John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I rise absolutely overjoyed at the action that has been taken by the Committee on International Relations. I begin by commending the distinguished chairman, Henry Hyde, a current member of the House Judiciary Committee, where he was once chairman; my dear friend from Florida, Subcommittee Chairwoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen; and, of course, the esteemed Tom Lantos, the ranking member of the committee. Ladies and gentlemen, I cannot tell you how thrilled I am to see a resolution come back to the floor for the observance of Global Family Day, One Day of Peace and Sharing. It has a long history that the gentlewoman from Florida remembers all the way back to the late Senator Paul Wellstone. And I join all of you as we in the Congress continue to search for a way to find peace in Iraq and Afghanistan, in every corner of the world. There are widely divergent views about how we arrive at peace; but most of all, we are deeply concerned about the subject. We have families, constituents, individuals who are longing for peace in the world and an end to the suffering caused by poverty, disease, and hunger. Untold numbers of our friends, neighbors, parents, children are hoping that there can be more understanding, more generosity, more genuine friendship and more caring among people of all faiths and cultures. We struggle with military strategies and budgets, economic considerations, and international issues. But there is one matter which we can come together on, and this is House Concurrent Resolution 317 that calls upon the President to issue an annual proclamation calling upon the Nation's citizens to observe Global Family Day. It has been done before in the year 2000, and we are so pleased that it is being done today. I would remind you that in 2001 following the tragedy of 9/11, the United Nations General Assembly took the same action. In more than 20 nations around the globe, the leaders of those countries have personally endorsed this initiative. And here in the Nation's capital, Mayor Anthony Williams proclaimed just 2 months ago that January 1, 2007, would be a day for all Washingtonians to become peacemakers in whatever capacity that they can. Frequently, this took the role of people breaking bread with someone, some family of another faith, of another community, and the idea was to get to know one another better. It provides a way of saying to the world that we understand that it is the individuals, the 6.6 billion people on this planet, interacting with one another that will allow this to happen. So I thank the tireless advocates who have worked on this matter across the years. Organizationally, they include the Martin Luther King, Jr. Family Life Institute, the National Association of Former Foster Care Children of America, the Global Family Day Foundation; but, of course, it is the founder of this idea that came to us in the Congress years ago with young children who wanted to start doing something along with the former Senator from Minnesota, and that is Ms. Linda Grover, whose dedication and commitment has inspired all of us to this unique, creative way to bring us all a little closer together. Again, my thanks to the floor leaders that have managed this.

Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. CONYERS. Yes. I thought that he was, but if he wasn't, he is now.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), my friend and colleague, who has worked on this area for a long time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my friend and brother, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I would yield 1 minute more, this is very unusual, but I will yield 1 minute more to Mr. Scott.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Ladies and gentlemen of the Congress, this is a very important and sensitive issue that is being brought by Chairman Sensenbrenner and myself today in support of H.R. 2965: How do we deal with the rehabilitation of prisoners and balance it against the rising unemployment that is affecting and afflicting this Nation so much? As currently drafted, this bill, to me, strikes the appropriate balance between the needs of Federal inmates versus the needs of everyday men and women looking for gainful employment in the civilian workforce; and this was arrived at through a great deal of activity and negotiation with Members on both sides of the aisle. First, the legislation establishes a gradual phaseout of the current mandatory source requirement. As many know, the mandatory source requirement compels all Federal agencies to purchase their goods and services from the Federal Prison Industries program. A phaseout of this requirement will allow private sector companies to effectively compete for additional Federal contracts, which in turn will produce an increase in private sector jobs, many to be filled by members of our local labor unions across the country. The second thing we do here is to ensure that the Federal inmates continue to have adequate access to training opportunities during and after the phaseout. The legislation authorizes a minimum of $75 million a year for purposes of educating inmates and teaching them valuable vocational skills. This new language was added to the text of the underlying bill at my request and will guarantee that all Federal inmates are equipped with the necessary skills to successfully reenter society upon their release from prison. This has been a very difficult problem in the corrections arena over the years. This is not new. It is something we have been working on for a long time, and we have come to this new agreement that is embodied in H.R. 2965. And, finally, to protect against inmate idleness and assure that the safety of prison guards is intact, the legislation includes what has been referred to as a safety valve. The safety valve would allow the Attorney General to direct the award of a sole-source contract to the Federal Prison Industries whenever necessary to, ``prevent circumstances that could reasonably be expected to significantly endanger the safe and effective administration'' of a particular prison. Now, we all know that the job market, and the economy as a whole for that matter, have not fared well under the current administration. In Michigan alone the State's unemployment rate is roughly 7 percent, but in some areas it is 5 or 6 times that much, which, as of this summer, tied Michigan's unemployment rate for the second highest in the Nation. Something has to be done to help these hardworking men and women obtain jobs in the private sector and yet continue the support for Prison Industries which has worked so well, and this bill represents the best thinking in that regard. That is why this legislation has been endorsed by the United Automobile Workers, the Teamsters, the Food and Commercial Workers, the United Brotherhood of Carpenters, the Machinists United, and many others. I think that we finally reached the kind of a compromise that takes both of these matters into consideration, how we deal with the problem of rising unemployment in the private sector, and with the great challenge to prepare those who are coming out of incarceration to gain valuable vocational skills and prepare themselves for returning to our society. I urge your serious consideration of this matter. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. I yield 7 minutes to my colleague who has worked on this matter for many years, Bobby Scott, a distinguished member of the Judiciary Committee from Virginia.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Mr. Hoekstra personally for the great work that he has done, not just on this bill but earlier bills as well. This is not a subject on which you have just jumped onboard. I appreciate, across the years, our working together on it.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield to just allow me this, because I think what the gentleman from Virginia raised is a very important point, somebody better guarantee me the jobs, too, because that is what this is all about. We are not just writing language to go into the law books. We want some action, and I do not know who gives out guarantees around here, but I will be the first one in line to get it. I am glad that that is your position as well.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I would like at this time to recognize the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) for 2 minutes. (Mrs. MALONEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute to point out that this bill does not increase crime because we have got a vocational educational training program for inmates that will prepare them not only in vocational skills but prepare them as a whole person. So to say that we are increasing crime because we are phasing out this Federal Prison Industries program is not exactly accurate. Besides, there is a not-for-profit section that we are going to ramp up. Local governments, school districts, and religious organizations will all be able to benefit under this new provision to create more jobs. And so I just want to guarantee everybody, and particularly my friend from Virginia, that if this doesn't create more jobs, then I want to change the law myself. But to predict that this is what we are doing is not exactly accurate. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

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

Mr. CONYERS. I do.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the amendment because it is technical in nature, and I am sure thereby that there will be little objection to it. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. When you examine this amendment, this creates a loophole that could undermine the entire bill and any attempt that we have toward educating inmates, teaching vocational skills, and getting contracts for jobs because I, for one, am not for putting this into the tender hands and the gentle mercies of the Attorney General of the United States. I mean, I have never heard them even suggest that they support anything in this bill. So for me to want to create this carve-out to allow the Attorney General to direct agencies within the Department of Justice to award individual contracts to Federal Prison Industries on a noncompetitive basis is going way too far in terms of us trying to bring some justice to this bill. Now, we have to control our emotions here, ladies and gentlemen. This is about how we help people who have violated the law return to society. There is more than one way to do it. There are several ways to do it. We are in the process of creating what we think will be a new and better and more balanced way than the way that we have now. This is not slamming the Federal Prison Industries. As a matter of fact, under the provisions of this bill, they will be able to operate with nonprofits, with government organizations, with churches. There are a lot of ways to deal with this. The important thing is we all come together and get the money. Somebody said $75 million. Do you know how far $75 million goes in the expenditures that we are making on Iraq every day? This should not be the toughest assignment that those of us who support rehabilitation programs would make. I urge that if there is any one amendment that should be rejected, it would be one that would leave this measure to the tender mercies of the Attorney General of the United States. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. CONYERS. I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, this amendment raises an interesting question. We exclude services, for-profit business services, but we include everything else. What is the difference between the services and the products? We have to move in an organized fashion or not. To bifurcate this into services being excluded, I think, doesn't make any sense at all. Now, we are back to the continued mantra that less jobs mean more crime, so if you are for less crime, you are for more jobs. But what we are doing, in this bill, goes back to an earlier consideration in which we said, which the gentleman from Virginia said, that we could guarantee these jobs and the $75 million, that this would work out. Of course, I don't know where we get guarantee tickets around here. But I am going to work to the best of my ability, and I have been in this corrections business for quite a while, to make sure that we get the money. It is very, very important that we do that. I am going to urge our Members not to buy into this half-of-a-loaf notion that services should somehow be allowed to continue and Federal Prison Industries not.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, back in June the Democratic Caucus began a series of weekly special orders and floor speeches as a part of our ongoing ``Iraq Watch.'' Midway through September, we're still watching, and what we're seeing is not encouraging. Other members will elaborate on the escalating death toll, the continued drain on our Treasury, and our inability to provide even the most basic services that might show the Iraqis that our invasion has improved their lives in some way. That there were no weapons of mass destruction, no link between Saddam and Al Qaeda, and no threat to America in Iraq continues to be demonstrated with each new report released and each study published. We know that we went in without a plan to manage the country after we toppled the government, contrary to military recommendations. Indeed, we now know that Secretary Rumsfeld actually threatened to fire staff who kept insisting on making some attempt at post-war planning. The generals in the field have told us, again, that their mission cannot be accomplished without tens of thousands, perhaps even a hundred thousand or more troops. Yet, according to an official army report referenced in the article I include, for the record, there are no more troops to send. Mr. Speaker, we've been watching as this quagmire gets worse by the day. But I can't help wondering if the Republicans are watching the same conflict I am. To listen to what the Administration and its backers in Congress are saying, one might think that the invasion happened just last month, rather than three and a half years ago. You might think we were greeted as liberators, or even that we helped the Iraqis form a functioning democracy. You might even draw the conclusion that fanning the flames in Iraq is somehow, in some way making the American people safer. Operating on the same flawed assumptions they used to mislead us into this mess in the first place, the Administration still has not given us an exit plan out of this bloodbath. We've heard plenty of slogans. ``As the Iraqis stand up, we'll stand down.'' ``Stay the course,'' But, Mr. Speaker, empty rhetoric is not a strategy. Hearing these slogans again and again, I'm reminded of one definition of insanity: to take the same action over and over and expect different results. Our continued occupation of Iraq without any kind of strategy or plan to resolve the conflict simply makes no sense. Mr. Speaker, I was shocked and horrified when I heard that Vice President Cheney went on a talk show last weekend and said, and I quote, ``if we had it to do over again, we'd do exactly the same thing.'' Is our vice president misleading us again, or does he really believe that our Iraq policy is working? Is this administration so arrogant, so stubborn, so unwilling to admit its mistakes that it wants to continue the occupation of Iraq ``exactly'' as it has for three and a half years? The Administration's continued failure to level with the American people and learn from its errors is an affront to all of us, but most especially to the memory of the 2,671 brave young men and women who have given their lives for this war of choice. The Republicans have shown that they lack the humility and the vision to change our disastrous course in the Middle East. We've lost not only lives and treasure but our standing in the world as a beacon of freedom and democracy. It is time for a new direction. [From Washingtonpost.com, Sept. 14, 2006] Why We Can't Send More Troops (By Lawrence J. Korb and Peter Ogden) In ``Reinforce Baghdad'' [op-ed, Sept. 12], William Kristol and Rich Lowry argue that the United States needs to deploy ``substantially'' more troops to Iraq to stabilize the country. Aside from the strategic dubiousness of their proposal--Kristol and Lowry's piece might alternatively have been titled ``Reinforcing Failure''--there is a practical obstacle to it that they overlook: Sending more troops to Iraq would, at the moment, threaten to break our nation's all-volunteer Army and undermine our national security. This is not a risk our country can afford to take. In their search for additional troops and equipment for Iraq, the first place that Kristol and Lowry would have to look is the active Army. But even at existing deployment levels, the signs of strain on the active Army are evident. In July an official report revealed that two-thirds of the active U.S. Army was classified as ``not ready for combat.'' When one combines this news with the fact that roughly one- third of the active Army is deployed (and thus presumably ready for combat), the math is simple but the answer alarming: The active Army has close to zero combat-ready brigades in reserve. The second place to seek new troops and equipment is the Army National Guard and Reserve. But the news here is, if anything, worse. When asked by reporters to comment on the strain that the active Army was under, the head of the National Guard said that his military branch was ``in an even more dire situation than the active Army. We both have the same symptoms; I just have a higher fever.'' Already, the stress of Iraq and Afghanistan on our soldiers has been significant: Every available active-duty combat brigade has served at least one tour in Iraq or Afghanistan, and many have served two or three. Likewise, the vast majority of Army National Guardsmen and Reservists have been mobilized since Sept. 11, 2001, some more than once. Thus the simple fact is that the only way for Kristol and Lowry to put their new plan into action anytime soon without resorting to a draft--and thereby dismantling the all- volunteer Army, which, as the authors themselves would certainly admit, could be strategically disastrous--is by demanding even more from our soldiers by accelerating their training and rotation schedules. While there is no question that the soldiers would respond to more frequent calls to duty, it is doubtful that they would be supplied with proper equipment and training for their mission in the near term. Moreover, the long-term toll on the cost and quality of our troops would be threatened by the added strain. First, the equipment shortage that the U.S. Army faces at the moment is making it difficult to train troops even at current levels. The service has been compensating for this $50 billion equipment shortfall by shipping to Iraq some of the equipment that it needs to train nondeployed and reserve units. Increasing the number of deployed troops would compound this readiness problem and leave the Army with little spare capacity to respond to other conflicts around the globe that might demand immediate and urgent action. Second, the long-term costs of leaning even more heavily on our ground troops to fight what is an unpopular war will take its toll on the quality of our Army. At present the Army is compelled to offer promotions to an unprecedented number of its personnel to retain them. Some 98 percent of captains were promoted to major this year, and the quality of the next generation of military leaders will suffer if this process is not made more selective once again. In addition, even the quadrupling of recruitment bonuses since 2003 has not been enough to attract adequate numbers of talented men and women to meet the Army's personnel goals. Although the Army has accepted more troops with lower aptitude scores and raised its maximum enlistment age, it still must grant waivers to about 1 out of 5 new recruits and has had to cut in half the number who ``wash out'' in basic training. While we disagree with Kristol and Lowry's contention that sending more troops to Iraq would bring peace and stability to the country, the U.S. Army and National Guard and Reserve should nevertheless possess the capacity to respond to such a plan or other deployments without undue strain and long-term costs. The solution is to do two things that the Bush administration has not: permanently increase the number of troops in the active Army and fully fund its equipment needs. Let this, not the expenditure of more blood and treasure in Iraq, be the ``courageous act of presidential leadership'' that Kristol and Lowry desire.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey), a distinguished member of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), a distinguished member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, and ladies and gentlemen of the House, 5 years have passed since the tragedy of 9/11; September 11, 2001, when the whole country remembers where we were, the images we saw on television, and the pain we felt in our hearts. That day will be remembered forever as a day of mourning, of suffering, and of incalculable loss. Today as a Nation, we mourned with those who lost loved ones and for those who gave their lives that day to save others. We forgot our differences, uniting behind a common purpose seeking justice. As I look back on that day, I remember the promise we showed as a Nation and the strength we exhibited when joining together in the days and the weeks after the horrific attacks of September 11. Members of both political parties recognized the need to ensure that law enforcement had the tools and the resources to respond to terrorist threats while at the same time respecting our Nation's core constitutional values. But I also remember Keith Olbermann of MSNBC who in his criticisms, in his special comment section made this observation about Abraham Lincoln: ``At the dedication of the Gettysburg Memorial, barely 4 months after the last soldier staggered from another Pennsylvania field, Mr. Lincoln said `We cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow, this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract.' ``Lincoln used those words to immortalize their sacrifice. ``Today our leaders could use those same words to rationalize their inaction. We cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow this ground, so we won't. ``Instead,'' Olbermann said, ``they bicker and buck-pass. They thwart private efforts, and jostle to claim credit for initiatives that go nowhere. They spend money on irrelevant wars, and elaborate self- congratulations, and buying off columnists to write how good a job they are doing instead of doing any job at all.'' Unfortunately, 5 years later it seems that we have lost our way. It is most unfortunate that the situation has become so dire that the majority and minority parties can't even come together on a simple resolution to commemorate the tragic and pivotal day in our Nation's history. We were able to do so in the past. The other body was able to do so earlier this week. But for some reason the majority insisted on changing the text of prior resolutions and adding superfluous language touting their legislative record. I wish I could say this was the only instance in which the majority party has sought to politicize the events of September 11, but that would not be accurate. One need only go back as far as Monday of this week when the President used a nationwide speech to somehow equate the situation in Iraq with September 11. And last weekend, the Vice President also sought to link the war in Iraq with the September 11 attack even though a bipartisan Senate report just a few days earlier had again thoroughly debunked that myth. And there are other things that I will not bother to bring up now. But the Secretary of Defense has compared the principal critics of the war with the appeasers of the despotic Nazi regime. Some on the other side have asserted that those who speak in favor of constitutional rights put forward by the Founding Fathers are somehow soft on terrorism. In 2002, they even questioned the patriotism of the then-junior Senator of Georgia, a war veteran who lost his arms and legs fighting for our Nation in battle, because he insisted on protecting worker rights as part of a bill creating the Homeland Security Committee. So it is altogether fitting and appropriate that we remember the dead, the wounded, and the families of the tragedy of September 11. But surely we can do so without also seeking to trumpet our legislation or inserting unnecessary spin and public relations language into the resolution. If there was anything that should bring us together as a Nation, it would be the commemoration of September 11. I hope, I pray that we can do a better job for the American people in the future. And so, my colleagues, I ask of you, let's commemorate 9/11 the right way. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the ranking subcommittee chairman of the Committee on the Constitution in the House Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney). (Mrs. MALONEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)