John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, the middle class is the economic backbone of America. But they are increasingly under pressure due to rising costs in housing, healthcare, and education. To make matters worse, the Alternative Minimum Tax, AMT, will reach a significant percentage of them this coming fiscal year. The Congress needs to act. Today, we will vote on H.R. 3996, the Temporary Tax Relief Act of 2007, which would ensure that no additional taxpayers pay the AMT this year while also extending popular tax credits and deductions that expire at the end of the year. The Congress created the AMT in 1969 to ensure that the wealthiest were not finding loopholes in the tax code and thus avoiding paying any taxes at all. However, because the AMT was not adjusted for inflation and the tax itself has significantly grown in recent years, it will affect a large percentage of the middle class. Unless the bill is enacted, 23 million middle income Americans, who were never intended to be subjected to this tax, will be taxed at a higher rate than before. I am pleased to support my friend, Representative Charles Rangel, who wrote this revenue neutral bill. H.R. 3996 will extend and expand many popular tax credits and deductions such as the mortgage insurance deduction, the child tax credit, small business investment write-offs, a deduction for teachers who use their own money to buy classroom materials, and the additional property tax deduction, which will benefit at least 30 million Americans. Furthermore, it will exclude phantom income deduction from discharged home mortgages, and will also prevent the Internal Revenue Service from entering into private debt collection contracts. Of course, any large tax reform necessarily entails some hard choices. Recent economic growth has been enjoyed disproportionately by the top one percent of Americans, who also continue to benefit from loopholes in the tax code. This bill will take a step towards ensuring that the wealthy pay their fair share by increasing taxes on private equity managers, who actually pay lower taxes on carried interest, and on multinational corporations who offshore their businesses for the express purpose of tax avoidance. It is simply unfair for 23 million hard-working middle income Americans to pay additional taxes while many wealthy private equity and hedge fund managers enjoy a much lower rate of taxation. H.R. 3996, restores America's tradition of progressive taxation. What we are doing here today is a fair and reasonable tax increase on the highest income earners in the country, who can easily afford it, to benefit millions of working families.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, today, I rise against H.R. 3688, the United States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement Implementation Act. Southeast Michigan has lost tens of thousands of manufacturing jobs due to unfair free trade agreements such as NAFTA and CAFTA. Unfortunately, H.R. 3688 follows in the steps of these lopsided trade deals. Advocates of today's legislation will insist that there are strong labor and environmental standards. However, members of the Peruvian Congress were working to pass a robust General Labor Law and now it will be tabled for a substantially weaker labor law issued by President Garcia. Furthermore, given President Bush's track record on lack of enforcement of current U.S. law, I cannot be persuaded that many of the labor provisions will be enforced. Unbalanced trade has led to a race to the bottom which has lowered job quality and wages for U.S. workers and H.R. 3688 will further encourage this push for cheap labor. This bill is also bad for Peruvians. More than three million Peruvians may lose their jobs from U.S. exports and may drive many rural farmers into the illegal cocoa trade. H.R. 3688 will limit Peruvian access to health care. Specifically, by approving this free trade agreement, drug companies will obtain five years of data exclusivity, or monopoly rights for pharmaceutical manufacturers in both countries, which will increase the price of medicine, delay the entry of new drugs, and restrict competition in this market. As a result, millions of Peruvians will be at risk of losing life saving drugs. Furthermore, if Peru chooses to replace its current private Social Security system with its previous public system, then this bill may open the door to allow private foreign investors to file suit at international tribunals. Madam Speaker, a recent poll indicated that the majority of Americans oppose the concept of free trade. It is no surprise that dozens of labor, environment, human rights, and religious organizations have opposed this bill because it is bad for both the United States and Peru. I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, colleagues, appropriations bills are moral statements. They document the direction that we as a Congress desire our Nation to go. With our vote on H.R. 3043 today, we once again have an opportunity to show Americans that the 110th Congress is committed to taking our Nation in a New Direction--putting the needs of the American people first and making long-delayed investments in our future. Unfortunately, this commitment to improving the lives of our soldiers, veterans and ordinary Americans seems not to be shared by the President. The Administration apparently feels that while it is necessary to spend $12 billion a month in Iraq, the Federal Year 2008 Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations bill is just $9.8 billion too expensive and needs to be vetoed. He believes that an extra $10 billion to provide grants to low-income children for after school programs, increasing the purchasing power of Pell Grants, fund job training programs for dislocated workers and helping families facing rising energy prices with the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program is just wasteful spending. The President, in an attempt to burnish his credentials as a bona fide fiscal conservative, now seems to know the cost of everything and the value of nothing. I wonder where this conservatism was from 2001 through 2006, when the Republican-led Congress went on a deficit financed spending spree with our national treasury taking the United States from a $5.6 trillion, 10-year surplus to a $2 trillion, 10-year deficit. By passing H.R. 3043, which combines the Labor, Health and Human Services, Education FY 08 Appropriations bill and the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs FY 08 Appropriations bill, we will be making the largest investment in veterans' health care in history and making long overdue investments in education, worker safety and health care for our citizens. If the President is truly concerned with how his legacy will read, I urge him to listen to the overwhelming bi-partisan majority in Congress that supports H.R. 3043. Mr. Bush, help us reverse the sharp rise in college costs that continue to be a barrier to millions of low- and middle-income students by increasing the Pell Grant from $4,050 to $4,435. Help us increase access to Head Start programs so that more disadvantaged children have access to preschool. Provide a 10.1 percent increase for community health centers, an increase that will serve an additional 1 million uninsured people. Stand with the strong bipartisan majority that passed both these bills this summer. Mr. President, approve this bill and help us make America stronger.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, two weeks ago, the House agreed nearly unanimously to pass H.R. 3678, the Internet Tax Freedom Act Amendments Act. Most significantly, that bill would extend the Internet tax moratorium and grandfather protections for 4 years, clarify the treatment of gross receipts taxes, and revise the definition of Internet access. As my distinguished colleague from North Carolina, Congressman Watt, stated on the floor that day, the House bill was ``an excellent example of what can occur when we work together--on both sides of the aisle--to deal with highly complex issues.'' Our bipartisan legislation was supported by industry groups such as the Don't Tax Our Web Coalition, as well as by various government organizations like the National Governors Association, the Federation of Tax Administrators, the National Conference of Mayors, and the National Conference of State Legislatures. It was also supported by a wide range of labor and union groups. And with that broad support, the House passed H.R. 3678 by a vote of 405-2. The Senate has returned the bill to us with some amendments, and so now we are considering it again. There are four changes: First, the Senate version extends the moratorium on State and local taxes on Internet access, with the grandfather protections, for 7 years, until November 1, 2014, rather than the 4 years in the House bill. Second, the Senate version gives 7 months for certain States to adjust to a phase-out of additional grandfather protection they have been claiming. Third, the Senate version expands the definition of Internet access to prohibit taxation of certain services which are fee-based, not packaged with Internet access, and offered from sources other than providers of Internet access. Fourth, the Senate version prohibits a State from reimposing Internet access taxes under a grandfather clause if the State had eliminated those taxes more than 2 years ago. While these lengthier time periods, expanded definitions, and tighter restrictions on the States go beyond where the House drew the line, I believe the new line is within reasonable bounds, and responds to many of the same considerations that motivated the House in crafting the version passed 2 weeks ago. Like the House bill, the Senate version is designed to allow businesses sufficient time to plan, ensure that consumers continue to benefit from tax-free access to the Internet during this period, while enabling Congress to revisit the moratorium in light of developments in the States or in technology--as Congress had done each time it has extended the original moratorium--in 2001, 2004 and in this bill. The Senate version remains true to the essential goals of the House bill, including our refinements to the definition of Internet access and our decision to provide a temporary extension of the moratorium. Like the House bill, it is designed to minimize adverse effects on State and local government revenue, to treat businesses fairly, and to keep Internet access affordable to consumers. Nonetheless, we must be mindful of the potential misinterpretation of the new definition of Internet access. Therefore, I state our intent in revising the definition. H.R. 3678: Alters the current definition of ``Internet access'' by making it clear that the prohibition on State and local taxation extends to that portion of a service that connects a user to the Internet and enables a user to navigate the Internet for the purpose of gaining access to the content, information and services that are available over the Internet (section 1105(5)(A) of the Internet Tax Freedom Act as amended by this bill). This new definition eliminates existing language that could have been interpreted to allow an Internet service provider to bundle content, information, and services that might otherwise be taxable with Internet access and claim that the entire package is exempt. Preserves in subparagraph B of the new definition of Internet access changes made to the definition in the Internet Tax Nondiscrimination Act (P.L. 108-435) regarding the taxation of certain telecommunications. The language is modified in this bill only as to form to fit the new definition of Internet access as contained in this bill. The provision is intended to insure that all technologies used to access the Internet (e.g. cable, satellite, wireless, DSL, etc.) and the components used to provide the access are subject to the moratorium and protected from taxation by State and local governments. As noted in the Committee Report accompanying the bill that ultimately became Pub. L. No. 108-435 (Senate Report 108-155, 108th Congress, 1st Session, p. 4), the definition ``is not meant to affect States and local taxation of traditional telecommunications services and other services that are not used to provide Internet access. For example, the moratorium does not allow an Internet access provider to claim or to seek immunity from State or local taxes for the provision of other services--such as cable television programming--that are separate from Internet access. Nor does the moratorium exempt telecommunications services provided over the same facilities that are not used to provide Internet access.'' Clarifies in subparagraph C that services incidental to and provided with a connection to the Internet are not taxable. Such services are generally offered for free and provide the user with basic services to make the Internet functional for the user. Addresses in subparagraph D concerns that the existing definition allows goods or services that are used or delivered over the Internet to become subject to the moratorium if they are offered as a package with Internet access. In 2004, concerns about the bundling provision led to a specific exception from the moratorium for voice-over- internet-protocol services. This section defines the VOIP exception of the current law as one of the services that is specifically excluded from Internet access and makes it clear that neither VOIP nor any other good or service that uses the Internet is subject to the moratorium. Since VOIP is specifically excluded from the definition of Internet access, the existing exception for VOIP was removed as redundant. Includes in the new definition in subparagraph E certain services that would be subject to the moratorium under subparagraph C if offered with a service described in subparagraph A, are part of the moratorium even though they are fee-based and offered separately from a service described in subparagraph A. The list of services under this subparagraph is meant to be limited and exhaustive. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 3678 as amended by the Senate remains a good, strong bill that provides much needed clarity to the communications and Internet industries, and strikes an appropriate balance in addressing the needs of States and local governments while helping keep Internet access affordable. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in supporting this bill as the Senate has sent it back to us.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I took a leave of absence on October 29, 2007; unfortunately my airline flight was delayed. The following list describes how I would have voted had I been in attendance today. ``Yea'' on H.R. 3224--Dam Rehabilitation and Repair Act of 2007, Representative Salazar--Transportation and Infrastructure. ``Yea'' on H.R. 573--Recognizing and commending the efforts of the United States public and advocacy groups to raise awareness about and help end the worsening humanitarian crisis and genocide in Darfur, Sudan, and for other purposes, Representative Moran (VA)--Foreign Affairs. ``Yea'' on H.R. 747--Recognizing the religious and historical significance of the festival of Diwali, Representative Wilson (SC)-- Foreign Affairs.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, today we recognize the ongoing loss of life occurring in Darfur. I would like to restate my unconditional support and commitment to advancing peace and security for the people of Darfur. I implore my colleagues in Congress to join me in urging the Sudanese government to take decisive action to address this tragedy. This quite simply is a matter of Life and Death and as the destruction of hope and possibilities continues to erode away at a people who are calling out for help. These atrocities continue to mount in the Sudan as our Administration continues to pump billions of dollars into Iraq and redirects greatly needed resources away from this unnecessary tragedy. The conflict in Sudan began as a genocide against tribes of small farmers in its Darfur region over five years ago. Militia groups have slaughtered an estimated 400,000 people and driven 2.5 million people from their homes. There has been an increase in civilian killings and large scale attacks in Darfur. The rape and torture of women and children remains a constant concern on a daily basis. Thousands have moved to displacement camps which contain their own level of violence with guns being readily available and tensions in Darfur continuing to grow every day. The African Union peace keeping troops who have put up a courageous fight have lacked the proper resources and manpower needed to contain the growing threat. Equipped only with light weapons, they are no match for the heavily armed rebels. They are undermanned and outgunned and in desperate need of advanced weapons and helicopters to properly engage with the Militia. In May, Nobel Peace Prize winner and Holocaust survivor Elie Weisel called Darfur ``the capital of suffering.'' He called on all of us to ``tell the victims they are not alone.'' Violence continues in Darfur, as the Sudanese government attacked two internally displaced camps in the past week. On October 19, the Militia attacked the Kalma refugee camp, the largest in Darfur. Additionally, on Oct. 22, the Hamidiya camp near the town of Zalengei was attacked in a series of clashes between government troops and rebel groups. The killings of African Union peacekeepers and World Food Programme contract drivers combined with detentions of humanitarian workers in the conflict-ridden Darfur region of western Sudan are just a few examples of a deteriorating situation, which is prompting increased anxiety by those affected by the ongoing crisis, as well as by those responding to the emergency. From June until late August, the United Nations reported, an estimated 55,000 new persons had been displaced in the region--bringing the total number of those uprooted this year to some 250,000. In all, the UN estimates, 2.2 million of Darfur's 6.4 million people have been displaced, and four million are now dependent on some form of humanitarian assistance. While almost everyone involved in Darfur policy agrees that an African Union peacekeeping force of just 7,000 troops is not up to the task, the United States has refused to send troops and, despite promises of reinforcements, has yet to secure many additional troops from other countries. At the same time, it has been unable to broker a diplomatic resolution that might ease the violence. There is no doubt that what is taking place in Darfur is genocide, and the government of Sudan and the Janjaweed bear responsibility. Congress and the Administration must support legislation to address this most pressing human rights issue. We must move beyond the rhetoric and take action to save the lives of the people who are struggling each day with this horrific conflict. We must leave politics aside and support legislation such as H. Res. 573, which recognizes and commends the efforts of U.S. advocacy groups to raise awareness about and help end the worsening crisis in Darfur; We must also support H. Res. 740, which condemns the brutal attack on African Union peacekeepers that occurred in Haskanita, Darfur one month ago today. This violent act, carried out by rebels, took the lives of 10 peacekeepers--seven Nigerians and three other soldiers from Mali, Senegal, and Botswana; and finally H. Res. 726, a resolution calling on the President and the international community to take immediate steps to respond to and prevent acts of rape and sexual violence against the most innocent of Darfur's victims--young girls and women. We must continue to provide security and support for the courageous humanitarian workers, who risk their lives daily. Their commitment to this struggle has been exemplarily in the face of danger. We must also take this opportunity to unite and stop these crimes against humanity. We can not allow our past failures to identify genocide in places such as in Rwanda, Bosnia, and elsewhere to exist ever again.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, today the House votes yet again on legislation that never should have been a subject of controversy: a bill that provides health care for our Nation's children. When we debated overriding the President's veto of the original SCHIP bill last week, most House Republicans offered excuses for denying children health care based on a series of misrepresentations and distortions of the facts. Today the bill's opponents have no more excuses to hide behind. We have consulted with Republicans who want to support this bill and have amended it to address their concerns. It should now be clear to all that the real reason some continue to oppose SCHIP is because they oppose universal health care for all Americans. Republicans voting no on last week's veto override offered four reasons for their unwillingness to support health coverage for America's children. These concerns had, in fact, already been addressed in the original bill, but now we have dealt with them even more explicitly. Republicans argued that the bill did not focus enough on covering poor children. I find this particular objection rather ironic, since the same Republicans who used this argument rarely support legislation designed to help the poor. But, it is not surprising that they would use disingenuous tactics to block health care for children. For them, anything goes when it comes to stopping Americans from getting the radical idea that the government should guarantee this basic human right. This revised bill addresses those arguments by mandating that SCHIP eligibility will be capped at families earning 300 percent of the federal poverty level, around $60,000 for a family of four, and by offering bonus payments to States for enrolling the lowest income children into Medicaid. Opponents of health care for children contended that the original bill provided coverage to illegal immigrants. In reality, this bill denied coverage to all immigrants, even legal ones, explicitly stating that illegal immigrants were ineligible. But these facts did not hinder the Republicans from making their false claim. We have now clarified our intent that illegal immigrants will not be covered by requiring that applicants for SCHIP provide their Social Security number, which must be verified by the Social Security Administration. Republicans opposed the original bill because it allowed States to use the funding to cover adults. For them, a person's right to health care ends at age 18. I would disagree, but in any case this bill now phases out any adults covered under SCHIP over a 1-year period, instead of the 2-year period under the original bill. Finally, further changes have been made to clarify that this legislation is designed to minimize children moving from private insurance to SCHIP, also known as ``crowd-out.'' I am a critic of private health insurance, with its costly and unnecessary administrative, waste, advertising and profits, but this bill should allay any concern that a government health plan, with its much lower overhead costs and more comprehensive coverage, would diminish the role of private insurance companies. We will actually allow States to subsidize people to buy private coverage under this bill to prevent them from moving to government coverage. The President and his supporters are now left with only one argument for opposing this bill: that it costs too much. The original House- passed version authorized an additional $50 billion for SCHIP over 5 years; our compromise with the Senate brought the total down to $35 billion. This additional funding will ensure that SCHIP will cover 10 million children who otherwise would not have access to health care. The President began this debate by offering to add only $5 billion, which would have resulted in 800,000 children currently covered by SCHIP losing their coverage. He is now saying that he's willing to go to up to $20 billion, but no more. I would like the President to explain to the American people how he can afford $12 billion for a single month in Iraq but can't seem to find $35 billion over 5 years to give our children health care. Supporters of the contention that we can't afford this bill either care more about war than children, or are simply not serious. Now that the Republicans' stated reasons for opposing this legislation have been addressed, one wonders what is actually motivating those who will continue to vote no. I believe that the President and his supporters continue to oppose this legislation because they are afraid. They are afraid of SCHIP because it demonstrates that health care guaranteed by the government is workable, it is affordable, and it is popular. They worry that if SCHIP is expanded, even more Americans will begin to demand that the government guarantee health care to all our citizens, not just to poor children. After all, every other industrialized nation does so, while spending less than we do and while achieving better health outcomes for its citizens. These Republicans apparently intend to use every means at their disposal to ensure that health care in this country remains a privilege for those who can afford it, rather than a right guaranteed to all. Madam Speaker, today's vote raises a moral question. Simply put: will we, as a nation, take responsibility for ensuring that our children have the health care they need? Any other issue raised in this debate, particularly given the revisions to the bill, is an obfuscation meant to hide the fact that the party claiming the mantle of ``family values'' is in fact unwilling to back that slogan with substance. There is only one vote today that truly supports America's families. It is a vote in favor of this legislation.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I rise to voice my strong support for overriding the President's veto of the State Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization. This bipartisan legislation would provide health coverage for 10 million of our most vulnerable children. It is supported by over 80 percent of the American public, as well as bipartisan majorities in the House and Senate and 43 of our Nation's Governors. The fact that the President and the House Republican leadership continue to oppose this critical, life-saving legislation is difficult to comprehend. All of the excuses that they have trotted out for blocking this bill--that it would cover the rich, or illegal aliens, or that it would institute ``socialized'' medicine--have been exposed as false. This bipartisan program puts poor kids first, as reflected in the fact that 90 percent of families covered by SCHIP live under 200 percent of the poverty level. It bars coverage of illegal immigrants, as is spelled out clearly in the bill's text. In fact, the bill does not even cover legal immigrants. Finally, the SCHIP reauthorization does not institute ``socialized'' medicine. Seventy-seven percent of children in the SCHIP program are covered by private insurance companies, and the American Association of Health Insurance Plans, as well as the American Medical Association and PhRMA, all support this bill. The Republicans' other excuse for opposing this bill--that we can't afford it--is disingenuous. This legislation is fully paid for with a tobacco tax. I also find it interesting that those who raise the cry of ``fiscal responsibility'' when it comes to a few billion dollars for poor children do not seem to have any objections to providing hundreds of billions for the President's disastrous war. Having revealed that the Republicans' stated reasons for opposing this legislation are patently false, one is forced to wonder what is actually motivating them. I believe that the President and his supporters are blocking this legislation because they are afraid. They are afraid of SCHIP because it demonstrates that health care guaranteed by the government is workable, it is affordable, and it is popular. They worry that if SCHIP is expanded, even more Americans will begin to demand that the government guarantee health care to all our citizens, not just to poor children. After all, every other industrialized nation does so, while spending less than we do and while achieving better health outcomes for its citizens. The Republicans will apparently use every means at their disposal to ensure that health care in this country remains a privilege for those who can afford it, rather than a right guaranteed to all. Madam Speaker, today's vote raises a moral question. Simply put: will we, as a nation, take responsibility for ensuring that all our children have necessary health coverage? All other issues raised in this debate are obfuscations meant to hide the fact that the party claiming the mantle of ``family values'' is in fact unwilling to back that slogan with substance. There is only one vote today that truly supports America's families. It is a vote to override this shameful veto.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay homage to a great American. CPT Richard Macon was not only a hero to this country, but an example of how true tenacity can overcome any obstacle. Richard Macon, a prestigious Tuskegee Airmen and one of this country's most skilled pilots, taught us that determination and commitment have the ability to help one achieve his/her dreams. Captain Macon also taught us that even the ugly head of discrimination and institutional racism cannot suppress the enduring American spirit which keeps this country a leader in the world. Macon, with a bachelor's degree in mathematics, joined the Army Air Forces in 1943 and graduated from the segregated flying school for black airmen at Tuskegee, AL, to become a fighter pilot. Lt. Macon served as a replacement pilot with the 99th Fighter Squadron and had 16 successful missions to his credit. On August 12, 1944, he was strafing ground targets over southern France when his P-51 Mustang was hit by ground fire while escorting bombers over a German radar station. His plane was flipped upside down at treetop level and the right wing separated. Macon learned that his plane had crashed into a building used by the Germans as a headquarters, killing 40 German officers and soldiers. Macon's neck was broken and the lower part of his body was temporarily paralyzed. Narrowly missing being shot by a firing squad, he became a war prisoner for more than 9 months. Captain Macon is quoted as saying, ``It was the greatest feeling in the world, seeing them tear down the swastika and raising the stars and stripes.'' That feeling was tempered when he returned home on a troop ship at Boston Harbor. There he was greeted by the grim reality that African Americans still had a long way to go. At the end of the gangplank were two directional signs: white go this way and colored go this way,'' he said. ``Uh huh, the war is just starting.'' Captain Macon's decorations include the Air Medal, Presidential Citation and Purple Heart. He retired with the rank of Captain. Macon's life itself is a lesson in how to succeed but Richard Macon's desire to teach others led him to acquire a master's degree and join the ranks of public education, teaching at the high school level at Northern High School and progressing to the level of principal and personnel administration in his later years. He was a truly caring person who enjoyed helping others and believed in education as a means of bettering oneself. We will remember him as an officer, a gentleman, a teacher, and a leader amongst men of greatness.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 746, I call up the bill (H.R. 3773) to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to establish a procedure for authorizing certain acquisitions of foreign intelligence, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material for the Record on H.R. 3773.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, 6 years ago the administration unilaterally chose to engage in warrantless surveillance of American citizens without court review. That decision created a legal and political quagmire. To fight terrorism and prevent another 9/11, we need to have an effective and legal system of intelligence gathering. That is what we are here to do today. When that old scheme broke down, the administration then forced Congress to accept an equally flawed statute in August, the Protect America Act. The Protect America Act granted broad, new powers to engage in warrantless searches within the United States, including physical searches of our homes, computers, offices, libraries and medical records. There was a valiant fight against it, but we did not prevail. Mr. Speaker, at this time I want to acknowledge the great work of the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, Silvestre Reyes, for what he did, and on the Judiciary Committee I am quite proud of Jerry Nadler of New York, the chairman of the Constitution Subcommittee, and Sheila Jackson-Lee, the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas. Also the chairman of the Crime subcommittee, Bobby Scott of Virginia. The PATRIOT Act granted broad new powers to engage in warrantless searches within the United States. It included, as I said, physical searches of our homes, of our computers, offices, libraries, and even medical records. The law contained no meaningful oversight whatsoever and went around the FISA Court. It should not be made permanent. That is why we are here today with the RESTORE Act, to create a framework for legal surveillance that includes the FISA Court. Careful consideration by the Judiciary and by the Intelligence Committees addresses the need for flexibility in intelligence gathering and delivers the ability to deal with the modern communications networks. More importantly, it is consistent with the rule of law, the Constitution, and our democratic values. Let's be clear about how the RESTORE Act's ``basket'' court orders work. These orders are not individual warrants for Osama bin Laden or other terrorists. They allow surveillance of an entire terrorist group or other foreign power through a flexible court process. This act prohibits reverse targeting to engage in warrantless spying on Americans. In approving the order, the court must also approve the guidelines and procedures that will be used to protect the rights of Americans under the Constitution and under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. When the intelligence community turns its attention to Americans at home, they will have to get a warrant. That isn't just good policy; this is the critically important fourth amendment in action. So RESTORE even brings the court into the emergency provisions. NSA must notify the court when they start emergency acquisition, and they must seek a court order within seven days. This is not a secret process. The court knows when it is started and is awaiting the application. Mr. Speaker, the phone company can't even turn on the switch unless it has a certification from the government that they are actively seeking that court order. If the application is turned down, the surveillance shuts off, unless the court specifically stays their ruling, pending appeal. That appeal must be resolved within 45 days. These emergency authorizations are not a backdoor way to avoid court review. In fact, the court will be looking at the emergency from the very first day. The bill also provides other critical safeguards: periodic audits by the inspector general; narrow scope of authority to security threats, not just anything. It protects privacy of Americans traveling abroad and, most important, sunsets the legislation in December of the year 2009 so that we can review it one more time. Importantly, the bill has no retroactive immunity for telecommunications carriers whatsoever. Why? Because we have been refused the documents to determine whether retroactive immunity has any place or not. Interestingly enough, that was delivered to the Senate. They have the documents. We, begging, pleading, screaming, we don't have the documents. So no retroactive immunity. Until we receive these underlying documents, there is no way we can begin any consideration of that request. So the legislation before us today is a very, very important start-over improving the measure, the Protect America Act, that still exists. Please join with me in a careful consideration of everything in this measure. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to recognize the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman) whose experience in intelligence matters and FISA in particular are well known, and I yield to her 2\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to recognize the chairman of the Crime Subcommittee, Bobby Scott of Virginia, for 3 minutes.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I rise tonight to honor the life of Kathleen McCree Lewis who recently passed away. The daughter of the late, Federal Judge, Wade McCree. ``Kathy Lewis'', as she was known, to all of us, was the lifelong partner and wife of David Baker Lewis and loving mother to Aaron and Sarah, their two children. Kathy was a dear friend and a loyal supporter of the Detroit, Michigan community. I valued her friendship and loyalty to her family and friends. She always gave her greatest effort to all that she accomplished. Kathy will always remain in our hearts and minds as a woman who dedicated her life to her family and to her community. Kathy was a distinguished partner in the law firm of Dykema Gossett, Detroit, Michigan, where she was a specialist in appellate litigation. As an outstanding member of the State of Michigan Bar she was known for her continued involvement and support for all areas of substantive civil law, which included specialties in anti-trust, bankruptcy, environmental, banking, land use, product liability, intellectual property, and general commercial law. Kathy was well recognized on the State and Federal level and in the U.S. Court of Appeals in more than five jurisdictions, as well as in the United States Supreme Court. Kathy achieved recognition by ``Law and Politics'' as one of the best lawyers in America and Michigan Lawyers Weekly named Kathy as one of Michigan's top ten lawyers of 2006. Kathy was the recipient of the 1992 Wayne County neighborhood legal services award and the 1993 Dykema Gossett Pro bono award. She was named one of Detroit's most influential women. Kathy and her husband David jointly received the Learned Hand Award, from the Detroit Chapter of the American Jewish Committee Institute of Human Rights, for their civic, educational and philanthropic endeavors. The greater Michigan community will sorely miss her generous efforts that she graciously gave on behalf of the committee on Children's Rights Litigation, Children's Hospital of Michigan, Children's Museum Friends, Grosse Pointe Academy, Detroit Chapter's of International Summer Villages, Inc., Jack and Jill of America, Inc., as well as other educational and philanthropic activities which were so much a part of her life. The world needs more individuals like Kathy, who give so much and ask for so little in return. Tonight, I and the people of the State of Michigan, will mourn the loss of Kathleen McCree Lewis.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I was unable to be present for the rollcall votes on H.R. 2095, the Federal Railroad Safety Improvement Act and the Republican motion to recommit. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on H.R. 2095 and ``nay'' on the motion to recommit.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. I have none.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to recommit.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Speaker and note his surprise, and I want everyone to know that this motion is one that we on this side can concur with. We think it's thoughtful and appropriate and indicates the kind of rapprochement that we are trying to reach on any other matters of difference that might be outstanding. Allowing a court to take into account national security when considering the balancing test and allowing the court to retain full discretion on whether to consider this information, and it may consider this along with any other information it deems relevant, means that the ranking member's continued commitment to work on this issue is going on even now, and I thank him for his constructive efforts. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the author of the manager's amendment, Mr. Boucher of Virginia.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the instructions of the House in the motion to recommit, I report the bill, H.R. 2102, back to the House with an amendment.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 742, I call up the bill (H.R. 2102) to maintain the free flow of information to the public by providing conditions for the federally compelled disclosure of information by certain persons connected with the news media, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 2102.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Ladies and gentlemen of the House, in recent years, the press has been under assault as reporters are increasingly being imprisoned, imprisoned for obstruction of justice and other charges. There are many causes of these attacks, including an increasingly consolidated media, abuse of position of power to intimidate members of the press, and a co-opting of the media as an investigative arm of the government. Today, we are here in an attempt to reclaim one of the most fundamental principles enshrined by the Founding Fathers in the first amendment to the Constitution. Freedom of the press is the cornerstone of our democracy. Without it, we cannot have a well-informed electorate and a government that truly represents the will of the people. This measure before us, H.R. 2102, the Free Flow of Information Act, helps restore the independence of the press so that it can perform its essential duty of getting information to the public. The bill will ensure that members of the press are free to utilize confidential sources without causing harm to themselves or their sources by providing a qualified privilege that prevents a reporter's source material from being revealed except under certain narrow circumstances. This measure balances the public's right to know against the legitimate and important interests that society has in maintaining public safety. After the hearing and markup of this legislation, the sponsors of the bill worked hard to accommodate the concerns of all that were raised. While several good changes were made, I want to focus my comments today on the issue of national security and why I believe concerns about national security have been very effectively addressed in the bill and in the proposed manager's amendment. The bill provides that disclosure of a source can be compelled where necessary to prevent an act of terrorism or significant specified harm to national security. The manager's amendment that will be offered by our colleagues, Mr. Boucher and Mr. Pence, specifically addresses the Department of Justice and DNI's primary concern, which is that the bill's exception for national security concerns would hinder efforts to investigate and prosecute leakers of classified information. In response to this concern, the manager's amendment provides that disclosure of a source can be compelled in a criminal investigation or prosecution of an unauthorized disclosure of properly classified information when such disclosure will cause significant harm to national security. The bill defines a covered person to exclude foreign powers or agents of foreign powers, so that, for example, a government-controlled newspaper of a foreign nation does not receive the protections of the act. This provision insures that our national security and law enforcement efforts will not be flouted by foreign governments that try to hold themselves out as covered journalists and claim entitlement to the act's protections. The bill makes it clear that any foreign terrorist organization designated by the Secretary of State is excluded from the protections of the act. In addition, the manager's amendment adds three more exceptions to the definition of ``covered person,'' so the privilege does not apply to any person designated as a specially designated global terrorist by the Treasury Department, any person who is specially designated a terrorist under FISA, and any terrorist organization as defined in the Immigration and Nationality Act. Each of these exceptions were proposed by the Department of Justice and accepted by us. So, as you can see, the bill provides broad protection for national security. If the exceptions were any broader, it would swallow up the rule itself. And for those who claim that the national security exception should not also be subject to the balancing test, I have no doubt that if a court finds that the disclosure of the source is necessary to prevent an act of terrorism or other harm to national security, it will also find that disclosure outweighs the public interest in gathering and disseminating the information. So it is our responsibility, Congress's responsibility, to ensure the press is able to perform its job adequately. The Free Flow of Information Act is an important part of fostering the continued growth of a free and independent press in the United States. It will encourage increased dialogue on the issues that face this country; and, in doing so, it will strengthen the foundation of our democracy. This legislation receives wide support. Over 100 editorial boards, a diverse group of over 50 media companies and organizations, including the Newspaper Association of America, the National Association of Broadcasters, the Associated Press, News Corp, the Newspaper Guild, ABC, NBC, and journalist organizations like the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and the American Society of Newspaper Editors. Please join with us on both sides of the aisle so that we can support and pass this important piece of legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.