John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Sheila Jackson-Lee, the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Immigration of the House Judiciary Committee

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to recognize the minority leader of the House, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this has been an important discussion between ourselves. I feel better now that we have resolved to overlook those parts of this resolution that could be called congratulatory to the executive branch, to the Congress, to any parties. We come together now to remember and memorialize once again the great contributions of those who served on the front lines and those who gave their lives and the families of those who died in this great tragedy of 9/11/01 Mr. Speaker, it is in that spirit that we on this side yield back the balance of our time.

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

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, we were all horrified a year ago when New Orleans' levies broke under the force of the winds and storm surges caused by Hurricane Katrina. Katrina was at Category 3 strength when it made landfall that fateful day, yet it wrought destruction beyond our imagination. In the face of the devastation we witnessed, it borders on the absurd to consider authorizing levee funding for New Orleans at anything less than the Category 5 level. For that reason, I rise in strong support of the Melancon Motion to Instruct the WRDA conferees. Mr. Speaker, past authorizations for hurricane protection took into account vast marshes and wetlands, as well as barrier islands that could absorb most of the force of tidal surges. Louisiana has lost 1.2 million acres of this land due to economic development in the past century, and stands to lose another 435,000 acres if measures to stop the loss aren't taken. Without this protective buffer, the people of Louisiana are that much more vulnerable to storm surges and other hurricane-related flooding. Coastal and wetlands restoration combined with a strong levy system will offer the hurricane protection necessary to protect the lives of over 2 million residents and the nation's industries. However, we cannot rebuild all of the wetlands lost in the near term, so we must compensate with stronger, better levee protection. The Army Corps of Engineers has worked hard to bring levees back up to pre-Katrina standards, but we've already seen what that level of protection does-- nothing. Anything less than Category 5 levee protection is totally inadequate and would be an insult to the memory of the more than 700 New Orleanians who lost their lives a year ago.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Chairman, this week the census bureau released a report showing that for the first time since 1998, the number of uninsured children increased. Of the 8.3 million children without health insurance, minority children constitute a disproportionate share. The latest census figures also show that a record 46.6 Americans lack health insurance. With crucial issues facing the country such as the health care crisis, a broken immigration system, shortfalls in homeland security, and a stagnant minimum wage, I am baffled that the Republican leadership would spend precious time on horse slaughter legislation. I do not want to minimize the importance of banning inhumane slaughter of horses for purposes of human consumption overseas. In fact, I am a cosponsor of H.R. 503, the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act and support clean passage of that legislation. However, it is distressing that with only approximately 15 legislative days before the election, Republicans are ignoring the priorities of the American people. I am troubled that the 109th Congress will be remembered in history as a ``do-nothing'' Congress. According to the Library of Congress, the House of Representatives in 2006 is on track to be in session for the fewest number of days since 1948. When the Congress has been in session, Republicans have pushed divisive and unproductive legislation such as constitutional amendments banning gay marriage and flag burning. The time is long overdue to address the people's business. Several months ago, both the House and Senate passed immigration and boarder security bills. Instead of working out an agreement on illegal immigration, Republicans scheduled new field hearings in swing districts. With more talk and less action, the Republican led Congress and White House have failed to gain control over the border. They have failed to conduct workplace enforcement of immigration laws and have thus failed to protect American workers from declining low wages. Republican inaction on homeland security is even more disconcerting. The bipartisan 9/11 Commission has given this Administration and the rubberstamp Republican congressional leaders poor grades for failing to implement the Commission's recommendations. We must take immediate steps to secure our borders, strengthen security around sensitive infrastructure, and give our first responders the necessary resources to protect the country. Republican leadership has failed to improve the American people's economic security. As CEO compensation has soared, real family income is down since 2001. Since 1997, Republicans have repeatedly rejected a minimum wage increase for 6.6 million of the hardest working Americans. We must provide a livable wage so families can afford to make ends meet. With the American people paying our salaries, we in the Congress have a duty to solve their problems. It is about time the Republican-led Congress earned its paycheck.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, as Dean of the Congressional Black Caucus, and Chairman of the Jazz Forum and Concert that occurs during the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation's Annual Legislative Conference, I rise to salute the achievements of trumpeter Marlon Jordan, a rising star in the field of jazz. The following biography is found on Marlon Jordan's own web site. It chronicles a career of accomplishment already deserving of high recognition, and of this body's thoughtful attention and respect. Marlon Jordan is the youngest of seven children of musician-educator Edward Jordan and Edvidge Jordan, a classical pianist. ``I started out playing saxophone, violin and drums,'' says Marlon, ``but the trumpet was the instrument that stuck with me.'' Marlon recalls his father literally taking him on the bandstand ``even before I really knew how to play. He'd introduce me to all the musicians, and they'd call me up on the stand. They'd say, `Come on. That's Kidd's son. Let him play.' '' As he continued his musical studies he had the day to day inspiration of Wynton Marsalis, Terence Blanchard, and many others to draw on. The young musicians often hung out at the Jordan household where they would practice music with Kent Jordan and take lessons from Edward Jordan. Marlon graduated from the famed NOCCA (New Orleans Center for the Creative Arts). An accomplished classical musician as well, Marlon has performed solo with the New Orleans Symphony Orchestra. But his true joy is his constant performance in the streets and nightclubs of New Orleans and Brazil. His debut album ``For You Only,'' released by Columbia Records was the source of unanimous praise from the press. It was named ``one of the best debut albums of the year'' by the Washington Post. Following the debut album's release, Marlon took his quintet on the road. They joined Wynton Marsalis, Miles Davis and George Benson as a headlining act in a series of JVC Festival dates (produced by George Wein) in Atlanta, Dallas and other cities. They also played in some of the country's top jazz clubs, including the Blue Note and the Ritz, as well as in concerts ranging from New York's Avery Fisher Hall to Binghamton University. Marlon understood that his continued growth as a musician depended on his ability to stake out his own musical ground, and not just to play standards. Following up on his own ideas, he wrote five of the tunes on his second Columbia release ``Learson's Return'' (April 1991). Following a series of quintet dates immediately following the album's release in the spring of '91 (highlighted by a run at the Village Vanguard), Marlon joined up with ``Jazz Futures''--George Wein's brilliantly-conceived ``supergroup'' of ``Young Lions''--virtually playing every major jazz festival and outdoor ``shed'' on the circuit. Mr. Speaker, latest release, ``You Don't Know What Love Is,'' features his sister, vocalist Stephanie Jordan. Marlon, Stephanie and another sister, violinist Rachel Jordan, will be performing together on September 7, 2006, at the Jazz Forum and Concert that I will host during the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation's 36th Annual Legislative Conference. I urge all of you, and those who love real jazz to attend.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, as Dean of the Congressional Black Caucus, and Chairman of the Jazz Forum and Concert that occurs during the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation's Annual Legislative Conference, I rise to salute the achievements of violinist Regina Carter, a rising star in the field of jazz. The following biography is found on Stephanie Jordan's own web site. It chronicles a career of accomplishment already deserving of high recognition, and of this body's thoughtful attention and respect: Regina Carter's immersion in music began at the age of 2 when she took up piano followed by violin at the age of 4. Forever indebted to the Suzuki method of music teaching, the approach freed her from the rigid restraints of solely reading music and opened her to the wonders of improvisation. Though her original focus was classical music, with the hope of being a soloist with a major symphony, the pull of Detroit's rich soul music legacy and the discovery of jazz broadened her horizons. Regina attended Detroit's prestigious Cass Technical High School. Upon graduating, she departed for the New England Conservatory of Music, only to return to Michigan's Oakland University, seasoning her chops by gigging with several local musicians. She later joined the attention-grabbing all-female quartet Straight Ahead which recorded two albums for Atlantic Records. Carter departed the band in 1994, recording two solo albums for Atlantic while also making the most of her newfound New York connections by working with the likes of the String Trio of New York, Muhal Richard Abrams, and Greg Tate and the Black Rock Coalition. Carter joined Verve Records in 1998 and has since recorded four critically acclaimed works of astounding maturity and variety: Rhythms of the Heart, Motor City Moments, (also produced by John Clayton), and Paganini: After a Dream (for which she made history by being the first African American and jazz musician to travel to Genoa, Italy to perform and record with the legendary Guarneri del Gesu violin owned by classical music virtuoso Niccolo Paganini), and a duet project with pianist Kenny Barron entitled Freefall. Her playing has also graced work that includes filmmaker Ken Burns' soundtrack for the PBS documentary, Jazz. Wynton Marsalis' opera Blood on the Fields; Cassandra Wilson's tribute to Miles Davis, Traveling Miles; and the queen of hip-hop soul Mary J. Blige. In the summer of 2006, Regina will join Latin Jazz pianist Eddie Palmieri for some dates related to his latest recording, the Grammy award-winning, Listen Here, on which she was also a guest. Among her personal accomplishments is work she has done to spread the love of music to others, something that is touched upon in her one original composition on I'll Be Seeing You. John Clayton always insists that I write at least one original piece on every album'' she says ``I chose `How Ruth Felt,' which is a commissioned piece that I wrote for a woman named Ruth Felt, President of San Francisco Performances, and Arts organization in San Francisco. I spent some time as an Artist-in- Residence there, teaching music to disadvantaged children and spreading the joy of music to people in community centers and churches around the Bay area. Ruth helped me tremendously while I was dealing with my mother's illness. I included `How Ruth Felt' on my album as a way to say, 'Thank you.' '' Now Regina Carter is looking forward to a brighter 2006, filled with sharing the memory of her mother and the music of I'll Be Seeing You: A Sentimental Journey with people in a live context. ``When I perform now, she shares, ``I feel different when I go on stage . . . stronger . . . like I've gone through something and really lived! I still get nervous, but all of those negative, critical voices that I used to hear in my head are gone. I think that's my mother . . . making me realize that none of that is important. This is my stage . . . It's what I do . . . and I'm having a good time.''

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2491, the International Solid Waste Importation and Management Act of 2005. Riverview and other downriver communities in my district have had to cope with hundreds of trucks full of Canadian trash rumbling down their streets on a daily basis for years. These trucks pass through our communities en route from the Ambassador Bridge to traffic dumps to the west. You can imagine the traffic congestion, environmental, and quality-of-life problems these truckloads of trash have created. Local activists like Mr. George Read of Trenton and State Representative Kathleen Law have been working tirelessly alongside our congressional delegation to put an end to this never-ending flow of trash, and I am very pleased that the House today is taking a step toward that goal. If adopted, H.R. 2491 would give States the power to restrict the importation of foreign waste. Under current law, only the Federal Government is able to make such restrictions. Mr. Speaker, let us not overlook the fact that H.R. 2491 has been awaiting floor consideration since it passed the Energy and Commerce committee 14 months ago. Our delegation has had to send two letters to get Speaker Hastert to finally bring this important legislation to the floor. We now have only about 15 days left in session before we break for the elections, and it will be a tall order for this bill to make it through committee and the full Senate during that time. Indeed, the Republican chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works has already announced that he does not foresee consideration of this legislation any time soon. I want to commend Senators Levin and Stabenow and Congressman Dingell for the deal they have worked out with Ontario's Minister of the Environment to halt the importation of Canadian municipal waste over the next 4 years. The Bush administration and the Republican Congress have wasted many years and numerous opportunities to address this issue both through legislation and by implementing a bilateral agreement between the U.S. and Canada already on the books since 1992. Our constituents were fed up with this inaction, so our Michigan Democratic legislators took the initiative to negotiate an agreement that will reduce the importation of Canadian municipal trash immediately, and end it completely in 4 years. Republicans can complain about our legislators taking matters into their own hands, but the fact is that the Republicans have failed to do a thing to address this serious problem. The negotiated agreement is a step in the right direction, as is passage of this bill.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Today, along with several of my colleagues, I am introducing legislation that would require the president to notify Congress upon the pardon of any Executive Branch employee. This notification is necessary because it is possible that the president could pardon an employee of his administration as a means of preventing an investigation from running its course and, perhaps, uncovering information critical of the administration. Without limiting the president's pardon authority under Article II of the Constitution, it is important for purposes of public accountability that Congress and the American public be notified when he does pardon one of his own employees. The need for this legislation came to light as a result of the Justice Department's investigation into an administration official's leak of CIA officer Valerie Plame Wilson's identity. The indictment of I. Lewis Libby, who was the Vice President's Chief of Staff, for false statements, perjury, and obstruction of justice in connection with the investigation raised concerns that the President might use his authority to pardon Mr. Libby or other officials involved in serious criminal offenses. This is a concern because President George W. Bush refused to respond to a July 25, 2005 letter I sent seeking his assurance that he would not pardon any former or current officials involved in the leak of Valerie Plame Wilson's name. Also, a June 18, 2006 article by Tom Brune of Newsday notes that the Bush White House may gain political advantage by pardoning Mr. Libby. This is why Congress and the American people should be informed if and when a president pardons an administration employee. The notice should include information that sets forth the complete picture surrounding the pardon. This would include: the name and government title of the person, nature of the offense, the date of the pardon, the effect of the pardon on any criminal sentence or fine that may have been imposed, whether the person was involved in any criminal or civil investigation, whether the president sought the opinion of the lead Federal investigator on whether a pardon should be granted, and the position of the lead Federal investigator on whether a pardon should be granted.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, today I, along with Reps. Howard Berman (D- CA) and Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), am introducing a resolution commending the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of the Inspector General. For those who may not be aware, the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) was established in 1988 as part of an effort to investigate waste, prevent fraud, and review legislation at the Department. The OIG and its agents and employees have been unwavering in their pursuit of justice. Even in the most trying of times, the OIG has been steadfast in its resolve. For instance, it was the OIG that uncovered the truth behind the incarceration of Brandon Mayfield as a material witness in the Madrid bombing investigation. It was the OIG that exposed the abuses of detainees in federal custody after the September 11 attacks. On June 21, 2006, Special Agent William ``Buddy'' Sentner gave his life in service to his country, attempting to execute a search warrant on behalf of the Department. He left behind a legacy of public service and patriotism. His service no doubt will inspire those who follow. This resolution recognizes the contributions and sacrifices of the agents, attorneys, and employees of the Office of the Inspector General. I look forward to working with my colleagues on securing passage of this legislation.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. I thank the ranking chairman of the Constitutional Subcommittee, Mr. Nadler, for yielding to me. I commend him for the incredible work that we have done to try to bring understanding to how difficult and unworkable this so-called Pledge Protection Act is. Mr. Chairman, I hold in my hands this letter that has just come in to the Judiciary Committee from the American Bar Association, their Governmental Affairs Office. The controlling sentence is this: ``As a matter of policy, Congress should not jettison our foundational principles because of current dissatisfaction with the controversial decision of the Supreme Court or lower Federal courts by permanently stripping the jurisdiction of the Federal courts to hear certain categories of cases. Rather than strengthening its legislative role, Congress, by pressing its own checking power to the extreme, imperils the entire system of separated powers.'' Ladies and gentlemen, this unconstitutional court-stripping bill, and it would be found unconstitutional if enacted, is only the latest attempt by a Congress to force a pluralist society into a one-size- fits-all set of beliefs. This is a remarkable violation of the separation of powers and the establishment clause. If the act were to become law, it would clearly be held unconstitutional. Only State courts would be able to constitutionally challenge the Pledge, and so we would therefore end up with a 50-State collection of views as to what the free exercise clause, the establishment clause, meant in this context. In addition, think of what this means to those groups that depend on this provision of our law not to be able to bring their issues to the court. This legislation would strip all Federal courts, including the Supreme Court, from hearing first amendment challenges to the Pledge of Allegiance and from enforcing longstanding constitutional rights in the court, and would slam the Federal courthouse door on religious minorities trying to do nothing more than enforce a fundamental constitutional right that they have had for over 60 years. Please, let us turn this Pledge Protection Act down this afternoon. American Bar Association, Government Affairs Office, Washington, DC, July 18, 2006. Re H.R. 2389, the Pledge Protection Act of 2005. Dear Representative: We understand that the House is scheduled to consider H.R. 2389 tomorrow. We are writing to express our opposition to this legislation, which would strip from all federal courts jurisdiction to hear constitutional challenges to the interpretation of, or the validity of, the Pledge of Allegiance. Our views on H.R. 2389 are informed by our long-standing opposition to legislative curtailment of the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the United States and the inferior federal courts for the purpose of effecting changes in constitutional law. The ABA has taken no position on the underlying issues regarding recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools; instead, our strong opposition to H.R. 2389 and other pending legislation that would strip the federal courts of jurisdiction to hear selected types of constitutional cases is based on our concern for the integrity of our system of government. This legislation would authorize Congress to use its regulatory power over federal jurisdiction to advance a particular legislative outcome by insulating it from constitutional scrutiny by the federal judiciary. In addition to being constitutionally suspect, this legislation would establish a dangerous precedent if enacted. As a matter of policy, Congress should not jettison our foundational principles because of current dissatisfaction with a controversial decision of the Supreme Court or lower federal courts by permanently stripping the jurisdiction of the federal courts to hear certain categories of cases. Rather than strengthening its legislative role, Congress, by pressing its own checking power to the extreme, imperils the entire system of separated powers. If enacted, H.R. 2389 would restrict the role of the federal courts in our system of checks and balances and thereby limit the ability of the federal courts to protect the constitutional rights of all Americans. Indeed, this legislation would leave the state courts as the final arbiters of federal constitutional law, creating the possibility that some state judges might choose not to follow Supreme Court precedents. Because the legislation would nullify the Supremacy Clause in certain classes of cases, the Constitution could mean something different from state to state; and, contrary to the expressed intentions of the Framers, our fundamental rights and the balance of power among the branches would be subject to evanescent majority opinion. At a time when Congress is accusing the federal courts of overstepping their constitutional role and calling for judicial restraint, we urge you to likewise exercise legislative restraint and demonstrate your continued commitment to the doctrine of separation of powers and a government composed of separate but coequal branches by voting to defeat passage of H.R. 2389. If you have any questions regarding our position, please have your staff contact Denise Cardman, Deputy Director of the Governmental Affairs Office. Sincerely, Robert D. Evans.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to oppose this amendment and am against any amendment that would throw out any case currently pending in the Court. This amendment would add language making it explicit that this already unconstitutional bill is effective immediately and applies to all pending and future litigation. As it currently stands, this bill does nothing to protect religious minorities from being coerced into reciting the Pledge, in violation of their First Amendment right of free speech. This amendment would effectively throw out any case that is currently pending in court in which a child's right to be free from religious persecution is being vindicated, and would slam the courthouse door shut in their faces. H.R. 2389 as a whole is premature and should not be on our list of priorities. What I find particularly troubling about this bill, setting aside all of the concerns that I have already stated, is its timing. It seems that my colleagues in the majority have lost sight of our priorities. At a time of record budget deficits and gasoline prices, when we are engaged in a quagmire in Iraq, when more than 45 million people are uninsured in this nation, and every day workers are seeing their pensions and health care benefits jeopardized, surely we can find better things to do with our time as a congress than bash the courts. Why then is something as arbitrary as a bill that would strip our Federal courts of their authority to hear an issue that the highest court in our land has never spoke on at the top of our list of ``things to do''? Need I remind my colleagues that the Supreme Court has never, since the inclusion of the words ``under God'' into the Pledge of Allegiance back in 1954, discussed or ruled on its constitutionality? Why then do we need this legislation at all? Why then do we need to offer this legislation now? It is our rights as individuals that are at stake right now--not the sanctity and preservation of the Pledge. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to remove my name from cosponsorship of H.R. 3044.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member of the Constitution Subcommittee, Mr. Nadler, for his fine work in this area. He hasn't had all that much to do because the bill never came to the Constitution Committee. We never had hearings. We never had a markup. We didn't even have supporters of this amendment yesterday at the Rules Committee which set the rules that allowed it to come to the floor today. And so I am happy to join in opposition with a number of friends that I would like to indicate. First, the NAACP, which is in convention here in Washington this week, is strongly opposed to this amendment. So is the AFL-CIO and the American Civil Liberties Union, the Jewish Committee, the Human Rights Campaign, the National Council of La Raza, the National Urban League, Planned Parenthood, and countless religious organizations. They are all telling us to leave the Constitution alone. The other consideration that I would bring to the Members' attention is the far-reaching scope of this amendment that has never been heard in the Judiciary Committee. Not only would it ban same-sex marriages, but it would also deprive same-sex couples and their families of fundamental protections such as hospital visitation, inheritance rights, and health care benefits. Ladies and gentlemen, this amendment is divisive. It is unnecessary. It is constitutionally extreme. And I must point out that the amendment has already been debated in the other body and did not prevail. What we are doing, as has been widely recognized, is a political act. It is getting near election time. Let's whip up the forces of conservatism. Let's deal with this subject to energize the political base 4 months before the election. Ladies and gentlemen, please, the amendment is unnecessary because our Constitution has been amended only 27 times in 219 years and to preserve our right to free speech was one of the objectives, to protect the right to assemble was another objective of a constitutional amendment, the right to vote was subject to constitutional amendment. The right to be free of discrimination was subject to constitutional amendment. They all ensured the integrity and continuity of our government. So I urge a ``no'' vote on the Musgrave same-sex marriage amendment.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise in support of H.R. 3729. The bill, as has been indicated, makes several key changes to current law which will help guarantee our Federal court system will be able to adequately function in the wake of a natural disaster or other emergency. First, it provides the chief judge of a Federal judicial district with the appropriate level of discretion to toll or delay deadlines for any class of cases pending before the court at the time of a natural disaster or emergency. It also, in a newly proposed section 2 of the bill, includes important language which makes clear that this bill is not to be construed to authorize the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, as has been noted as a very important consideration. Third, the legislation limits the amount of time that a chief judge may extend or toll a deadline to no more than 14 days, except where the judge determines that an emergency situation requires additional extensions. And finally, for any court that decides to toll or delay a deadline, the legislation creates a notice requirement. Among other things, this notice requirement would direct courts to make all reasonable efforts to publicize the order, including announcing the order on Web sites of all affected courts and the Web site of the Federal judiciary and require the director of the Administrative Office of the Courts to send copies of each notice, including the reasons for their issuance, to the House and the Senate Judiciary Committees. It is worth noting that this latter provision will go a long way toward helping our committee conduct adequate oversight and assist in our efforts to detect any possible abuses. In closing, I thank the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, Mr. Sensenbrenner, for his willingness to work with Members on this side of the aisle to address many of our concerns regarding the legislation. This is truly bipartisan. I urge my colleagues to support this worthwhile measure Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, as much as I appreciate volunteer pilot organizations and the pilots, this bill creates a number of problems for me that I would like to bring to the attention of our membership, and it makes it difficult for me to support H.R. 1871. If you didn't know that there was a Volunteer Protection Act already on the books, this would sound like something that is very important and very necessary. But there is, and H.R. 1871 undoes the balance achieved in the Volunteer Protection Act by exempting pilots and aircraft carriers from liability, and it applies not only to pilots but it applies to staff of an organization, mission coordinators, officers and directors of the volunteer pilot organizations, referring agencies, whether they are for profit or not for profit. And it would leave innocent victims without recourse in some situations by reducing the standard of care applicable to pilots. It does nothing to tackle the real problem which is underlying in this bill. What is it? Well, it is that the insurance industry has failed to offer insurance to the volunteer pilot organizations and they can't get it. They can't get insurance. And so this measure flies in the face of already enacted law named the Volunteer Protection Act, which was passed 8 years ago and extending over five Congresses. The Volunteer Protection Act, as opposed to this measure, was carefully deliberated and negotiated. But this measure before us wipes the slate clean by giving volunteer pilots protection from liability, despite the fact that the Volunteer Protection Act specifically excluded that category of volunteers from protection. Under the Volunteer Protection Act, pilots and those operating aircraft were specifically left out of the liability exemption because of the highly dangerous nature of the activity and the fact that States already require these pilots to have insurance. The measure undoes that and exempts pilots from liability. Moreover, it goes further than the Volunteer Protection Act by giving this exemption to not only the pilots but also to the staff, the mission coordinators and directors of the organizations and referring agencies. In the Volunteer Protection Act, Congress made sure it was only the volunteers being protected. We don't do that here. Finally, as I have said, the real problem is with the insurance industry. Why won't they offer insurance to volunteer pilot organizations? Well, during the hearing of this legislation in the 108th Congress, it was suggested that these nonprofit volunteer pilot organizations need liability protection because they can't get insurance. If this is the case, why not have a bill that requires insurance agencies to offer insurance to these organizations? Why not that instead of in the reverse, exempting everyone almost under the sun from liability. So what we are establishing here is a national policy specifically allowing certain pilots to operate their aircraft negligently and still escape liability. Thank goodness we haven't had any cases like this, but by immunizing both the negligent pilot and the organization that arranges and provides the transportation, this bill could leave victims of an air tragedy and their surviving families with no means of seeking compensation for their loss. I hope that the House of Representatives will not turn its back on the victims of air tragedies, and I hope that none of them will occur. But for those reasons, I cannot support the passage of this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4019, and I support the measure which is intended to clarify current law that prohibits States from taxing the retirement income of any nonresident, whether the individual is a retired employee, partner or a principal, and says that the benefits reduction calculations under the bill include components from both qualified and nonqualified plans. Now, since 1996, States have adjusted their tax system to reflect the policy and to allow several different interpretations. The policy would upset expectations and reliance upon the law. And what we are doing is eliminating that possibility. This would also, without this change, further confuse the tax system and certainly lead to unnecessary litigation. It should be noted that the States affected by Public Law 104-95 have adjusted their tax schemes to comply with the law as they understood it. However, there is one State presently that construes the statute in contravention of the original intent, and if this State, New York, is permitted to implement its interpretation of the bill, other States may follow. This, in turn, would most definitely spur an unlimited amount of needless litigation. So it is essential that for consistency and uniformity that this legislation before us be enacted. We should note that neither the Federation of Tax Administrators nor the National Governors Association are opposing this clarification. This clarification is needed to protect the current State taxation policies, and I am proud to support it and urge my colleagues to do as well

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Ladies and gentlemen of the House, this is a historic debate that the world is watching. If I might just take a moment to stroll down memory lane, it was on January 7, 1965, that I was administered the oath of office to the House of Representatives. It was on February 9, 1965 that we debated the Voter Rights Act of 1965. And I pulled up some of the hearings and my modest participation in that. Strewn throughout the Congressional Record of February 9, 1965, are the names of Lyndon Johnson, President; Speaker John McCormack of the House of Representatives; Emanuel Celler, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and I am the only Member of the House who has the proud distinction of having been on the Committee on the Judiciary at the time we considered this very historic piece of legislation. So I take this time to thank three people. One is the chairman of this committee, Jim Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin, for whom I am very grateful for the cooperation that brought us together in a way we would have never come together before in the original bill and in 1970, 1975, 1982, and 1992. We worked out an agreement with the House leadership, both sides of the aisle, in a very important way. And then I want to thank the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt), who is a member of that committee, but more so as the chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus for the great job that he did. Chairman of the subcommittee Chabot from Ohio did a wonderful job in holding 12 hearings, with 47 witnesses; and Mr. Nadler, the ranking member there; and many other Members who took time to come to the committee to participate, to listen to the hearings, and frequently participate in the interrogation of these witnesses. In addition, the chairman of this committee and myself have gone before the Senate Judiciary Committee to bring to them the large amount of work that we have produced here. And so I come into the well with these memoirs and experiences making me feel very proud about what we are about to do today. And though there is much to celebrate, efforts to suppress or dilute minority votes, let's face it, are still all too common. I am proud of the progress we have made, but the record shows that we haven't reached a point where the particular provisions in the act should be allowed to lapse, as some few may have you believe, and that is what we are going to be debating about today. With respect to section 5 and the covered jurisdictions, and that trigger in section 4 that the gentleman from Georgia is adamant about expanding, we found continuing patterns of discrimination in voting as evidenced by adverse section 2 findings, section 5 objections, and withdrawals of section 5 submissions after requests for more information from the Department of Justice. And I just hope we can get the Department of Justice to more forcefully intervene into some of the cases that have been piling up. Now, with respect to section 203, we received substantial testimony from the advocacy community and the Department of Justice, supported by the litigation record, that language minorities remain victims of discrimination in voting. That is not hard to figure out why. It is hard enough for us English speakers to figure out what is on these ballots, much less to ask people who are very new and still assimilating to the language. Sure, they speak English, but they need help. And if they do, we find it is not costly for them to get the assistance that we have provided under the law. We found in 1982 a straight reauthorization of the act would not be sufficient to protect the rights of minority voters. Several Supreme Court cases have had the effect of clouding the scope of section 5 coverage, and so we have amended the act to restore its vitality. We correct Reno v. Bossier by once again allowing the Justice Department to block voting changes that had an unconstitutional discriminatory purpose. Thanks to the Committee on the Judiciary for having the testimony that made it clear that this had to be done. We have clarified Georgia v. Ashcroft, making it clear that influence districts are not a substitute for the section 5 districts where the minorities have an ability to elect candidates of their choice. These amendments are critical to the restoration of the Voting Rights Act, and so we urge your support for the bill reported by the Congress. And we want you to know that we have carefully considered in the committee the four amendments that have been added over and above the collective work and agreement of Members of both sides of the aisle. Do not accept any of these amendments. I beg you, in the tradition and spirit of those in the Congress that have gone before us to fight for civil rights, who fought for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and the tens of thousands of people in civil rights organizations, many who have suffered, and there will never be a record in the Congress about it, but a lot of pain and suffering has been the price of us coming this far. We cannot afford to go back at this point. So I urge my colleagues to make this a day of distinguished continuation of American history for the rights of every citizen to cast his ballot as a voter so that the Voting Rights Act remains the crown jewel of constitutional democracy of this country. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I now recognize the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) for 7 minutes, but I must point out that not only as the chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus during the more than 1 year we have been working on the legislation, he was also an able member of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Judiciary Committee. And for those two reasons, we are deeply grateful to the contributions that he has made that has brought us to the floor today.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) for a unanimous consent request. (Mr. CARDIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, who has worked in an indefatigable manner to bring us to this point on the legislation with no amendments, and I am very proud of the service he has given the committee.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis).