John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, could you advise us how much time remains on each side.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I would begin first by yielding 1 minute to the subcommittee Chair, Edolphus Towns of New York.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. I want all the Members to make sure they understand that the Office of Professional Responsibility is accountable to the Attorney General, and when we are investigating the U.S. assistant attorneys or attorneys in the Department of Justice, he is investigating his own shop. The second point is that their inspection, their investigations, are confidential. The Inspector General, the IG, requires a public disclosure of what he found. So this isn't a matter of trying to justify anything about the U.S. Attorneys action. I would like my good friend from Ohio to know that this is something that has been discussed. The Inspector General for DOJ, Glenn Fine, has testified before the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee and made it very clear that these matters of public interest that require reports that are institutional should by all means go through this route rather than be shunted off to a private investigatory committee inside the Department of Justice. It is an anomaly that we hope to correct. It doesn't reflect poorly on anybody. As a matter of fact, this will be for future Departments of Justice. We are not going to go back over anything that we have covered before. Mr. Chairman, I urge that the membership support this very modest amendment.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Chairman, I yield 2\1/3\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Chairman, I am pleased to recognize the gentleman from Virginia, James Moran, for 1\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), cochair of the Progressive Caucus.

Mr. CONYERS. I only have one Member to speak, Mr. Ranking Member. Are you prepared to close?

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that Subcommittee Chairman Bobby Scott be allowed to control the time on the manager's amendment.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Chairman, I rise to make three commonsense changes to clarify and improve the bill that has been under discussion, and I hope that it addresses my friend from Virginia's comments about tightening the bill and making it more clear and more specific. First of all, we clarify that the Federal Bureau of Investigation is to investigate those fatalities resulting from the potentially unlawful use of force by contractors in war zones. This will help make it easier for an initial examination to confirm claims of self-defense by contractors without the need for a protracted and costly investigation when it may, in fact, not be warranted. Secondly, in response to a suggestion from the minority and the administration, the amendment clarifies that the Attorney General is authorized to request assistance from other Federal agencies when assigning personnel and resources to the FBI investigative units on the ground. This would enable the Attorney General to draw on the expertise of the Department of Defense, among others, when appropriate in undertaking and moving forward with investigations and prosecutions. And finally, we require that the FBI look only to the Secretary of Defense for any additional security assistance that the FBI investigative units may need in a war zone. We would not want to have the FBI relying on private contractors for security while investigating their conduct. And so I thank the chairman of the Crime Subcommittee, Bobby Scott; the ranking member of the Crime Subcommittee, Randy Forbes; along with the bill's creator, David Price; and finally, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Carney) for working with me to craft this amendment. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I took a leave of absence on October 1, 2007, as I was attending to personal business. The following list describes how I would have voted had I been in attendance today. ``Yea.'' H. Con. Res. 185--Commending the 1st Brigade Combat Team/ 34th Infantry Division of the Minnesota National Guard upon its completion of the longest continuous deployment of any United States military unit during Operation Iraqi Freedom (Rep. Walz--Armed Services) ``Yea.'' H.R. 2276--To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 203 North Main Street in Vassar, Michigan, as the ``Corporal Christopher E. Esckelson Post Office Building'' (Rep. Kildee--Oversight and Government Reform) ``Yea.'' H.R. 3325--To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 235 Mountain Road in Suffield, Connecticut, as the ``Corporal Stephen R. Bixler Post Office'' (Rep. Courtney-- Oversight and Government Reform)

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Internet Tax Freedom Act Amendments Act of 2007. This bipartisan legislation will amend the Internet Tax Freedom Act (ITFA) to extend the moratorium on certain taxes relating to the Internet and to electronic commerce and to address growing concerns as innovation occurs. I am pleased to say that working together, we have come to an agreement on a definition of Internet access that is clear, precise, and on target. It says that Internet access is a service that enables a user to connect to the Internet. This definition would include incidental services like e-mail and would maintain a lot of the telecommunications language--even going so far as to clarify it--from the last extension of the moratorium in 2004. This definition would further make it explicit that just because a service uses the Internet does not mean that that service had become part of the moratorium. length of the extension This Act would extend the moratorium for 4 years, to run until November 1, 2011. The 4-year extension will allow Congress to make any adjustments to the moratorium if necessary. It will also allow companies a sufficient amount of time to plan their investments, while also giving consumers tax free access to the Internet. Congress has made important adjustments on each previous occasion that we extended the moratorium, in 2001, and again in 2004. grandfathering This Act would extend for 4 years, the grandfather provisions which have preserved those Internet access taxes that were imposed prior to 1998. This is consistent with past extensions. This Act also phases out those states that claim to be grandfathered as a result of the Internet Tax Nondiscrimination Act of 2004. The 2004 Act provided for an amended definition of Internet access and resulted in assertions and public rulings made by many states requiring the collection of tax on sales of telecommunications to an Internet service provider to provide Internet access. This is because those states have interpreted the 2004 definition of ``Internet access'' to broaden the scope of the 1998 grandfather clause to permit taxation on the sales of telecommunications to an Internet service provider to provide Internet access. This Act resolves this problem by allowing those states that have issued public rulings before July 1, 2007 that are inconsistent with the foregoing rules to be held harmless until November 1, 2007. gross receipts tax issues in certain states A small group of states have recently enacted taxes that apply to almost all large businesses in the state--including Internet access providers. The new gross receipts taxes in these states serve as general business taxes and either substitute for or supplement the corporate income tax currently in place in those states, whereas in all other states, corporate income taxes serve as the general business tax. The problem is that the originally enacted and further amended Internet Tax Freedom Act (ITFA) contains an explicit protection for corporate income taxes imposed on Internet access providers, but not for gross receipts taxes. Thus, these select states would suffer a disproportionate loss because while the other states with corporate profits taxes are explicitly allowed to impose them on profits that they gain by providing Internet access services, there is no similar protection in ITFA for the type of general business taxes that are levied by the select states, because they are being levied on gross revenues or receipts, and are not covered in ITFA. The result is that an Internet access provider could potentially decide not to pay the tax on its receipts attributable to providing Internet access service in those select states. Thus, if the provider companies decided to stop paying on its access service, the wording of ITFA suggests that a court would likely support their position that these gross receipts are not taxable--and the states would lose out on millions in revenues. This Act resolves this dilemma by creating an exemption for states that have enacted laws that would structure their gross receipts taxes in such a way as to be a substitute for state corporate income taxes that are not taxes on Internet access. To be exempt the state law must have been enacted between June 30, 2005 and November 1, 2007, and must impose such taxes on at least 80 percent of business enterprises engaged in business in the state without regard to (a) the form of organization; (b) business activity in which such enterprise is engaged; (c) minimum filing thresholds; or (d) whether such business actually incurs a filing and payment obligation. definition of ``internet access'' After close examination of the many concerns with the definition of ``Internet access'' in current law, we have agreed on a precise definition of ``Internet access''. The proposed definition will accomplish the following: 1. Prevent all tax-exempt content bundling by redefining Internet access as the service of providing a connection to the Internet, with closely-related Internet communications services such as e-mail and instant messaging; 2. Amend the definition of ``telecommunications'' to include unregulated/non-utility telecommunications (such as cable service); and 3. Remove the current exception for taxing Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP), so that states and localities will be free to tax these services. I am hopeful that Congress can move quickly to enact this worthwhile and timely legislation.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce the State Video Tax Fairness Act of 2007. This legislation will ensure that video competition remains robust, states retain the ability to raise revenue through sales taxes, and, most importantly, consumers are not harmed. Discriminatory sales taxes harm consumers. It is well-established that robust competition for substitutable products generally benefits consumers by yielding lower prices and greater quality. A number of states, however, have enacted what may be deemed to be discriminatory sales taxes on DBS service, with no burden or a lesser burden placed on cable subscribers, and more states are threatening to do so. These states impose a higher sales tax on nationally distributed DBS subscribers than they do on cable or other types of video providers. The legislation that I am introducing today will ensure fair taxation to all consumers, and I hope to conduct hearings and request a GAO study of this issue. The State Video Tax Fairness Act of 2007 would prohibit discriminatory taxes against any pay-TV service and apply the non- discrimination principle to taxes on both services and equipment. State revenues would not be impacted. The Act would allow states to tax pay-TV providers or their subscribers, provided that such taxes are applied equally to all such services, including cable and DBS. Consumers Union and Media Access Project, in separate letters submitted to this record, point out that artificial cost increases to the consumer imposed on one category of service provider can undermine the consumer benefits of competition. A discriminatory sales tax placed on one type of provider but not another is such an artificial cost. National Taxpayers Union, in a letter submitted to this record, points out that, at the very least state and local governments should not discriminate among products or services by disadvantaging one with heavier taxes. Discriminatory sales taxes against DBS subscribers set a dangerous precedent for picking and choosing winners and losers in a marketplace based on who receives the most favorable sales tax treatment, rather than who provides the best value to consumers. I urge my colleagues to join me as cosponsors of this legislation.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, the ``Protecting Employees and Retirees in Business Bankruptcies Act of 2007,'' addresses the vast inequities in current bankruptcy law with respect to how American workers and retirees are treated, an area long-neglected by Congress. The rights of workers and retirees have greatly eroded over the past two decades, particularly in the context of Chapter 11. Let me just cite three reasons. First, it is no secret that certain districts in our Nation interpret the law to favor the reorganization of a business over all other priorities, including job preservation, salary protections, and other benefits. Part of the problem is that the law is simply not clear, leading to a split of authority among the circuits. This is particularly true with respect to the standards by which collective bargaining agreements can be rejected and retiree benefits can be modified in Chapter 11. Businesses, as a result, take advantage of these venue options and file their Chapter 11 cases in employer- friendly districts. This was one of the main reasons that Delphi, a Michigan-headquartered company, filed for bankruptcy in New York. Second, it is clear that at least some businesses use Chapter 11 to bust unions or to at least give themselves unfair leverage in its negotiations with unions. According to a recently released GAO analysis that I requested nearly 2 years ago, 30 percent of companies in the study sought to reject their collective bargaining agreements in bankruptcy. Nearly as many companies took advantage of special provisions in the Bankruptcy Code by employers that can modify retiree benefits. Let me be specific here. What we are talking about is terminating retiree health care benefits, medical benefits, prescription drug benefits, disability benefits, and death benefits, among other protections. And, remember that these benefits were bargained for in good faith by hardworking Americans who gave their all to their employers and now are in retirement. This is a travesty. Third, as a result of Chapter 11's inequitable playing field, employers are able to extract major concessions from workers and retirees, while lining their own pockets. As we learned at a hearing held earlier this year by the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law, executives of Chapter 11 debtors often receive extravagant multi-million dollar bonuses and stock options, while regular workers are forced to accept drastic pay cuts or even job losses and while retirees lose hard-won pensions and health benefits. As many of you know, the Ford Motor Company reported a record $12.7 billion loss for last year. But what many of you may not know is that Ford paid $28 million to its new CEO, Alan Mulally, in his first 4 months on the job. This disclosure comes as companies like Ford, General Motors, and DaimlerChrysler are in the midst of negotiations with unions to obtain concessions and labor cost savings when their current contracts end in this month. A factor that will likely be present at the bargaining table is the threat of a potential Chapter 11 filing. As many of you know, the United Auto Workers yesterday announced a strike at General Motors principally because GM wants to shed more than $50 billion in future health care benefits for retirees. We need to restore the level playing field that the drafters of Chapter 11 originally envisioned and to ensure that workers and retirees receive fair treatment when their company is in bankruptcy. It is time that we include the interests of working families in the bankruptcy law and consider how we can add a measure of fairness to a playing field that is overwhelmingly tilted against workers. My bill addresses these problems by: Increasing the amount by which unpaid wage and employee benefit claims would be entitled to payment priority; Creating a more level playing field for employees in Chapter 11 cases where employers want to terminate jobs, reduce wages, reject collective bargaining agreements, and terminate medical benefits for retirees; Prohibiting companies in bankruptcy from paying lavish performance bonuses and incentive compensation to key management; and Ensuring that the bankruptcy judges have clear statutory guidance that the purpose of Chapter 11 is--to the greatest extent possible-- maximize assets so as to preserve jobs. I will urge prompt consideration of this legislation by the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law and further proceedings by the House Judiciary Committee.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 668) recognizing the 50th anniversary of the September 25, 1957, desegregation of Little Rock Central High School by the Little Rock Nine.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, I am pleased to join the entire Arkansas congressional delegation, Representatives Vic Snyder, Marion Berry, Mike Ross, John Boozman, all in celebrating the 50th anniversary of the integration of the Little Rock Central High School by the Little Rock Nine. I would like also to recognize the distinguished members of the House Judiciary Committee, Ranking Member Lamar Smith and former chairman, Jim Sensenbrenner, who have joined me in the introduction of this resolution. Fifty years ago, on September 25, 1957, the Little Rock Nine, as they were called, successfully challenged the status quo of ``separate but equal.'' Three years earlier, we all recall the momentous Supreme Court decision of 1954 that ruled the 14th amendment's guarantee of equal protection prohibited segregation in the public schools. This landmark Brown v. Board of Education decision struck down the notorious State- sanctioned Jim Crow in the realm of education once and for all. Unfortunately, this critical determination would not easily be accepted. It would take nine young strong and determined African American students to begin actually implementing the new laws of the land. These nine students, Minnijean Brown, Elizabeth Eckford, Ernest Green, Thelma Mothershed, Melba Pattillo, Gloria Ray, Terrence Roberts, Jefferson Thomas, and Carlotta Walls, implemented the promise of Brown v. The Board. In the footsteps of Rosa Parks, these students, too, started a movement to dismantle years of segregation and inequalities in our public school systems. On the shoulders of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., these brave young nine boys and girls faced a hatred and a violence that is embarrassing to recall, and they faced it with nonviolent resistance. They were peaceful. Dr. King himself said ``to meet physical force with soul force.'' And that is what they did. Dr. King asked the students to think of the big picture as they moved forward, for they were going to be the frame for that picture. So on September 25, 1957, the students who came to be known as the Little Rock Nine integrated Little Rock Central High School, and history was forever changed. Escorted by 1,000 members of the 101st Airborne Division of the United States Army, the Little Rock Nine claimed the fair and equal education that they were entitled to. It took close to a month to secure this access and opportunity, but these young men and women persevered in their mission of school integration. Defying Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus, segregationists and other protestors, the Little Rock Nine were victorious in ending segregated education. The Little Rock Nine's first attempt to attend Central High School was on September 4, 1957; but the Arkansas Governor called in the National Guard of his State to keep them out. On September 23, the Little Rock Nine, armed with a Federal court order, again tried to attend Central High School, but protests and violence forced the group of students out of the school. It was not until Federal protection was provided that the students would be able to safely attend school on September 25. This Federal protection would remain until the end of the school year, enabling African American senior Ernest Green to graduate. But, sadly, this year of progress would be tainted by the Arkansas Governor's decision to close all of the high schools the following year. The Little Rock Nine would remain champions of education and school integration despite the fierce opposition. After the schools reopened in 1959, three more of the Little Rock Nine would go on to graduate from Central High. All of them would become productive, contributive members of our society. From social work to education to government, the Little Rock Nine were and remain represented in all professional sectors. They have also continued their commitment to education with the founding of the Little Rock Nine Foundation, which is dedicated to providing educational opportunities to students of color. On the 50th anniversary of the integration of Central High by the Little Rock Nine, I am pleased to recognize that great progress has been made in education. But I must also acknowledge recent setbacks to the guarantee of opportunity and inclusion within our educational system. A recent Supreme Court decision now severely limits school districts in their efforts to achieve racial balance and diversity in primary and secondary education. But in acknowledging recent setbacks, I would be remiss to not comment on the Jena Six. Just as the Little Rock Nine stood up to the inequities of their time, we must lift up the Jena Six in response to the inequities of their time. The Little Rock Nine did not mean to make national or world history; they were just standing up for what they believed was right. In considering this resolution, I ask that all of our Members move forward with this same kind of determination and understanding of what our democracy is all about. On this 50th anniversary, let us all pledge to continue the legacy of the Little Rock Nine and Brown v. The Board by protecting and advancing equal educational opportunity for all. I omit the great work that was done by President Dwight Eisenhower and others that helped move this situation forward some 50 years ago. And I note also that Arkansas was not a hot bed of segregation. It was considered, frankly, a moderate Southern State. But things transpired so that it became that one activity in which these nine boys and girls have gone into American history. They have been celebrated, and they have been talked about. I have been hearing about them all week long as we prepare for this celebration. And I am so proud to bring this resolution on the 50th anniversary of the desegregation of Little Rock Central High School before this body. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to recognize the distinguished gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Ross), who has been serving in the Congress for a period of years and we have enjoyed a very good working relationship with him. I yield him such time as he may consume.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to recognize the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Danny Davis, who, himself, grew up in Arkansas. He was a distinguished alderman in Chicago before becoming a Member of Congress. He has worked with the Judiciary Committee with particular interest on re-entry programs, and he also happens to represent my counsel, Kanya Bennett, who comes to the floor with me today. I yield the gentleman as much time as he may consume.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself just a minute to close to observe that Arkansas, I have always connected with the former Governor of that State, the former President of this country, Bill Clinton. And I understand he's going to be there tomorrow to cut the ribbon, and I only wish that all of us who will be supporting and voting for this resolution could be there with him. I think Arkansas has come a long way. They've made a lot of progress, and we're all working to make this a color-free society, where the content of one's character is far more important and significant than the color of one's skin. I urge support for Resolution 668 and yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, as Dean of the Congressional Black Caucus and Chairman of the 23rd Congressional Black Caucus Foundation's Annual Legislative Conference Jazz Forum and Concert, I rise to salute the lifetime achievements of one of the most distinguished jazz artists in American music history, Roy Haynes. One of the most recorded drummers in the history of jazz, Haynes has played in a wide range of styles ranging from swing and bebop to jazz fusion and avant-garde jazz in his 60-year career. He has a highly expressive, personal style (``Snap Crackle'' was a nickname given him in the 1950s) and is known to foster a deep engagement with his band mates. Roy Haynes was born in Boston on March 13, 1925, and, like so many of his contemporaries became keenly interested in music, and in particular, jazz, at an early age. Primarily self-taught, he began to work in Boston in 1942 with musicians like Charlie Christian, Tom Brown, Sabby Lewis, and Pete Brown. In the summer of 1945, he got a call to join legendary bandleader Luis Russell (responsible for much of Louis Armstrong's musical backing from 1929 to 1933) to play for the dancers at New York's legendary Savoy Ballroom. When not traveling with Russell, the young drummer spent much time on Manhattan's 52nd Street and uptown at Minton's, the legendary incubator of bebop, soaking up the scene. Over the next 30 years, Haynes would go on to play with virtually every jazz musician of note. He was Lester Young's drummer from 1947 to 1949, worked with Bud Powell and Miles Davis in 1949, and became Charlie Parker's drummer of choice from 1949 to 1953. He toured the world with Sarah Vaughan from 1954 to 1959, did numerous extended gigs with Thelonious Monk in 1959-60, and made eight recordings with Eric Dolphy in 1960-61. Haynes worked extensively with Stan Getz from 1961 to 1965, played and recorded with the John Coltrane Quartet from 1963 to 1965, has collaborated with Chick Corea since 1968, and with Pat Metheny during the '90s. Metheny was featured on Haynes' previous Dreyfus release Te Vou! (voted by NAIRD as Best Contemporary Jazz Record of 1996). He's been an active bandleader from the late '50s to the present, featuring artists in performance and on recordings like Phineas Newborn, Booker Ervin, Roland Kirk, George Adams, Hannibal Marvin Peterson, Ralph Moore and Donald Harrison. A perpetual top three drummer in the Downbeat Readers Poll Awards, he won the Best Drummer honors in 1996 (and many years since), and in that year received the prestigious French Chevalier des l'Ordres Artes et des Lettres. In 2002, Roy Haynes' album Birds of a Feather, his tribute to the immortal Charlie ``Bird'' Parker, was nominated for a Best Jazz Instrumental Album Grammy. Of his style and music Haynes' says: ``I structure pieces like riding a horse . . . you pull a rein here, you tighten it up here, you loosen it there. I'm still sitting in the driver's seat, so to speak. I let it loose, I let it go, I see where it's going and what it feels like. Sometimes I take it out, sometimes I'll be polite, nice and let it move and breathe--always in the pocket and with feeling. So the music is tight but loose.'' Haynes continued, ``I am constantly practicing in my head. In fact, a teacher in school once sent me to the principal, because I was drumming with my hands on the desk in class. My father used to say I was just nervous. I'm always thinking rhythms, drums. When I was very young I used to practice a lot; not any special thing, but just practice playing. Now I'm like a doctor. When he's operating on you, he's practicing. When I go to my gigs, that's my practice. I may play something that I never heard before or maybe that you never heard before. It's all a challenge.'' ``I deal with sounds. I'm full of rhythm, man. I feel it. I think summer, winter, fall, spring, hot, cold, fast and slow--colors. But I don't analyze it. I've been playing professionally over 50 years, and that's the way I do it. I always surprise myself. The worst surprise is when I can't get it to happen. But it usually comes out. I don't play for a long period, and then I'm like an animal, a lion or tiger locked in its cage, and when I get out I try to restrain myself. I don't want to overplay. I like the guys to trade, and I just keep it moving, and spread the rhythm, as Coltrane said. Keep it moving, keep it crisp.'' Madam Speaker, it is my honor to offer this salute to Roy Haynes as a true Modern Jazz Giant and a living national treasure and the embodiment of the values and principles set forth in H. Con. Res. 57, the joint resolution passed on John Coltrane's birthday 20 years ago, which has become the gold standard rubric for the proper recognition of jazz and its practitioners.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, in the 21st century, there are some things that I had hoped we would have put behind us as a society. As we move to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the ``Little Rock Nine,'' there are things that I had hoped today's children would not need to suffer. But as the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I know that we are still in search of equal justice across this Nation. There are still places where the progress of the civil rights era have not fully taken hold. The tragedy of the Jena-6, which is unfolding right now before the eyes of the Nation, shows us that we still have some distance to travel before putting the demons of the past behind us. The controversy dates back to August 2006 when black students at Jena High School attempted to sit under a tree where white students socialized exclusively. The following day, three white students, who would later be punished only with suspensions, hung nooses from the tree. A series of racially charged episodes involving off-campus violence soon followed the noose incident. In one instance, black student Robert Bailey would be attacked in a white part of town at gun-point. The white student who attacked Bailey would face only simple battery and probation. The white man who pulled the gun on Bailey, however, would face no consequence. Ultimately, Bailey would be charged with theft of a firearm for wrestling the gun away. Later, racial taunting directed at black students in the high school cafeteria would lead to a fight in which a white student would be injured and sent to the hospital. These injuries, however, would not prevent the student from attending a high school event that same evening. The five of the Black teens involved in the fight--Mychal Bell, Robert Bailey, Carwin Jones, Bryant Purvis, and Theo Shaw were charged as adults with attempted second-degree murder and conspiracy to commit murder, sentences that carry up to 80 years in prison. The sixth teen will be tried as a juvenile and faces undisclosed charges. One would have hoped that the elders of Jena would have intervened in a way that led to healing in the community. Sadly, this was not the case. Allegations of prosecutorial misconduct have been directed at LaSalle Parish District Attorney Reed Walters, who told Black students at a school assembly in response to the noose incident that ``I can be your best friend or your worst enemy. With a stroke of my pen, I can make your lives disappear.'' This statement was proven true when Mychal Bell was convicted in June of aggravated second-degree battery and conspiracy by an all-white jury. The court-appointed attorney who represented Bell called no witnesses and presented no evidence in his defense. The families of Jena have not, however, faced this struggle alone. Just as happened in the 1960's, students, activists, and other concerned citizens from across the Nation have organized, rallied, and raised money on behalf of the Jena-6. Most recently, on September 9, 2007, Reverend Jesse Jackson met with families of the Jena-6 and called upon Jena officials to reconsider the charges. Major rallies were held in Jena and around the country on September 20, the day Bell's sentencing was scheduled to occur. Tens of thousands traveled to Jena from across the country to show their support. This show of activism has had some effect. This month, charges against Jones, Shaw and Bailey were reduced to aggravated second-degree battery and conspiracy, although Purvis still faces charges of attempted murder and conspiracy. A judge also granted a motion to overturn Bell's conspiracy conviction, stating that the case should have been tried in juvenile court. In addition, the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Bell's remaining aggravated second-degree battery conviction, also on the grounds that it should have been tried in juvenile court. At the Federal, we cannot remain silent. Indeed, the Community Relations Service of the Department of Justice has been in Jena for months to assist with conciliation efforts. Investigation units of the Department have also apparently reviewed the situation. It is important for members of Congress to maintain careful oversight of Federal actions to ensure that all the resources of the Justice Department are employed to protect the rights of the local community. To that end, I will convene a panel at the Congressional Black Caucus Annual Legislative Conference to address, the plight of the Jena-6. The forum will be held on Friday, September 28, at 3 p.m. in Room 209c of the Washington Convention Center. The panel will feature: Prof Charles Ogletree, Harvard University Law School; Tory Pegram, Louisiana Affiliate, ACLU; Family Members of Robert Bailey--Jena 6; Rep. Elijah Cummings (MD-7th); Michael Baisden, Radio Personality; Louis Granderson Scott, Attorney of Michael Bell (Jena-6); and Rev. Al Sharpton, Civil Rights Activist. Ultimately, I believe that a Judiciary Committee oversight hearing may be warranted, as the Department of Justice has intervened with little success. The Department investigated the noose incident, but concluded that a hate crime had not been committed. However, we should explore whether the apparently hostile racial climate at the local high school opens federal jurisdiction under other civil rights statutes. Similarly, the activities of CRS should be reviewed to determine their effectiveness at dispute resolution. We have reached a point in history where this kind of situation is no longer tolerable. I commend everyone across the country for participating in rallies, sending your support and letting these students and the rest of the country know that we, as a Nation, will not stand for this kind of injustice.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the bipartisan, bicameral plan to reauthorize the State Children's Health Insurance Program, SCHIP, which the House will consider later this week. This crucial legislation will ensure that millions of our children receive the vital health services they need. Even though I support this legislation, I rise today with a heavy heart. It is nothing short of a disgrace that here, in the wealthiest country on earth, eight million children lack health insurance coverage. We ought to be ashamed that we are having this debate at all. I am absolutely stunned that some Congressional Republicans and the President continue to oppose this legislation, particularly in light of the fact that the President used SCHIP as part of his campaign platform in 2004. Talk about shock and awe! I am shocked beyond belief that they can stand before the American people with straight faces and refuse health care for our children. I am in awe of the gall required to base the denial of these vital, life-saving services on an ideological talking point. Madam Speaker, the ideology of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle has not provided health care for these children yet. It is impossible for any serious person to believe that if this legislation is defeated the Republican ideology will suddenly start working its magic and provide health care for these children whose parents can't afford to buy it in the open market. In my years fighting for universal health care, we have often said, ``Covering children is easy. How could anyone refuse to support coverage for children?'' It was coverage for adults that was always perceived as the real challenge. But today, the Republicans have stooped lower than even I thought was possible. Not only are they saying ``We can't afford to give our children health care.'' This is the same party, by the way, that finds money for tax cuts for the rich, that finds money to fund a disaster of a war. Many times more money than what is needed to cover these children, in fact. Not only are the Republicans admitting that they prioritize tax cuts for the wealthy and feeding the military industrial complex over insuring our children. They are now standing before the American people and saying ``It is not our job to guarantee health insurance coverage for America's children.'' They are refusing to make that promise. Instead, they propose that our children's health should be subject to the ups and downs of the stock market, that it should depend on their parents' employment status, or how much they have in a bank account. It is utterly beyond conception how the Republicans can possibly think these concepts will be accepted by the American people. But I will leave my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to face the repercussions of this folly next November. Let me move on to a more positive subject: the compromise SCHIP bill, which we will pass over these shameful objections. While I would have preferred the original House-passed bill to the more modest bicameral compromise, the House-Senate agreement is a major improvement over the President's proposal, which would result in 840,000 children currently enrolled in SCHIP losing their coverage. The House-Senate agreement invests $35 billion in new funding for SCHIP over five years to strengthen the program's financing, increase health insurance coverage for low-income children, and improve the quality of health care children receive. It will provide health coverage to millions of low-income children who are currently uninsured and ensures that the 6.6 million children who currently participate in CHIP continue to receive health coverage. Pending final Congressional Budget Office estimates, the reduction in the number of uninsured children will approach 4 million children. Under the agreement, quality dental coverage will be provided to all children enrolled in CHIP. The agreement also ensures states will offer mental health services on par with medical and surgical benefits covered under CHIP. The agreement provides states with incentives to lower the rate of uninsured low income children. It replaces the flawed CMS August 17th letter to states with a more thoughtful and appropriate approach. In place of the CMS letter, the agreement gives states time and assistance in developing and implementing their own best practices to address crowd-out. The compromise proposal improves outreach tools to simplify and streamline enrollment of eligible children, providing $100 million in grants for new outreach activities to states, local governments, schools, community-based organizations, safety-net providers and others. It also establishes a new quality child health initiative to develop and implement quality measures and improve state reporting of quality data. These measures are critical to ensuring that all our nation's children get the health care they need. Mr. Speaker, let's tell the White House and the Congressional Republicans still standing with it that it's time to stop playing political games. Let's tell them it's time to work together to ensure more children across the country have the high-quality medical care they deserve. The President might not be able to understand that it's the right thing to do, but the American people certainly will.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor and remember the incredible life and work of legendary jazz drummer and composer Max Roach. Few of the musicians remain who were there with Charlie Parker, Coleman Hawkins, Dizzy Gillespie, Miles Davis, Bud Powell and Thelonious Monk as they created a new more adventurous, unbridled form of jazz: bebop. The passing of Max Roach on August 16, at age 83, marks another step towards the end of the modern jazz world's greatest generation. Roach's style, marked by its awe inspiring clarity and control, would come to redefine and expand the role of jazz drummers. In the mid- 1940's he transformed the sound of jazz percussion from an easy-going, head-swaying swing sound, with just a dash of horn-led syncopation, to a sound that had a propulsive drive. After Max Roach, being a jazz drummer meant more than being a mere tempo-keeper. With Roach the cymbals led the way, not just followed the chart; and, every now and then, Roach would accent a beat or drop an explosion on the tom-tom, to carve up the rhythm and extend the horns' liberties. Even the most casual listener could not help hearing the difference. Throughout the next 47 years his virtuosity would change the way drummers and musicians looked at playing jazz. Max Roach was a prolific performer and recording artist; indeed, he was the percussionist on many of the seminal jazz recordings of the last half century. Renowned throughout his performing life, Roach has won an extraordinary array of honors. He was one of the first winners of the MacArthur Foundation ``genius'' grant, cited as a Commander of the Order of Arts and Letters in France, twice awarded the French Grand Prix du Disque, elected to the International Percussive Society's Hall of Fame and the Downbeat Magazine Hall of Fame, awarded Harvard Jazz Master, celebrated by Aaron Davis Hall, given eight honorary doctorate degrees, including degrees awarded by the University of Bologna, Italy and Columbia University. He is survived by five children: sons Daryl and Raoul, and daughters Maxine, Ayo and Dara. My heart goes out to them and I wish them all well in this time of difficulty. It is unlikely that we will ever see another Max Roach, but we were blessed to have had him while we did.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, today I rise to introduce a resolution recognizing the 50th anniversary of the desegregation of Little Rock Central High School by the Little Rock Nine. Fifty years ago today, on September 25, 1957, 9 African American students who would come to be known as the Little Rock Nine--Minnijean Brown, Elizabeth Eckford, Ernest Green, Thelma Mothershed, Melba Pattillo, Gloria Ray, Terrence Roberts, Jefferson Thomas, and Carlotta Walls--successfully integrated Little Rock Central High. With strength, determination, and dignity, the Little Rock Nine stood up to the inequities and injustices of their time. The Little Rock Nine realized that the promise of the 1954 Brown v. Board (347 U.S. 483) was unfulfilled 3 years later in 1957. The Brown decision recognized that the segregation of public schools deprived students of the Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of equal protection. Continued segregation on the basis of race was to be no more. Armed with the Brown v. Board decision, the Little Rock Nine would successfully dismantle years of school segregation. Implementing the law of the land, the actions of the Little Rock Nine were symbolic of the promise of educational access and equality not just in Little Rock, but in cities throughout the nation. The Little Rock Nine conveyed that ``separate, but equal'' would have no place in this country. Despite death threats, verbal and physical assaults, school closings, and other adversities, the Little Rock Nine persevered in their mission of school integration. And despite the violence that was inflicted upon them, the Little Rock Nine did as Dr. King instructed: ``[M]eet physical force with soul force.'' On September 26, 1957, Dr. King urged the people of Little Rock to ``adhere rigorously to a way of non-violence,'' and they did. The Little Rock Nine not only furthered the Civil Rights Movement's strategy of non-violence, but proved that ordinary citizens, and young citizens like themselves, could bring about change. Just as Rosa Park's refusal to give up her seat led to integration of public accommodations, the Little Rock Nine's refusal to be denied an education led to integration of public schools. Members of the Little Rock Nine went on to become social workers, educators, government officials, and other distinguished professionals. In 1999, the Little Rock Nine established the Little Rock Nine Foundation. The Foundation is dedicated to advancing educational access and opportunities for young people of color--a commitment that reflects the significant and historic role of the Little Rock Nine in the Civil Rights Movement and within the realm of education. Today, because of the Little Rock Nine, our country's children, regardless of race, are entitled to fair and equal education. In furthering this entitlement, the Congress must continue to work to promote racial diversity, integration, and inclusion within our Nation's schools. It is our responsibility to continue the legacy of Brown v. Board and the Little Rock Nine. A resolution recognizing the 50th anniversary of the Little Rock Nine integrating Little Rock Central High is symbolic of this commitment.