John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to join with Representative Rahm Emanuel in jointly introducing the Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act. America's election system is broken and it is up to this Congress to fix it. Consecutive elections have shown us that eligible voters are denied their right to cast a ballot. Disturbingly, misinformation campaigns are often responsible for keeping these voters away from the polls. I believe this legislation is a step towards ending deceptive practices and bringing integrity back to our elections. It is a direct response to the fraudulent tactics used to undermine our elections. This bill explicitly prohibits deceptive practices and provides voters with greater federal protections. Numerous accounts indicate deceptive practices were employed throughout the country in our last midterm and presidential elections. Voters were told to vote on the wrong day. They were told they could not vote with outstanding parking tickets. Ultimately, they were misled, deceived, and disenfranchised. This must stop. In 2006, our most vulnerable voters--legal immigrants and minorities--were prevented from voting. Latino voters in Orange County, California were threatened with incarceration if they voted. African American voters in Prince Georges County, Maryland were given fliers with false endorsements. These tactics are despicable and those responsible for them must be held accountable. Under our legislation, those that engage in deceptive practices will be held accountable. Additionally, the federal government will be held responsible for protecting and advancing the right to vote. Deceptive electioneering practices are clearly defined and prohibited under this bill. The Attorney General and the Department of Justice are required to combat and counteract deceptive practices. These measures will ensure that voters can cast a ballot free from intimidation, harassment, and deceit. Deceptive practices do more than impede the right to vote. They threaten to erode the very core of our democracy. By eliminating barriers to the polls, we can help to restore what has been missing from our elections--fairness, honesty, and integrity.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I rise to call attention to the lifetime of artistic achievements of tenor saxophonist Roger ``Buck'' Hill, an outstanding jazz musician from Washington, D.C., who celebrates his 80th birthday this week with a performance at the Smithsonian Jazz Cafe on Friday, February 16, 2007. Buck Hill was the featured performer at the very first Congressional Black Caucus Jazz Forum and Concert that I hosted back in 1985. He was a first-call artist for me back then, and he continues to be just that, here and around the world. Buck Hill recently released ``Relax'', his first recording as a band leader in nearly 15 years. It marks the reemergence of one of America's greatest national treasures onto the international jazz scene. As he approaches his 80th birthday Hill remains a vital voice on his instrument, with a robust personal sound that reaches back to the horn's early masters like Lester Young, and onward into the glory days of bebop and beyond, recalling John Coltrane. A lifelong resident of Washington, D.C., Hill first studied music with the same teacher who instructed a young Duke Ellington, and went on to become a member of the house band in the city's world famous Howard Theater. A fixture on the Capital jazz scene for over sixty years, Hill revealed his enormous talent to the world beginning in the late seventies with a series of excellent records for Steeplechase and Muse. Guest appearances on several of fellow D.C. legend Shirley Horn's albums brought him widespread critical and popular notice in the 1990s before he once again returned to his hometown. Hill's most recent work proves that he's still one of the best tenor men in jazz today. The group, featuring his regular bandmates John Ozment at the Hammond organ and Jerry Jones on drums, plus Paul Pieper on guitar, offers up straight-ahead jazz on an eight song program split evenly between the leader's own original compositions and classic jazz material. The return of Buck Hill to the world of jazz recording is indeed a momentous occasion and cause for celebration. Hill plays the tenor with the authoritative voice of experience and his well-seasoned sound is a link to the saxophone's glorious past and a lesson to those who wish to move the horn into the future. His work is a true testament not just to his longevity, but also to his continued growth as a master saxophonist, bandleader and composer.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank our chairman, Mr. Skelton, and I stand proud today with my fellow veterans in the House of Representatives to register our opposition to the President's plan to escalate the war in Iraq and to show our support for our men and women in uniform. Now, last November 7 the American people sent a clear message to Congress and the President: we must end the war in Iraq. Now after nearly 4 years of bloodshed, death and destruction, Congress is likely to go on record as opposing the plan for escalation of this war. No longer will Congress stand by while the President wages a war that defies logic, common sense and human decency. This week we shall take a stand. This week, we tell this administration enough is enough, stop ignoring the American people, stop ignoring your generals. And by the way, I include to the gentleman from New York two speakers ago, General Colin Powell, no less agrees with us. Stop ignoring the foreign policy experts. Stop wasting American lives and resources on this disastrous and unnecessary conflict. This week's debate on this resolution represents an important turning point in public dialogue about Iraq. And so I welcome it, but it is not enough. The escalation must be stopped, and we cannot let the momentum against the war subside after we deal with the escalation. Our priority must remain ending the fighting and dying in Iraq. We must end the senseless deaths of servicemembers like marine Tarryl Hill of Southfield, Michigan, who only last Wednesday died when his vehicle drove over a bomb in Fallujah. Tarryl Hill was 19 years old. He had joined the military to help finance his education to become a chemical engineer. I do not want to see one more promising life like his extinguished on the altar of this administration's arrogance. The loss of Tarryl's life brings to mind the bereavement of another patriot from Flint, Michigan, Lila Lipscomb, whose 26-year-old son, Michael, died in Iraq in April 2003, when his helicopter was shot down. A member of a military family, Ms. Lipscomb initially believed President Bush when he told the Nation that war was necessary for our national security. But her son's letters from the front lines and his tragic death showed her that he should have never gone to Iraq. I need to spend a little time explaining my opposition to the troop surge, which is simply even more of the same. This policy is going in precisely the opposite direction recommended by the generals who get transferred if they do not agree. It would simply expose GIs to more intense door-to-door fighting, in the vain hope that in the meanwhile the Iraqis will miraculously reconcile with us still being in their country. The real and underlying question is how we remove ourselves from this quagmire. As I have emphasized many times, our Constitution gives Congress the central role in decisions of war and peace. Last fall the American people spoke loudly with their votes. We should be here showing the voters that we heard them and that their trust was well placed. The ultimate, unequivocal authority of the Congress is the power of the purse. And so we must use it. Supporters of the President's failed Iraq policy have argued that using Congress's spending power to end the war means that we do not support the troops. It is beyond absurd to suggest that those of us who favor ending funding for the war would simply abandon the troops in the field without equipment and the supplies they need. Cliches about supporting the troops are not really about our service members' best interests. The true purpose of these accusations is to distract us from the fact that we are bogged down in an unwinnable war that threatens to drag on for years, if not decades. Keeping our troops out of harm's way, especially when war is unnecessary, is the best possible way to support them. The American people understand that marching ahead blindly into oblivion is no way to support our troops. That is why they have asked us to end this war. Mr. Speaker, the administration continues to live under the illusion that it can salvage its reputation by achieving a military victory in Iraq, when it is clear that diplomacy is the most effective means at our disposal. The recent National Intelligence Estimate reflecting the collective judgment of U.S. intelligence agencies only confirms what we have seen in the daily headlines for almost a year. It concludes that the civil war has reached an intensity that is ``self-sustaining'' and that there are no Iraqi national leaders with the ability to stop it. No wonder the administration stalled completion of the NIE until after the election and the President's presentation of his latest proposal. Most of the American people know that there is only one way to proceed in Iraq. We must begin the phased withdrawal of American troops in the next 4 to 6 months and conclude it within the year. Redeploying our Armed Forces does not mean ``cutting and running.'' On the contrary, we suggest continued and extensive involvement in the region through renewed diplomacy, a regional conference and reconstruction that is free from fraud and abuse. This sensible path is the only one that can lead us to victory. Announcing the Passing of the Honorable Charlie Norwood

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I am proud to stand today with my fellow veterans in the House of Representatives to register our opposition to the President's plan to escalate the war in Iraq and to show our support for our men and women in uniform. Last November 7th, the American people sent a clear message to Congress and the President: we must end the war in Iraq. Now, after nearly four years of bloodshed, death and destruction, Congress is likely to go on the record as opposing the plan for escalating the war. No longer will Congress stand by while the President wages a war that defies logic, common sense and human decency. This week, we shall take a stand. This week, we tell the administration: ``Enough is enough. Stop ignoring the American people. Stop ignoring your generals and retired generals, including Colin Powell. Stop ignoring the foreign policy experts. Stop wasting American lives and resources on this disastrous, unnecessary conflict.'' This debate represents an important turning point in the public dialogue about Iraq, and so I welcome it. But it is not enough. The escalation must be stopped, but we cannot let the momentum against the war subside after we deal with the escalation. Our priority must remain ending the fighting and dying in Iraq. We must end the senseless deaths of service members like Marine Tarryl Hill of Southfield, Michigan, who died only last Wednesday when his vehicle drove over a bomb in Fallujah. Tarryl Hill was just 19 years old. He had joined the military to help finance his education to become a chemical engineer, but instead he became the 120th serviceman from Michigan to die in Iraq. I don't want to see one more promising life like Tarryl's extinguished on the altar of this administration's arrogance. The loss of Tarryl's life brings to mind the bereavement of another patriot from Michigan, Lila Lipscomb of Flint, whose 26 year old son Michael died in Iraq in April 2003 when his helicopter was shot down. A member of a military family, Ms. Lipscomb initially believed President Bush when he told the nation that the war was necessary for our national security. But her son's letters from the front lines and his tragic death showed her that he never should have gone to Iraq. I need not spend much time explaining my opposition to the troop surge, which is simply even more ``more of the same.'' This policy takes us in precisely the opposite direction recommended by the generals and the experts. It would simply expose GI's to more intense door-to-door fighting, in the vain hope that, in the meanwhile, the Iraqis will miraculously reconcile. The real and underlying question is how we remove ourselves from this quagmire. As I have emphasized many times, our Constitution gives Congress the central role in decisions of war and peace. Last fall the American people spoke loudly with their votes. We should be here showing the voters that we heard them and that their trust in us was well placed. The ultimate, unequivocal authority of the Congress is the power of the purse. We must use it. Supporters of the president's failed Iraq policy have argued that using Congress' spending power to end the war means that we don't ``support the troops.'' It is beyond absurd to suggest that those of us who favor ending funding for the war would simply abandon the troops in the field without the equipment and supplies they need. Every piece of legislation proposing cutting funds for combat operations would require the spending necessary to bring the troops home safely. Cliches about supporting the troops are not really about our service members' best interests. The true purpose of these accusations is to distract us from the fact that we are bogged down in an unwinnable war with no end in sight. Keeping our troops out of harm's way, especially when war is unnecessary, is the best possible way to support them. The American people understand that marching ahead blindly into oblivion is no way to support our troops. That is why they have asked us to end this war. Madam Speaker, the administration continues to live under the illusion that it can salvage its reputation by achieving a military victory in Iraq, when it is clear that diplomacy is the only effective means at our disposal. The recent National Intelligence Estimate reflecting the collective judgment of U.S. intelligence agencies only confirms what we have seen in the daily headlines for almost a year. It concludes that the civil war has reached an intensity that is ``self- sustaining'' and that there are no Iraqi national leaders with the ability to stop it. No wonder the Administration stalled completion of the NIE until after the election and the President's presentation of his latest proposal. Most of the American people know that there is only one way to proceed in Iraq. We must begin the phased withdrawal of American troops in the next four to six months and conclude it within the year. Redeploying our armed forces does not mean ``cutting and running.'' On the contrary, we suggest continued and extensive involvement in the region through renewed diplomacy, a regional conference and reconstruction that is free from fraud and abuse. This sensible path is the only one that can lead us to victory.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, on Saturday, February 4, 2007, after a long battle with throat cancer, pioneering singer and actress Barbara McNair passed away. I rise today to remember and memorialize this important American. Born March 4, 1934, in Racine, Wisconsin, Ms. McNair began performing at an early age. Encouraged by a family that saw her potential, Barbara McNair began singing at 5 years old in the local churches. She would later go on to study at the American Conservatory of Music in Chicago and thereafter attended the University of California, Los Angeles, before moving to New York City to pursue her dream of becoming an entertainer. A 1957 engagement at New York's Village Vanguard earned her the notice which would eventually lead to her first Broadway performance in the play ``The Body Beautiful'' a year later. She went on to star in the Broadway musical ``No Strings'' in 1963. While Barbara McNair continued to gain a following as a nightclub singer throughout the early 1960s, her big break came with a win on Arthur Godfrey's television show, Talent Scouts. Her appearance on the show led to bookings at The Purple Onion and the Cocoanut Grove. Reviewing a nightclub appearance in late 1965, a New York Times writer commented that the ``strikingly beautiful'' McNair ``does not have to depend on looks alone. She is a highly knowledgeable performer who projects an aura of beauty, a warm personality and an appealing sense of fun.'' She soon became one of the country's most popular headliners and a guest on such television variety shows as The Steve Allen Show, Hullabaloo, The Bell Telephone Hour, and The Hollywood Palace, while recording for the Coral, Signature, and Motown labels. Towards the end of the 1960s, as opportunities were opening up for African-American women in film and television, Barbara McNair made her Hollywood acting debut in 1968 in the film, ``If He Hollers, Let Him Go.'' The following year she starred with Elvis Presley in his 1969 film ``Change of Habit'' and as Sidney Poitier's wife in the 1970 film ``They Call Me MISTER Tibbs!'' As she told the Washington Post in 1969, she found movie acting ``a more rewarding kind of work than singing. When I'm working in a club, I must go from one song to another rapidly and I don't have much time to express myself emotionally. In a movie, you can concentrate on one scene at a time.'' In 1969, Barbara McNair expanded her love of performing onscreen by becoming the host of her own syndicated variety series, The Barbara McNair Show. While the show was on the air for only two seasons, as one of the few television shows of the period to have a black host, it marked a tremendous step forward for African-Americans in general and African-American women in specific. Barbara McNair retained a devoted following and continued to perform until shortly before her passing. While Ms. McNair is no longer with us, her music and contributions to breaking down the race and gender barriers on television live on.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 35--Supporting the goals and ideals of National Black HIV/AIDS Awareness Day. While we do not yet have a cure, and HIV/AIDS continues to consume the lives of Black people, their values and their worth here in the United States and in other parts of the world, we know Black AIDS Day can help to mobilize our communities to help shift and turn this epidemic around. In the past decades and sadly still today, HIV infection rates continue to escalate at an alarming pace among Black men and women as shown by reports year after year. Although Blacks make up around 13 percent of the population of the United States, they represent 49 percent of the total AIDS cases reported in this country, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Sixty-four percent of all American women living with HIV/AIDS are black, and this disease has become the leading cause of death for black women ages 25 to 34. Every day, 72 African Americans are infected with HIV in the U.S. While poverty plays a role and access to health care and lack of information are factors, we cannot deny that the main reason for this plague is the silence, the closed-mouth social conservatism, of a people still ill at ease discussing sexuality, homosexuality, drug use and other realities. Instead, we mouth piety, prayers and platitudes. We now recognize National Black HIV/AIDS Awareness Day, as declared six years ago by the Community Capacity Building Coalition, an affiliate of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and we cannot remain still. We must work together to ensure that programs for prevention remain adequately funded and that programs such as Ryan White CARE Act can be used for early detection of HIV so we can use all tools available to us to fight this epidemic. Everyone should be encouraged to get tested for HIV, learn more about the disease and how it is transmitted, seek medical advice if infected, and become involved in local community efforts to educate people and fight this disease. It is also important that Blacks are at the forefront of clinical research to achieve culturally appropriate results for treatment in our communities. Some of the biggest challenges we face, particularly in the Black community today are the misperceptions of and lack of knowledge about HIV/AIDS, and fear related to clinical research. I encourage my colleagues in the Congressional Black Caucus and the rest of Congress to stay committed in their effort in whatever way possible to combat this epidemic which has taken too many lives, too early, and unnecessarily.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 742) to amend the Antitrust Modernization Commission Act of 2002, to extend the term of the Antitrust Modernization Commission and to make a technical correction.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this measure cosponsored with me by the distinguished ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Lamar Smith, to extend the Antitrust Modernization Commission by 30 days so that it may have time to wrap up and finalize its report and shut down its operations. This modernization commission dealing with antitrust has been in existence since 2002 and was created with the purpose of examining whether the need exists to modernize the antitrust laws. It began meeting in 2004 and for the past 3 years has been studying many aspects of antitrust law, including how these laws operate in a modern, information-driven economy. Also, they were charged with examining the intersection between antitrust law and intellectual property law; about immunities and exemptions that are enjoyed under our current antitrust law; the relationship between the Federal and State antitrust law enforcement; the application of antitrust laws in regulated industries; and the merger review process. I look forward to reviewing the commission's final report, which is due in April of this year. I anticipate that the Judiciary Committee will take a close look at the recommendations contained in the report and will continue to work with the commissioners even after the report is completed. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I continue to yield myself as much time as I may consume. The reason we have this commission is because there are acknowledged to be some serious considerations, some problems that we need to examine in the area of antitrust law. The antitrust laws were derived from the Sherman Act of over a century ago, and they are very important, and they have helped us in terms of developing an economy that is in some respects the envy of the entire planet. But there has been so much activity in the antitrust area that there has been some concern whether or not we have gone overboard. This past year is the fourth largest in the history for mergers. Since the Oracle merger, which the Department of Justice sued on and lost, the Department of Justice itself hasn't gone to trial to block a proposed merger in memory. And we are having larger and larger mergers and acquisitions. They are troubling: SBC and AT&T, a $16 billion-valued merger; AT&T and BellSouth, an $86 billion merger; Verizon and MCI, an $8.5 billion merger; Sprint and Nextel, $36 billion; Cingular and AT&T Wireless, about $47 billion worth of coming together; Kmart with Sears, Roebuck; Hewlett-Packard and Compaq; NBC Universal and NBC and Vivendi; Morgan Chase and Bank One; Procter & Gamble buys $54 billion in new acquisition; the Bank of America with FleetBoston. We have got something that needs far more consideration. And I want to praise the former chairman of the Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin, who helped us create the special outside committee to aid us, and we look forward to their reports. And I join the gentleman from Texas in helping to develop the time needed for us to get the report. We on the Judiciary Committee feel this is a hugely important subject. And we want to particularly praise the vice chairman of the commission, Attorney Jon Yarowsky, who himself was a former member of the House Judiciary staff for a considerable number of years. Mr. Speaker, the bill we are considering today is a modest one, but I want to emphasize that the issue it relates to is of utmost importance. For over a century, the antitrust laws have provided the ground rules for fair competition. They are our economic bill of rights. Antitrust principles are necessary to preserve competition and to prevent monopolies from stifling innovation. Competition produces better products, lower prices, and wider choices--all to the benefit of consumers. The cornerstone premise of our antitrust laws is essentially a conservative notion: that free and unfettered competition will produce the best results for consumers. To the extent that anticompetitive conduct or conditions have hindered this healthy process, the antitrust laws are there to arrest those violations and remedy the competitive harms. In the Sherman Act, we prohibit contracts or conspiracies that restrain trade, and exclusionary or predatory conduct that sabotages the efforts of rivals. For egregious violations, there are high fines and prison terms. There are also treble damages for victims. And we have supplemented those protections in the Clayton Act, by giving the antitrust enforcement agencies the power to challenge anticompetitive mergers in their incipiency, to prevent their harmful effects from ever taking place. The competitive landscape in the United States has been undergoing dramatic change in recent years. Technological and market innovation has come at us at breakneck speed. We have witnessed a wave of consolidation in some of our key industries. According to Thomson Financial, this past year was the fourth largest in history for mergers and acquisitions. At the same time, we have also seen familiar and novel forms of exclusionary conduct that interferes with the enterprising efforts of competitive businesses to cultivate and serve customers. The telecommunications industry is one key industry that has experienced significant consolidation. This year, AT&T acquired BellSouth Corp.--after just last year acquiring SBC--in a deal that creates a telecom behemoth with $117 billion in revenue. This has particular consequences in the area of net neutrality. For people who innovate in the area of technology, and for those who enjoy those innovations, this free and open access to the Internet has been a boon. New applications are being developed every hour and are able to be instantly distributed on the Web. These new applications--coupled with new content, such as broadband television--have the potential to offer a new array of choices to consumers. Unfortunately, some telecommunications companies have a different vision for the Internet. They have floated the idea of charging websites for access. Those who pay will get faster and more reliable delivery of their content to web surfers. Those who do not will see the delivery of their content degraded. The antitrust laws can help ensure that network neutrality, the bedrock of the growth of the Internet, remains in place. In the media, the FCC's relaxed cap on ownership in national and local broadcast markets, and relaxed cross-ownership restrictions between broadcasters and newspapers, has enabled concentrated wealthy interests to control a large portion of the media in some areas. Consumers are thereby often deprived of a diversity of viewpoints and voices in news and entertainment. Imagine a world where you wake up, read the local newspaper, turn on the television to watch the news, drive to work and listen to the radio, pass a few billboards containing advertisements, return home later at night and turn on your cable to watch a movie or some sports-- only to find that each of those media outlets is owned by the same company. It may sound farfetched, but it is not. This is the world we are evolving into. In this world, instead of ten voices with ten different viewpoints, there may only be three. The antitrust laws may be our only hope of preventing this. The story is even bleaker for independent broadcasters, and for minority participation in the media industry. As of 2001, minorities owned only 3.8 percent of the full-power commercial radio and television stations in the nation, and only 1.9 percent of TV stations. If ownership of the media is controlled by four or five conglomerates, minority-owned stations and programming that appeals to minority interests could become a thing of the past. In the home appliance industry, Whirlpool Corp., the largest maker of home appliances, merged with Maytag Inc., the third largest. The deal cost $1.8 billion and produced a company that manufactures much of Sears' Kenmore line as well as the brands Jenn Air, KitchenAid, Amana, and Magic Chef, and controls as much as 70 percent of the U.S. market for large home appliances such as washers and dryers. In the oil industry, we've seen massive increases in gasoline prices. After Hurricane Katrina, the Washington Post reported price increases of as much as 88 cents per gallon in a single day. Some stations in Georgia were reported to be charging as much as $6 a gallon. In Illinois, prices reportedly shot up 50 cents per gallon overnight, and the state attorney general received more than 500 reports of price gouging. At first blush, it would seem that these increases go far beyond anything justified or relating to the market disruptions caused by Hurricane Katrina. The FTC's report on this phenomenon was less than satisfactory. We have also seen significant consolidation in the health insurance industry. In recent years, Aetna agreed to acquire Prudential Health Care, the fifth largest for-profit health care company, at the same time it was in the midst of completing its purchase of New York Life. In 1996 Aetna was also permitted to acquire U.S. Health Care. As a result of these acquisitions, Aetna became the largest health care provider in the nation. Recent years have seen more than a dozen health insurance competitors eliminated through mergers and acquisitions. A study of market concentration by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation found that ``both the group and individual [health insurance] markets are heavily dominated by a relatively few large insurers.'' Business consumers of health care have become increasingly alarmed by this concentration, with Charles Blankenstein, a health expert at William Mercer Consulting, warning that employers are ``bear[ing] the cost of these acquisitions'' as ``choice in the marketplace is rapidly diminishing.'' In the airline industry, lagging profits have led to a marked trend toward further consolidation. Because air travel is a vital portion of the nation's transportation infrastructure, we can't simply turn a blind eye and chalk this up to economic bad times. Often these mergers have the potential to reduce the flight options available to consumers, and ultimately may lead to higher ticket prices. In this environment, vigorous antitrust enforcement is particularly important. We need to be able to rely on the federal antitrust enforcement agencies--the Antitrust Division in the Department of Justice, and the Federal Trade Commission. We need to be able to have confidence that they are doing everything they should to protect competition in our economy and the benefits it brings to us all. That is why active oversight of antitrust must and will be an important part of the work of the Judiciary Committee. We will ask these agencies about merger enforcement, and why they do not seem to be challenging an mergers. We will ask them about their policy on civil non-merger enforcement against monopolization and other anticompetitive business arrangements. And we will ask them about their commitment to prosecute criminal antitrust violations. The Committee will also create a task force, as we did in the last Congress, so that we can more closely examine competitive developments in important industries, including telecommunications, pharmaceuticals, and insurance, as well as topics such as interoperability of new technologies, credit card interchange fees, and transparency in standard setting. As we prepare for the work ahead in this vital area, we will look forward to reading the Antitrust Modernization Commission's final report, and reviewing its assessment of the state of health of the laws we rely upon to preserve our economic liberty. I thank the Antitrust Modernization Commission for all its work over the past few years. I urge my colleagues to support this measure.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, America needs a Department of Peace in order to have a peace-making capacity to match its war-making capacity. America should rely on preventive diplomacy, not on preventive war. We should work within the framework of international law, not defy it. My first campaign for Congress, following the teaching of Dr. King, was based on ``jobs, peace and justice.'' That remains my priority agenda. So I am proud to be an original cosponsor of H.R. 808, Representative Kucinich's bill to establish a Department of Peace and Non-Violence. At a time when the world is awash in war, he and Marianne Williamson, founder of the Peace Alliance, offer this modern vision of healing and preventing violence. It could not be more timely. According to all reports, the Bush administration is debating whether to attack Iran or to find peaceful ways to deal with its nuclear program and its intervention in Iraq. The prospect of President Bush starting a ``pre-emptive war'' with Iran, on top of the tragedy in Iraq, is frightening. If that is not a compelling argument for creating a Peace Department, then I do not know what is. We attacked Iraq because President Bush would not pursue peace and let U.N. inspectors complete their work. Instead, he distorted intelligence and failed to foresee the terrible consequences of that war. We must not repeat those mistakes in Iran, or anywhere else. Last night, I spoke to an overflowing crowd that supports this measure and I told them what I tell my colleagues now. The best way to stop the war in Iraq is for the Congress to end our fighting there as soon as possible, and the best way to prevent wars with Iran and other adversarial nations is to establish a Department of Peace. We need a Cabinet Secretary focused like a laser on how to keep peace with Iran and constantly pressing the President to choose that strategy. President Bush has already spent some $2 trillion on the war in Iraq. Just think what we could have done with $2 trillion spent on health care and education. That is another strong reason for the Department of Peace. A small fraction of that amount could also have funded a robust, proactive Department of Peace to analyze looming conflicts and to advise the President on how to diffuse them without war. The most crucial point is what happens when the President and his top advisors confer in the Oval Office about an international crisis. We need a Cabinet member at that table who will forcefully and persistently advocate the peaceful options. Too often, the phrase ``search for peace'' is simply a political sound bite. President Bush assured us he was searching for peace, and that attacking Iraq was his ``last resort,'' while he secretly plotted war. We need to ensure that war really is America's last resort. Some of my colleagues may find this proposal interesting but feel they must deal with ``more pressing matters.'' What is more pressing than preventing the violent deaths of our Gl's and of our fellow human beings everywhere? Some colleagues may think a Department of Peace is being offered as a substitute for our Armed Forces. That is not true. We realize that sometimes force proves necessary to protect our truly vital interests. A Peace Department would complement the Pentagon, not replace it, but a Peace Department would make war as rare as possible. I remind those cynical about the absolute priority of pursuing machinery for peace that Gandhi, Dr. King and Nelson Mandela, who each pioneered paths of peace and non-violence, are now hailed worldwide as heroes of humanity.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to support House Resolution 58 in honor of Muhammad Ali--born Cassius Marcellus Clay, on the occasion of his 65th birthday. Internationally known as the ``greatest of all time,'' he single-handedly revolutionized the sport of boxing. Born on this day in 1942 in Louisville, KY, by the age of 18, Clay had already become the 1960 light-heavyweight Olympic Gold Medalist. It was then that he evolved into a professional fighter, and by 1963, he had won all 19 of his first professional fights. The following year, 1964, Clay won the world heavyweight title against Sonny Liston. Two days later, he announced his acceptance of the teachings of the Nation of Islam and changed his name to Muhammad Ali shortly after. Ali defended his championship title nine times between 1965 and 1967, more than most heavyweight fighters in such a short period. Citing his Islamic faith, Ali refused to serve in the U.S. military during the war in Vietnam. As a result, his title was revoked, his fighting license was suspended, and he was sentenced to 5 years in prison for draft evasion. He was barred from fighting from March 22, 1967 to October 26, 1970, which many feel were his peak years. Finally, in 1971, the Supreme Court unanimously reversed Ali's conviction, and his boxing privileges were restored. Ali quickly set about regaining the heavyweight title, which was now held by the indomitable Joe Frazier. In the first of three bouts with Frazier, Ali lost what was dubbed ``the fight of the century.'' In a rematch with Frazier in 1974, Ali was victorious in redeeming his championship title. In October of that same year, the fight considered to be his most anticipated and promoted of his career, was the ``rumble in the jungle'' against a younger and vibrant George Foreman. The fight took place in Kinshasa, Zaire, and there were many who doubted that Ali would emerge the victor. In this fight, Ali introduced what he called the ``rope-a-dope,'' which he used to tire Foreman and eventually sustain his position as the No. 1 heavyweight champion of the world. In 1975, his third and final bout with Joe Frazier, labeled the ``the thrilla in Manila'' by Ali, proved to be one of the toughest and greatest fights of his career. Ali was victorious once more. Sadly, in 1978, Ali lost the title to Leon Spinks. That same year, in a rematch with Spinks, Ali won the championship title for the third time. In his final fight, ``the drama in Bahamas,'' against Trevor Berbick in 1981, his loss signaled the decline of the fighter's reign, and on December 12, 1981, Muhammad Ali said goodbye to boxing at the age of 39. There were also reports of his deteriorating health, and in 1982, the world knew that he was suffering from Parkinson's disease. Ali remains a beloved and active public figure. He has enjoyed countless honors, such as becoming No. 13 of the Forbes Celebrity 100, receiving the Spirit of America Award which named him the most recognized American in the world, named ``Kentucky Athlete of the Century,'' and lighting the flame at the 1996 Summer Olympics. In 2005, Ali received the Presidential Medal of Freedom, and the $60 million Muhammad Ali Center was opened in his honor in Louisville, KY. He is a United Nations Messenger of Peace and the first sportsman to receive an Otto Hahn Peace Medal. He is also the namesake of the Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act. More than a superior in the boxing world, Ali took a stand against injustice. He was a champion of the civil rights movement, and an involved activist who used his power and fame to push noble social change. His refusal to fight in a war that he didn't believe in made a statement to not only the African-American community, but to the world. Ali sacrificed boxing, the one thing he loved the most, to stand up for that which he believed. His practice of Islam and civil disobedience propelled him to larger than life status. Muhammad Ali has inspired millions throughout the world. He has given people hope and proved that anyone can overcome insurmountable odds. He has given people courage and shown us all that with spirit and determination, a simple person can make a difference. There will never be another Muhammad Ali. So Madam Speaker, it is with great distinction that I stand here today to wish the champ, the living legend, ``The Greatest,'' Muhammad Ali, a happy birthday.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, today I am introducing the ``Antitrust Modernization Commission Extension Act of 2007,'' legislation that allows the Antitrust Modernization Commission to finalize its report and shut down its operations in an appropriate time frame. I am joined by Ranking Member Lamar Smith. In passing the Antitrust Modernization Act of 2002, Congress established this Commission to ``examine whether the need exists to modernize [the U.S.] antitrust laws.'' In 2 months, I expect the Commission will provide its recommendations to Congress in its final report. The Commission has expressed concerns over the statutorily required 30 day deadline to shut down its operations completely while also finalizing its report to Congress. For example, dismantling the Commission will require it to begin archiving its records prior to completion of the report, which would likely affect the integrity of the report. For this and other reasons, it makes sense to give the Commission adequate time to wrap up. This bill allows the Commission to complete its report before beginning the process of shutting down operations by extending the Commission's administrative shutdown from 30 to 60 days. I urge my colleagues to support this effort.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the distinguished member of the Rules Committee, and I rise, Madam Speaker, in some shock about the strong opposition to this rule and the underlying bill. I had never thought that I would hear a reason to deny a Member of the House of Representatives a vote because of convenience, because of the number of revotes that have occurred and whether or not the switched votes that took place were because of whether Delegates were voting or not. This is an incredible kind of an argument. Today I commend the House leadership for bringing to the floor a small attempt to give our Delegates a voice in the House. This rule allows Congress to be more inclusive and integrated as it pertains to our Delegates. Significantly, the rule brings the Congresswoman from the District of Columbia, Eleanor Holmes Norton, closer to a House vote for the District, a vote that was almost realized through bipartisan efforts in the 109th Congress. By giving our Delegates a vote in the Committee of the Whole, we provide these representatives with the opportunity to greater serve their constituents. I wonder what the rest of the citizens of this country would think would be wrong with such an opportunity for these citizens to have a voting Representative, as our citizens do? Delegates will now have a record that reflects their positions on the measures that come before the House, but ultimately Delegates will be more involved with the work of the Congress, which would, at least in small part, become their Congress. In recognizing our Delegates, Mr. Faleomavaega, Ms. Bordallo, Mrs. Christensen, Mr. Fortuno and Eleanor Holmes Norton, I point out that their contributions have been much like that of other representatives. Our Delegates already serve and vote on committee business, they serve in caucus and leadership positions, and they diligently represent the interests of their constituents. It is an honor to work alongside these Members. Why shouldn't we help them in this long, arduous struggle toward full membership in the House? For the Delegate from the District of Columbia, I believe that a vote in the Committee of the Whole is a step toward achieving a vote in the House. It is not the final step. Our work to bring democracy to the Nation's Capital will continue after today's, what I hope will be a success. For over 200 years, the District residents have been disenfranchised while assuming the responsibilities of United States citizenship. Like both State and territory residents, District residents serve in the Armed Forces and are currently represented in Iraq, Afghanistan and other countries in the world. Like State residents, but unlike territory residents, citizens of the District pay Federal taxes and vote in Presidential elections. However, the District is alone in that it is denied voting representation in the very entity that controls all aspects of the city's legislative, executive, and judicial functions--the Congress. No other entity--State or territory--lacks this much autonomy. I will continue to support Congresswoman Norton in her efforts to secure a vote for the District. I pledge to work towards such a vote in the coming weeks. This Congress is capable of a sound, bipartisan response and in fact proved as much last Congress. Let us now address the unfinished business of the 109th Congress and the unfinished business of our democracy.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5, the College Student Relief Act. This bill is designed to make college more affordable and accessible by cutting the interest rate on subsidized student loans for undergraduates in half over the next 5 years--from 6.8 percent today to 3.4 percent by 2011. This proposal is targeted on assisting the low- and middle-income students with the most financial need: those who receive subsidized student loans. Over the last 5 years, the cost of attending college has skyrocketed, putting college out of reach for more and more students in my district and across the country. Tuition and fees at public universities have increased by 41 percent since 2001. In addition to rising tuition and fees, over the last 5 years interest rates on student loans have jumped by almost 2 percentage points, further increasing the cost of college. According to the Congressional Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance, financial barriers will prevent 4.4 million high school graduates from attending a 4-year public college over the next decade, and prevent another 2 million high school graduates from attending any college at all. Madam Speaker, the United States is the richest country in the world. We should be able to educate our young people to the full extent of their ability. Anything less fails not only our students, but our entire nation. More than ever, the health of our economy rests on having a highly- skilled and well-educated workforce. College access is the key to our remaining strong in the face of an increasingly competitive global economy. Without changes, by the year 2020, the United States is projected to face a shortage of up to 12 million college-educated workers, directly threatening America's economic strength. Once fully phased in, this bill would save the typical borrower, with $13,800 in subsidized federal student loan debt, approximately $4,400 over the life of their loan. Cutting student loan interest rates is supported by a large majority of Americans, including majorities of Republicans, Independents, and Democrats. Furthermore, the bill is fully paid for--meeting all pay-as-you-go requirements. Madam Speaker, you don't need to be a genius to recognize the critical importance of this legislation. This one should be a no- brainer. Let's pass H.R. 5.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 6, the CLEAN Energy Act of 2007. This bill takes an important first step towards a new energy future by investing in clean energy resources that will reduce harmful pollution and help break our addiction to foreign oil. H.R. 6 would reclaim $13 billion in tax breaks and giveaways that the Republican Congress extended to big oil in 2004 and 2005 and ensure that oil companies pay their fair share to drill on public land. It would use that revenue to create a Strategic Renewable Energy Reserve to invest in clean, renewable energy resources and alternative fuels, promote new energy technologies, develop greater efficiency and improve energy conservation. Over the last several years, Big Oil has raked in record profits while our dependence on foreign oil has climbed ever higher. At the same time, scientists have uncovered new and alarming facts about global warming that demand our urgent attention. While there is broad, bipartisan public support for investing in clean energy technology, the last Congress and the Administration seem to have been more concerned with taking care of their Big Oil buddies than steering us toward a sustainable energy future. Today, we have an opportunity to chart a new course. H.R. 6 establishes a forward-thinking approach to energy that looks to American innovation to provide renewable energy for our future. Our security, our economy, and indeed, our very existence require nothing less.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 61) observing the Birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr., and encouraging the people of the United States to observe the Birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr., and the life and legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and for other purposes.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker and ladies and gentlemen of the House, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to insert additional material concerning House Resolution 61 into the Congressional Record.

Mr. CONYERS. I also want everyone to know that the gentleman from Georgia's resolution, John Lewis, Members will be able to join on it up until the time that we have a recorded vote in case there are Members coming back that may not be aware of this. Today we have joined so many others in the Nation in honoring, in my judgment, our greatest American, Martin Luther King, Jr. As the original author of the bill 4 days after his assassination, and one who worked on it for 15 years until it was passed in 1983, I am delighted to support and endorse the resolution of another supporter and one who worked closely with Dr. King, the gentleman from Georgia, John Lewis. It was an interesting time for me yesterday. Not only did City Year, a national service movement that has young people pledging to work in schools, parks, and neighborhoods full-time for 10 months, headed by their president, Penny Bailey, in which I delivered my remarks about Dr. King, but I was also at Central Methodist Church in downtown Detroit, where Dr. King frequently came for his Easter or the Friday before Easter addresses, and where I was honored on his last visit to be supported by his actual endorsement. And so I come here doubly proud of the fact that I was able to work with Dr. King as a young lawyer, but also to enjoy his support. Much of it came, of course, from Rosa Parks, who left Alabama and came to Detroit when she couldn't get work anymore. And she was a seamstress. And I was very happy to welcome her to my congressional office, where she worked for more than two decades. And her and Dr. King's fame and recognition kept growing and growing as she was called around the world to receive tributes. And I remember Dr. King's very important receiving of the Nobel Prize. And it was about the question of peace. And it was not just racial discrimination. Dr. King was not a one-note person. He was a visionary. Jobs, justice, economic justice, political justice, and peace. And we find ourselves wrapped up in these same considerations even today as we begin the third week of the 110th Congress. We need voter integrity. We need protection for those who seek the ballot. But more than anything else, I am reminded of the fact that we need to find a way out of the war in Iraq, an unnecessary, sad occasion in our history. And you keep thinking, what would King have said? And I remember that one thing he said is that those who fail to talk about what is important really miss their chance in history to do something that is significant. Madam Speaker, because we have so many speakers, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield now to the one person in the House and the United States Senate who now presently knows and knew Dr. King and his family, and the civil rights movement more than any other person among us, and that is, of course, the Honorable John Lewis from Georgia, and I recognize him for 3 minutes.

Mr. CONYERS. I thank the previous speaker, who is one of the few here on the floor that was around back then when these debates and this long 15-year period took place. I thank him for his contribution. Madam Speaker, I now turn to the able gentlelady from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), and I recognize her for 2\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. CONYERS. I thank the gentleman. Madam Speaker, I yield to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Butterfield) 2\1/4\ minutes.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I would like now to call upon David Scott of Georgia and to yield to him 2 minutes.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I am now pleased to yield to my good friend, Dennis Kucinich of Ohio, 2 minutes.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased now to yield to my old friend, the delegate from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega) 2 minutes.