John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman), a senior member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), a subcommittee ranking member.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), who has headed the Constitution Subcommittee.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. Ladies and gentlemen of the House, let me say from the outset that every Member of this body wants to make sure that law enforcement officials have the tools they need to protect the American people from terrorism. I also know that all of us want to make sure that we protect our civil liberties and freedoms as we fight terrorists anywhere in the world and in this country as well. I support the majority of the 166 provisions of the PATRIOT Act. In fact, in the first original PATRIOT Act, I helped write many of them in a version of the bill that passed the Committee on the Judiciary 36-0, but a bill we never saw after it left the Committee on the Judiciary. It was replaced in the middle of the night in the Committee on Rules. I did it, I wrote the provisions because I believe as technology changes, our laws need to keep up and change as well. I believe our law enforcement officials need to be able to talk with one another and connect the dots to prevent terrorist attacks. In some sense this is not really about the PATRIOT Act, the debate that is going on here, or even most of the 16 provisions scheduled to sunset this year. It is about four areas that are subject to abuse and need greater checks and balances, and I would like to suggest what they are. First, the business records, 215, allows the FBI to obtain any record considered relevant to an investigation. This includes library books, medical records, and bookstore purchases. The provision has been difficult to oversee since targets of FBI investigations under the law are not permitted to tell anybody about it, even their lawyer. The Department of Justice and the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary say that this provision has never been used on libraries and bookstores. However, the American Library Association has reported that more than 200 requests for library records have been made since September 11. Now, concerning national security letters, the second very serious issue here, which allows the FBI to obtain financial, telephone, Internet and other records relevant to any intelligence investigation without judicial approval. Again, this is for any intelligence investigation, which means it does not even have to deal with terrorism, or even a crime. Like section 215, recipients are forever prevented from telling anyone they received a letter under penalty of law. Thank goodness a New York Federal court struck down this provision as unconstitutional. Shame on an administration that keeps using it anyway. Third, under section 213, the government can sneak and peek into your business, your office, your car, your home, anywhere, even if there is no emergency. This means the government can break into your home and search it without telling you. It was not in the bill originally reported by the Committee on the Judiciary and was slipped in by the Department of Justice or the administration when the bill was first written a few years back. This provision has been subject to exceedingly widespread abuse. It has been used more than 240 times, and it has been delayed sometimes for over a year before anybody can be told what happened, that they were broken into, they were burglarized, they had things taken out of their home. Worse yet, only 10 percent of these uses had anything to do with terrorism, which is the whole purpose of the PATRIOT Act. Finally, it is clear to me that we need to have additional sunsets in this legislation. What is wrong with sunsets? That is why we are here, because the bill is being sunsetted in more than a dozen ways. If we have learned anything over the last 4 years, the only thing that makes the administration give us any information on oversight on the use of these new powers was the sunset provision. We have also learned of abuses during our oversight that has led to us making modifications. Given this history, it simply makes no sense to make these provisions permanent or near permanent. And 10 years is not a sunset; 10 years is semi-permanent. The lessons of September 11 and London, and even today in London, are that if we allow law enforcement to do their work free of political interference, give them adequate resources and modern technologies, we can protect our citizens without intruding on our liberties. We all fight terrorism, but we need to fight it the right way consistent with our Constitution and in a manner that serves as a model for the rest of the world. I believe that the committee-passed legislation that is on the floor right now does not meet that test. As such, it does not warrant passage until it is corrected. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, today, I rise in protest of Rules Committee's refusal to make the Sanders library amendment in order. Just last month, this body passed an amendment that would have barred funds from being spent on the controversial 215 orders against libraries and bookstores. It simply would have protected the reading habits of our own citizens from government snooping. It passed by a vote of 238-187. I cannot protest enough that we are not debating and voting on this amendment again. Section 215 allows a secret court to issue secret orders to anyone to turn over anything. It need not even be directed at a suspected terrorist. Mr. Sanders and I introduced an amendment that would have exempted library and bookstore reading records from these secret orders. The FBI still would have been able to get a regular warrant for reading records. However, the administration doesn't even want to have to show any criminal activity before it starts digging into our reading records. It wants a free pass, and I will not willingly give it to them. Consider this: the American Library Association has confirmed that the government, under some authority, has gone to a library, and asked for a list of everyone who checked out a book on Osama bin Laden. Clearly, in the wake of the September 11 attacks, many innocent people are checking out books on Osama bin Laden. And therefore, many innocent people had their right to privacy violated by our own government. And there may be thousands more. We know that nearly 200 libraries have been contacted by local and Federal officers since 9/11. We must demand that they show some wrong doing on behalf of library patrons before they dive into their personal habits. Let me also note that we tried to offer an amendment to increase the safety and security of our Nation's ports, rails, and mass transit systems by providing those segments of the transportation industry with the necessary tools and resources to reduce identified risks and vulnerabilities, but were shut down by the majority. The American people deserve these improvements, but the majority party will not even let us vote on the issue. In light of today's bombing incident in London, it is all the more objectionable that the majority would foreclose critical amendments for the Patriot Act reauthorization on the floor.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to introduce a resolution commemorating Rosa Parks and her decision to stand up to injustice 50 years ago. On December 1, 1955, Ms. Parks refused to obey a bus driver's order that she give up her bus seat in the black section to a white man because the white section was full. It is the courage, dignity, and determination that Ms. Parks exemplified on this day that allows most historians to credit her with beginning the modern day civil rights movement. Ms. Parks's actions on December 1, 1955 led to the desegregation of American society and enabled all of this nation's citizens to realize freedom and equality. The arrest of Ms. Parks led African Americans and sympathizers of other races to boycott the Montgomery city bus line until the buses in Montgomery were desegregated. The 381 day Montgomery Bus Boycott encouraged other courageous people across the United States to organize in protest and demand equal rights for all. The fearless acts of civil disobedience displayed by Rosa Parks and others resulted in the United States Supreme Court, on November 13, 1956, affirming a district court decision that held that Montgomery segregation codes deny and deprive African Americans of the equal protection of the laws. This decision would lead to other landmark Supreme Court decisions in which the Court would rule in the interest of justice and equality. In the years following the Montgomery Bus Boycott, Ms. Parks moved to Detroit, Michigan in 1957 and continued her civil rights work by working in my District Office. Ms. Parks was with the office from 1965 until 1988. In the more than twenty years that Ms. Parks was in the office, she worked with a tireless spirit for the people of Detroit and other Americans. In 1987, she started the Rosa and Raymond Parks Institute for Self Development in Detroit, a nonprofit organization which motivates youth to reach their highest potential. So it is with great pleasure and honor that I stand today to recognize not only a civil rights pioneer, but a member of my staff, a constituent, and a friend. It is in this recognition of the 50th Anniversary of Ms. Parks's refusal to give up her seat on the bus, that I ask the Congress and the great people of this nation to work with the same courage, dignity, and determination exemplified by her to address modern day inequalities and injustice. The American dream is out of reach for millions. The United States is one of the richest nations in the world so I ask: Why aren't our schools thriving? Why are so many African Americans unemployed? Why are health care, housing, and college education so difficult to afford? Civil rights pioneer Rosa Parks displayed a defiant act of courage 50 years ago so that these questions would not be raised today. I know that this Congress and the people of this nation can work to further the ideals of Ms. Parks and the Civil Rights Movement.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to enter into the Record that on July 12 of this year, due to unavoidable circumstances, I was unable to be present. If I had not been detained today, July 12, 2005, I would have voted as follows: On Previous Question on OSHA rollbacks, I would have voted ``nay'' to defeat the previous question on the Rule. If defeated we would have allowed the House to consider the Miller-Owens bill to raise the minimum wage. The minimum wage would be raised to $7.25 an hour from $5.15 an hour. The minimum wage has been frozen since 1997. On H. Res. 351--rule providing consideration for 4 OSHA rollback bills--I would have voted ``nay.'' On H. Res. 352--providing that the House of Representatives will focus on removing barriers to competitiveness of the United States economy--I would have voted ``nay.'' I would not have supported the legislation because it would not improve U.S. competitiveness. Instead this resolution attempts to blame trial lawyers and ``regulation'' for the challenges facing the U.S. economy. On H. Res. 343--commending the State of Kuwait for granting women certain important political rights--I would have voted ``yea.'' On H.R. 804--to exclude from consideration as income certain payments under the national flood insurance program--I would have voted ``yea.'' On H.R. 68--NASA and JPL 50th Anniversary Commemorative Coin Act--I would have voted ``yea.'' On H.R. 739--OSHA rollback on employer citations--I would have voted ``nay.'' I would not have supported the legislation because it undermines the timely abatement of unsafe working conditions, encouraging employers to challenge OSHA citations. One of the principal purposes of the Occupational Safety and Health Act is ``to assure so far as possible every working man and woman in the nation safe and healthful working conditions.'' However, this bill effectively delays the timely abatement of unsafe working conditions, by encouraging employers to litigate citations rather than correcting health and safety hazards. On H.R. 740--OSHA rollback to stack the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission--I would have voted ``nay.'' I would not have supported the legislation because it unjustifiably ensures that only lawyers are appointed to the Commission. On H.R. 741--OSHA rollback of the Secretary of Labor's authority to issue citations--I would have voted ``nay.'' I would not have supported the legislation because it provides that the OSHA Review Commission shall have deference to override the Secretary of Labor's reasonable interpretations of the Secretary's own workplace safety standards-- thereby increasing the incentives for challenges to Labor Department's rules and regulations. On H.R. 742--OSHA rollback to require OSHA to pay attorneys' fees--I would have voted ``nay.'' I would not have supported the legislation because it requires OSHA to pay attorneys' fees and costs for employers with 100 or less employees and a net worth of $7 million or less in an administrative or judicial proceeding in which OSHA does not prevail. It is a blatant attempt to chill OSHA's exercise of statutory responsibility to enforce the Occupational Safety and Health (OCS) Act, by penalizing the agency for every instance in which it attempts to do so unsuccessfully, and therefore, undermined the enforcement of workplace health and safety laws.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, today, I express strong opposition to H.R. 742, the Occupational Safety Health Small Employer Access to Justice Act. This fee shifting legislation before us is really a wolf in sheep's clothing. It is dangerous to our workers, overbroad, and unnecessary. The bill is dangerous because it creates an incentive for employers to litigate with OSHA rather than to correct any safety flaws in the workplace. Since OSHA was created in 1970, its mission has been clear: ``to assure so far as possible every working man and woman in the nation safe and healthful working conditions.'' Unfortunately, H.R. 742 will undermine that goal and penalize OSHA for any instance in which it attempts to safeguard worker safety and loses the case even for technical reasons. The bill is overbroad because it applies to any company with less than 100 employees, regardless of their revenues or their safety record. Currently, over 6.5 million private sector establishments fall into this category, more than 97 percent of all employers. These companies employ more than 55 million workers. Many of these businesses have millions if not billions of dollars in annual revenues, and have no business being covered by a ``small business'' bill. The bill is unnecessary because this Committee has not received a shred of evidence that OSHA has pursued unwarranted litigation or abused its prosecutorial discretion. To the contrary, more than sixty percent of OSHA citations resulted in settlements, and OSHA wins nearly four out of five cases that make it to the Federal appellate level. Moreover, employers are already entitled to the recovery of legal fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act. That law specifies that the government must pay the prevailing party's fees and costs in any situation in which the government's position was not ``substantially justified.'' This offers more than sufficient incentive to prevent OSHA from overstepping its authority. So we have before us an unnecessary and unwarranted bill, that, punishes an effective agency, and places our workers in danger. I urge Members to reject this measure.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to enter into the Record that on July 11th of this year, due to unavoidable circumstances, I was unable to be present. If I had been in attendance, I would like the Record to reflect that I would have voted in the following manner on these bills: On H. Con. Res. 168--Condemning the Democratic People's Republic of Korea for the abductions and continued captivity of citizens of the Republic of Korea and Japan as acts of terrorism and gross violations of human rights I would have voted ``yea.'' On H. Res. 333--Supporting the goals and ideals of a National Weekend of Prayer and Reflection for Darfur, Sudan I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to introduce a resolution commemorating Rosa Parks and her decision to stand up to injustice 50 years ago. On December 1, 1955, Ms. Parks refused to obey a bus driver's order that she give up her bus seat in the black section to a white man because the white section was full. It is the courage, dignity, and determination that Ms. Parks exemplified on this day that allows most historians to credit her with beginning the modem day civil rights movement. Ms. Parks' actions on December 1, 1955 led to the desegregation of American society and enabled all of this Nation's citizens to realize freedom and equality. The arrest of Ms. Parks led African Americans and sympathizers of other races to boycott the Montgomery city bus line until the buses in Montgomery were desegregated. The 381-day Montgomery Bus Boycott encouraged other courageous people across the United States to organize in protest and demand equal rights for all. The fearless acts of civil disobedience displayed by Rosa Parks and others resulted in the United States Supreme Court, on November 13, 1956, affirming a district court decision that held that Montgomery segregation codes deny and deprive African Americans of the equal protection of the laws. This decision would lead to other landmark Supreme Court decisions in which the Court would rule in the interest of justice and equality. In the years following the Montgomery Bus Boycott, Ms. Parks moved to Detroit, MI, in 1957 and continued her civil rights work by working in my District Office. Ms. Parks was with the office from 1965 until 1988. In the more than 20 years that Ms. Parks was in the office, she worked with a tireless spirit for the people of Detroit and other Americans. In 1987, she started the Rosa and Raymond Parks Institute for Self Development in Detroit, a nonprofit organization which motivates youth to reach their highest potential. So it is with great pleasure and honor that I stand today to recognize not only a civil rights pioneer, but a member of my staff, a constituent, and a friend. It is in this recognition of the 50th Anniversary of Ms. Park's refusal to give up her seat on the bus, that I ask the Congress and the great people of this nation to work with the same courage, dignity, and determination exemplified by her to address modern day inequalities and injustice. The American dream is out of reach for millions. The United States is one of the richest nations in the world, so I ask: Why aren't our schools thriving? Why are so many African Americans unemployed? Why are health care, housing, and college education so difficult to afford? Civil rights pioneer Rosa Parks displayed a defiant act of courage 50 years ago so that these questions would not be raised today. I know that this Congress and the people of this nation can work to further the ideals of Ms. Parks and the Civil Rights Movement.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to thank the Supreme Court for bringing us all together here in the House tonight. It is very unusual. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Frank), an active member for many years on the Committee on the Judiciary who is now on leave.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that we add 6 additional minutes to the time of each side.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished whip, to close the debate on our side.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, we have had a great debate on this resolution. I would like to close with a quote from the amicus brief filed by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People in the Kelo case: ``In this case, public use has been defined so broadly that eminent domain authority has no practical limits. Allowing a taking simply because the party to whom the State wishes to transfer the property has a greater ability to maximize the value of the property fails to account for the rights of the individual property owners and would systematically sanction transfers from those with less resources at their disposal to those with more. Moreover, expanding the scope of public use to include the potential for economic development that may ultimately benefit the public would arguably include virtually any case, and thus render meaningless the judicial review of taking cases.''

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise in opposition to this sense of Congress resolution. This is a great evening in the House of Representatives. We had the gentleman from Wisconsin, the chairman, joining me and the great civil rights organizations of America that he has named, all working in common cause to right a decision that has come out of the Supreme Court about eminent domain that will require the attention of all of the Members of this body. In a way, I am reluctantly in opposition to the sense of Congress resolution because if I had had a little part in drafting it, I can tell my colleagues we would have taken out some of the over-the-top criticism of the Court itself, and I would probably be arguing for this sense of Congress resolution. I have serious concerns regarding the misuse and overuse of eminent domain procedures in this country and oppose the elevation of corporate profits and corporate uses of land over individual rights. So like the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, I joined NAACP, the Southern Christian Leadership Council, Operation Push, and the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights because I think this Court opinion makes it too easy for private property to be taken and transferred to another private owner. This is a particular problem. Eminent domain has been used historically to target the poor, people of color, and the elderly. Since I am a cosponsor of the bipartisan legislation that the chairman of the committee has called for, then what is my problem with the resolution? Well, it gratuitously overtargets the judicial branch. There are terms in here that are not helpful as we engage in a debate with a co-equal branch of government. The resolution insists that Congress, and Congress alone, can address abuses of eminent domain. I am not so sure about that. That ignores and demeans the historic role the courts have played in protecting individual rights and property rights. The other problem that leads me not to be supportive of the sense of Congress resolution is that it inaccurately misstates the scope of the Supreme Court's ruling. For example, the resolution states that the majority opinion justifies the forfeiture of a person's private property through eminent domain for the sole benefit of another private person. As a matter of fact, Justice Stevens stated at the outset of his opinion that the sovereign may not take property for the sole purpose of transferring it to another party. The resolution states that the majority opinion renders the public use provision in the takings clause meaningless, but it is more accurate to say that the public purpose requirement is still applicable, although somewhat diminished. In reality, the majority opinion held that the eminent domain may be used where the plan serves a public purpose. The issue of eminent domain in takings are complex, fact-specific issues. They warrant more than the short discussion that we will be limited to today. The issue deserves full legislative hearings, which our legislation will, of course, provide for in the Committee on the Judiciary. We want to all work on this constitutional issue. It is sensitive. We cannot go over the top on this. We have got to keep it down. I am tired of corporations wiping out communities because they need a plant or casinos developed and taken under eminent domain. We need to rein this in, and this case gives us an opportunity to do so. I am shocked that I am standing in the well here reciting the members that signed the dissent: Scalia, Rehnquist, Thomas and O'Connor. What an evening this has been for those of us here in the House. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), the ranking member on the Subcommittee on the Constitution.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to honor a great man and fellow Detroiter, Mr. Sidney Barthwell. As a child and young adult in Detroit, I grew up aware of the legacy of Mr. Barthwell. Later, I was blessed to both meet and come to know him personally. He was one of the first African American entrepreneurial beacons of Detroit to exemplify the ``American Dream.'' Many watched him succeed in business and sought to replicate his success. I was and remain extremely impressed with both his humanity and his brilliance. He never bought in to the notion that to have economic success made him better than those who may have been struggling financially. He treated everyone, regardless of title of or income, in the same manner, with kindness and warmth. Not only was he an astute businessman, but he was also a role model, a mentor, a benefactor and I am proud to say a friend. I would like to insert into the Record the article below which appeared on June 25, 2005 in the Detroit Free Press: Sidney Barthwell: His Life's Success Inspired Others (By Alexander B. Cruden) In many ways, Sidney Barthwell's life was the story of 20th-Century Detroit. Born elsewhere, with few resources, he arrived as a teen in the city, studied hard, overcame tough situations, made much from nothing and provided opportunities for his family and hundreds of others. In many ways, his life was also the story of the creation of black success in Detroit. Mr. Barthwell, who founded and ran, under his own name, what was once the largest black-owned drugstore chain in the country, died of heart failure on Thursday at Harper Hospital in Detroit. A steady, friendly, slyly humorous and discerning man, he was 99. When he came to Detroit with his family from Cordele, Ga., in 1922, he was 16. He graduated from Cass Technical High School and earned a bachelor's degree in pharmacy in 1929 from what is now Wayne State University. But with the prevalence of discrimination, the only pharmacy that would hire him was unlicensed, and it failed early on in the Depression. Mr. Barthwell took over the store and built his business from there. He was a good observer of what people wanted and worked tirelessly to fulfill opportunities. At the peak, he had 13 stores around the city, providing substantial employment, especially for younger people. ``I think my operation became the bridge for many blacks to achieve their goals,'' Mr. Barthwell said at a 1996 dinner attended by hundreds to launch a WSU pharmacy scholarship in his name. The scholarship built on a loan fund established in his honor in 1975. His own children were high achievers as well. Daughter Akosua Barthwell Evans is a Yale Law School graduate and a lawyer and banker for J.P. Morgan in New York. Son Sidney Barthwell Jr. graduated from Harvard Law School and is a 36th District Court magistrate in Detroit. Mr. Barthwell made it a point to see that other black pharmacists found job opportunities. He recalled that at least 30 pharmacists got their start by working with him. ``He was very wise, very understanding, very optimistic . . . just an amazing person,'' his daughter said Friday. He had a quick grasp of difficult concepts ``but was always down to earth . . . He always respected people . . . regardless of their station in life.'' In his business achievements, Mr. Barthwell was both a trendsetter and typical member in Detroit's growth from the 1930s on. As well, he was a model for what is now a broadly established black middle class, serving for a time as president of the Booker T. Washington Business Association in Detroit. He was a delegate to the Michigan Constitutional Convention in 1962, elected without party affiliation and serving on the judiciary and education committees. He was a life member of Detroit Branch, NAACP, and a charter member of the Alpha Beta chapter of Kappa Alpha Psi at WSU. In 1998, Mr. Barthwell was named by the Detroit Urban League as a Distinguished Warrior. A meaningful moment was being invited to give a black history lecture at his grandson's exclusive prep school, the Lovett School in Atlanta. There, he spoke to an audience of wealthy white people. In the back of his mind were the racial humiliations of his Georgia childhood. He said later the Atlanta experience was a very rewarding interaction. He loved his family deeply, his daughter and son said, though always mindful of the value of work. His wedding day was a prime example. He and his wife, Gladys, were married about 11 p.m. Christmas Day in 1936, after a full day at the store. As his son recalled, laughingly, if you woke up ill, Mr. Barthwell would say: ``Get up and go to work. You'll feel better as the day goes on.'' The younger Barthwell said his father was a man of ``high integrity, high character. To say he was unpretentious is an understatement. . . . He was very egalitarian; a great father.'' His grandson, Walter Evans, said ``he was always very loving, very interested in what I was doing,'' and as well kept up with what was going on in the world, right to the end. Perpetually a committed Detroiter, Mr. Barthwell nonetheless saw national chain stores and shopping malls edge out smaller city businesses. The construction of 1-75 knocked out the core of a busy commercial area of Detroit. He began closing his stores, selling the last one in 1987. He lived in Detroit's Boston-Edison neighborhood. An avid bridge player, he was an active member of the Plymouth United Church of Christ in Detroit. The funeral will be at his church, 600 E. Warren, at 11 a.m. Thursday. A family hour is scheduled at 6 p.m. Wednesday at the Thompson Funeral Home, 15443 Greenfield, Detroit. Memorials are requested to the Sidney Barthwell Scholarship Fund at the WSU College of Pharmacy and Health Services, 259 Mack Ave., Detroit 48201.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman yielding me this time, and first of all, I want to assure the chairman that we are absolutely in agreement that medical equipment and supplies would not be affected by the reach of this amendment. I am glad the gentleman has put that in the Record, and I am sure we are all in total agreement. Mr. Chairman, this amendment, the Lee-Lantos-Conyers-Waters- Kilpatrick amendment is something that we regret that we have to do. Haiti is in such a difficult situation, politically, economically, and socially, and it is so important that we try to stem the level of violence. That is the sole purpose of all of us coming together to work on this. I am so proud of the chairman for agreeing to accept this amendment, because it means that he sees and understands the underlying circumstances that have caused us to come together in the first place. We need less violence. The election is coming up. How we are going to have an election there under these circumstances I am not even sure of. We have tried, some of us have tried to get it delayed, but we have not been successful. We need the United Nations to implement an effective disarmament program, because as long as there is as much a level of violence as we find there, we cannot even go down there. So, please, let us support this amendment. I thank the Members on both sides that see the importance of it. Mr. Chairman, Today I rise to support the Lee-Lantos-Conyers-Waters- Kilpatrick amendment which would preclude the State Department from transferring any ``excess arms'' that the State Department may have in its possession to the Government of Haiti and the Haitian National Police. Even though the United States has an arms embargo against Haiti, U.S. law grants authority to the President of the United States to provide weapons to Haiti, without any Congressional input, as long as these arms are identified as ``excess.'' Recently, it has come to the attention of Congress that last August, the President transferred over 4,000 arms and ammunition to the Government of Haiti. These arms included hundreds of .38 caliber, .45 caliber, and 9 mm guns as well as M-14 rifles and sub-machine guns. Presently, the Country of Haiti is in the midst of a political, economic and humanitarian crisis. As a result, many resources, financial and otherwise are sorely needed. However, the sending of arms to further the perpetration the violence is not the prudent course of action. Specifically, the Haitian National Police, on numerous occasions, have not been described not as ``law enforcement'' but instead as ``law breakers.'' Many incidents have been reported where the Haitian National police are accused of harassing, beating and killing Haitian citizens, including innocent children. Due to the many problems plaguing the Haitian National Police, the policy of transferring ``excess'' weapons to them is particularly unsettling. I believe it is important we stop the flow of weapons to Haiti and work with the U.N. to implement an effective disarmament program. As long as violence is the way, the people will suffer. The passage of this amendment is one of life and death and is critical to the well-being of region, of a country and of a people.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, today's ruling is a victory for content creators and consumers. It is clear that those who encourage content theft are responsible for their conduct even if they themselves are not stealing. With this ruling, creators will be encouraged to take advantage of the digital marketplace and provide consumers with even more digital content. For years, consumers have been clamoring for access to digital content. Because content protection technology and content owners had not caught up with the Internet, music lovers turned to illegal download sites like Napster and Kazaa for digital content. We had heard that, if the content industry would just create a legal avenue for obtaining digital music, consumers would embrace it. The premonition was largely true. The record industry and high-tech worked together to develop digital content protection, to clear the rights needed to get music online, and to get music on the Internet. According to the Pew Internet and American Life Project, the response to legitimate digital content has been overwhelming: in 2004, only twenty- four percent of music downloaders had tried legitimate download sites; in 2005 to date, the number jumped to forty-three percent. Internet sites like Apple iTunes, Napster, and Rhapsody offer consumers a variety of ways of obtaining music, from one-time downloads to monthly subscriptions. In just the past few years, over 300 million songs were sold on just a single website. No matter how you view it, the marketplace is working. Today's Supreme Court decision makes it clear that encouraging others to steal is as nefarious as stealing directly. I have no doubt that, with this added assurance, content creators will roll out even more digital content to consumers.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am a strong supporter of tribal sovereignty but rise in reluctant opposition to this amendment because it has not been subject to full debate in committee or the House. I would like to articulate the importance of tribal sovereignty. Because Indian tribes are sovereign governments, the U.S. Government has long read the Commerce Clause and the 11th Amendment as upholding the sovereign immunity of tribes. Congress's intent in preserving sovereignty has been recognized even recently; in 1991, in Oklahoma Tax Common v. Potawatomi Tribe, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the long- standing existence and importance of tribal sovereignty: In light of this Court's reaffirmation, in a number of cases, of its longstanding doctrine of tribal sovereign immunity, and Congress' consistent reiteration of its approval of the doctrine in order to promote Indian self- government, self-sufficiency, and economic development, the Court is not disposed to modify or abandon the doctrine [of sovereign immunity]. Tribal sovereignty is and should remain one of the fundamental principles of the United States, and we should not define its parameters in a ten minute debate.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I recommend to my colleagues Paul Krugman's essay entitled ``The War President'' which was published in today's New York Times. How this country gets involved in a war always matters and since Congress has the Constitutional power to declare war, every Member of Congress must know how we got there, what we're doing there now and how the war shall end. [From the New York Times, Jun. 24, 2005] The War President (By Paul Krugman) In this former imperial capital, every square seems to contain a giant statue of a Habsburg on horseback, posing as a conquering hero. America's founders knew all too well how war appeals to the vanity of rulers and their thirst for glory. That's why they took care to deny presidents the kingly privilege of making war at their own discretion. But after 9/11 President Bush, with obvious relish, declared himself a ``war president.'' And he kept the nation focused on martial matters by morphing the pursuit of Al Qaeda into a war against Saddam Hussein. In November 2002, Helen Thomas, the veteran White House correspondent, told an audience, ``I have never covered a president who actually wanted to go to war''--but she made it clear that Mr. Bush was the exception. And she was right. Leading the nation wrongfully into war strikes at the heart of democracy. It would have been an unprecedented abuse of power even if the war hadn't turned into a military and moral quagmire. And we won't be able to get out of that quagmire until we face up to the reality of how we got in. Let me talk briefly about what we now know about the decision to invade Iraq, then focus on why it matters. The administration has prevented any official inquiry into whether it hyped the case for war. But there's plenty of circumstantial evidence that it did. And then there's the Downing Street Memo--actually the minutes of a prime minister's meeting in July 2002--in which the chief of British overseas intelligence briefed his colleagues about his recent trip to Washington. ``Bush wanted to remove Saddam,'' says the memo, ``through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and W.M.D. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.'' It doesn't get much clearer than that. The U.S. news media largely ignored the memo for five weeks after it was released in The Times of London. Then some asserted that it was ``old news'' that Mr. Bush wanted war in the summer of 2002, and that W.M.D. were just an excuse. No, it isn't. Media insiders may have suspected as much, but they didn't inform their readers, viewers and listeners. And they have never held Mr. Bush accountable for his repeated declarations that he viewed war as a last resort. Still, some of my colleagues insist that we should let bygones be bygones. The question, they say, is what we do now. But they're wrong: it's crucial that those responsible for the war be held to account. Let me explain. The United States will soon have to start reducing force levels in Iraq, or risk seeing the volunteer Army collapse. Yet the administration and its supporters have effectively prevented any adult discussion of the need to get out. On one side, the people who sold this war, unable to face up to the fact that their fantasies of a splendid little war have led to disaster, are still peddling illusions: the insurgency is in its ``last throes,'' says Dick Cheney. On the other, they still have moderates and even liberals intimidated: anyone who suggests that the United States will have to settle for something that falls far short of victory is accused of being unpatriotic. We need to deprive these people of their ability to mislead and intimidate. And the best way to do that is to make it clear that the people who led us to war on false pretenses have no credibility, and no right to lecture the rest of us about patriotism. The good news is that the public seems ready to hear that message--readier than the media are to deliver it. Major media organizations still act as if only a small, left-wing fringe believes that we were misled into war, but that ``fringe'' now comprises much if not most of the population. In a Gallup poll taken in early April--that is, before the release of the Downing Street Memo--50 percent of those polled agreed with the proposition that the administration ``deliberately misled the American public'' about Iraq's W.M.D. In a new Rasmussen poll, 49 percent said that Mr. Bush was more responsible for the war than Saddam Hussein, versus 44 percent who blamed Saddam. Once the media catch up with the public, we'll be able to start talking seriously about how to get out of Iraq.