscience and talent that are looking at these same situations that we have to deal with in our working lives. And you are not going to get very far, not in today's global technologically advanced society. It is going to come out. It always does. It never fails. There will be books upon books upon investigation upon articles, and they just will not come forward and make a complete candid discussion. The American people are not going to be fooled.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am so happy to be with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek) in this discussion. He and his predecessor in the Congress from Florida worked very closely with me and I am proud that he is on the Committee on Armed Services because that gives him a vantage point that perhaps we do not have; and he continues the tradition of a former colleague of ours, Ron Dellums of California, who rose to be chairman of that committee and distinguished himself with great regularity about relating military activities and costs and projections to what is the real national defense of this country. I am happy to be with, also, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson- Lee), with whom I work on a very wide variety of issues. And it seems to me that our discussion tonight with our colleagues that preceded us revolve around the importance of delaying the vote that is hanging over our heads until more information is secured of whether we should have a special counsel to independently investigate where the leak endangering not only a CIA operative, but all the others that were working with her together. It is appropriate, especially upon the revelation of over $700,000 in consulting business having been engaged in between Karl Rove and John Ashcroft in earlier years. This is incredible. So between the delayed vote, the request for a special counsel, the several hundred thousand dollars, plus a request for a resignation makes this a very important evening. And I am glad that I am here to join my colleagues with it. In February of this year, former Ambassador Wilson traveled to Africa to investigate the claims that Iraq purchased uranium there. In the next month, he returned and tells the CIA and State Department that the claims were unsubstantiated. This was in February 2002 and March 2002. In January 2003, the President claims that Iraq tried to buy uranium in Africa in a State of the Union Address delivered on this very floor. In July, former Ambassador Wilson wrote an op-ed aptly titled ``What I Didn't Find in Africa.'' On July 14, the well-known veteran columnist Robert Novak mentions, among other things, that ``Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate.'' On July 22, Mr. Novak said in an interview, ``I didn't dig it out, it was given to me. They gave me the name,'' he was talking to Newsday then, ``and I used it.'' Then later on in July, the Central Intelligence Agency files a crime report with the Department of Justice suggesting that the leak of former Ambassador Wilson's wife's name and covert status might entail criminal acts. We checked the statutes in the Committee on the Judiciary, and that was true. Not only leaking, but assisting or promoting leaks are also, in another section of title 18, criminal violations that carry a penalty of up to 10 years Federal imprisonment. Then the CIA submitted a questionnaire to determine whether an investigation is warranted. They did a crime report, and now an investigation, and they decided rather quickly to pursue a criminal investigation. Now, a source in the administration confirms that two senior administration officials contacted not just Mr. Novak, but six reporters about the identity and occupation of Wilson's wife, claiming that, clearly, it was meant purely and simply for revenge; that he was sharing the information because the disclosure was wrong and a huge miscalculation, because they were irrelevant and did nothing to diminish Wilson's credibility. This was the Washington Post, September 28. On the Crossfire program of CNN, Mr. Novak explained, ``Nobody in the Bush administration called me to leak this. I was in an interview with a senior administration official on the Wilson report when he told me the trip was inspired by his wife, a CIA employee working on weapons of mass destruction. Another senior official told me the same thing. They asked me not to use her name, but never indicated it would endanger her or anybody else. According to a confidential source at the CIA, Mrs. Wilson was an analyst, not a spy, not a covert operative, not in charge of undercover operatives. So what is the fuss about? Pure Bush- bashing?'' Well, Mr. Wilson responds: ``Bob Novak called me before he went to print with the report, and he said a CIA source told him that my wife was an operative. He was trying to get a second source after the article appeared. I called him and said, `You told me it was a CIA source. You wrote senior administration officials. What was it, CIA or senior administration?' He said to me, `I misspoke the first time I spoke to you. That makes it senior administration sources.' '' Ms. Paula Zahn, now CNN. About his partisanship, Wilson responds, ``Novak also said that I was a Clinton appointee. In actual fact, my first political appointment was as Ambassador, and I was appointed by George H.W. Bush. So I am really apolitical in all of this.'' Now, questions about Rove's involvement are raised by numerous news sources. Sources close to the former President say Rove was fired from the 1992 Bush presidential campaign after he planted a negative story with columnist Robert Novak. Countdown, MSNBC, September 29, 2003. Tory Clark, former spokesperson for the Pentagon, said ``People are constantly aware of classified information, and Secretary Rumsfeld makes it a point to regularly and frequently speak about the problems of leaking classified information.'' What we have here exposed is a case study of what a writer of information this sensitive ought not to be doing. It is very clear to Ambassador Wilson, and everyone else around him, that everyone around him knew that Rove had either leaked or had condoned the leak. So it is my hope that Mr. Rove will approach this from the point of view that it is more likely to get much deeper than it is right now. It might save us from ending up with an independent prosecutor for the CIA leak. It would certainly be a way of trying to make amends for what is going to happen. Mr. Chris Matthews is a person of impeccable integrity and is the host of MSNBC's Hardball, which most of us have been on at one time or the other. A source close to Wilson said that Matthews said, ``I just got off the phone with Karl Rove, who said your wife was fair game,'' talking to the former Ambassador. So I think the time has come. This political director has probably I think come to the end of at least one of his careers. The relationship between the Attorney General of the United States and him in his political consultant capacity is pretty obvious. It meets the criteria set forth in the statute for the appointment of an independent prosecutor. So it seems to me that between one of these 2 ways, we have to get to the bottom of this as this research goes on. It fits into this whole business of misrepresentation that has characterized and has begun to create problems of morale, not just in the military, but in the intelligence agencies themselves. We are not talking about something happening over in some obscure office in the Pentagon. This is coming out of the White House, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. And because of the role that the Committee on the Judiciary has played in forming this new independent counsel since we have dispensed with special prosecutors, our role is quite clear in how we must proceed and how we ought to investigate this. It is my hope to meet with the chairman of the committee this week to determine what we can all collectively do in a matter that is very disturbing to many people in many parts of our citizenry and our government alike. I commend all of the Members who have been here tonight to engage in what I think is a long overdue discussion.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. I thank the gentleman. I had no idea there were members of the family that were in your district. Let me point out that this may not be as remote as it may seem. There were or could be other agents whose covers have also been blown as a result of blowing hers. So it is not just one person. We do not know how far this damage may go. It is my responsibility as a senior member of the Committee on the Judiciary to make sure that a fair investigation takes place, not among people who have worked together and been friends for many years and exchanged the kinds of sums of money and political activity that I have already related, but that there be a fair and independent investigation. And only through a special counsel could that happen. I thank the gentleman for yielding again.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel) for his consideration, and I commend him on the special order that brings him to the floor of the House of Representatives at this hour. Mr. Speaker, I will finish the letter that I sent to Karl Rove calling for his resignation. ``Recent reports indicate that you told the journalist, Chris Matthews, and perhaps others, that Mr. Wilson's wife and her undercover status were `fair game.' Evan Thomas and Michael Isikoff, Newsweek Magazine, October 13, 2003. Since these initial allegations have arisen, neither the White House nor your office have denied your involvement in furthering the leak. Repeated press inquiries into this matter have been rebuffed with technical jargon and narrow legalisms, instead of referring to the broader ethical issues. Indeed, in the same article, it appears a White House source acknowledged that you contacted Mr. Matthews and other journalists, indicating that `it was reasonable to discuss who sent Mr. Wilson to the African country of Niger.' ``It should be noted that these actions may well have violated 18 U.S.C. section 793, which prohibits the willful or grossly negligent distribution of national defense information that could possibly be used against the United States. The law states that even if you lawfully knew of Mr. Wilson's wife's status, you were obliged to come forward and report the press leak to the proper authorities, not inflame the situation by encouraging further dissemination.'' Another section of the law, 18 U.S.C. section 793(f) is used for the basis of that remark. ``Larger than whether any one statute can be read to find criminal responsibility is the issue of whether officials of your stature will be allowed to use their influence to intimidate whistleblowers. ``Over three decades ago, our great Nation was scarred by an administration that would stop at nothing to smear and intimidate its critics. I do not believe the Nation will countenance a repeat of such activities. For your role in this campaign, I would ask that you resign immediately.'' Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for his cooperation.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, there are two matters that I bring to the attention of the Members of the House. One is whether or not the outing of a CIA operative calls for a special counsel. I would like to enlighten Members that the need to investigate the leaked name of a Central Intelligence Agency operative is one that requires a special counsel. There are three factors required. The Justice Department has promulgated these regulations under several circumstances. The Attorney General is required to appoint a special counsel when a criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted; or, two the investigation would present a conflict of interest for the Department; or, three, that it would be in the public interest to appoint an outside special counsel to assume the responsibility. All three factors appear to be present here. The Justice Department answers the first question for us. It has opened a criminal investigation into charges of disclosing the name of a covert agent. Second, that the investigation would present a conflict of interest for the Department would then be another basis for a special counsel. Here there is a clear conflict of interest. The Department of Justice investigation focused largely on the White House, which has already been directed to preserve all relevant records. The trail may lead to the Chief of Staff, Karl Rove, who is reported to be responsible for John Ashcroft's very appointment and was a consultant in several of his political campaigns. Either way, it is inconceivable that such an investigation of the office that heads our entire government could not present a conflict of interest for a subordinate agency. That requires the appointment of a special counsel. The third reason, of course, for a special counsel is that it is in the public interest. So I am delighted to bring this important matter once more to the attention of the Members of Congress, because on October 5, 2003, Time magazine reveals that Attorney General Ashcroft paid Mr. Karl Rove $746,000 for his work on three campaigns. I refer you to Duffy, ``Leaking With a Vengeance,'' Time Magazine, October 5, 2003. Mr. Speaker, this evening I want to report that I have sent the following letter to the Senior White House Adviser, Mr. Karl Rove, seeking his resignation. ``I write to ask you to resign from the White House staff. Recent reports have indicated that, while you may or may not have been the source of the Robert Novak column which revealed the status and the name of a covert operative, the wife of Ambassador Joseph Wilson, you were involved in a subsequent effort to push this classified information to other reporters and give it even wider currency. This itself may be a Federal crime, but regardless of that fact, your actions are morally indefensible. In my view, it is shameful and unethical that an administration that promised to govern with `honor and integrity' and `change the tone' in Washington has now a representative of your rank engaged in an orchestrated campaign to smear and intimidate truth-telling critics, placing them in possible physical harm and impairing the efforts and operations of the Central Intelligence Agency. ``Recent reports indicate that you told the journalist, Chris Matthews, and perhaps others, that Mr. Wilson's wife and her undercover status were `fair game.'''

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, today we are once again considering a deceptive, extreme, and a blatantly unconstitutional attempt to sensationalize the abortion debate through heated rhetoric. If this bill passes today it will be the first time since the passage of Roe v. Wade that the Congress will steal the right of women and their families to decide matters of their own health care in consultation with their doctors. This is not just an issue of women's rights anymore--this is an issue of preserving the privacy of all Americans to keep the government out of their Doctor's office. Just three years ago, the Supreme Court decided Stenberg v. Carhart, in which the Court held unconstitutional a Nebraska statute banning so- called ``partial-birth'' abortions. The Court invalidated the Nebraska law for two independent reasons: (1) it did not contain an exception to protect the health of the woman, and (2) it placed an ``undue burden'' on a woman's right to choose by banning the most common type of 2nd-trimester abortion procedure. S. 3 shows complete disregard for the Count's decision in Stenberg and suffers from the same two constitutional defects. It's as if the drafters went out of their way to thumb their nose at the Court. First, there is no question that S. 3 lacks an exception to safeguard women's health, which the Supreme Court unequivocally said was a fatal flaw in any restriction on abortion. Even the Ashcroft Department of Justice recognizes that, in order for any abortion regulation to be constitutional, it must contain an exception to protect the woman's life and health. This legislation attempts to justify its lack of a health exception by summarily asserting in the bill's ``findings'' that the banned procedure is ``never medically necessary.'' Not only are these findings demonstrably false, they do nothing to rehabilitate the bill's unconstitutionality. Much as the drafters may wish it to be otherwise, Congress cannot make a law constitutional simply by making ``findings'' that contradict the direct holding of a Court decision. Simply stated, the bill's failure to include an exception to protect women's health will make it ``Dead On Arrival'' the minute it is challenged in court. Second, the bill's definition of ``partial-birth abortion'' is so vague, overbroad, and internally contradictory that it would ban safe, pre-viability abortions in violation of woman's right to choose. But even if the bill covered only a single, late-term abortion procedure--which it does not--the bill would still endanger women's health by banning a procedure that the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has recognized ``may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman.'' Congress should not take decisions about medical treatment out of the hands of doctors and families. But that is exactly what this bill sets out to do. This legislation is a facially unconstitutional attempt to roll back a woman's right to choose. Fifteen pages of erroneous ``findings'' cannot change this sow's ear into a silk purse and rehabilitate this bill that puts politics ahead of women's health.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. To my colleagues this morning, I am very delighted to entertain Imam Hassan Qazwini and seven other members from the Muslim community in Detroit and Dearborn, Michigan. He and I are very good friends and I am honored that the Islamic Center of America is located in my congressional district. I am also proud of the fact that they are building what might likely be the largest religious center for Muslims in the United States, which will be in Dearborn, Michigan, which my colleague and the dean of the House, Mr. Dingell, and I both represent. The important point I would leave with you in extending my welcome is that Imam Qazwini has worked tirelessly with those of us Christians, Muslims and Jews to continue a dialogue that has taken place more than a dozen times in Detroit and in the District of Columbia with the help of my former staffer, Ms. Alexia Smokler, and my current general counsel of the Committee on the Judiciary, Burt Wides. We have worked together with Congressman Dingell to continue the discussion that is so necessary for us to come together, understand each other's cultures and also be amazed at the similarities of concerns that we raise. It is in that spirit that I too join in the welcome to the House of Representatives on this day to Imam Qazwini.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, today, as ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary, I am calling upon the White House to take three simple steps which would send a signal that they want to get to the bottom of the growing controversy concerning the leaking of a CIA operative's name to the press. The first thing I would ask them to do is to call upon the Attorney General to appoint a special council. The second thing I would ask that they do is to order any and all staff advisors to comply with a lie detector test. Third, I would ask the President to order his staff and advisors to waive any journalistic privilege they have as confidential sources with regard to the press. This probe has led to the following news breaks: NBC, Brokaw, the leak: Did someone in the White House blow the cover of a CIA agent to discredit a critic of the administration? This is from the National Journals daily briefing on politics. CBS's Rather: The CIA scandal charges that the White House blew the cover of an undercover CIA agent. An investigation is launched. ABC's Jennings: the President's advisor says he did not leak the name of a CIA officer whose husband criticized the President. CNN's Jay King: the President quickly left the room after this afternoon's bill-signing, ignoring shouted questions. His spokesman says Mr. Bush sees no need for an internal White House investigation and no need for an outside investigation by a special prosecutor. White House chief of staff Andy Carr told senior staffers Monday that anyone with information about the leak should contact the Justice Department. But at this time, there is no formal directive to the White House staff, and the President is not asking for an internal review, despite reports that the illegal leak came from within the White House. CNBC's Seigenthaler, tonight on the news: Did someone at the White House break the law by leaking the name of a top secret CIA agent? FNC's Hume: Washington is in a frenzy over the alleged White House leak of a CIA agent's identity, but is there any evidence that it was the White House? NBC's Miklaszewski: At the White House today, President Bush was beginning to feel political heat. And CBS's Roberts: the White House tried to jump out in front of the potentially damaging controversy today, insisting that it would never authorize the leaking of a CIA operative's name. Now, my recommendation is that the President call upon the Attorney General to appoint a special council. It is the only way to ensure the American public that the investigation will be performed fairly and impartially, to call upon the Attorney General to appoint the special council. Now, if we read the Code of Federal Regulations, volume 28 at section 600.1, the Attorney General is required to appoint a special council when a ``criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted''; and, two, the investigation ``by a United States Attorney's Office would present a conflict of interest for the Department''; and, three, ``it would be in the public interest to appoint an outside special council to assume responsibility for the matter.'' Now, it so happens all of the facts are present here. First, the allegations, if true, constitute an obvious serious criminal violation under 50 United States Code section 421. The disclosure of a name of a covert agent is punishable by up to 10 years in a Federal prison.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, as the Dean of the Congressional Black Caucus, and chairman of its annual Jazz Issue Forum and Concert, I rise to call to this body's attention the achievements of a distinguished American musical artist, Andrew White. White is renowned as ``the most voluminously self-industrialized artist in the history of the music business.'' Born in Washington, DC on September 6,1942, Andrew White was raised in Nashville TN, but returned to Washington where he makes his home today. He has had a long and diversified career as a musician, Coltrane scholar and music publisher. Here are a few highlights. As a saxophonist, Andrew White was the musical director for Washington, DC's J.F.K. Quintet from 1961 through 1963. In addition, he has performed with drummers Kenny Clarke in Paris, France in 1965; Elvin Jones from 1980 to 1981; and Beaver Harris in 1983. White has recorded with pianist McCoy Tyner; drummers Elvin Jones and Beaver Harris, the saxophone sextet of Julius Hemphill and the Dutch saxophone sextet--``The Six Winds.'' Andrew White debuted his own sextet, ``The Zorrosax Allstars,'' at Washington, DC's Kennedy Center and the Corcoran Gallery of Art in October 2002. As an oboist, Andrew White was the principal oboist with New York's American Ballet Theatre Orchestra from 1968 through 1970. As an electric bassist from 1966 through 1976, Andrew White's services were enlisted by Stevie Wonder, the Fifth Dimension, Stanley Turrentine, and the jazz-fusion group Weather Report, among others. As a transcriber, Andrew White is primarily known for his transcription and publication of the world's largest catalogue of saxophone transcriptions--totaling 1056 to date. These works include 661 solos of John Coltrane, 308 of Charlie Parker, 11 of Eric Dolphy and 76 of his own. As a writer, Andrew White has authored over 150 books, treatises, essays and articles, including his current bestselling 840 page hard- back autobiography, ``Everybody Loves the Sugar--The Book.'' As an entrepreneur, Andrew White is the president and founder of Andrew's Musical Enterprises, Inc. of Washington, DC. Established on September 23, 1971, the business now maintains a catalog of over 2000 products. This year, Andrew White is celebrating four musical milestones on September 23, 2003. First, White will celebrate the 32nd anniversary of his publishing firm, Andrew's Musical Enterprises, Inc. Second, he will celebrate the 30th anniversary of his flagship publication, ``The Works of John Coltrane, Volumes I through 14,'' which contains 661 transcriptions of John Coltrane's improvised saxophone solos. Third, he will celebrate the fourth anniversary of his four-compact disc set entitled ``Andrew White--The Living Legend--Gigtime 2000, Volumes 1- 4.'' Fourth, Andrew White will celebrate the 2nd anniversary of his 840 page hardback autobiography entitled ``Everybody Loves the Sugar--The Book.'' Most recently, composer and conductor Andrew White floored the classical music world on June 21, 2003 with the world premiere of his composition ``3 Jazz Parodies for Double Reed Sextet.'' This grand performance was given at the 32nd Annual Convention of the International Double Reed Society at the University of North Carolina, Greensboro by The Mass Double Reed Society Orchestra, which has over 150 players. Finally, Andrew White has been acknowledged and honored as ``International Musician of the Year 2003 for his Contributions to Jazz Historiography Through Transcription'' by the International Biographical Centre of Cambridge, England.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, as the Dean of the Congressional Black Caucus, and chairman of its annual Jazz Issue Forum and Concert, I rise to call to this body's attention the achievements of a distinguished American musical artist, Elvin Jones. Born on September 9, 1927, in Pontiac, Michigan, Elvin Jones is the youngest brother of a remarkable musical family, which also includes Hank Jones (a pianist) and the late Thad Jones (a coronetist and big band leader). Elvin Jones began his career playing drums with local bands active in Detroit's fertile jazz scene. After serving in the Army from 1946-1949, he returned to the Detroit area, establishing himself as the house drummer at the renowned Bluebird Club. In the mid-50s, Elvin Jones relocated to New York City, where he rapidly established himself as a leading exponent of bop drumming. During this period, he worked with several notable musicians including J.J. Johnson, Donald Byrd, Harry ``Sweets'' Edison, Bud Powell and Sonny Rollins. In 1960, Elvin Jones became a member of John Coltrane's most celebrated quartet, working alongside pianist McCoy Tyner and bassist Jimmy Garrison. Jones played with ``Trane'' for five years, gaining the renown that has led him to be regarded as one of the outstanding drummers in jazz history. After leaving Coltrane, Elvin Jones worked mainly as a leader of his own small groups, where he was able to exercise full control over the musical policy. In 1966, however, Jones toured Europe with Duke Ellington's Orchestra. Back on his own in the late 60s, and on through the 70s and 80s, Jones toured ceaselessly, playing clubs, concerts and festivals around the world. With the 90s came the emergence of the very popular ``Elvin Jones' Jazz Machine.'' During his many years as a leader, Jones' sidemen have included Joe Farrell, George Coleman, Frank Foster, Andrew White, and members of jazz's younger vanguard like Delfeayo Marsalis and Nicholas Payton. Among the labels that Elvin Jones has recorded on are Atlantic, Riverside, Impulse, Blue Note, Enja, PM, Vanguard, Honey Dew, Denon, Storyville, Evidence and Landmark. In 1998, Elvin Jones was elected by the critics into the ``Down Beat Hall of Fame.'' By his colleagues and fans around the world, Jones is recognized as one of the master drummers of jazz.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt), ranking member, for yielding me this time, and to the members of the Committee on the Judiciary. I rise on the point of a simple principle in terms of the bill under discussion. I rise against multiple and discriminatory taxes of any kind and especially in this area of the Internet. Secondly, I congratulate the authors of the Watt-Cannon amendment that attempts to clarify the ban on Internet access taxes, and it applies not only to dial-up Internet service, but also to high-speed cable. When we passed the ban on access taxes in the mid 1990's, no one considered that we could access the Internet over other than the telephone. This bill resolves the ambiguity, and I have other reasons to commend the authors of Watt-Cannon, but right now I support the bill. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation. This bill makes permanent a moratorium on internet access taxes as well as multiple and discriminatory taxes on the internet that we first passed as part of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. It is difficult to justify multiple and discriminatory taxes under any circumstances, on the Internet or otherwise, so I am glad to join in bipartisan support of this legislation. In addition to making the moratorium permanent, the bill before us incorporates the Watt-Cannon amendment to clarify that the ban on internet access taxes applies to not only dial up internet service but also high speed cable, ``DSL,'' and other technologies. When we passed the ban on access taxes in the mid-90's, none of us considered that we could access the internet other than over the phone. This bill resolves that ambiguity. It is in no way intended to otherwise undermine state and local tax bases. My support for this bill is premised in part on commitments made by the majority that we will be able to turn to another issue involving interstate taxes--streamlining the sales tax system. Under current law, the traditional brick and mortar sellers are required to collect sales tax while the electronic retailers have no such requirement, creating what many believe to be an unlevel playing field between the two. I am pleased to note that both Chairman Sensenbrenner and Subcommittee Chairman Cannon have slated hearings on the streamlining hearing for October. I am hopeful that we will then be able to consider provisions to provide states that simplify their sales tax systems with the authority to collect sales taxes equitably from all retailers. I believe that a simplified streamlined tax compact would increase our nation's economic efficiency, facilitate the growth of electronic commerce, and help our states maintain financial support for public education, health and safety. So I am glad we are able to pass this bill today, and look forward to working on the streamlining issue in the not too distant future. I urge a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, since President Bush assumed the presidency in January of 2001, American and specifically Michigan manufacturing jobs have been lost because of our trade policies, the lack of effort by our President to open closed markets, and because of the tremendous cost of pension and health care legacy costs. Last week, the Michigan Democratic Delegation sent a letter to the President detailing a fourteen point plan that we felt could help alleviate the dire situation manufacturing finds itself in. Early this week, Commerce Secretary Evans detailed the Administration's plan to save American manufacturing jobs. I am submitting an article from today's Washington Post, by Steven Pearlstein, which describes our President's efforts at reviving our manufacturing sector as ``feeble.'' America has lost nearly three million jobs since January of 2001. The tax cuts have not worked. War has not worked. And President Bush's plan to save our manufacturing jobs won't work either. A Feeble Plan To Save U.S. Manufacturing (By Steven Pearlstein) After a dozen town meetings, a road trip by three Cabinet officers, months of study and countless meetings of assistant secretaries, the Bush administration has finally brought forth its program to rescue the American manufacturing sector. And it's a bad joke, a melange of tired ideas, empty promises and ideological slogans, and an embarrassment for the White House economic team. The policy was unveiled in a much-anticipated speech to the Detroit Economic Club by Commerce Secretary Don Evans. Instead of offering his knowledgeable audience a cogent, thoughtful analysis of the problems facing manufacturers, Evans trotted out old Rotary Club canards about high taxes, oppressive regulation and frivolous lawsuits. While correctly identifying runaway health insurance costs as a problem, he failed to come up with even one serious remedy. And although Evans grabbed headlines with tough talk about China, the only action to back it up--hold on to your hat now--was a new Unfair Trade Practices Team at Commerce to ``track, detect and confront unfair competition,'' as if there weren't already several hundred bureaucrats doing just that. Perhaps most laughable was Evans's boast that George W. Bush had single-handedly revived the free-trade agenda-- conveniently forgetting that President Bill Clinton expended enormous political capital to push through NAFTA and China's accession to the WTO, ignoring as well the inconvenient fact that his own administration had just sold out American manufacturers at trade talks in Cancun to protect subsidized beet farmers and cotton growers. So what would a serious commerce secretary concerned about manufacturing have said? First, she would have leveled with her Detroit audience, warning that there are industries and industry segments that are structurally vulnerable to foreign competition and can't be ``saved.'' She would have warned them that in key industries such as machine tools, survival depends on the consolidation of small, family firms into larger ones that have the clout to deal with large customers, the money to engage in research and development, and the size to realize economies of scale. She would have acknowledged that the president had been ill advised to cut federal funding for manufacturing research and promised to make amends in the next budget cycle. She might have floated the idea of a 1 percent tariff on all imports to finance extended unemployment benefits, health insurance and training vouchers for displaced workers, grants to their communities, and financial relief to employers offering early-retirement incentives. Rather than ranting about regulations that have proven successful in protecting worker safety and public health, she might have said that fair trade requires trading partners to maintain minimal regulatory standards of their own, consistent with their level of economic development. And she would have acknowledged that while China was making great strides toward developing an open, free-market economy, it wasn't there yet--and that continuing to trade with China as if it were had caused undue harm to American workers and companies. Then she might have announced the immediate imposition of temporary tariffs and quotas on imports of half a dozen key Chinese products, followed by an open invitation to negotiate their removal just as soon as China is ready to get serious about opening its distribution system to U.S. products, protecting U.S. patents and copyrights, and pegging its currency at a reasonable exchange rate. It is possible to make the case for such an aggressive industrial policy. It is also possible to make a case for doing nothing. But the Bush administration has come up with the worst of both worlds--doing nothing while pretending otherwise and hoping nobody notices until after the next election.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to introduce the Global Family Day Resolution. For several years leading up to the turn of the new millennium, a small group of children and mothers patiently petitioned the Congress and the United Nations, asking that a special day of peace and sharing be established and celebrated on January 1, 2000--a day without violence, a day when citizens and nations would lay down their arms and extend their hands in friendship and caring for all the peoples of the earth. This would be a day when all people regardless of race, culture, religion or economic status might celebrate life on earth together. ``One Day in Peace January 1, 2000'' as designated by the United Nations General Assembly, and supported by a thousand organizations, a hundred governments, and twenty-five U.S. governors, did indeed become a day of peace, a twenty-four hour period in which violence was rare and kindness and cooperation commonplace. Despite the very real dangers of riot, terrorism, out-of-control celebrants, and panic over expected failure of computer systems worldwide, through cooperation and responsible actions by nearly every nation and literally billions of individuals, the first day of the 2000's also became the world's first deliberate day of peace. Noting that rare accomplishment, in 2000, the 106th Congress unanimously recommended that every year begin with a day of peace and sharing, and asked that the President annually lead in promoting its observance. Late in 2001, the United Nations General Assembly also recommended that all member nations and all the peoples of the world join in its commemoration. Following the tragedy of 9/11, Congressional leaders joined me in requesting that the President issue his annual proclamation early that year, in order that Americans and others around the world could prepare, with food drives and pledges of nonviolence, for a celebration intended to help reduce both hate and hunger, locally and globally. However, citing the ongoing conflict in Afghanistan at the time, the White House declined. At this time of intense international tensions, a time when Americans' true motives are misunderstood around the world and escalating conflicts threaten, we again implore the President to take a leadership position in the promulgation of One Day in Peace, now to be known as Global Family Day. For as long as half of our human family must live on less than two dollars a day, as long as innocent civilians are dying in Iraq and disease devastates Africa, as long as children are starving in North Korea or go hungry in American schools, we know there is room for improvement in our global family values. And that is what Global Family Day was created to do. I ask all members to join me in supporting this cause.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, in tribute to Bo Diddley, one of the true pioneers of rock and roll, who has influenced generations, I would like to submit the following excerpt from the article entitled ``Pioneer of a Beat Is Still Riffing for His Due'' written by Bernard Weinraub for the New York Times on February 16, 2003: [From the New York Times, Feb. 16, 2003] Pioneer of a Beat Is Still Riffing for His Due (By Bernard Weinraub) Every morning at 4 a.m., Bo Diddley walks into a ramshackle studio on his 76-acre property outside Gainesville to write music. Several electric guitars are scattered on the floor. The studio, a double-wide trailer, is crammed with recording equipment, a synthesizer and electronic gadgets of obscure types. Piled in every corner are boxes of tapes of Bo Diddley songs never released. Mr. Diddley, 74, sat forward on a hard chair and lifted a blond-finished guitar, made for him by a music store in Gainesville. His enormous fingers, wrinkled and strong, grazed the strings. Hooked into an electronic gadget, the strums became the sounds of a small orchestra: strings, chimes, a brassy horn, an organ and a gospel piano, providing a thumping echo of Bo Diddley songs. ``I'm still jumping, doing all right,'' he said, grinning. ``I'm just trying to figure out how to stay in the game. America will drop you like a hot potato, I don't care how big you are. You're big one day and the next day, right away, you're a has-been. Just trying to figure it all out. Maybe I just began.'' Bo Diddley is a musical pioneer who has influenced generations of rockers, and with electrifying stars like Chuck Berry and Little Richard, he reshaped popular music half a century ago. But despite helping build rock's rhythmic foundations, he has never enjoyed quite the success and recognition of his two contemporaries. Last May all three received the first Broadcast Music Inc. (BMI) Icon Awards as founders of rock `n' roll. But as a patriarch, Mr. Diddley rivals and in some ways surpasses his two contemporaries. Performers as diverse as Elvis Presley, Buddy Holly, Jimi Hendrix, Mick Jagger and Bruce Springsteen have been inspired by the syncopated Bo Diddley beat--bomp ba-bomp bomp, bomp bomp--which has been traced to myriad sources, including the drumbeats of the Yoruba and Kongo cultures. At the Beatles' first American news conference in 1964, a reporter asked John Lennon, ``What are you most looking forward to seeing here in America, John?'' He replied, ``Bo Diddley.'' Mr. Diddley's uses of the electric guitar, creating special effects like reverb, tremolo and distortion, influenced funk bands in the 1960's and heavy metal groups in the 1970's. His strutting and powerful presence onstage, his sly, wisecracking songs (``Hey, Bo Diddley''), his cocky attitude, jive dialogue, lyrics of sexual prowess (``I'm a Man'') and ritualized bragging predate rap, which sometimes disgusts him with its language. ``I opened the door for a lot of people, and they just ran through and left me holding the knob,'' he said with pride and anger. Mr. Diddley is still struggling, still creating, still reinventing his career, even though he released few albums in the 1980's and 1990's. ``Every weekend I'm booked somewhere, someplace,'' he said. ``You got to change, you got to roll with the punches and come up with something new.'' Mr. Diddley is hardly shy about proclaiming his importance. ``Have I been recognized? No, no, no. Not like I should have been,'' he said. ``Have I been ripped off? Have I seen royalty checks? You bet I've been ripped off.'' Mr. Diddley's sense of grievance is justified. Like many other musicians of the 1950's, 60's and earlier, white and black, he was exploited by record companies who took care of car payments and home bills but never provided an accounting of record sales. Beyond this, his stature and impact as a composer, arranger, performer, singer and even humorist have been overlooked. Praise From His Peers ``Still the most underrated rock 'n' roller of the century,'' Phil Everly of the Everly Brothers once said. Robert Santelli, chief executive of the Seattle-based Experience Music Project, the interactive music museum, concurred. ``Bo is the most misunderstood and the least appreciated pioneer of rock 'n' roll,'' he said. ``That beat--that signature Bo Diddley beat--is essential to the rhythm of rock 'n' roll.'' Mr. Santelli, a former official at the Rock 'n' Roll Hall of Fame in Cleveland, can find it in every tributary of rock. ``You hear it from Springsteen on down--you hear it in the Rolling Stones, the Who, the Yardbirds and those first- generation British bands,'' he said. ``They were trying to find a balance between black blues and rhythm-and-blues and rock 'n' roll, and Bo Diddley was the living embodiment of that balance.'' Joe Levy, the music editor of Rolling Stone, says he is undervalued in another way. ``He's still out there, still making music,'' he said. ``Here's this guy who made great records and could still make great records if he was given the chance.'' Why Mr. Diddley has never quite succeeded on the level of Mr. Berry or Little Richard is in large measure a consequence of the racial thicket that black Rock 'n' roll performers traversed in the 50's and 60's to gain acceptance by a broad white audience. Mr. Diddley still speaks of what he calls the most humiliating moment of his life. In 1959, the singer recalled, he and some of his band members, who were black, began swimming in a pool on a scorching day at the Showboat Casino in Las Vegas. As soon as the band members jumped into the pool, the white families in it climbed out. A pool attendant put up a sign that said ``contaminated water,'' he recalled. Mr. Berry achieved enduring success partly because adolescent white audiences found his buoyant, somewhat naughty enthusiasm as appealing as black teenagers did. Similarly, Little Richard, in contrast to Mr. Diddley, went out of his way to appeal to white audiences. But even though his original lyrics to ``Tutti-Frutti'' were bluntly sexual, his silver-lame suits, pancake makeup, thick eyeshadow and high, slick processed pompadour gave him a high-camp sexual ambiguity that rendered him unthreatening to white teenagers and parents. Bo Diddley never quite conquered the racial divide. As George R. White, author of ``Bo Diddley: Living Legend'' wrote: ``Diddley remained firmly rooted in the ghetto. Both his music and his image were too loud, too raunchy, too black ever to cross over.'' His records were frequently played on jukeboxes and at dances but far less on the radio. Television appearances were rare. There were no movie offers. Mr. Diddley was often uncompromising. In his dressing room before a 1955 appearance on ``The Ed Sullivan Show,'' on which he was set to sing ``Bo Diddley,'' Mr. Diddley said that the show's producers asked him to sing Tennessee Ernie Ford's ``Sixteen Tons,'' then a huge hit. Mr. Diddley claimed not to know it, so cue cards were quickly written. Mr. Diddley said he thought he was now to perform two songs, not one, and he began with ``Bo Diddley.'' Later he drawled, ``Man, maybe that was `Sixteen Tons' on those cards, but all I saw was `Bo Diddley.' '' Sullivan was enraged, Mr. Diddley recalled. ``He says to me, `You're the first black boy'--that's a quote--`that ever double-crossed me,' '' Mr. Diddley recalled. ``I was ready to fight. I was a dude from the streets of Chicago, and him calling me a black boy was as bad as him saying `nigger.' They pulled me away from him because I was ready to fall on the dude.'' He said Mr. Sullivan told him that he would never work in television again. ``I was scared,'' Mr. Diddley acknowledged. The final insult, he said, was that he was told to return his $750 fee for the show. In fact, Mr. Diddley's next television appearance was seven years later on ``The Clay Cole Show'' on WPIX-TV in New York. He didn't appear again on a network show for a decade, until he performed on ``Shindig'' on ABC in 1965. Mr. Diddley was named Otha Ellas Bates at birth on Dec. 30, 1928, in McComb in southwestern Mississippi, a violent civil rights battleground in the 1950's and 60's. His mother, Ethel Wilson, was 15 or 16; he never knew his father, Eugene Bates. His family were sharecroppers; he was raised by his mother's first cousin, Gussie McDaniel. ``In fact, Momma Gussie raised my Momma,'' he said. The death of Mrs. McDaniel's husband, Robert, in 1934 and the harshness of the Depression-era rural South led the family to Chicago, where they had relatives. In Chicago, destination for so many other Southern blacks, the family changed the boy's name to Ellas Bates McDaniel. Mr. Diddley said he thought Chicago schools wouldn't accept him unless Mrs. McDaniel was seen as his legal guardian. Ellas soon showed an an aptitude for music. At 8 he saw a boy playing violin and asked Mrs. McDaniel to buy one. The family was on relief. So their church, the Ebenezer Missionary Baptist Church on the South Side, began a collection, bought him a violin and paid for lessons--50 cents each--by a classical teacher, O. W. Frederick. Bo played classical music until he was 15, when he broke a finger. (He can no longer play the violin because his fingers are too thick, the result in part of a short teenage career as an amateur boxer.) But more important, the music of the South Side was the blues, thanks to Muddy Waters and many others who had also moved to Chicago from Mississippi. His First Guitar Mr. Diddley began playing the drums but yearned to play guitar and sing like his idol, the Mississippi-born John Lee Hooker. Mr. Diddley's stepsister, Lucille, gave him a guitar for Christmas in 1940, when he was about to turn 12. Bo taught himself to play, experimenting and duplicating the sound of his bow on the violin by rapidly flicking his pick across the guitar strings. (He also played trombone and the drums in the church band.) He did not treat the guitar gently. ``I couldn't play like everyone else,'' he said. ``Guitarists have skinny fingers. I didn't. Look at these. I got meat hooks. Size 12 glove.'' He came to approach the guitar as if it were a drum set, thrusting the music forward. ``I play drum licks on the guitar,'' he said. The result was an unusual sound--later played on his hand-built, exotically shaped guitars--that evolved into a distinctive backbeat, described by music historians as the meter of ``shave-and-a-haircut, two bits.'' In the background he added maracas, which he built from toilet-tank floats, giving the music a Latin texture, and he gave more rhythm to the drum beat. The lyrics were often delivered staccato, adding to the pounding rhythm. The Bo Diddley beat can be traced to West Africa via Cuba. It is also firmly rooted in African-American culture. In rural Mississippi and elsewhere in the South, slaves were denied access to traditional drums because slaveholders feared they could be used for communication. So they patted out rhythm on their bodies. This became ``Hambone,'' an African-American musical tradition of stomping and slapping once used by shoeshine men and still affecting tap dance, cheerleading and a host of other disparate pursuits. At the same time, the guitar beat in the rural fields of the South was a common rhythm played by children on homemade single- string instruments rooted in Africa called diddley bows. And that, of course, was how Bo Diddley got his name.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the ``September 11th Victim Compensation Fund Extension Act of 2003,'' legislation that extends the deadline for filing a claim with the September 11 Victim Compensation Fund to December 31, 2004. I am joined by Reps. Nadler, Scott of Virginia, Jackson Lee, Meehan, Delahunt, Weiner, Schiff, Langevin, Scott of Georgia, Carson of Indiana, Sanders, Crowley and Moran. The current deadline for applying for compensation from the Victims Fund is rapidly approaching, but it has become apparent that many families need more time. Thus far, just under a third of eligible families have applied to the Fund for compensation--only about 1,282 death claims and 1,050 injury claims have been filed so far by victim families, according to the Department of Justice. Ken Feinberg, the Special Master for the Fund, is doing his best to get victims families to understand their rights. Recently, he has even taken out extensive advertisements in a number of newspapers and created a series of informational meetings and claim assistance sites to assist victims' families to file for compensation with the Victims Fund instead of filing a lawsuit against the airlines industry. These efforts should be commended. In light of this reality, however, we believe it is appropriate to extend the deadline for filing applications to the Victims Fund to December 31, 2004--an extension of just over a year. This extension would give grieving families additional time to mourn those who were lost and to overcome the emotional challenges of filing paperwork with the Victims Fund. Several September 11 victims support groups all agree that such an extension would provide some relief during these dark days for victims' families, as they endure the grieving process. As we continue to reflect upon the tragedy of September 11th, victims' families have many burdens. They do not need this arbitrary deadline confronting them between September 11 and the year-end holidays. This is something we can do now for victims of September 11. We strongly encourage are colleagues to support the ``September 11th Victim Compensation Fund Extension Act of 2003.''