John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank him for yielding to me because the position that we have adopted that we are being set back by the manager's amendment is agreed to by the women against violence organizations, the civil rights organizations. And we have numerous letters, one from the chair of the National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence Against Women, which plainly go into the details of the fact that in no way are we trying to establish quotas or favoritism to any one particular group whatsoever. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott). (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the legislation beginning by commending the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary who has worked very hard with me on the bill. In the past few years, we have dealt with the Department of Justice, which has oftentimes become increasingly resistant to congressional oversight, either refusing to answer questions or answering them so vaguely that we are not sure what the answer really is. Fortunately, together we worked to address our concerns with the Department of Justice and arrived at the bill before us today. The bill provides funding for the various offices within the department. In this regard, I would like to note that it gives the Office of the Inspector General over $70 million for its responsibilities. Why is that important? Because in the past few years, the Office of Inspector General has been particularly diligent in overseeing the Department's war on terrorism, issuing reports on the 9/ 11 detainees and pushing the Department to change how its procedures are used for handling terrorism suspects. In addition, the bill reauthorizes the COPS office. That is the Community Oriented Policing Services. Now, we all know that this Clinton administration program has been increasingly vital in crime prevention and crime solving, and that is why COPS has received the praise of the Fraternal Order of the Police, the largest law enforcement organization in the country. Local policing is the backbone in our war on terrorism as community offices are more likely to know the witnesses and more likely to be trusted by the community residents who have information about potential attacks. This bill provides them over $1 billion per year for this program. An important piece of legislation before us is the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994. I am particularly proud of it for this is the third time we have worked on this bill and each time we make dramatic improvements by using new vehicles to tackle the issue. Building on the work from previous years, the Act reauthorizes some of the most current programs that have been enormously effective, including the ``STOP'' program, which provides State formula grants that help fund collaboration efforts between police and prosecutors and victims services providers, including legal assistance for victims. However, there is a grave concern about this measure before us that I must speak to. We worked very hard during negotiations on this bill to recognize the obstacles that some racial and ethnic minorities and their organizations face in the mainstream system. We specifically included language that allows programs to target communities of color. This language does not give any preferences to minorities nor does it impose any quotas. And we have all been there on quotas. It does not do that. It simply requires the Department of Justice to describe how they will address the needs of racial and ethnic minorities and other underserved populations, and to recognize and meaningfully respond to the needs of these racial and ethnic minorities and other underserved populations. That is all, and to ensure each gets their fair share. The bill that passed the Committee on the Judiciary had this language included. However, late last night I was informed that the majority had decided to strike this important language in a manager's amendment. I am very sorry to learn of this news. For while I support the underlying bill and stress the importance of reauthorizing the Department of Justice programs contained in it, I seriously regret this advance that was included in the language that has been stricken. I think it is a tragedy. I think it is a serious misunderstanding of what the law is now. Everybody on the Committee on the Judiciary knows how to avoid quotas and certainly not to give preferences to minorities. This measure was included in our bill because it was important that they begin to get a fair share of proceeds that were being allotted under the bill. It was not to secure anything like a quota, and the bill to me deserves our support. I stress the importance of reauthorizing the Department of Justice programs contained in it. I have a very serious problem with the manager's amendment, and will not support that effort. I rise in support of this legislation. I first would like to commend Chairman Sensenbrenner for reasserting the Judiciary Committee's jurisdiction over the Department of Justice with this bill. In the past few years, the Department has become increasingly resistant to congressional oversight, either refusing to answer questions or answering them vaguely at best. Fortunately, we worked together to address our concerns with the Department and arrived at the bill before us today. In general, the bill provides funding for the various offices within the Department. In this regard, I would like to note that it gives the Office of the Inspector General over $70 million for its responsibilities. In the past few years, the OIG has been diligent in overseeing the Department's war on terrorism, issuing reports on 9/11 detainees and pushing the Department to change how its procedures for handling terrorism suspects. The bill reauthorizes the Community Oriented Policing Services, COPS, office. We all know that this Clinton Administration program has been increasingly vital in crime prevention and crime solving. That is why COPS has received the praise of the Fraternal Order of Police, the largest law enforcement organization in the country. Local policing also is the backbone in our war on terrorism, as community officers are more likely to know the witnesses and more likely to be trusted by community residents who have information about potential attacks. This bill provides over $1 billion per year for this program. An important piece of the bill is the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994. This is the third time we have worked on this bill, and each time we make dramatic improvements by using new vehicles to tackle the issue. Building on work from previous years, the Act reauthorizes some of the current programs that have proven enormously effective, including the STOP program--which provides State formula grants that help fund collaboration efforts between police and prosecutors and victim services providers--and legal assistance for victims. I do have one grave concern about this bill that must be addressed. We worked very hard during negotiations on this bill to recognize the obstacles that some racial and ethnic minorities face in the mainstream system. We specifically included language that allows programs to target communities of color. This language does not give any preferences to minorities, nor does it impose any quotas. It simply requires the Department of Justice to ``describe how they will address the needs of racial and ethnic minorities and other underserved populations'' and ``to recognize and meaningfully respond the needs of racial and ethnic minorities and other underserved populations'' and to ensure that each gets their fair share. The bill passed the Judiciary Committee with this language included. However, late last night I was informed that the majority had decided to strike this important language in a Managers' Amendment. While I support the underlying bill and stress the importance of reauthorizing the Department of Justice programs contained in it, I have serious problems with the Managers' Amendment and will not support that effort. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Immigration of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, is this the amendment that authorizes the FBI National Gang Intelligence Center?

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The simple problem with the amendment, although well intended, is that it would also apply to some victims of domestic violence as well as the abusers. Victims sometimes have conviction records for minor domestic violence offenses because police who arrive at the scene of a dispute charge both parties with violent offenses, even though it may later become clear that one party is just a victim, not an abuser. In addition, battered immigrant women who are arrested sometimes receive bad legal advice and are often likely to take a plea offer even when they did nothing wrong. These victims should be exempted from the effects of this amendment; and because they are not, I reluctantly oppose the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I support the intent of the gentleman from Iowa's amendment, which is to ensure that persons who have been convicted of certain types of abuse be prevented from sponsoring the immigration of family members whom they may, in turn, abuse. However, while noble in its intent, this amendment is overly broad and could have serious, negative, unintended consequences on innocent immigrants, as it is currently drafted. First, the amendment makes no distinction as to the degree of the crime or rehabilitation of the offender. A person with a 30-year-old misdemeanor conviction of assault who has successfully completed a domestic violence rehabilitation program, has no further domestic violence convictions and has no other record of violent crime is barred from sponsoring family members just as an abuser with a string of domestic violence convictions culminating in the murder of his wife would be barred. Second, the amendment does not specify where the crime must have been committed. It may well require DHS to ask foreign governments to investigate and reveal the criminal histories of U.S. legal permanent residents and citizens who have lived in other countries and are now trying to sponsor a family member. This could include countries with long histories of politically motivated persecution or human rights abuses--such as Cuba, Sudan, or Iran--and inquire about the criminal history of one of their citizens who has received asylum or refugee status here due to persecution they suffered in that country. Not only might this lead to inaccurate information from untrustworthy governments, but it also may lead to reprisals against the family members of refugees who fled persecution by the foreign government. Third, this amendment will also apply to some victims of domestic violence as well as the abusers. Victims sometimes have conviction records for minor domestic violence offenses because police who arrive at the scene of a dispute charge both parties with violent offenses, even though it may later become clear that one party is just a victim, not an abuser. Furthermore, battered immigrant women who are arrested often receive bad legal advice and are often likely to take a plea offer, even when they did nothing wrong. These victims should be exempted from the effects of this amendment. The safety of immigrant victims can be enhanced by expanding their support system to include close family members. We should not bar victims of domestic violence from sponsoring their children, siblings and other close relatives. If this amendment passes as it is, it will do just that. Mr. Chairman, I am not encouraging opposition to the King amendment today. However, should the House adopt this amendment, I hope that the House Conferees will work with our colleagues in the other body to ensure that the unintended negative consequences of the amendment are mitigated, while still preserving the vision that is embodied within it. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I join in supporting the amendment because it ensures full funding for the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program. I commend the gentleman on his amendment.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I support after-care to prisoners enrolled in the RSAT program, but the problem with the amendment is that it contains the irrational requirement that the individuals must be drug-free in order to be eligible for a substance abuse program. Please. If they are drug- free, they will not have to use a substance abuse program. So this requirement in the well-intended amendment defeats the very purpose of a substance abuse program, which is to help drug-addicted individuals overcome drug abuse. For that reason, I cannot join in the support of it. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to accept the amendment.

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 lifetime achievements of one of the most distinguished artists in American music history, Dr. Billy Taylor. The following biography, found on the Kennedy Center's web site, chronicles a career of accomplishment deserving of such high recognition, and of this body's thoughtful attention and respect: ``Billy Taylor arrived in New York City on a Friday evening in 1942. He headed for Minton's Playhouse in Harlem, where he was heard by one of his idols, tenor saxophonist, Ben Webster. The following Sunday Taylor began his professional career, playing with Webster's quartet at the Three Deuces alongside Webster, Big Sid Catlett and Charlie Drayton. During this time, Billy was Art Taturn's protege and Jo Jones was his `appointed guardian.'' Taylor worked with Machito's Afro-Cuban band, replaced Erroll Garner in the Slam Stewart Trio, and became a member of the Don Redman Orchestra, the first American jazz band to tour Europe after World War II (1946). He also played on Broadway in Billy Rose's ``The Seven Lively Arts,'' opened for Billie Holiday in ``Holiday on Broadway,'' and played in the pit band for ``Blue Holiday,'' starring Ethel Waters, Mary Lou Williams and the Katherine Dunham dancers. He played a lot of solo gigs along the northeast corridor--the Earle Theater in Philadelphia, The Royal Theater in Baltimore, the Howard Theater in DC and the Apollo in NYC. In 1949 he got a call to sub for Al Haig with Charlie Parker and Strings at Birdland. This was the beginning of his two-year stint as house pianist at that legendary jazz club. He played with everybody--Charlie Parker, Dizzy Gillespie, Miles Davis, Oscar Pettiford, Art Blakey, Milt Jackson, Zoot Sims, Roy Haynes, and Kenny Dorham among others. Often playing opposite such bands as Duke Ellington, Count Basie, Stan Kenton and Lennie Tristano, his tenure at Birdland was one of Taylor's greatest learning experiences. Billy made some recordings with his own group during the early 1950's for such labels as Prestige, Riverside, ABC Paramount, Impulse!, Sesac, Mercury and Capital Records. He also recorded albums with Quincy Jones, Sy Oliver, Mundell Lowe, Neal Hefti, Eddie `Lockjaw Davis', Sonny Stitt, Lucky Thompson, Coleman Hawkins and Dinah Washington. He even started his own music publishing company, Duane Music, Inc. Also about this time Taylor started writing about jazz and giving lectures/clinics to music teachers interested in teaching jazz. He began to witness first-hand, the serious lack of funding for the arts and humanities and began to focus on radio and television in order to gain better exposure for America's classical music. He helped to facilitate many local and national broadcasts featuring jazz artists in live performances. Some in broadcast studios, others in nightclubs, dance halls, and hotels. In 1958 he was named Musical Director of the first series ever produced about jazz, ``The Subject Is Jazz'' (NET). His house band for these 13 programs included Doc Severinsen, Tony Scott, Jimmy Cleveland, Mundell Lowe, Earl May, Eddie Safranski, Ed Thigpen and Osie Johnson. Guests included none other than Willie ``The Lion'' Smith, Duke Ellington, Langston Hughes, Jimmy Rushing, Bill Evans and Aaron Copeland among others. During the 1960's Taylor was working regularly with his trio and hosting his own daily radio show on New York's WLIB. He was making guest shots on various TV shows and recording for Capital Records, when the Beatles began to nip at the heels of Taylor and other highly successful members of the Capital family like Frank Sinatra, Nat King Cole, and Peggy Lee. Rather than continue to be neglected, Taylor opted to forget about recordings for the time being and concentrate on radio and television. His success on WLIB led to a post at the popular WNEW, playing jazz for their affluent middle-of-the-road audience. He continued to perform as well during this period, usually with his trio and sometimes with larger ensembles. In the early 1970's, Taylor was named Musical Director for the popular daily television show, The David Frost Show. Many feel he had the best jazz band on TV at that time. They played an hour jazz concert every night for the studio audience, and at least twice a week, Frost booked guests like Louis Armstrong, Count Basie, or Buddy Rich to play and be interviewed. Two recordings were made with Taylor's band on the Frost show before the show came to an end three and a half years later. Billy Taylor returned to WLIB, this time as program director of the station and began to build the largest jazz audience in New York City. Simultaneously he had his own local television program on New York's Channel 47. It was about this time that Taylor was offered an opportunity to enroll in the doctoral program at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. He had been an adjunct professor at C. W. Post College in New York and a visiting professor at Howard University, and felt the need to organize his teaching materials so that they might be more effectively used by others. After a few years of intense study, he earned his combined Masters and Doctorate in Music Education (1975). But he sorely missed playing and writing music. He had been appointed to the National Council for the Arts by President Nixon in 1970, and although this was a tremendous honor, the amount of time required to be an effective arts advocate took precious time away from practicing his music. Nonetheless, he tackled the task at hand, alongside his distinguished colleagues, Maurice Abravenel, Eudora Welty, Beverly Sills, and Nancy Hanks, who were doing so much to help make the arts available to everyone. It was a highly productive and rewarding period for Taylor, but not especially creative, musically. Sometimes things work themselves out in mysterious ways. Maurice Abravenel commissioned Taylor to write ``Suite For Jazz Piano and Orchestra''; T. J. Anderson commissioned him to write ``Make A Joyful Noise''; the University of New Hampshire commissioned him to write a dance suite, ``For Rachel''; the Kentucky Symphony asked him to write ``Impromptu.'' And so, Taylor began to write jazz for ensembles that were larger than his trio. He composed the musical score and lyrics for an off-Broadway production of Wole Soyinka's ``The Lion and The Jewel,'' and some dance music for the original production of ``Your Arms Are Too Short To Box With God.'' (To date, Billy Taylor has over 350 songs to his credit, including the popular, ``I Wish I Knew How It Would Feel To Be Free,'' which has been recorded by various artists and served as an anthem for the civil rights movement. His latest work, ``Urban Griot,'' is detailed under the Soundpost section of this website.) All the while, Billy Taylor continued his work in broadcasting, as Musical Director for Tony Brown's Black Journal Tonight (PBS); and from 1977-1982, as host of NPR's most listened to jazz program of its time, ``Jazz Alive.'' By the end of the 1970's he was touring with his trio more than ever, but playing fewer and fewer jazz clubs, which had become crowded, overpriced and excluded young people. Realizing the need to bring his music to a broader audience, Taylor began to focus more on performing in larger venues such as concert halls and performing arts centers, which were a welcome change. In the early 1980's, Taylor was tapped by Charles Kuralt to become arts correspondent for the popular television program, ``CBS Sunday Morning.'' Still at that post today, he has profiled over 250 well- known and not-so-well-known members of the jazz community. (He received an Emmy Award for his profile on Quincy Jones.) It was during this time that Billy also decided to start his own record company (Taylor Made), but after producing five albums, he realized that it was the music he wanted to be involved in, not the business. He continued his work as a performer both on the bandstand and on television & radio as well. He hosted his own jazz piano show for Bravo, ``Jazz Counterpoint,'' which featured such artists as George Shearing, Marian McPartland and Ramsey Lewis, along with two different NPR radio series, ``Dizzy's Diamond.'' and ``Taylor Made Piano,'' which traced the history of jazz using the piano to tell the story. Based upon Dr. Taylor's book, ``Jazz Piano,'' ``Taylor Made Piano'' won a Peabody Award and generated more requests for tapes than any previous NPR program. As the 80's drew to a close, Billy Taylor signed with GRP/ Impulse, making some of his most popular recordings, including the re- release of My Fair Lady Loves Jazz (arranged by Quincy Jones), It's A Matter of Pride, Dr. T (featuring Gerry Mulligan) and Homage (featuring the Turtle Island String Quartet) which received a Grammy nomination in 1996. During the 90's Dr. Taylor was named Artistic Advisor for Jazz to the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in Washington, D.C. Since 1994, under the umbrella of Jazz at the Kennedy Center, Taylor has developed one acclaimed concert series after another including the Art Tatum Pianorama, the Louis Armstrong Legacy series, the annual Mary Lou Williams Women in Jazz Festival, Beyond Category, Betty Carter's Jazz Ahead and the Jazz Ambassadors Program. His nationally broadcast NPR series, ``Billy Taylor's Jazz at the Kennedy Center'' is recorded live and features a mix of performances, audience Q & A, and conversations with musical guests. (see the Education/Residencies section of this website). Billy pioneered this play a little, talk a little format in the early 80's, with his ``Jazz Models & Mentors'' series, presented four times a year at New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art. Taylor performs regularly with his current trio (Chip Jackson/bass & Winard Harper/drums) as well as with his long time friend, pianist Ramsey Lewis. When he's not touring, composing or recording, he can be found in classrooms throughout the country, conducting master classes, workshops and lecture/demonstrations. As he approaches his 80th birthday, Billy Taylor remains vigorously dedicated to nurturing jazz and creating new forums and opportunities for the artists who perform it. He encompasses that rare combination of creativity, intelligence, vision, commitment and leadership, all qualities that make him one of our most cherished national treasures.'' In March 2005, Dr. Taylor retired from concert performance.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, for decades Ralph Nader has forced Washington to confront crucial issues that otherwise might be swept under the rug. True to form, he now has called to our attention an important question regarding the candidacy of John Roberts to be Chief Justice of the United States. His statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee on that nomination raises issues in many areas important for all of us in Congress. Important areas of focus are access to the courts. Mr. Nader's statement follows: Washington, DC, September 12, 2005. Mr. Chairman and members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony on the nomination of Judge John G. Roberts Jr. for the position of Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. I ask that this statement be made part of the printed hearing record. In 1994 I testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on the nomination of Stephen G. Breyer by President Clinton to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. In that testimony I called attention to the importance of balance in the way our laws handle the challenges of corporate power in America. I said: ``For our political economy, no issue is more consequential than the distribution and impact of corporate power. Historically, our country periodically has tried to redress the imbalance between organized economic power and people rights and remedies. From the agrarian populist revolt by the farmers in the late 19th and early 20th century, to the rise of the federal and state regulatory agencies, to the surging trade unionism, to the opening of the courts for broader non-property values to have their day, to the strengthening of civil rights and civil liberties, consumer, women's and environmental laws and institutions, corporate power was partially disciplined by the rule of law.'' Today it is more important than ever for all Supreme Court Justices and, in particular, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to have the inclination and wisdom to realize that our democracy is being eroded by many kinds of widely reported systemic corporate excesses. Giant multinational corporations have no allegiance to any country or community, and the devastation and other injustices they visit upon communities throughout the United States and around the globe have outpaced the countervailing restraints that should be the hallmark of government by, for and of the people. Unfortunately, the structure and scope of these hearings are not likely to devote a sufficient priority to the corporate issues of our times. In 1816 Thomas Jefferson wrote: ``I hope we shall . . . crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country.'' Imagine his reaction to the corporate abuses of Enron Corp., HealthSouth Corp., Tyco, WorldCom or Adelphia Communications Corp. to name only a few, along with the drug, tobacco, banking, insurance, chemical and other toxic industries. The corporate crime and greed of today tower over the abuses of the ``moneyed corporations'' of Jefferson's day. The economic power of giant corporations is augmented by a flood of Political Action Committee (PAC) money and other donations that shape the quality and quantity of debate in our country and consequently drive our society to imperatives that are increasingly more corporate than civic. You will hear about Judge Roberts from several perspectives, but it is safe to assume that questions and testimony about Judge Roberts' views on corporate power and the rule of law will be inadequate given the broad and profound impact giant corporations have on our democracy. An important procedural and substantive corollary is the important role our civil justice system plays in expanding the frontiers of justice and in giving individuals the ability to hold ``wrongdoers'' accountable in a court of law. ``If we are to keep our democracy, there must be one commandment: Thou shalt not ration justice,'' said the famous jurist, Learned Hand. Unfortunately, powerholders, corporations and other institutions which are supposed to be held accountable by the civil justice system, are striving to weaken, limit and override the province of juries and judges. Some companies, led by insurers, have used expensive and focused media to promote the view that civil juries are too costly and too unpredictable. This narrow and short-sighted perspective is contrary to the long-standing tenets of our democracy and in particular the Seventh Amendment to our Constitution. The civil jury system of the United States embraces a fundamental precept of tested justice: ordinary citizens applying their minds and values can and do reach decisions on the facts in cases that often involve powerful wrongdoers. This form of direct citizen participation in the administration of justice was deemed indispensable by this nation's founders and was considered non-negotiable by the leaders of the American revolution against King George III. But the civil jury is more than a process toward bringing a grievance to resolution. The civil jury is a pillar of our democracy necessary for the protection of individuals against tyranny, repression and mayhem of many kinds and for the deterrence of such injustices in the future. Our civil jury institution is a voice for and by the citizenry in setting standards for a just society. Jury findings incorporated in appellate court decisions contribute to one of the few authoritative reservoirs of advancing standards of responsibility between the powerful and the powerless--whether between companies and consumers, workers, shareholders and community or between officialdom and taxpayers or citizens in general. Knowing the evolution of the common law and the civil jury provides compelling and ennobling evidence of this progression of justice. Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote, `` The founders of our Nation considered the right of trial by jury in civil cases an important bulwark against tyranny and corruption, a safeguard too precious to be left to the whim of the sovereign, or, it might be added, to that of the judiciary.'' As the hearing unfolds, I suggest that the members of the Judiciary Committee devote some time to areas beyond those that are traditionally the focus of witnesses and questioning by Committee members and ask fundamental questions about the views of Judge Roberts, a former corporate lawyer at Hogan & Hartson, regarding corporate power and the civil justice system. In the spirit of expanding the criteria by which the Committee and the public can measure Judge Robert's judicial and civic philosophy, I offer the following questions for you to pose to the nominee. Some of the questions are narrowly focused and some are broad-gauged. But, in their totality they constitute the broad kind of ``litmus test'' that should be applied in selecting and confirming all judges. In short, does the nominee, having met the threshold requirements of competency, believe that the rule of law should be used to broaden and deepen, procedurally and substantively, our democracy--even if it means the rights of the giant corporation or powerful interests must be circumscribed to protect the rights of the individual citizen and of our communities--rural or urban, large or small? In pursuing its own line of questions, the Committee should not let its exploration of the nominee's views be artificially restricted. Judicial nominees have given two reasons for refusing to answer questions, but these reasons are contradictory. First, they say, if they publicly express their views, it will compromise them if the issue comes before the Court. Second, they say, judges do not decide legal issues in a vacuum: they only decide a concrete dispute in a specific adversarial context. Accordingly, some nominees claim it's silly or inappropriate, for example, to say whether they believe the Constitution protects the right to abortion, because Justices don't decide cases by asking such abstract questions. They face a particular statute, challenged by a particular party directly affected in a particular way, and the resolution of that dispute will turn on all those particulars. This second response has a degree of merit--and undercuts the first reason for refusing to answer most questions. Precisely because neither nominees nor the public can know in what context issues will reach the Court (if at all), it is not problematic for nominees to discuss their views. They should not say how they would decide an actual pending case, but, short of that, it is fine for them to discuss issues because that in no way commits them to taking sides in any actual dispute--such disputes are invariably context- specific. For example, a nominee may be asked about the doctrine that treats a corporation as a ``person'' entitled to various constitutional rights. His or her thoughts on this issue will not tell us what he or she will do if such an issue is raised in a case before the Court. The latter may depend on the nature of the corporation (non-profit? media? multi-national?), the nature of the claimed right, and much more. Moreover, even if the nominee testifies that he or she disapproves the doctrine, as a Justice the nominee may hold that the question is settled law. Or if a nominee says that he or she agrees with the doctrine, a new circumstance--or a party making a new argument--may lead the nominee to hold otherwise. Nothing a nominee says guarantees that he or she will decide any case any particular way. Nothing that is said has to be fixed in stone. Judges do give opinionated public speeches, do they not? It may be wondered whether, in light of the above, any purpose is served by asking the nominee his views. The answer is yes. It's no secret that nothing a nominee says binds the nominee once he or she receives an office with life tenure. Nominees can't and shouldn't be bound. But especially with a nominee who has a limited public record, the hearings provide some basis for gauging the nature and quality of his ideas, about his philosophy of due process for example. At any rate they have that potential--if Senators do their job and do not accept a nominee's self- serving refusal to answer questions. At the outset, it would behoove the Committee to establish the parameters the nominee will use in fashioning responses to your questions by asking: What criteria are you using to determine if you will directly answer or not answer questions posed to you by members of the Senate Judiciary Committee? If the Court has recently ruled on a matter, will you provide the Committee with your views on the Court's ruling? If a matter is long settled, will you provide the Committee with your views on the Court's ruling? Once this baseline has been established, the following questions should shed light on nominee's approach to some major issues of our day. 1. Lloyd Cutler, speaking as a prominent corporate attorney, once said: ``There is one point I want to make clear: we believe in the arguments that we make.'' Do you believe the arguments you have made on behalf of your corporate clients? 2. Do you believe limits on television station ownership abridge the free speech rights of corporate broadcasters? 3. What is your view of the First Amendment rights of the listeners being paramount to those of the broadcasters as articulated by the Court in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367 (1969)? 4. Do you see a problem when corporations are treated as equal participants, with every right to use their First Amendment rights to dominate public policy debates such as those that occur in state and local referenda? 5. Do you believe the Court should uphold state and Congressional limits on corporate political expression in order to equalize contributions to public debates? 6. Do you believe that a strict reading of the Constitution provides for the treatment of corporations as ``persons'' under the law for purposes of equal protection, freedom of speech or due process of law? And, if so, what in the Constitution's text provides a basis for this belief? 7. Many observers complain that law firms representing large corporations routinely abuse the discovery process in order to delay and harass their opponents. Have you observed that phenomenon? If so, what should be done about it? 8. In 1986, in Pacific Gas & Elec. Co. v. Public Util. Comm'n of Cal., 475 U.S. 1 (1986) the Supreme Court (5 to 3) struck down a state regulation as violating a utility company's ``right of conscience'' under the First Amendment. What makes the case particularly unsettling is its disconnectedness to opinions past and future. As Justice Rehnquist observed in his lengthy dissenting opinion in the case, ``the two constitutional liberties most closely analogous to the right to refrain from speaking--the Fifth Amendment right to remain silent and the constitutional right of privacy--have been denied to corporations based on their corporate status.'' Do you think it makes sense to attribute a right of conscience to a commercial corporation? 9. Would any trade agreement, such as GATT, NAFTA, or CAFTA ever require Senate ratification as a treaty? 10. Does the President have complete discretion to determine whether an international trade or other agreement must be submitted to the Senate for two-thirds treaty approval? If not, what are the criteria that determine when an international agreement must be submitted to the Senate for two-thirds treaty approval? 11. Are there limits on Congress' power to strip federal courts of jurisdiction over a particular issue? If so, what are such limits? 12. Do you believe victims of defective products that meet federal standards should be limited from recovering damages from the manufacturers of the defective products? 13. Do you believe Congress should federalize and pre-empt state products liability common law in any or all sectors? 14. Plaintiffs' trial lawyers have been blamed by their corporate critics for all sorts of problems with the economy and legal profession. Do you believe that those representing injured persons in product liability and medical malpractice cases are harming America? 15. So-called tort-reform is aimed at restricting the amount of non-economic damages, such as pain and suffering, a party can receive. Are you concerned that this interferes with the traditional role of juries and judges to find facts and mete out appropriate justice? 16. Do you believe the use of the government contractor defense should be limited in nonmilitary procurement? If so, how? 17. Some people say the Ninth Amendment can play no substantive role in protecting rights, that it's merely a statement of principle or reminder of limited government. Do you agree? 18. A number of legal scholars argue that the 11th Amendment has been interpreted by the Court to shield states from liability for wrongdoing in a way that blatantly contravenes the original intention of the Amendment. Are you familiar with that scholarship and do you find it persuasive? 19. In what circumstances, if any, is it appropriate for a contractual arbitration clause to contract away substantive contract law, tort, or statutory rights? For instance, can an arbitration clause require arbitration of a worker's Title VII rights and at the same time limit the worker's compensatory damages to $200,000? Can that same clause require the loser to pay the winner's attorney's fees? Can that clause require that the parties to arbitration bear their own attorney's fees? 20. Describe the presumption against preemption of state law. Does it apply in some or all instances where federal law is said to preempt state law? 21. Is the presumption against preemption of state law (by federal law) similar to the plain statement rule that demands that Congress speak with unmistakable clarity if it wishes to override the states' sovereign immunity? If the presumption against preemption is not similar to the plain statement rule, explain how it is different? 22. How is the presumption against preemption applied in cases where federal regulatory law (regulating, for instance, drugs, boats, pesticides, motor vehicles, and the like) is said to preempt state tort law that provides monetary remedies to compensate for injuries caused by a product that the federal government regulates? 23. Do you believe Congress should pre-empt the state-law- based medical malpractice system? 24. What are your views on the ``American rule'' as opposed to the English rule under which the losing party in litigation generally pays the winner's costs, including attorney's fees? 25. What has been your reaction or views on Congressional funding levels for federally funded legal services programs over the last two decades? Should government be responsible for funding representation for poor people in civil litigation where important property or liberty interests are at stake? Or should that be mainly or entirely a private function? 26. Some scholars and judges believe that ``Originalism'' is the only principled method of constitutional interpretation. Do you agree? 27. Do you believe that a declaration of war by Congress is Constitutionally required for the United States to engage in war? 28. Does a Congressional delegation of the war-making discretion to the President in the form of a war resolution meet the test of of Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution? 29. What level of equal protection scrutiny was applied in Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000)? 30. What is the precedential effect of Bush v. Gore? In other words, what kinds of equal protection claims does Bush v. Gore control or apply to? After Bush v. Gore, may a political entity (city, county, state) holding an election use more than one type of voting methodology (paper ballots, standard machines, punch cards, etc.) knowing that the error rates (whether through undercounts or otherwise) are different from one methodology to another? 31. Is there a need to amend our open government laws to make the President subject to them in whole or in part? Would such amendments be constitutional? 32. Do you believe arguments before the Supreme Court should be televised in the way C-SPAN televises Congressional deliberations? 33. In your view, is the Freedom of Information Act functioning properly at this time? If not, what are the major problems facing the Act? 34. In Buckhannon Board & Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Dept. of Health and Human Resources, 532 U.S. 598 (2001) case, the Court rejected the argument that a party that has failed to secure a judgment on the merits or a court-ordered consent decree, but has nonetheless achieved the desired result because the lawsuit brought about a voluntary change (the catalyst theory) in the defendant's conduct is entitled to attorney's fees. Does the rejection of the catalyst theory of fee recovery in the Supreme Court's Buckhannon decision apply across-the-board to federal fee-shifting statutes? If not, to what kinds of fee-shifting statutes is it likely to apply and to what kinds is its application more doubtful? 35. Brian Wolfman, Director of the Public Citizen Litigation Group notes, ``The Bush administration says that Buckhannon applies to [Freedom of Information Act] FOIA cases, even though Congress stated explicitly, when it enacted FOIA, that fees should be available when FOIA cases settle. The Bush Justice Department has consistently argued to expand Buckhannon to every pro-consumer and civil rights statute in every conceivable situation.'' What approach (or approaches) to statutory construction of Congressional enactment was evident in the Supreme Court's Buckhannon decision? How would you describe the reliance on (or lack of reliance on) legislative history in the majority's reasoning in that case? Do you believe the Bush Justice Department is applying the Buckhannon decision correctly? 36. From both a legal (constitutional) and practical perspective, what is your view of the trend in the federal judiciary toward releasing more of its opinions in ``unpublished'' form, i.e., where the relevant court accords no precedential effect to the decision for other cases? 37. Should federal judges attend seminars which are funded by private corporations (or by foundations that are funded by such corporations) that have matters of interest to the corporations before the courts? 38. Do you believe a government attorney, in a subordinate position, should be forced (under penalty of discharge) to work on a case or argue a position that he or she believes is illegal, unconstitutional or unethical? Or should government lawyers have a ``right of conscience'' like other professionals? 39. What kinds of participation in civic life may federal judges continue to be involved in once they assume their judicial positions? 40. How many hours or what percent of their work time do you think partners in major firms should devote to pro bono work each year? 41. How many hours on average did you bill per year as a partner and at what rates? 42. How many hours on average did you bill per year as an associate? 43. What was the nature of your pro bono work and approximately how much time per year did you devote to pro bono work? 44. Corporate attorneys and legal scholars have written books and articles decrying unethical or fraudulent billing practices in large corporate law firms. An article in the Summer 2001 Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics titled Gunderson Effect and Billable Mania: Trends in Overbilling and the Effect of New Wages states that unethical billing practices are ``a pervasive problem in law firms across the country''--do you agree? 45. Did you ever observe unethical billing practices when you were in private practice? 46. If so, what was the nature of and who were the protagonists of such practices? I hope these questions, whether asked orally or submitted to the nominee in writing for response, spark a robust, constructive debate between the Committee members and the nominee. Such exchanges should provide the Senate and the larger public with insights into how Judge John G. Roberts will, if confirmed as Chief Justice, perform his duties.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, this question of the well-being of our Nation's children is a result of the fact that children have increasingly become targets for identity theft. There have been sharp rises in incidents of fraud involving children's Social Security numbers which have been documented. Crimes using the stolen data are typically credit card frauds or the issuance of fraudulent driver's licenses. However, it is not too farfetched to think that the misappropriations of the personally identifiable information of a person who has not attained the age of 18 could be used in a way that could bring about many of the offenses set forth in this Act. So the objective of the amendment crafted by the gentlewoman from Texas is to protect our children at all costs, and this amendment would do this by making it a crime to knowingly misappropriate the personal identification information of a minor in interstate or foreign commerce. The offense would be punishable by fines or imprisonment not to exceed 10 years. Identity thieves often target children for these type of crimes because they are much less likely to notice that someone else is using their identity.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the chairman for accepting the amendment. Law enforcement agencies have identified 9,100 victims arising from 8,715 separate criminal offenses. FBI data has also revealed that a disproportionately high percentage of both the victims and the perpetrators of hate violence were children, young people under 18 years of age. The FBI's annual Hate Crime Statistics Act report provides the best snapshot of the magnitude of the hate violence problem in America. However, there is a paucity of regularly published information about juvenile hate crime offenses because the statute does not require data analysis for gender or juvenile categories. This is an important omission, as indicated by a special DOJ report on the subject in 2001. This report, which carefully analyzed nearly 3,000 of the 24,000 hate crimes to the FBI from 1997 to 1999, revealed that a disproportionately high percentage of both the victims and the perpetrators of hate violence were young people under 18 years of age. For example: 30 percent of all victims of bias-motivated aggravated assaults and 34 percent of the victims of simple assault were under 18. As we address legislation for the protection of children, we should utilize the full extent of Federal resources and data collection plays an important role. I hope that this amend will find broad support so that we can work to eliminate hate violence directed against young people.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment as the designee of the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) for his consideration. There are few needs as pressing as the importance of stopping the sexual abuse of children, and I appreciate the fact that we are providing special grant programs for prescription drug abuse, telemarketing fraud; and now we can find a way to fund programs to protect the most vulnerable in our society, our children. I urge support of the amendment.

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

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, while there are many different grant programs in the Department of Justice providing resources for initiatives fighting violent or sexual assault, we have not found any that are directly and specifically at local law enforcement's ability to protect children from sexual predators. This provision takes an important step to make sure that after offenders are prosecuted and released, they are registered and made publicly known. However, it does nothing to prevent the abuse from happening in the first place, nor does it help officers investigate and track down offenders after complaints. So this amendment would not only help fund local sheriff and police units, implementation and enforcement of the registration, but would provide funds to make sure that local units have the resources necessary to pursue child abusers, including additional staff, training of existing personnel, and computers and software necessary to investigate predators who find children over the Internet.

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

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, my amendment creates a national Office of Children's Safety within the Department of Justice, which would be run by a Presidential appointment and would report to the Attorney General. The director's duties would be to track State compliance with new registration requirements in the bill and report back to Congress on their progress. It would coordinate the Federal Government's response to the sexual abuse of minors and provide expertise and resources for the unique crime of child sexual abuse to States, local, and Federal authorities. It is important that this amendment, if accepted, be run by someone qualified for the job. The FEMA incident illustrates this part of the provision. The large number of sexually exploited children in this country is certainly an emergency. That is why I ask my colleagues to support this amendment to ensure our Department of Justice makes combating the exploitation of children one of its highest priorities.

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

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his acceptance of the amendment. I would be happy to work on any suggested improvements to the amendment. I think we have special offices in the Department of Justice concerning Violence Against Women and Cops on the Beat programs, and I think our children deserve no less.