John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this motion to instruct the conferees. As ranking member of the Judiciary Committee which has jurisdiction over the antitrust laws which lie at the heart of the M-F-J, I believe we in Congress should be doing everything we can to foster fair competition. I am, therefore, encouraged by the fact that my good friend and Michigan colleague and distinguished ranking member of the Commerce Committee, Mr. Dingell, agreed to specify in this motion that the conferees support those provisions which promote fair competition in telecommunications. That means that we should open telecommunications markets only to the extent that we can be sure that monopolies will not abuse the principles of fair and open competition in the marketplace. Such abuse of monopolistic power would surely lead to higher consumer prices. During the conference I will be doing everything within my power to ensure that the final bill provides for fair competition without the possibility of monopoly abuse. I fought for fair competition in the Judiciary Committee with Chairman Hyde, I fought for fair competition on the House floor, and I hope that as the House and Senate bills are reconciled we can achieve an accommodation providing fair competition for the American people. If the final legislative product does not achieve such an accommodation, but instead allows monopolies to abuse their market power, this would be a dramatic step backward from the M-F-J. In such an event, I believe it would be preferable for the President to veto the legislation so we can begin work again next Congress. Finally, I note that nothing in this motion preempts conferees from being very flexible. Nothing prevents the conferees from looking at a whole variety of alternatives that will promote fair competition. Nothing in this motion should prevent the conferees from engaging in serious discussions with the administration so that a consensus package can be arrived at, and so that we can have meaningful telecommunications reform this year. I urge a ``yes'' vote on this motion and a vote for fair competition.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. If the gentleman would continue to yield, does he?

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield, no, I supported leaving it like it is.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, this is the California against proposition 187 proposal that claims that there was forum shopping when there was, in fact, none. I see my California colleagues are in strong array here, and I was happy that the gentleman from California [Mr. Bono] did not mention proposition 187 as the bill that sent him into his first legislative activity. The fact of the matter is, that the people of California did not know that proposition 187 was unconstitutional. I did not either, but the State court corrected that, I would say to the gentleman. Nobody was forum shopping there, and the Federal court supported it. Mr. Chairman, can we not agree that these courts were not anti- Republican, were not against proposition 187, but that they found a fatal constitutional error that they were duty bound to profess and articulate as something that was not correct, even though 5 million, 10 million, 100 million sign it? That does not make it legal. Let us be clear about this, Mr. Chairman, this is proposition 187 now coming to the House of Representatives. The proponents of this bill tell us we need to adopt three-judge panels to review constitutional challenges to State referenda to provide a more expedited review process. Did we not listen to the chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals who came and explained this to us at great length out of his very busy schedule, that if the one thing we wanted to do was to expedite an appeal is we should not put it in three courts. Now, ladies and gentlemen, that is not awfully judicial concept to understand. We cannot take three judges and make something go faster than one judge. There was no forum shopping, so we are trying to fix something that is not broke. If anything, the bill will make it much more likely that the plaintiff will be able to tailor their lawsuit in an effort to obtain a favorable forum. How? knowing that the chief circuit judge will be given the discretion in selecting the panel members, the moving party can decide whether he or she is better off bringing the case in a State or Federal Court. So, Mr. Chairman, we will have achieved the precise opposite of the intended result. And just to make everybody as happy as we can, we are going to give Members the Schroeder amendment that will correct even what we are imagining. We have a rotating system in almost all the Federal court jurisdictions. They are random. They rotate. There was not any hanky- panky in the California Federal courts, I am happy [[Page H 9614]] to report. There can not be any in selection because it is random. So at the end of the day we are left here with the conclusion that it is not good policy to mandate greater use of the three-judge panels. That is why this Congress, on a bipartisan basis, repealed almost all of the three-judge provisions in 1976. That is why the judicial conference, which must live with the burdensome requirements of this proposal before us, and the administration strongly oppose the bill. That is why most judges that have ever heard of this proposition are outraged that we would be moving back to pre-1976 to try to get back at a proposal in California that we felt badly that it was improperly worded and we held unconstitutional. Mr. Chairman, the real tragedy, however, is the bill's proponents would have the voters believe that we are taking some magic action that will allow for fair and more expeditious legal challenges of State referenda. When they learn this is not the case, the blame will rightly lay with this body, so oppose H.R. 1170.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I grew up in a family that strongly supported the notion that working people ought to be able to join a union and have collective bargaining to determine their wages, benefits, and working conditions. My father rose through the ranks of the United Automobile Workers, and when he retired, he was an international representative for the Chrysler Department at Solidarity House in Detroit, MI. So for me, nothing could be clearer, than the myriad problems that are presented with this legislation we are debating today. I have little inclination to further weaken the rights of America's working men and women, in terms with their relationship with their employer. Proponents of this measure claim that the bill will promote a team- like relationship between management and labor. This legislation will not promote cooperation between management and labor, but rather undermine independent representation in the workplace. This bill will create an unfair balance of labor relations in favor of management. Management will be able to determine the employees representative, write organization bylaws, and establish the organization's mission, jurisdiction, and function. This will take working Americans back 60 years, to the days when company unions were legal. In 1935, Congress enacted the provision of the National Labor Relations Act which specifically prohibited against employer-dominated worker organizations. We saw firsthand the dangers of company unions-- we cannot afford to see them again. [[Page H 9533]] The enaction of this bill would be devastating to the state of the American work force. While productivity and corporate profits are up, wages for the majority of American workers continue to decline. Workers must take on second and third jobs just to provide for their family the same as they did 20 years ago. The Team Act would further limit the workers' voice during bargaining, leaving union and nonunion workers in worse shape. It is no wonder that this bill has virtually no support from workers--it is unfair and undemocratic. I ask that two letters be included with my comments. These letters are from people who certainly understand the potential dangers of this legislation. One is from Joseph Lyscas, from Shopmen's Local Union No. 508, of the International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers Union, in Dearborn Heights, MI. The other letter is a gentle reminder of the president of local 26, of the United Food and Commercial Workers, Mr. James Franze. I urge my colleagues to reject this unfair legislation. Shopmen's Local Union No. 508, International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL-

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I have addressed this body often to discuss America's exorbitant defense spending. As the former chairman of the Government Operations Committee and its subcommittee on Legislation and National Security, I am intimately familiar with fraud, waste and financial self-indulgence in the Pentagon and the military-industrial complex at large. The fact that every one of the top 10 military contractors has either been convicted of or admitted to procurement fraud since 1980 as the Campaign for New Priorities recently pointed out, reminds all of us just how deep and pervasive their breach of trust with the American taxpayer has been. Besides abuse and mismanagement in the private sector though, neglect by the Government remains equally of concern. We have funded meaningless, unnecessary military programs year after year. Today I rise to bring to your attention the work of my distinguished colleague from California, Ron Dellums, the ranking member of the House National Security Committee, who has articulated an alternative to this madness. In the October 2 issue of the The Nation, he outlines a post cold war paradigm--at post cold war funding levels. I think this article, which I am entering into the Record, demonstrates my colleague's years of reflection and expertise on these issues. I commend him for his scholarship and I hope you will grant it the careful study it deserves. Stealth Bombing, America's Future (By Ronald Dellums) The September 7 House of Representatives vote to approve funding for the B-2 bomber--money the Pentagon does not even want--thrust forward the crucial question of the nation's military budget. After World War II, [[Page E 1833]] the United States rejected opportunities to utilize most effectively a newly established international architecture for conflict resolution and economic development. An enormous financial and human price ensued during the five-decade cold war, with its nuclear and conventional arms races, numerous surrogate wars and potential for cataclysmic confrontation. Now, early in a post-cold war era, Congressional leaders and the Clinton Administration are spurning similar opportunities to avert future arms races and restrain potential conflicts. By maintaining the current extraordinary levels of military spending in order to support a ``go it alone'' armed force capable of continuing worldwide intervention, U.S. policy- makers are once again seeking long-term security in short- term military superiority rather than in enduring international stability. Such a course significantly risks rekindling the threatening environment that existed during that now-fading era. And because other nations will undertake military modernization in part due to their reaction to any U.S. drive for improved capacity, long-range U.S. security interests will be better served by restraint in our own programs. The Clinton Administration's military plan--known as the ``bottom-up review''--maintains too much of the cold war force structure and fails to respond optimally to emerging security challenges. I reject the B.U.R.'s conclusion that the United States should maintain military forces sufficient to fight two major regional wars simultaneously without allied assistance, and with the type and size of military forces with which the allies fought Desert Storm. This implausible ``worst case'' assessment has provided the principal rationale for the stall in military force reductions that started after the fall of the Berlin wall. The B.U.R. mandates the perpetuation of old habits--such as routine deployments of aircraft carriers in three oceans-- that then rationalize excessive peacetime acquisition programs and needlessly consume billions of dollars. If the Administration is too cautious, members of the Republican Congressional majority will pursue a powerfully destabilizing and dangerous set of policies. They will rekindle a nuclear arms race by reconstituting Star Wars, abrogating the A.B.M. treaty and abandoning the START II agreement that is designed to secure substantial reductions in U.S. and Russian nuclear weapons arsenals. They are on a wild buying spree of major weapons systems. They needlessly pursue confrontational relationships with former adversaries and reject foreign policy initiatives that could lead to regional stability. They reject peacekeeping and engagement with the United Nations. Both the Administration and Republican policies unjustifiably divert scarce national resources from urgent domestic requirements, enhancing the potential for social instability and civil strife. What alternative view--critical and constructive--do progressives in the Congress offer? Any alternative must begin with the three elements of a truly progressive national security policy: a right-sized military, an engaged foreign policy and a determined effort to rebuild our nation's communities. A right-sized military: The nation could further reduce our aircraft carrier groups from twelve to as low as eight, and still accommodate the war-fighting requirements of the bottom-up review. Despite 30 percent reductions in land forces, there are still 50,000 soldiers that the Army does not plan to employ under the scenarios emerging from the B.U.R. More of our air forces can be demobilized or placed into reserve status. Those of us who reject the B.U.R. see that even greater reductions and smart reorganization can occur. We seek a force structure sufficient for defense of U.S. interests through participation in allied or multinational efforts to halt aggression, undertake peacekeeping operations and meet humanitarian operations requirements. Such a realignment would present a very different picture of U.S. intentions to the world from what emerges either from the Administration or Republican plans. One need not now declare a ``steady state'' number of divisions, aircraft or naval forces to know that we can safely make these substantial additional reductions without harm to national security, and that we will be able to make follow-on reductions in the future as other nations respond to our initiatives. My proposal to the House Budget Committee placed us back on the path of additional force reductions and canceled cold war-based weapons programs, resulting in $82.5 billion in savings in just five years. Under my plan, the United States would also commit to prompt, significant reductions in our nuclear weapons arsenal in compliance with the Non-Proliferation Treaty (N.P.T.), coupled with a continuing commitment to the prompt elimination of other weapons of mass destruction. This would lead to a minimum sufficient deterrent force of only several hundred weapons, significantly below START II limits of 3,500 strategic warheads, and we would work to secure a Russian commitment to a similar reduction. (The Senate Armed Services Committee bill contains an absurd requirements to retain the nuclear arsenal at much higher START I levels.) Such an arsenal would ease the current pressure to find a production source for tritium, and would place us more squarely on a path to eventual nuclear disarmament as is called for in the N.P.T., and which is stated U.S. policy. What we should seek to acquire for the military are the logistics capabilities, intelligence assets and personnel training that will allow U.S. forces to participate effectively and to lead, where appropriate, in peace operations and coalition efforts to stanch genocide or to meet humanitarian crises. Such a program would less likely be perceived as hostile by other nations, and would not as readily trigger reactive military buildups or arms acquisition programs. Preventive engagement: Active U.S. engagement with the U.N. and regional organizations to solve local conflicts can help to avert serious crises before they arise, and will increase international confidence in U.S. intentions. Funding a fairer share of international development efforts can help to enhance stability in various regions. Engaged and imaginative diplomacy, the use of good offices in conflict resolution and international peacekeeping mechanisms can help to defuse--or constrain when necessary--ethnic, religious, sectarian, racial or transnational conflict. Vigorous pursuit of further arms control agreements governing weapons of mass destruction and conventional armaments will effectively complement these commitments. Social investment: The third element of a progressive national security policy is investment in education infrastructure, and the strengthening of other institutions essential to enhancing community and individual well-being. Throughout the 1980s domestic programs were ravaged by a costly arms buildup. President Reagan transferred $50 billion from domestic accounts to military programs in his first budget, and continued such transfers throughout his tenure. Our communities have never recovered. Republican Congressional budget planners are now shifting additional tens of billions from domestic accounts to the military, and slashing billions more for deficit reduction. The nation is at a critical crossroads; the income gap between rich and poor is growing. Many of our children do not enjoy access to, much less training in, the technology that will drive the economy of the future. Our infrastructure-- civic and industrial--is in desperate need of serious investment. Our citizens see their quality of life eroding, yet the answers from Washington are more tax breaks for the rich, environmental degradation and global economic strategies that benefit those with capital at the expense of those who must work for their livelihood. These distorted priorities are a recipe for disaster. During the Vietnam War, Dr. King observed that the bombs being dropped in Vietnam were exploding in the ghettos and barrios of America--the diversion of resources to fight an unjust war was killing our children and their future. His metaphor for that time is just as grimly appropriate for assessing the domestic impact of today's excessive and unwarranted military spending.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor my good friend and distinguished colleague, Congressman Norman Mineta of California's 15th Congressional District. I will remember his service to this body as thoughtful, prolific, and endearing. After operating an insurance business with his father in the 1960's, he became increasingly active in the Japanese-American community of San Jose, and the Japanese-American Citizens League in particular. His passion for public service took off from there. He served as a member of San Jose's Human Relations Commission, then moved on to the city's housing organization. After some time with the city council, he was elected mayor of San Jose in 1971 at a time when the city's population was exploding. It was during these years that Mineta's command of substance and service to the common good made his destiny at the national level certain. Representative Mineta has served in Congress since 1974 and devoted himself to a sound economy through Government and the defense of the disadvantaged. There are several elements of his career as a legislator that I would like to highlight today, some of which are particularly timely in this Congress. In the 102d Congress, in the face of a hostile president. Congressman Mineta led the fight for the successful passage of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Infrastructure Act of 1991, the single most important piece of transportation legislation passed by Congress in decades. This 6-year bill authorized $151 billion for the construction of highways, for highway safety programs and for revitalizing mass- transit throughout America. Committed to both an active Government and a responsible private sector, Mineta responded to proposed cuts in Government departments by declaring: ``What sense does it make to reduce transportation investments that build our economy?'' Congressman Mineta's interests and concerns were truly broad. In 1993, he authored a bill that designated may 1993 and May 1994 as ``National Trauma Awareness Month.'' Two other bills he wrote expanded the Air and Space Museum and the Natural History Museum of the Smithsonian. All of these became law. He also applied his energy and intellect to minority health issues. As Chair of the Congressional Asian-Pacific-American Caucus, he spoke for the Disadvantaged Minority Health Improvement Act Reauthorization last year. During that debate, he noted ``the problem of discrimination in our Nation's health care system is a major one,'' and outlined how the bill would remedy this crisis, especially for geographically isolated minorities. On matters related to the Judiciary Committee, we stood side-by-side often, supporting the assault weapons ban, and protecting access to abortion clinics last year. This spring, following his introduction with myself and Congressman Moorhead of a resolution urging China to enforce its intellectual property laws, Norman traveled through Asia with myself and others on a Judiciary Committee trip investigating such concerns. His wife Danealia's charm and style proved an asset too on that excursion. Some might list his ascension to the chairmanship of the Public Works Committee in the 103d Congress as the crowing achievement of his career; in fact, he was the first Asian-American to chair a major committee. But I would list a different accomplishment that I have a great admiration for, and that I think he has a sound sense of pride: his legislation providing reparations for Japanese-Americans held in prisons during World War Two. Rooted in his own traumatic experience as a child in an ``internment camp'' in Wyoming during the war, Mineta authored legislation that the 100th Congress passed that provided $20,000 each to the 60,000 surviving victims of those concentration camps, and even more importantly, a formal apology from the U.S. Government. I share his belief that institutional or governmental memory consisting of documents, archives, and transcripts cannot be the sole guardian of the past. I believe that history is too important to leave to this kind of memory because institutions can choose what they want to forget, like the internment camps of slavery of African-Americans. Institutions also have weak mechanisms for providing an element of moral reflection to history. Many people do not know that the American Government has never officially acknowledged slavery. Together, we sponsored a bill for reparations for African-Americans, H.R. 891, to have the Government do just that. In a way, this bill forces a moral judgment into an official history of something that has been forgotten and denied for centuries. Because of his work for reparations for Japanese-Americans, he was always enthusiastic about exploring the meaning and broad implications of reparations. I will miss his insight on reparations, intellectual property, health care and many other issues. I wish him the best of success in his private endeavors, and I feel honored to have served with him.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honor jazz pianist, composer, and teacher, Barry Doyle Harris. Barry was born gifted, and started learning piano at the age of 4 from his mother. He followed in her footsteps and played for his church, but soon became fascinated by jazz. He played in his hometown of Detroit throughout the 1950's, the time when I was first awestruck by his shows. In those years, his piano genius took him from the bowling alleys to the Blue Bird Inn, the Motor City's most prominent jazz club. Already, he had as much a passion for imparting his knowledge of music as he had for performing it. He put out his first album in 1955 at the age of 25 under the direction of Donald Byrd. That same year he worked for several months with Miles Davis. By 1957, he was widely acclaimed in bebop circles and he began teaching formally that year. In 1960, he took his act to New York City where he played with Cannonball Adderley, Yusef Lateef, and Coleman Hawkins for many years. In the early 1980's, he played with a 75-piece orchestra, performed at Carnegie Hall, and then founded the Jazz Cultural Center, an educational institute and club in Manhattan. From the day that Barry Harris started teaching, he knew that talent was really a torch to pass on to the next generation. This brought him to a lifelong commitment to getting young people exposed to jazz, keeping music in the schools, and defending the larger role of the arts in our society. He once said, ``Teachers should teach where they come from, not where they are. They tell you life is complex and you have to suffer to give of yourself, and that's not true. Life is very simple, and if you simply live and simply learn to play, you'll really give.'' Today, with these words, I hope to reciprocate Barry's spirit of giving with a token of gratitude for his inspiring contribution to jazz, a great national treasure, just like him.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment being offered by my distinguished colleagues Mr. Dellums and Mr. Kasich. My comments today are straightforward: The B-2 is no longer needed, it does not work property, and the scarce American dollars that fund it should be better spent. The B-2 bomber belongs in a museum. It was designed as a long-range bomber to attack the Soviet Union after a nuclear war. It is nothing short of a travesty that the threat to our wallets has not subsided along with the demise of our cold war adversary. The proposed 20 additional B-2's will cost an astounding $31 billion according to the Air Force. The 20 planes already being built are expected to cost $44 billion, but this years Defense authorization bill lifted the cap in the expectation they will cost even more. This all for a plane that the Air Force now says it does not even want. I rise to tell you the taxpayers of Detroit do not want this plane either. They want their star schools funding back because they would rather put computers in a classroom than in a [[Page H 8620]] flying turkey. The taxpayers also want their low-income home energy assistance back. And most of all, they want their jobs back but they will not even get that because the cuts in job training made last month will keep the 14,000 eligible Michigan job-seekers from receiving training. According to the General Accounting Office, the B-2 has failed many of its basic tests and although I know we are talking about a bomber and not a weather plane, it is important to mention that it cannot tell the difference between a raincloud and a mountain. That does not sound like a plane that costs $2.2 billion apiece. Many people think that every weapon is worth voting for just because it will create jobs. But a Congressional Research Service study I commissioned a few years ago found that money spent in education, transportation, or construction would create far more job than money spent on defense. The jobs argument makes even less sense for the B-2 because out of the jobs cut in aircraft manufacturing since 1989, 90 percent of them are not needed to build the additional bombers and therefore will not come back. Moreover, the recent heavy bomber industrial capabilities study done for the Pentagon noted that the bomber industry is not a unique industrial base that we need to keep warm in the remote event we ever needed to build bombers in the future. I urge you to support this crucial amendment in the name of economic security, political responsibility, and just plain reality.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to one of the truly great Federal jurists of our era, the Honorable Damon J. Keith, a member of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals for 18 years and a member of the U.S. District Court for Eastern Michigan for 10 years, who recently announced he would assume senior status. He was born and raised in Detroit and attended Northwestern High School, where he was a champion track athlete. He graduated from West Virginia State University and received his J.D. from Howard University Law School. He furthered his legal education with an advanced law degree from Wayne State University in Michigan. Not long after, he formed his own law firm, Keith, Conyers, Anderson, Brown & Wahls which included my brother, Nathan Conyers. However, it soon became clear that he was drawn as much to public service and civic activism as he was to the private practice of law. He was particularly drawn to problems of racial discrimination, so that in the end he could not escape the brightly burning flame of the civil rights movement which illuminated the path to racial justice for his generation. In the early years of the civil rights movement in which Damon Keith's activism began, a major concern was the gross housing inequity in urban areas and uneven access to federally funded housing. Between 1940 and 1960, approximately 3 million African-Americans migrated from the South to the North. As a young attorney, Keith had seen the percentage of the black population in Detroit explode from 9 percent to 29 percent in that 20-year span. In the midst of this demographic transformation he was appointed president of the Detroit Housing Commission in 1958 to address the needs of the growing African-American population. In that same year, Michigan and two other States attempted to address widespread discrimination stimulated by the wave of urban migration with open housing bills, but all of them failed. This grim reality brought housing issues to the forefront of the civil rights movement. In 1961, Martin Luther King, Jr. wrote in The Nation magazine that the urban renewal program has, in many instances, served to accentuate, even to initiate, segregated neighborhoods. He explained that a large percentage of the people to be relocated are Negroes, [and] they are more than likely to be relocated in segregated areas. The struggle for equal rights appeared to reach a climax in 1964 with the passage of the Civil Rights Act which forbade discrimination in public accommodations and in the workplace. But with this great victory came challenges of equal magnitude which broadened the goals of the civil rights movement. There were riots in Chicago, Rochester, Harlem, and Philadelphia after racial incidents with police, and a brave biracial group of activists formed the Freedom Democratic Party in an attempt to make the Mississippi delegates to the Democratic National Convention more representative. It was as a witness to these national milestones that Keith was to reach a milestone of his own when Gov. George Romney rewarded him for his distinguished service on the Housing Commission by appointing him to serve simultaneously as chairman of the Michigan Civil Rights Commission. He continued in both of these capacities until 1967 when President Lyndon Johnson decided this kind of activist legal approach ought to be rewarded, and appointed him to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. Later, he became chief judge of that court. It was in this arena where Judge Keith eloquently resolved important cases of national consequence, and his depth and breadth as a national figure was established. In a series of decisions, Judge Keith was able to elaborate a seldom heard theme: how under the Constitution, the power of government must ultimately give way to the rights of common people. It was through these cases that Keith brought his erudition, scholarship and courage to the courtroom and made profound and enduring contributions to the law. Judge Keith's foundation in housing rights, built upon the landscape of the civil rights movement, guided his decision in Garrett versus City of Hamtramck. Evidence in this case revealed that a combination of a lack of low-income housing and widespread prejudice was forcing Hamtramck's African-American residents to flee the city. The decision in this class-action suit stated that: Fifty-seven percent of the black families dislocated by the project moved out of Hamtramck while only 33 percent of the white families relocated out of the city . . . it was inevitable that substantially more blacks than whites would be removed from Hamtramck . . . the city plans presently include scheduled renewal and industrialization of two additional fringe areas . . . both of which are predominantly black; no plans for replacement housing for citizens presently residing in those areas exist. Thus it is apparent that the city is strategically working to achieve a reduction in its total population and indeed hopes to successfully accomplish such by elimination of those residential areas of the city containing black residents. In that opinion, Judge Keith decided that the Housing Act of 1949 and by the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment required the city of Detroit to provide alternative housing for minorities displaced by the city's federally funded urban renewal program. The same bold sense of social responsibility displayed in Garrett versus Hamtramck was found in many other cases he heard and his intellectual rigor ensured that many of his decisions had a national impact. One case that had a huge impact was United States versus Sinclair in 1971, in which Judge Keith declared that the defendants had a right to all transcripts and memoranda relating to illegally tapped conversations which the government intended to use in court. U.S. Attorney General John Mitchell maintained that he had acted under the authority of the president in authorizing wiretaps without a warrant since the matters at hand involved the sacrosanct concept of national security. On close examination though, Judge Keith found that the Justice Department's claim could not stand and that the attorney general was subject to the constraints of the Fourth Amendment. ``The great umbrella of personal rights protected by the Fourth Amendment has unfolded slowly, but very deliberately, throughout our legal history,'' declared Keith. Proceeding prudently but firmly, he pointed out: The contention by the Government that in cases involving national security a warrantless search is not an illegal one, must be cautiously approached and analyzed. We are, after all, dealing not with the rights of one individual defendant, but, rather, we are here concerned with the possible infringement of a fundamental freedom guaranteed to all American citizens. The Government claimed that the President should have the authority to collect information on subversive domestic organizations. Judge Keith called this position untenable. He decided broadly against arbitrary executive wiretap prerogatives, asserting: It is to be remembered that in our democracy all men are to receive equal justice regardless of their political beliefs or persuasions. The executive branch of our government cannot be given the power or the opportunity to investigate and prosecute criminal violations under two different standards simply because certain accused persons espouse views which are inconsistent with our present form of government. United States versus Sinclair brought the dominant themes of Judge Keith's jurisprudence to an early maturity: to harness the power of government for social good wherever possible, and reign in unchecked authority whenever necessary. His opinion withheld scrutiny in appeals all the way up to the Supreme Court, which wrote: [W]e do not think a case has been made for the requested departure from Fourth Amendment standards. The circumstances described do not justify complete exemption of domestic security surveillance from prior judicial scrutiny. Official surveillance, whether its purpose be criminal investigation or ongoing intelligence gathering, risks infringement of constitutionally protected privacy of speech. Security surveillance are especially sensitive because of the inherent vagueness of the domestic security concept, the necessarily broad and continuing nature of intelligence gathering, and the temptation to utilize such surveillance to oversee political dissent. We recognize . . . the constitutional basis of the President's domestic security role, but we think it must be exercised in a manner compatible with the Fourth Amendment. Executive branch officials had also maintained that matters pertaining to internal security are too sensitive for the courts to handle because of the risk to secrecy. But the Supreme Court refused to let the judicial branch of government be marginalized: We cannot accept the Government's argument that internal security matters are too subtle and complex for judicial evaluation . . . If the threat is too subtle or complex for our senior law enforcement offices to convey its significance to a court, one may question whether there is probable cause for surveillance. Nor do we believe prior judicial approval will fracture the secrecy essential to official intelligence gathering. Judge Keith's words echoed throughout the nation that day in 1972 when the Supreme Court upheld his decision. It was only in retrospect that the nation learned the full magnitude of Sinclair: the next day President Nixon's Plumbers terminated one of their taps out of fear they might have to reveal the transcripts some day. The wisdom of Sinclair reverberated in the highest chambers of government again in May 1973, when a judge dismissed the indictment of Daniel Ellsberg for releasing the Vietnam War's Pentagon Papers because the prosecution had tapped his phone and not properly informed the court. Sinclair remains relevant today, since the House of Representatives will soon consider the expansion of wiretap powers in so-called counter-terrorism legislation, H.R. 1710 (and its companion H.R. 1635). It would add ambiguous felonies to the list in which electronic surveillance is allowed and expand the authority to conduct roving wiretaps of multiple phone lines without specifically naming those phones and without a court order. Furthermore, in direct contradiction to Sinclair and other court decisions, it would allow the admission of evidence obtained through illegal electronic surveillance in many instances. These excessive provisions ensure that Judge Keith's words will be revisited soon, whether it's due to surveillance of the Michigan Militia or the gay rights group ACT-UP. His reputation as a leading jurist and civic activist was not lost on President Carter, and in 1977 he appointed Judge Keith to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, the position from which he now is retiring. He participated in 1200 opinions on the Court of Appeals and with the conservative shift of the Sixth Circuit he wrote countless dissents. Dissent was natural for him; he knew that righteousness was not predicated on popular impulse, but on public truths meant to survive the scrutiny of history. His article entitled ``What Happens to a Dream Deferred'' in the Harvard Civil Right-Civil Liberties Law Review in 1984 eloquently elaborated his philosophy of the necessity of dissent and the relationship between the individual and the majority: Those who decide in favor of the unbridled freedom of the individual point to this country's long tradition of favoring and supporting personal freedom. They conveniently fail to recognize that this country has another tradition, one of slavery, segregation, bigotry and injustice. America is doomed to be forever unequal if we remain unwilling to acknowledge this tradition and make provisions for bringing black Americans into the mainstream of life . . . The belief that majoritarian control invariably guarantees the right result in these situations is blind to the teachings of history and counter to the antimajoritarian constitutional principles which form the basis of our civil rights and liberties. Judge Keith was convinced that protection of public freedoms should not end with civil rights and his insight extended to questions of gender as well. In 1986, Judge Keith dissented in the Appeals Court in the case of Rabidue versus Osceola Refining Co. in which the majority opinion rejected the plaintiff's complaint for injury for sexual harassment since the harassment had not caused serious psychological problems. Seven years later the Supreme Court advanced Judge Keith's view of that same issue in Harris versus Forklift Systems, stating with a hint of sarcasm that ``Title VII [of the Civil Rights Act of 1964] comes into play before the harassing conduct leads to a nervous breakdown.'' Justice Sandra Day O' Conner, writing for the majority, continued: A discriminatorily abusive work environment, even one that does not seriously affect employees' psychological well-being, can and often will detract from employees' job performance, discourage employees from remaining on the job, or keep them from advancing in their careers. Moreover, even without regard to these tangible effects, the very fact that the discriminatory conduct was so severe or pervasive that it created a work environment abusive to employees because of their race, gender, religion, or national origin offends Title VII's broad rule of workplace equality. It is one thing to do what is right with the rising tide, and it is quite another to have the courage to rise to the defense of a just cause in the face of the odds. Yet these superior qualities distinguished Judge Keith's character from other jurists, and he applied these traits in every area of the law he interpreted. He saw as inevitable the expansion of constitutional protections afforded women, and he employed his formidable knowledge of law and his acute instinct for progressive change in that effort. Judge Keith knew when to be stalwart in the courtroom as with the Sinclair case or in his numerous dissents, but he also knew that even a committed jurist cannot achieve greatness through tenacity alone. He undertook the task of training new minority law clerks, and at the end of his tenure he had hired 44, more than any other Federal judge in history. He knew that true greatness required not just scholarship but mentorship, not only courage but also grace, and that he would have to exercise these qualities outside the courtroom. He wrote in the Detroit Free Press in 1988 in an op-ed entitled ``A Responsibility to Serve Black Community,'' that Achievement in one's occupation or profession is one mark of success. But we are not truly successful unless we use our training, knowledge, and dollars to serve the community to which we owe so much. His commitment to social activism in his personal life was tremendous, including work with the YMCA, the Boy Scouts, the United Negro College Fund, and many other organizations. His community leadership extended to many cultural institutions including the Detroit Symphony Orchestra, the Detroit Arts Commission, and the Interlochen Arts Academy for whom he served on the Board of Trustees. Judge Keith stands today as testimony to the power of determined hope when it refuses to fade, and strength drawn from moral effort that will not yield. He wrote in his ``Dream Deferred'' law article that: As a black man and American citizen, I have not yet given up on the American idea of equality and justice for all Americans. This nation stands before the world as perhaps the last expression of the possibility that a people can devise a social order where justice is the supreme ruler, and law but its instrument; where freedom is the dominant creed, and order but is principle; and where equality is common practice and fraternity the common human condition. This is the dream he worked for in his career, and this is the vision which he continues to live for today. Our city and our Nation are grateful for his many years of service and leadership. I hope that life in retirement is as generous to him as he has been in fulfilling the duties of the court and the responsibilities of citizenship.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I congratulate my colleague from Michigan [Mr. Stupak] on this very important amendment.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant], a member of the committee. (Mr. BRYANT of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Klink].

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Hinchey]. (Mr. HINCHEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Michigan [Miss Collins]. (Miss COLLINS of Michigan asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Flake].

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Waters], who has followed this matter with great interest.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee]. (Ms. JACKSON-LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from California [Ms. Lofgren], a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California [Mr. Becerra], a very able member of the Committee on the Judiciary. (Mr. BECERRA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff], a member of the Committee on the Judiciary from the other side of the aisle.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder], ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds. Mr. Chairman, I say to my very dear colleague and the dean of the Michigan delegation, that ain't what he said when the Brooks-Dingell bill came up only last year, and he had a tougher provision with the Department of Justice handling this important matter. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Berman], a very able member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer a modified amendment. [[Page H 8462]]

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur]. (Ms. KAPTUR asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)