John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), a distinguished member of the committee.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), who has worked on a number of issues connected with the measure presently being debated.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, what are we here for, to let the other body off the hook? Anything they do not like, we have to take out? I do not follow that reasoning at all. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 seconds to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott). (Mr. SCOTT of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks, and include extraneous material.)

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I now yield to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) 2\3/4\ minutes.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield the balance of our time to the Congresswoman from Wisconsin, Tammy Baldwin, a former member of the House Judiciary Committee.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following items for inclusion in the Record regarding the House floor consideration of H.R. 4472 on March 8, 2006. February 23, 2006. In New Jersey, the Office of the Public Defender represents all indigent persons entitled to a court hearing concerning the Megan's Law tier classification and community notification proposed for them by the State. Over the past ten years the Office has served as counsel for 60% of persons challenging their tier levels in New Jersey--nearly 3000 cases in a state where approximately 5000 such cases have been adjudicated. Based upon our long and extensive experience with New Jersey's system of notification and its registrants, as well as our contact with renowned experts in the field of sex offender recidivism, we believe we have a unique perspective to provide the House with comments concerning H.R. 4472 (the Children's Safety and Violent Crime Reduction Act of 2005), currently pending a vote on the House floor. Our comments focus on four aspects of the current bill. First, unlike the Senate bill on the same topic (S. 1086) the House bill will have a significantly negative impact on many juveniles, subjecting them to notification in their neighborhoods and via the Internet for possibly 20 years. This would inflict undue hardship which, given the low risk of re-offense juvenile sex offenders pose to the public and their strong amenability to treatment, is often not justified by a public safety need. Second, the notification required by H.R. 4472 will apply to thousands of persons in each state, requiring notice to registrants' neighborhoods and around their work and school, and via the Internet. The proposed notification would include home addresses and places of employment. Neighborhood notification is currently reserved only for New Jersey's approximately 160 high risk offenders, but as proposed under H.R. 4472 would apply to thousands of registrants. Based on our firsthand experience this form of notification will predictably lead to large numbers of offenders becoming homeless and unemployed. Because this form of notification will undermine the ability of many registrants to maintain stable housing, steady employment and ongoing treatment, it will have a marked impact on registrants' risk levels and opportunities to remain offense free, and thus will negatively affect public safety. Third, by impacting on registrants' abilities to provide for their most basic needs, H.R. 4472 will severely impede the implementation of sex offender monitoring programs like New Jersey's Community Supervision for Life and Parole for Life programs, which are designed to prevent future reoffending by registrants. See N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6.3. As discussed below, due to the form of neighborhood notification proposed by H.R. 4472 parole officers will be unable to keep registrants in jobs, maintain their stable home environments and continue registrants' treatments as those monitoring programs require. In this way, H.R. 4472 will frustrate New Jersey's longstanding efforts to monitor sex offenders and will compromise, not further, community safety. Fourth,the bill subjects all registrants, including many juveniles, to the identical form of Internet and community based notification, without an individualized risk assessment, despite vast differences among offenders' risk-of-re-offense levels. By treating persons with vastly different risk levels identically, H.R. 4472 creates the misimpression that all offenders pose the same risk. Thus, the bill dilutes the value of notification and diverts attention from those posing the greatest risk. 1. H.R. Will Inflict Undue Hardship on Juvenile Offenders Without a Corresponding Benefit to Public Safety. Sections 111 and 122 of the bill would provide a limited exception from public notification for juveniles. However, the bill would require juvenile offenders deemed a tier II to be subject to 20 years of public notification to communities and via the Internet. Sec. 111 (6). Some young juveniles may even unfairly be deemed a tier III since the victim involved would likely be less than 13 years of age. See Sec. 111 (7). These tier determinations and the resulting public notification would occur without any individualized assessment of whether the juveniles involved posed anything more than a low risk of re-offense. Five decades of follow-up studies demonstrate that the vast majority of juveniles will remain free of sex offense recidivism. It is consistently found that sex offense recidivism rates among juveniles are among the lowest of all such offenders--less than 8% in most treatment follow-up studies. Moreover, studies demonstrate that the motivation and manifestation of sexually inappropriate behaviors of juveniles are very different than those of adult offenders. And, children with sexual behavior problems generally respond well to treatment interventions. If the proposed bill becomes law, however, it will mean that children will be stigmatized for life on the basis of their childhood behavior. Despite the questionable public safety benefits of community notification with juveniles, it is likely to stigmatize them fostering peer rejection, isolation, and increased anger. This impact can prevent juvenile offenders from realizing the benefits of effective treatments. The proposed notification and the ensuing stigma will also result in such persons being denied fair opportunities for employment, education, and housing despite the low risk of recidivism they typically pose. Accordingly, the bill will violate the long tradition in our country of recognizing that most youth who break the law during childhood can and will mature out of this behavior with appropriate guidance and treatment. Thus, the bill would inflict undue hardship on juveniles, impacting their entire lives, and is not justified by a public safety need. Rather than resort to such a counterproductive approach, as the above cited experts recommend, treatment and supervision should be emphasized for this group of offenders. 2. The Notification Scheme In H.R. 4472 Will Deprive Many Registrants, Including Those Who Are a Low or Moderate Risk, Of The Basic Means To Live Productively In Society With the Unintended Consequence of Increasing Their Risk Of Re- Offense. H.R. 4472 provides that in most cases the same public notification would be provided to registrant's neighborhoods and in the vicinity where they work and attend school, regardless of their danger to the public. Sec. 122(b),(c). In addition, without determining the actual risk a registrant poses, that notification will include both a registrant's home address and the address of his employer. Sec. 114(a)(3),(4). Moreover, the bill applies retroactively to all applicable offenses. As set forth above, notification to a registrant's immediate neighbors is currently reserved for roughly 160 high risk registrants in New Jersey. Due to the impact on an offender's life that the notice will have, this small number of registrants is designated ``high risk'' only after an assessment and court hearing (if requested), showing that the registrant's risk justifies neighborhood notification. Our experience demonstrates that notification (whether via the Internet or provided in a registrant's neighborhood) containing an employer's name and address will frequently result in the registrant's termination. This is due to customers refusing to frequent the business, and neighbors subjecting the employer to enormous pressure to fire the offender. Likewise, New Jersey registrants subject to neighborhood notification providing their home addresses are often uprooted from their homes, and eventually become homeless. Typically this is due to landlords being pressured by surrounding homeowners to evict the registrant. And in cases where registrants own their home, significant threats and vandalism have occurred to drive the offender away. In one New Jersey case, following notification five bullets were fired through the front window of a registrant's apartment by a neighbor, nearly wounding an innocent tenant. Thus, under H.R. 4472 it is predictable that substantial numbers of registrants will become homeless. Registrants pose a much higher risk of re-offense when they have no job or stable housing. This is agreed upon by studies in the field of sex offender recidivism, New Jersey's own actuarial scale for determining registrant risk, as well as our experience working with registrants over the past ten years. Therefore, the unintended consequence of providing many registrants' home addresses and places of employment as required by H.R. 4472 will be that substantial numbers will have their re-offense risk increased. Furthermore, homeless and jobless registrants are, of course, unable to pay for sex offender and substance abuse treatment which have been proven to markedly reduce offense risk. Also, we have witnessed how the desperation caused by this homeless and jobless state has led our clients to suffer severe stress, and relapse into substance abuse, and other high risk behaviors for recidivism. Thus, the notification proposed by H.R. 4472 to registrants' neighborhoods listing their place of employment may trigger a new offense, by removing the supportive components of a person's rehabilitation. See R. Karl Hanson & Andrew Harris, Solicitor General of Canada, Dynamic Predictors of Sexual Recidivism (1998) at 2 (``recidivists showed increased anger and subjective distress just prior to offending''); ATSA, The Registration and Community Notification of the Adult Sexual Offender at 3 (2005) (notification will ``ostracize[]'' sex offenders and ``may inadvertently increase their danger.'') Finally, H.R. 4472 would require notification to be distributed to neighborhoods in cases involving an intra- familial offense. As this notification will result in victims' identities being disclosed to neighbors, the practice will act as a significant deterrent to having victims of familial offenses report them to police. Sec. 111 (6), (7). Thus, public notification in cases involving a single intra-familial offense should be eliminated from the bill. Given the predictable consequences of the notification proposed in H.R. 4472, we submit that notice to a registrant's neighborhood or around his place of employment which includes his home address, and any notification including his place of work, should occur only for high risk offenders, and only after an individualized risk assessment. Otherwise, H.R. 4472 will run the danger of destabilizing large numbers of registrants by having them lose the jobs and housing essential to maintaining offense-free lives. As mentioned, the notice proposed by the bill will also discourage victims of intra-familial offenses from contacting law enforcement. 3. The Notification Proposed in H.R. 4472 Will Undermine the Ability of States Like New Jersey to Implement Parole for Life Programs Which Require Law Enforcement Officers to Monitor Registrants, and Require Registrants to Maintain Jobs, Housing and Treatment to Reduce their Risk of Re- Offense. Since 1994, every adult registrant in New Jersey who committed a sex offense has been placed on a form of close monitoring known as community or parole supervision for life. See N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6.4. The purpose of the program is to locate and monitor adult registrants, potentially for life, ``as if on parole.'' Id. Applicable State regulations provide that the registrant must maintain stable housing and a job, avoid drug or alcohol use (as monitored by urine testing), occasionally submit to random visits by their parole officer at home, attend sex offender and/or substance abuse treatment, as well as other requirements. The success of this eleven-year-old program depends upon a parole officer being able to locate the lifetime parolee in their home, do random drug and alcohol testing, check for other signs' of instability or loss of employment, and thus prevent the precursors to re-offending. However, the notification provisions of H.R. 4472 will lead to large numbers of offenders becoming homeless and will result in parole officers being unable to locate registrants and provide them with the close supervision needed to reduce recidivism rates. Thus, the State's efforts to assist registrants in keeping stable housing or a job, basic requirements of parole, will be frustrated. When we explained to a New Jersey parole officer that the proposed legislation will put the addresses of many sex offenders' employers on the Internet, and be provided to offenders' neighbors or to persons living around their employers, she stated that her parolees would ``spiral downward,'' and that they ``wouldn't care'' about trying to keep from re-offending. She stated, ``Our job would be so difficult . . . it's hard enough for them to get jobs.'' She expressed the view that a significant number might re-offend because, ``A lot of these things are due to high stress rates.'' Finally, she expressed concern that most of them would end up ``in homeless shelters'' where there is an ``increased risk of disappearance or committing a new offense of some kind''--either a non-sexual criminal offense or possibly a sexual offense. In addition to Community and Parole Supervision for Life, New Jersey also assigns special probation officers to exclusively monitor sex offenders while on parole (prior to implementation of their special sentence of community or parole supervision for life) so they can concentrate on the particular needs this population presents, and provide the type of close supervision they require. (Notably, we have observed that other states appear to be putting more and more sex offenders on probation for life and similarly long sentences, even for very minor offenses--so it is likely that this legislation will strongly affect those states as well.) When we explained the notification requirements of the bill to a special probation officer he replied that, ``You'll end up having many, many people re-offending--what else could they do?'' When asked if he thought these provisions would cause many registrants to lose their jobs, he 4 replied, ``Absolutely. I can't imagine anyone would want them.'' He explained that without ``work, housing, and normal responsibilities'' the registrants would have ``no self esteem.'' He said that they ``would not listen to me,'' and would likely ``go out and assault someone else.'' Thus, there is serious concern that the basic purpose of the registration provisions of Megan's law (which is to enable law enforcement to locate registrants in the course of investigating new offenses, monitor registrants, and explore allegations of misconduct by such registrants), will be substantially undermined by the notification provision of

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, let me just begin by pointing out that in the dissent from the bill reported, there are six precise examples of when the PATRIOT Act has been abused so that no one will be able to say that they don't know where they are. They are on page 2 and 3 of the dissents that have been filed with the committee. What we have, we have passed the conference report already. It was passed on December 14, 2005. Because of the other body, and the serious objections that they have raised, we are getting now to three other points that are being raised. Two of the points are the basis of my remarks this afternoon. The first I would like you to know about in S. 2271 is that amazingly enough, after all the debate, this measure that we are considering today makes section 215 intelligence orders for any tangible thing harder to challenge in court than the current conference report which allows a recipient to challenge the gag order immediately. This measure before us that we will be voting on would make the recipient wait a year, but then to make it really worse, rather than the reviewing court immediately allowing the gag order, allowing the gag as the government's carte blanche assertion of national security is conclusive. We have added two things. We make the assertion of national security conclusive, plus we make the person that challenges it not able to immediately go to court. This is a setback. The second thing that we do is that we add no meaningful protection for library records. That is to say that the present conference reports allow immediate challenge. What we do is that according to the National Association of Library Records, we make the protection for library records exempt only if, the national security letters, they don't offer Internet access. But the American Library Association puts the number of libraries without Internet access at nearly zero. What we have done is create a fig leaf that really does nothing to give the meaningful protection that the library association has requested and that we tried to get through in our legislation. So it is with great reluctance that even on two out of the three measures that are before us in this very small bill, we find that this is unsupportable. In addition, finally, what this measure doesn't do is address any of the core problems with the PATRIOT Act, the main one being that we have asked for moderate changes that would have ensured that these extraordinary new powers are directed solely at terrorists or to those associated with terrorists, and this measure fails to do that. For those reasons, I am unable to support this measure and urge that it be defeated. There is no more difficult task we have as legislators than balancing our Nation's need for security against our citizens' civil liberties. Nearly five years after the tragedy of September 11, and in the midst of a war against terror without any clear endpoint, it is increasingly clear that we are failing in that task. We failed when we rushed through the first PATRIOT Act while the wreck of the World Trade Center was still smoldering. We failed when we refused to address the repeated civil liberties abuses by our own government, including the warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens. And today, we are failing yet again, by taking up S. 2771. Not only is the bill substantively dangerous, it does nothing to respond to the serious flaws in the conference report. First, the bill is dangerous because it makes it practically impossible to challenge the gag orders that come with secretive 215 orders. It would not only make the recipient wait at least one full year before challenging a gag order, it deems government certifications concerning possible harm to national security to be ``conclusive.'' This is far worse than what is proposed by the conference report which would allow the FISA court to ensure that the law and the Constitution are not violated. Second, the bill operates as a mere fig leaf, covering over serious problems in the underlying conference report. For example, the bill pretends to protect libraries from receiving National Security Letters, but then revokes that protection if the library offers internet access. The bill does nothing to prevent the government from using security letters to obtain confidential information having nothing to do with terrorism; nothing to protect secret physical searches of homes and offices; and nothing to rein in abusive roving wiretap orders. If we are serious about combating terror in the 21st century, we must move beyond symbolic gestures and color coded threat levels, and begin to make the hard choices needed to protect our Nation. If we really want to prevent terrorists from targeting our citizens and our cities, we need keep assault weapons out of the hands of suspected terrorists. And if we really want to protect our people and secure our ports and other transportation hubs, the administration needs to honor the letter and the spirit of our security laws and fully fund our homeland security needs. The legislation before us today endangers our civil liberties, while doing nothing meaningful to protect our citizens. I urge a no vote. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, before yielding to the gentleman from Virginia, I yield myself 45 seconds, because this is getting a little bit out of hand. The assertion has been made that none of the 16 provisions have violated the law, but two Federal District Courts in New York and Connecticut have found that the national security letters themselves are illegal. Two courts, that the national security letters were held to be illegal. And to say that there have been no abuses, read pages 2 and 3 of the dissent of the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee about all of the violations that have gone on.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds. Madam Speaker, just to keep the record straight, in 1986, national security letters were limited to terrorists. The PATRIOT Act lowered the standard to anything relevant to an investigation, and now over 30,000 are issued every year. The sham fix does not help us at all. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of the time. Madam Speaker, it has been said that there have been no abuses of the PATRIOT Act. Let me just run down what has already been reported, and probably there have been more, since we filed our report. It was used against Brandon Mayfield, a Muslim American, to tap his phone, seize his property, copy his computer files, spy on his children, take his DNA, all without his knowledge. It has been used to deny, on account of his political beliefs, the admission to the United States of a Swiss citizen and prominent Muslim scholar to teach at Notre Dame University. It has been used to unconstitutionally coerce an Internet service provider to divulge information about e-mail activity and Web surfing on its system, and then gag that provider from even disclosing the abuse to the public. Because of gag restrictions, we will never know how many times it has been used to obtain reading records from libraries and book stores, but we do know that libraries have been solicited by the Department of Justice, voluntarily or under threat of the PATRIOT Act, for reading information on more than 200 occasions since September 11. Finally, it has been used to charge and detain and prosecute Muslim students in Idaho for posting Internet Web site links to objectionable material. Let us not support this PATRIOT Act today.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I support this bill with great enthusiasm. I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott). No one has worked harder on the committee than this gentleman.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise proudly in support of this legislation and thank the chairman of the committee and his staff and others for working with us to ensure that this bill does not overreach. The measure was designed to target illegitimate actors who trade in counterfeit trademarks, ranging from auto parts to fake labels for handbags or cologne. We all agree that manufacturers have a right to ensure that fake goods are not marketed in their names and that their own goods are not marketed under fake names. The bill as originally written, however, went further than that. It was vague on the issue of whether someone other than the manufacturer could affix marks to goods that correctly identify the source of the goods. This struck at the very heart of the parallel market in which third parties lawfully obtain genuine goods and make them available in discount stores without deception. Not only has this practice been upheld by the Supreme Court, but it also saves consumers billions of dollars each year. Through negotiation with the majority and affected parties, we have been able to revise the legislation to protect manufacturers, target illegitimate actors, and leave a legitimate industry unscathed. More specifically, because the bill amends the definition of a counterfeit trademark to include packaging and labeling formats which can be used lawfully by a variety of businesses, the new language clarifies that the repackaging of goods that were made under the authority of the United States trademark owner is not prohibited. Such repackaging can include combining single products into gift sets, separating combination sets of goods into individual items for resale, inserting coupons into original packaging or repackaged items, affixing labels to track or otherwise identify products, removing goods from original packaging for customized retail displays, and moving products from large end caps or display modules into smaller cases. In deciding whether to bring a cause of action under the new law in situations involving the repackaging of genuine goods, it is expected that the government will consider evidence that clearly shows an intent to deceive or confuse. Such evidence could come in the form of altering, concealing or obliterating expiration dates or information important to the consumer use of the product; for example: safety and health information about the quality, performance or use of the product or service; statements or other markings that a used, discarded or refurbished product is new; or statements or other markings that the product meets testing and certification requirements. Also relevant to a decision to bring a criminal action would be a meaningful variance from product testing and certification requirements, placing seals on product containers that have been opened or otherwise adulterating the genuine product. Finally, the bill was modified to clarify that it was not intended to allow criminal actions against persons who, with no intent to deceive or confuse, traffic in goods or services that were originally manufactured under the authority of the United States trademark owner. In this regard, the phrase ``the use of which is likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake, or to deceive'' is not intended to create a new element for this cause of action but, instead, reiterates what is already reflected in the definition of ``counterfeit mark.'' So I congratulate the bipartisan effort that made this measure far more useful and appealing, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I have no other requests for time, and I yield back my time.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution, which honors the career of one of this Nation's most respected jurists, Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. Not only did Justice O'Connor leave an indelible impression on the law but also on the legal profession itself. As an Associate Justice, Mrs. O'Connor had a well-deserved reputation for being the swing vote on seminal cases. From campaign finance laws to affirmative action and sexual orientation discrimination, many Supreme Court lawyers tailored their arguments to her because of her ability and willingness to see the complexity of the issues that came before the court. She also left her mark on the diversity of the legal profession. When she graduated from law school in 1952, ranked no less than 3rd in her class of 102 students, gender discrimination kept her from jobs at law firms. This was a time when women comprised only 4 percent of law graduates. Instead, she turned to public service and embarked upon a stellar career as a State prosecutor, State legislator, and State judge. It was in her capacity as an Arizona Court of Appeals judge in 1981 that Justice O'Connor came to the attention of the White House. President Reagan nominated her to fill the seat of Justice Potter Stewart. On September 21, 1981, the Senate unanimously confirmed her to be the 102d Justice of the Supreme Court and the 1st female justice in history. With Justice O'Connor as an example, the ranks of female lawyers have grown tremendously in this country. In 1981, the year of her appointment, women made up 35 percent of law students. In 2004, they made up approximately 50 percent. It would be impossible to overstate Justice O'Connor's role in that achievement. I thank her for her service to our country and wish her the best. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this resolution.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Mr. Green, for yielding just briefly to add to your remarks. I am pleased to join with you and with the chairman of Judiciary, James Sensenbrenner, in this 97th anniversary remembrance of the greatest civil rights organization that we have in this country. I can say to Congressman Green that your initiation of this resolution recognizing the 97th anniversary of the NAACP could not be more timely. I just want to add one name. We are all mentioning all of these names in the course of 97 years. We are dealing with the most serious social problem in America that has never yet been resolved that we have been working on. We have a voter rights extension bill in the Committee on the Judiciary about to come forward. We are bringing people together. We are working as hard as we can. And I was just at a meeting yesterday in which I was reminded that we have the likes of Ted Shaw of the Legal Defense Fund; Greg Moore, the executive director of the National Voter Fund; and in Detroit we have the largest branch in the United States, with a current membership of more than 45,000 people, led by Reverend Wendell Anthony of Fellowship Chapel. So all of this makes such a rich history. And I am glad, now that we have done Black History Month, that we have come along with this 97th anniversary resolution, because this issue has to be studied every month. We have to examine where we are and where we are going. And I am so pleased at all the Members on the floor here and many others that will be submitting statements which recognize the depth, the importance and the significance of a resolution recognizing nearly 100 years of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People in this long struggle, hard-fought struggle that has promoted goodwill and tried to make America live up to the promise of our constitutional democracy.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to thank Congressman Silvestre Reyes for offering House Resolution 668, a resolution which celebrates this year's 40th anniversary of Texas Western's 1966 NCAA Basketball Championship. The year of 1966 marked a number of ``firsts'' by African Americans. The Honorable Robert C. Weaver became the first African American Cabinet member with his appointment as Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, Edward Brooke became the first popularly elected African American to the United States Senate, and it also marked the first time a collegiate basketball team, the Texas Western Miners, sporting an all African American line-up won the NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Championship. What made this victory important, and what we are commemorating here today, is not the fact that a team starting all African American student athletes beat a team of all White student athletes. We commemorate rather, the closing of one more chapter of segregation and bigotry to a new chapter where we judge an individual on the content of their character and qualifications and not on the color of their skin. The Texas Western Miners, in their victory over the University of Kentucky Wildcats, opened up numerous opportunities for student athletes of all races and creeds to attend college, participate in sports, and become eligible for athletic scholarships. The fact that the impact that this victory did so much to change the perception of African-American athletes and to speed the desegregation of intercollegiate sports, has lead many people to label this historic event as the Brown v. Board of Education of athletics. Finally, any tribute to the Minors would be incomplete without acknowledging their coach, Don Haskins. Coach Haskins is to be commended for his continued commitment to build on the foundation of integration that he inherited at Texas Western--the first college in a Southern state to integrate its athletic teams--and for his courage in facing collegiate basketball's racial issues directly.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong support of H.R. 1259, which authorizes the President to award the Tuskegee Airmen with the Congressional Gold Medal of Honor. In 1941, an experiment that began as an effort to prove the validity of a 1925 study that claimed African Americans lacked both the intelligence and courage to fly planes during combat, finished as a monumental testament that African Americans had both the aptitude, skill and valor, to not only become military pilots, but to meet and exceed any challenge presented. I also want to take this time to thank and congratulate my good friend and colleague, Representative Charlie Rangel for introducing this legislation. The story of the Tuskegee Airmen began when Yancy Williams, a Howard college student sued the U.S. Government for the right to participate as an aviation cadet. The Government was forced to either prove that blacks could not learn to fly or to accept them into their civilian pilot training program. As a result, a separate, all-black training facility was built by the Army Air Corps at Tuskegee Army Airfield. Though great racism existed at that time, and many of the original instructors were white, there was very little bias and prejudice reported by instructors during the training. The first class of the Tuskegee Airmen graduated 5 of 13 cadets, who were made a part of the famous 99th Fighting Squadron. Additional pilots were assigned to the 332nd Fighter Group. Though it was 8 months after the second class graduated, the 99th Fighting Squadron finally deployed to the North Africa as a part of the Allied Armies. The Airmen soon built their reputation as both talented and fearless. The Germans nicknamed them ``Schawarte Vogelmenshen'' or Black Birdmen, they also earned the nickname, Redtail Angels, from American bombing crews, due to their reputation for being the only unit who never lost a bomber to enemy fighters during escort missions. In all, between 1942 and 1946, 926 black pilots earned their wings and commissions and 450 of those pilots saw combat during World War II. As a result of their combat service, the Tuskegee Airmen logged 15,533 sorties in the skies over North Africa, Italy and Germany. They destroyed or damaged 409 enemy aircraft, fuel and ammunitions dumps and escorted 200 bomber missions. In total, the Tuskegee Airmen were awarded 150 Distinguished Flying Crosses, 8 Purple Hearts, 14 Bronze Stars, 744 Air Medals and Clusters and 3 Distinguished Unit Citations. This record is a soaring achievement that speaks to the depth of talent, heart and courage that they all exemplified. There were also huge human costs for their sacrifice as the Airmen suffered 66 combat deaths, and 33 were captured as prisoners of war. The sacrifice and contributions of the Tuskegee Airmen were the catalyst for President Truman issuing Executive Order 9981, which as of July 26, 1948, desegregated the United States Armed Forces. The Tuskegee Airmen's contribution to this country is immeasurable. Their display of heroism and perseverance deserves our eternal gratitude. The Tuskegee Airmen are indeed justified of receiving Congress's highest honor, the Congressional Gold Medal of Honor.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution, which honors the life of my friend, Shirley Horn. Shirley, who passed away on October 20, 2005, was one of this country's last great jazz vocalists, one in the triumvirate of ElIa Fitzgerald and Carmen McRae. Her luminous voice gave rise to whispery vocals that made songs lucky to be sung by her. Many fans noted that her songs simply melted in the air. She was a giant in the world of music and will forever remain an icon of American culture. I had the privilege of sharing my memories of her at her memorial service last year, surrounded by her family and countless friends. Shirley was born here in Washington in 1934 and started her career in music at the age of ten on her grandmother's piano, unaware of the impact she would have on the world. She studied music at Howard University and was invited to attend the prestigious Juilliard School in New York. While financial difficulties at home kept her from Juilliard, they did not impede her spirit and drive. While she started as a piano virtuoso, she was seventeen when she was coaxed into singing at a Washington, DC club called One Step Down. A customer promised her a turquoise teddy bear if she would sing ``My Melancholy Baby.'' Shirley said she was so shy, but she wanted that teddy bear enough to sing the song. It was none other than Miles Davis and Quincy Jones who plucked her from that local club to international fame, and the story is worth repeating. Miles called her out of the blue after the release of her very first album, ``Embers and Ashes,'' and asked her to open for him at the Village Vanguard in New York. Not surprisingly for a young artist, she thought it was a joke and did not believe it until she went to New York and actually heard Miles's children singing from the album. Miles and his trumpet later joined a concert of hers but would not come out from behind a pillar while playing ``My Funny Valentine.'' With encouragement from Miles and Quincy, two other jazz icons, Shirley went on to record over two dozen albums and was lauded with numerous awards. After seven consecutive Grammy nominations, she won in 1998 for best jazz vocal performance. It was fitting that the winning album was ``I Remember Miles,'' a tribute to her mentor and friend, Miles Davis. I cannot think of a more fitting honor for Shirley and Miles. But her contributions to music go far beyond one album. On recordings for Verve Records, she collaborated with Miles Davis, Wynton Marsalis, Gary Bartz, and Toots Thielman. She even recorded the soundtrack for the movie ``For Love of Ivy.'' The person who asked her to do the soundtrack was the star of the film, Sidney Poitier. She also recorded a tribute album to Ray Charles called ``Here's to Life, Light out of Darkness.'' She also was elected into the Lionel Hampton Jazz Hall of Fame, received an honorary doctorate from Berklee College of Music, and won the 2003 Jazz at Lincoln Center Award. Importantly, she never forgot her family or her background. She lived mainly in Washington during the early part of her career so that she could take care of her daughter. Recording equipment and jazz legends like Elvin Jones came to her house to record albums. She even remembered how one person could make a difference in the lives of others. Just as Miles recognized her talent and took her under his wing, Shirley reached out to a young drummer named Aaron Weiman and took him under her wing. And none other than pianists-singers Diana Krall and Norah Jones count her as mentors. I again express my deepest sympathies to her family and urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this resolution. Takoma Park, MD, February 14, 2006. Representative John Conyers, Jr., Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman Conyers: I am writing in support of House Concurrent Resolution 300, saluting the life and music of Shirley Horn. Shirley Horn was an American original. She was an outstanding jazz singer and musician. She lived that uniquely American music, jazz, respected its traditions: and passed them on for all to share. In small clubs, and in large auditoriums, Shirley Horn performed throughout the United States and around the world. This resolution honors Shirley for all time. It is richly deserved. I applaud its introduction and urge the House to vote to pass it. Shirley Horn worshiped words and the stories they told--and her renditions of standards and other songs were lyrical magic. When we first met, she sat right next to me at the piano for a whole night at Washington's famous and now defunct jazz club, the One Step Down. At first, I was intimidated by a giant of America's music sitting no more than three feet away. This was someone who worked with Miles Davis and so many other greats! But, she was warm and infinitely gracious to a young, developing pianist. A wonderful friendship grew over the last 7 years of her life and Shirley Horn became my `third' grandma. Through the terrible illness that eventually took her life, she always thought about leaving her hospital bed and playing music. She yearned to sing, play piano, and perform alongside her long-time band members, Steve Williams on drums and Ed Howard on bass. Her love of lyric and melody inspired me, musicians and singers, and audiences around the world. Shirley was wonderful at making all the songs she sung and played beautiful, rich, and full of emotion and stories. She made famous a song entitled'' Here's to Life'' written by Phyllis Molinary and Artie Butler. This was the closing song at many of her concerts. She ended with the last lyric, which was ``Here's to life / Here's to Love / Here's to You.'' Here's to you, Shirley, I urge all house members to support House Concurrent Resolution 300. Aaron Weiman.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the life of Rose Nader, who at age 99 died on Tuesday, January 24, 2006 of congestive heart failure. Mrs. Nader was both tender and tenacious. She was a woman who taught her children the importance of service to their community, a love of the environment and concern for the well being of others. As you can see, Mrs. Nader indeed lived an honorable life. David Halberstam captured her well when he said, ``I thought she was a remarkble person who lived a remarkable life, going literally from one century to another.'' She was strong, loving, hard-working and modest. All of the virtues were hers. I used to ponder how much she and her husband had seen in their lives for it was a great American story. They had come here in the twenties with little more than their hopes and their capacity for hard work, and in just one generation they had seen their own children prosper--enriching what was around them and being enriched at the same time. What I will remember is her kindness to our family over the years, her sense of obligation to others, and a belief that citizenship demanded a daily commitment. And of course her modesty, in the mid-sixties, back when Life Magazine was still powerful, the editors put Ralph on the cover. My mother, thrilled by this, immediately called Rose to tell her. ``Yes,'' said Mrs. Nader, ``that's nice. I must get out and get a copy.'' We all loved that, the ``a copy'' reference. I would also like to include a reprint of an article written by Albert Bernstein that appeared in the Washington Post on January 26, 2006: Mrs. Nader, who jousted with politicians and complacency as a small-town activist and was the mother of consumer advocate Ralph Nader. Mrs. Nader developed a certain civic renown in 1955 when she confronted Sen. Prescott Bush (R-Conn.), the father and grandfather of presidents. When Senator Bush visited Winsted, following a catastrophic flood, he was approached by Mrs. Nader at a public gathering public gathering. When he offered his hand in an obligatory fashion, Mrs. Nader latched on and refused to free him until he promised to help a dry-dam proposal move forward. This was fulfilled. Later, she advocated building a community center for children, forming a speakers club that would bring worldly lecturers to the town, and expanding and preserving a local hospital. At home, she could be implacable, particularly about food. She emphasized homemade items over packaged goods whose contents she found bewildering. She prohibited hot dogs and later beef because of the presence of a growth-stimulating hormone linked to cancer. She sweetened food with honey, not sugar, and pushed her children to eat chickpeas instead of candy bars on their way to school. When news of this was publicized during Ralph Nader's rise to prominence, the Wall Street Journal editorial page likened his mother to a Puritan. This characterization was laughed at by her children, even as they promoted the story involving her distrustful relationship with chocolate. Mrs. Nader later said: ``When the children convinced me that chocolate-frosted birthday cakes were what all the other children wanted, I frosted the cake, but after the candles were blown out and before they cut into the cake, I removed the frosting. Some people might say I was severe, but it became a family joke.'' She later wrote a cookbook. Rose Bouziane was born in Zahle, Lebanon, on Feb. 7, 1906, to a sheep broker and a teacher. She taught high school French and Arabic before her marriage in 1925 to businessman Nathra Nader. After immigrating to the United States, they settled in Connecticut, where his Main Street bakery-restaurant-general store in Winsted, in the northwestern corner of the state, became a redoubt for residents bemoaning actions or inactions at the town hall. On occasion, Mrs. Nader used newspaper opinion pages to express her views. Writing in the New York Times in 1982, she denounced the use of ``credibility phrases,'' such as ``frankly,'' ``to tell you the truth'' and ``in all honesty,'' that sometimes preceded a political statement or sales pitch. They gave her ``the pervasive feeling that distrust is so widespread that people need to use such language to be believed.'' In another editorial, she embraced mass mailings from issue groups that are commonly dismissed as ``junk mail.'' She wrote that they often come from people ``who care about their times.'' Her husband died in 1991. A son, Shafeek Nader, died in 1986. Besides Ralph Nader of Washington, survivors include two daughters, Claire Nader of Washington and Winsted and Laura Nader of Berkeley, Calif.; a sister; three grandchildren; and three great-grandchildren. Ralph Nader once said his mother ``took us out in the yard one day and asked us if we knew the price of eggs, of apples, of bananas. Then she asked us to put a price on clean air, the sunshine, the song of birds--and we were stunned.''

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in opposition to the priorities set forth in the President's Budget which hides the true costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, finances tax cuts on the backs of the poor, slashes Medicare and Medicaid, and favors special interests over the interests of the American people. Before the State of the Union address, I along with several other Members of Congress, sent President Bush a letter asking him to make sure that he tells the American people the truth. During the State of Union, President Bush said that his budget would cut the deficit in half by 2009. Unfortunately, it seems that the President did not read our letter. The President's budget is misleading in the projected costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Since 2001, approximately $370 billion has been provided to finance the wars and reconstruction efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. More than $260 billion of that amount has been funneled into Iraq. In his budget, the President has set aside $50 billion in 2007 for Iraq and Afghanistan, but has not allotted any money beyond 2007. While I welcome a swift end to the war in Iraq, the assumption that this country will not spend a dime in Iraq and Afghanistan beyond 2007 is farfetched. The President's budget is misleading in not including the 10 year costs of repairing the Alternative Minimum Tax. While the President has included a 1-year provision to mitigate the AMT's impact on the middle class, it omits the cost of the full repair to the AMT. This cost is projected to increase the deficit by $844 billion over the next 10 years. Besides being disingenuous, this budget exacts a financial toll on our nation's disadvantaged citizens while helping to finance billions of dollars in tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans. The cost to make the President's tax cuts permanent is $1.35 trillion over the next decade. At the same time, the President's budget cuts significant social programs, including cuts in job training, education, food stamps, and environmental protection efforts. Most alarmingly, this budget would allow the Federal Government to turn its back on those Americans who struggle to maintain their health. The President's budget cuts Medicaid by $17.2 billion over 5 years, thereby jeopardizing the care of this country's most vulnerable Americans. The budget also cuts Medicare spending by $105 billion over the next 10 years, in part by reducing payments for providers. Furthermore, the President's budget proposes real cuts to the National Institute of Health. At a time when we are making significant progress in finding cures to cancer and heart disease, and the threat of serious new diseases such as Avian flu and other pandemics loom, the President is proposing to slow scientific and medical advancement. The President's budget also fails to reduce the cost of health care or address the rising number of uninsured Americans. At a time when there are already 46 million Americans without any health coverage, this budget is wrong for our country. This shameful budget rewards well-connected wealthy interests at the expense of the poor. Because the President's budget promotes the wrong priorities for our country, it should be rejected.