John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I begin by thanking the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), my colleague, who is the ranking member on the Subcommittee on the Constitution and has served us so well across the years in this regard. I also want to commend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), the minority member of the Committee on Rules, for conducting such a dispositive examination of the rule and the substance of the measure that is before us today. Today's consideration of House Joint Resolution 10 will show whether we have the strength to remain true to our forefathers' constitutional ideals and defend our citizens' right to express themselves, even if we vehemently disagree with their method of expression. I have been thinking about this. I have never met anyone that supports burning the American flag. Very few Americans favor burning the flag as an expression of free speech. I personally deplore the desecration of the flag in any form, but I still remain strongly opposed to this resolution because this resolution goes against the ideals that the flag represents and elevates a symbol of freedom over freedom itself. If adopted, this resolution would represent for the first time in our Nation's history that the people's representatives in this body voted to alter the Bill of Rights to limit the freedom of speech. While some may say that this resolution is not the end of our first amendment liberties, it is my fear that it may be the beginning. By limiting the scope of the first amendment's free speech protections, we are setting a most dangerous precedent. If we open the door to criminalizing constitutionally protected expression related to the flag, which this is, it will be difficult to limit further efforts to censor such speech. Once we decide to limit freedom of speech, limitations on freedom of the press and freedom of religion may not be far behind. It has been said that the true test of any Nation's commitment to freedom of expression lies in its ability to protect unpopular expression, such as flag desecration. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote as far back as 1929, the Constitution protects not only freedom for the thought and expression we agree with, but ``freedom for the thought we hate.'' This resolution is in response to two Supreme Court decisions, Texas v. Johnson in 1989 and the United States v. Eichman in 1990, two Supreme Court decisions in one bite. It is always tempting for Congress to want to show the Supreme Court who is boss by amending the Constitution to outlaw flag-related expression. But if we do, we will not only be carving an awkward exception into a document designed to last for the ages, but will be undermining the very constitutional structure that Jefferson and Madison designed to protect our rights. In effect, we will be glorifying fringe elements who disrespect the flag and what it stands for while denigrating the Constitution itself, the vision of Madison and Jefferson. Concern about the tyranny of the majority led the framers to create an independent judiciary free of political pressure to ensure that the legislative and executive branches would honor the Bill of Rights. A constitutional amendment banning flag desecration flies in the very face of this carefully balanced structure. The fact that the Congress would consider the first-ever amendment to the Bill of Rights without so much as a hearing in this Congress makes this all the more objectionable. Mr. Speaker, no hearings. Why not? Well, we have done this before. If Members want to find out what the debate would be like, read it from four other times that we have done this. James Madison warned us against using the amendment process to correct every perceived constitutional defect, particularly concerning issues which inflame public passion. And, unfortunately, there is no better illustration of Madison's concern than the proposed flag desecration amendment. History has proven that efforts to legislate respect for the flag only serve to increase flag-related protest, and a constitutional amendment will no doubt increase such protests many times over. Almost as significant as the damage this resolution would do to our own Constitution is the harm it will inflict in our international standing in the area of human rights. Mr. Speaker, demonstrators who ripped apart Communist flags before the fall of the Iron Curtain committed crimes against their country's laws, yet freedom-loving Americans applauded their brave actions. Yet if we pass this action, we will be aligning ourselves with those autocratic regimes, such as in the former Soviet Union and Iran, and diminish our own moral stature as a protector of freedom in all of its forms. Those who oppose this amendment to the Constitution prohibiting the physical desecration of the flag express the sentiment of many Americans. In May 2005, just last month, a majority of Americans opposed such an amendment by 63 percent to 35 percent because of its first amendment restrictions. Our veterans, citizens who have risked their lives to defend the ideals the flag represents, oppose this amendment as well. Veterans for Common Sense and Veterans Defending the Bill of Rights, two organizations, do not want to see the first amendment unraveled and a desecration of what the flag represents. For those who believe a constitutional amendment will honor the flag, I urge them to actually read the Supreme Court's 1989 decision in Texas v. Johnson. The majority wrote, and I concur, ``The way to preserve the flag's special role is not to punish those who feel differently about these matters, it is to persuade them that they are wrong. We can imagine no more appropriate response to burning a flag than waving one's own, no better way to counter a flag burner's message than by saluting the flag. We do not consecrate the flag by punishing its desecration, for in doing so we dilute the freedom that this cherished emblem represents.'' I urge my colleagues to maintain the constitutional ideal of freedom and reject this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, this is not an insignificant matter I say to my colleagues. It should be noted that the San Antonio Spurs have lost five games at home until last night, and I bring this to the attention of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), my dear friend on the Committee on the Judiciary, that this is the first time that we have gone to seven games in 11 years, and no one has ever won their last two games in a national basketball championship on the road. So it is with bated breath that I let everyone know that the Detroit Pistons are alive and well and, I think, up to this incredibly important athletic contest tomorrow night.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, when we think of Peter Rodino on the Committee on the Judiciary, it conjures up the names of some of those great men and women, Barbara Jordan, who walked the halls, who listened in that 2141 Rayburn Room to the constitutional arguments that were being presented day in and day out. And we thought what would happen after Mannie Celler was the chairman. Here was little old Peter Rodino and people said, Wow, where are we going to go from here? Mannie Celler was a giant, an orator, a fighter, a great writer. And Peter Rodino came to the chairmanship of the Committee on the Judiciary as a very modest, humble member of that committee. He never sought the spotlight. You would rarely see him on television before Watergate and impeachment. It seemed like it was provident that for that impeachment, we needed exactly the kind of persona that Peter Rodino brought because without it, I can tell Members we do not know where that committee was going. That committee was very passionately divided, and it was very even numbers of Democrats and Republicans. There was open writing about whether this Nation could stand an impeachment of a President because there had not been one in over 100 years. They were saying how can Chairman Rodino contain this huge division that is ripping not just Washington but the whole Nation, indeed the world was focused on whether or not there were grounds to remove under the second amendment to the Constitution under articles of impeachment for treason, high crimes or misdemeanors. Believe me, we were under a great deal of tension. Everybody was getting angrier in their speeches and the pronouncements of the Members, but Peter Rodino never lost his temper. He never raised his voice. After we had the White House tapes come out, then the articles of impeachment came forward. And out of five of them, three of them received the votes of at least half a dozen Republicans and Democrats as well. I might as well tell Members there were Democrats on the committee that were not convinced that impeachment was the route to go. So Peter Rodino, with people like Bob Kastenmeier of Wisconsin, Don Edwards of California, Jerome Waldie of California, Barbara Jordan. And there was a freshman member on the committee named the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel). And there were some interesting staff members. One was named attorney Hillary Rodham and another was Attorney Zoe Lofgren. There were all kinds of names coming in and out. Every day brought new developments. President Nixon was resolute that he would never give up his office to these kinds of scurrilous attacks, and Peter Rodino persevered through this. Had there been a chairman with a different personality or temperament, I am not sure how those impeachment hearings would have gone forward. When I visited Peter Rodino at Seton Hall Law School last spring, he was still full of stories. He was still reminding me of incidents and how we had to get the votes and master the subpoenas, the issuance of the subpoenas and the order of witnesses and what we would do with John Dean and Haldeman and Archibald Cox. Those names all figured into this incredible situation that this very modest Member of Congress from Newark who preceded the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) was able to keep it together. It transformed America. It forced the President to resign rather than to have us have to bring those articles of impeachment forward. Chairman Rodino worked behind the scenes to figure out who would actually take the place of President Nixon. I will never forget the discussions that went on in 2141 Rayburn House Office Building in which finally the Speaker from Oklahoma and the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary said there is only one thing that we can do to keep this country on an even keel, and that is there is one congressman in the House who can do this and he would be accepted by the Ds and the Rs, and his name was the gentleman from Michigan, Gerald Ford. They took that name down and moved it forward. I want to tell Members, Peter Rodino, when he would see someone that was there during those months from May 1974 to July 1974, he would start off by saying, John, do you remember that day we had so and so come by our office and we had to decide on whether we were going to issue subpoenas or not, or whether we were going to let them bring their testimony forward or whether we could get a bipartisan group of Members to move these hearings forward. The pundits were all writing, This is ridiculous. This can't be done. Peter Rodino has no experience to bring this kind of a matter to the House of Representatives. It does the House and the Congress and the country a huge disservice. But Peter Rodino, his excellent staff, the Members of both parties gradually, one by one, realized that we had more than enough grounds. As a matter of fact, we had more articles of impeachment. After a while, we stopped raising new articles because they were not necessary. And so I want to tell everybody here that even though I have served under Emanuel Celler and Jack Brooks and Henry Hyde and Jim Sensenbrenner, Peter Rodino was the leader of this committee that I have served on since I have been in the House of Representatives, the committee that protects the Constitution, the committee that promotes civil rights, the committee that has spent all of its time trying to make the Federal criminal code, the laws of the land, the compacts between the States, the Department of Justice oversight that has been within our jurisdiction. Peter Rodino served those noble ends in a way that none of the previous chairmen of this great committee and the Congress have. I will always remember with great pleasure and privilege in the fact that I was able to serve on that committee with this wonderful man. We will always remember the great service that he gave to this country.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, but would be pleased if the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the minority leader, would precede me.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, the Jackson-Lee amendment, which is really based on the concept of no more Tulias, is one that I hope my colleagues will support. None of the funds made available in this act under the heading ``Office of Justice Programs'' may be used by a State authorizing agent that has not shared, with the Attorney General, its improvement of criminal justice records as described in section 3759 of title 42. We remember the Tulia incident with great pain. This case arose out of Texas in which huge numbers of African Americans, 15 percent of the African American population was arrested and prosecuted and sentenced to decades in prison. This is our response to how we handle it. I urge support of our colleague from Texas, a member of the Judiciary Committee, on this amendment.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, this is an embarrassing circumstance that we again find ourselves in. There are reasons that have required that the gentleman from New York, regretfully, bring this privileged resolution to the floor. There is little question that the demeanor of the chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), was very, very unusual for the meeting that was held, which he was required to hold. Now, do not take my word for it. I want you to go look at the evidence. It was all taped. I was stunned by my friend's continued hostility, not just toward the members of the Democratic side, but the witnesses themselves. I have never, ever experienced a witness being stopped dead in mid-sentence. It was highly inappropriate. The meeting was ended incorrectly. You cannot walk out of a meeting. You cannot say ``The meeting is adjourned,'' slam the gavel down and walk out. I have worked in the Committee on the Judiciary. I came to this committee and all my career has been spent there. I worked under Emanuel Celler, Jack Brooks and Peter Rodino. I had wonderful times with the chairman that preceded the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde). What I want Members to do, and I plead with them, is to support the gentleman from New York's privileged resolution, and allow the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) and me to continue meetings trying to get this committee back on track and make it whole again. Join us in that request. Please.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to introduce a Resolution commending W. Mark Felt for his extraordinary service to the country in exposing the ``Watergate'' scandal. Good faith whistle blowers like Mr. Felt represent high ideals of public service and the American tradition of challenging abuses of power. They also provide the diversity of views and information necessary for the checks and balances in a democracy. As the world now knows, Mr. Felt, the then Deputy Director of the FBI, disclosed that he was the confidential source known as ``Deep Throat,'' that assisted Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein in their investigation of the Watergate scandal, which eventually led the House to the verge of impeachment and the ultimate resignation of President Nixon. Quite frequently, it is courageous whistle blowers such as Mr. Felt who are responsible for disclosing corruption in our government. We have no doubt that absent Mr. Felt's involvement, we would never have learned about the illegalities and obstruction of justice at the highest levels of our government, up to and including President Nixon. This Resolution recognizes that Mr. Felt was not only a courageous public servant, willing to risk his career to expose wrongdoing, but a model agent and administrator as well. I therefore believe it is altogether fitting and proper that Mr. Felt's service be commemorated and honored by the Congress.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the bipartisan Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2005, along with Representatives Frank, Ros-Lehtinen and Shays. In past Congresses, this legislation has been cosponsored by almost 200 members and we expect similar support this session. Bias crimes are disturbingly prevalent and pose a significant threat to the full participation of all Americans in our democratic society. For the year 2003, the most recently available data, the FBI compiled reports from law enforcement agencies across the country identifying 7,489 criminal incidents that were motivated by an offender's irrational antagonism toward some personal attribute associated with the victim. Law enforcement agencies have identified 9,100 victims arising from 8,715 separate criminal offenses. Racially motivated bias again accounted for more than half (51.4 percent) of all incidents. Religious bias accounted for 1,343 incidents (17.9 percent) and sexual orientation bias each accounted for 1,239 (16.6 percent) of all reported hate crimes, followed by ethnicity/national origin bias with 13.7 percent and disability bias with 0.4 percent of all incidents. While every state reported at least a small number of incidents, it is important to note that reporting by law enforcement is voluntary and it is widely believed that hate crimes are seriously under-reported. Despite the pervasiveness of the problem, current law limits federal jurisdiction over hate crimes to incidents against protected classes that occur only during the exercise of federally protected activities, such as voting. Further, the statutes do not permit federal involvement in a range of cases where crimes are motivated by bias against the victim's perceived sexual orientation, gender, disability or gender identity. This loophole is particularly significant given the fact that four States have no hate crime laws on the books, and another 21 States have extremely weak hate crimes laws. This legislation will make it easier for federal authorities to prosecute bias crimes, in the same way that the Church Arson Prevention Act of 1996 helped federal prosecutors combat church arson: by loosening the unduly rigid jurisdictional requirements under federal law. While ostensibly identical to past versions, this Congress the bill is more explicitly inclusive of the transgender community. In addition, we have included a provision mirroring the Washington State hate crimes statute that is designed to protect the 1st Amendment rights of the accused, without burdening the prosecution of those alleged offenses. State and local authorities currently prosecute the overwhelming majority of hate crimes and will continue to do so under this legislation, with the enhanced support of the federal government. Through an Intergovernmental Assistance Program created by this legislation, the Justice Department will provide technical, forensic or prosecutorial assistance to State and local law enforcement officials in cases of bias crime. The legislation also authorizes the Attorney General to make grants to State and local law enforcement agencies that have incurred extraordinary expenses associated with the investigation and prosecution of hate crimes. Finally, under our bill, the Attorney General or other high ranking Justice Department officials must approve all prosecutions undertaken pursuant to this law, ensuring federal restraint, and further ensuring that the States will continue to take the lead. Behind each of the crimes statistics cited above lies an individual or community targeted for violence for no other reason than race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender, disability or gender identity. People like Waqar Hasan of Dallas, who lost his life in a post-911 backlash hate crime. His murderer admitted that he wanted to send a message to the local Arab population and beyond. These discrete communities have learned the hard way that a failure to address the problem of bias crime can cause a seemingly isolated incident to fester into wide spread tension that can damage the social fabric of the wider community. The Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2005 is a constructive and measured response to a problem that continues to plague our Nation. These are crimes that shock and shame our national conscience and they should be subject to comprehensive federal law enforcement assistance and prosecution.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, what a great day this is. After 73 times on the floor, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) now has an amendment to discuss a plan to develop a plan as soon as practicable to provide for the withdrawal of the United States Armed Forces from Iraq. Here are Members of the House of Representatives who are, if we look at Article I, Section 8, the only ones that can declare war under this great Constitution, saying, We do not even want to talk about a plan. Well, I say to my colleagues, the President of the United States has already said that America does not plan an indefinite occupation of Iraq, and neither do the independent Iraqi people. So what we want our colleagues to understand is that Congress can talk about this. Please, summon up your courage. That is your job. That is why we are here.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation and thank the Chairman and his staff for working with us to ensure the bill does not overreach. The bill was designed to target illegitimate actors who trade in counterfeit marks. We all agree that manufacturers have a right to ensure that fake goods are not marketed in their names and that their own goods are not marketed under fake names. The bill as originally written, however, could have been construed by some as going further than that. It left as an open question whether someone other than the manufacturer could affix marks to goods that correctly identify the source of the goods. This ambiguity could have had a negative impact on the parallel market, in which third parties lawfully obtain goods and make them available in discount stores. Not only has this practice been upheld by the Supreme Court, but it also saves consumers billions of dollars each year. Fortunately, H.R. 32 was amended in the full committee pursuant to an amendment offered by Representative Wexler to clarify that the legislation is not intended to be relied upon as a weapon against the secondary discount marketplace to the detriment of American consumers-- consumers dependent upon the price options and competition afforded by alternative sources of genuine goods. In particular, H.R. 32 was amended to specifically protect lawful repackaging of genuine goods by ensuring that any such third party repackaging, not intended to deceive or confuse, is specifically saved from criminal prosecution under this Act. The Committee specifically agreed that combining single genuine products into gift sets, separating combination set of genuine goods into individual items for resale, inserting coupons into original packaging or repackaged items, affixing labels to track or otherwise identify genuine products and removing genuine goods from original packaging for customized retail displays were not covered by the legislation as they provide important value to American consumers. I am happy to report that the final language ensures that H.R. 32 adequately protects lawful American businesses, including those servicing the discount marketplace, while, at the same time punishes illicit counterfeiting activity. As a result of these good faith negotiations, we now have a bill that protects manufacturers, targets illegitimate actors, and leaves a legitimate industry unscathed. I urge a ``yes'' vote on this legislation.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, so much of American history is defined by our national commitment to tolerate each others' religious differences. This was the wisdom behind the words of President John Kennedy, who reminded us that ``tolerance implies no lack of commitment to one's own beliefs. Rather it condemns the oppression or persecution of others.'' I introduce this Resolution today as a reminder that we must still strive to condemn bigotry and religious intolerance, and recognize that holy books of every religion should be treated with dignity and respect. Our dedication to this struggle has never been more important than it is today, with recent events both at home and abroad. We can begin to fulfill this obligation with a renewed effort to continued education and the dispelling of stereotypes. For example, much of the public is not aware that the word Islam comes from the Arabic root word meaning ``peace'' and ``submission.'' Terrorism cannot be justified under any valid interpretation of the Islamic faith. There are an estimated 7 million Muslims in America, from a wide variety of ethnic backgrounds. The holy book of Islam, the Quran, is recited by Muslims during prayer. From the Quran, Muslims learn valuable lessons about peace, humanity and spirituality. This Resolution recognizes that believers of all religions, including the faiths of Christianity, Judaism and Islam, should be treated with respect and dignity. The mistreatment of prisoners and disrespect toward the holy book of any religion is unacceptable and against civilized humanity. I am concerned as anyone that our nation would disparage the Quran or the Muslim religion. This Resolution therefore makes it clear that it is not the official policy of the U.S. government to disparage the Quran, Islam or any other faith. I hope this Resolution will help us recognize that we need to embrace the Muslim people and tolerance if we are truly interested in supporting democracy around the world.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Jackson Lee/ Conyers amendment to H.R. 1817, which would direct the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to conduct a study of two Administration proposals to increase fees paid by applicants and petitioners for immigration services. The administration's fiscal year 2006 budget submission proposed that Congress enact legislation to authorize the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) component of the Department of Homeland Security to increase the fee paid by applicants for Temporary Protected Status (TPS) above the statutory limit of $50. The administration also has proposed that Congress enact legislation to extend a provision that permits USCIS to charge an extra fee for providing faster services to some employment-based immigration applicants and petitioners. The administration wants Congress to extend this program so that the extra fee can also be charged to family-based applicants and petitioners, as well. The Jackson Lee/Conyers amendment would require that the Government Accountability Office conduct studies of each of these proposals so that Congress can have an opportunity to assess their consequences and impact before acting. TPS Fee--When Congress enacted the TPS statute in 1990, it had the option of permitting the then-Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) to set the fee at whatever level was necessary in order to pay for the cost of adjudicating an applicant's application. Instead, in recognition of the special circumstances faced by TPS beneficiaries, Congress opted to cap the TPS fee at $50. By statutory definition, Mr. Chairman, TPS beneficiaries come from countries where there has been a natural disaster or an ongoing armed conflict and the foreign state is unable to handle their return. While it is certainly true that TPS applicants can get work authorization pending their requests, they would first have to pay the fee in order to be considered for work authorization and TPS status. Many TPS beneficiaries, Mr. Chairman, come from impoverished countries and are often in the U.S. visiting relatives or are here for other brief stays. It may not be the best policy to raising fees for TPS beneficiaries when they have no practical alternative but to remain in the United States. If the fees for TPS are raised to the outrageous levels that other fees have been raised to in recent years, it could result in two unacceptable consequences. It could either drive would-be beneficiaries underground because they cannot afford to pay the fee. Or it could result in an exponential increase in requests for fee waivers, an outcome that would slow down adjudications for all other applications or immigration benefits. My amendment request that the GAO examine these potential consequences. Premium Service Fee--Nearly five years ago, Congress enacted legislation giving the Administration the authority to charge a $1,000 premium fee for businesses that wish to expedite the adjudication of their employment-based immigration applications and petitions. The Administration has asked Congress to give it the authority to charge a similar fee to family-based applicants and petitions. The accounts are mixed, Mr. Chairman, on how well the premium service fee for employment-based applications and petitions has worked. We have heard from some, for instance, that implementation of this diversion has resulted in a slowing down of adjudications for those businesses who decline to pay the extra $1,000. At a minimum, an impartial body should study how the premium service program is working in the business arena before extending it to family-based applications and petitions. Moreover, Mr. Speaker, there are vast differences between the resources available to employment-based and family-based petitioners and applicants. Businesses often can pass on the costs of a premium fee to their customers or adjust the wages and benefits of the prospective employee to recover the extra cost. These options are not available to families, on the other hand. If reports are true that implementation of the program in the employment arena has slowed down adjudications for those businesses that decline to pay the fee, expansion of the program to the family- based arena could have disastrous, unintended consequences for those families that cannot afford to pay an additional $1,000 for each application or petitions. Conclusion--Mr. Chairman, the studies and reports that my amendment would mandate do not seek to prejudice the question of whether the administration should be given the new fee authorities that it has requested. Instead, my amendment would see the advice of impartial experts at the Government Accountability Office before Congress acts. I urge the adoption of this amendment.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, Glenn McCullough steps down today as the 12th and last full-time Chairman of the Tennessee Valley Authority Board. I have worked with thousands of people during my years in Congress., Chairman McCullough has been one of the kindest and most honorable with whom I have had the privilege to work. Glenn McCullough, in my opinion, has been an outstanding Chairman for TVA. He has had the extremely difficult job of attempting to balance all kinds of competing interests, and he has done the job well. He has done great things for the environment and the employees at TVA while still remembering that many TVA ratepayers and low-income people also need help, too. Chairman McCullough is a man of high integrity who should be remembered as one of the finest Chairman TVA has ever had. He has worked as hard as possible for the people of the Valley, and this Nation is a better place today because of his service. I would like to call to the attention of my colleagues and other readers of the Record the following article from the May 16 edition of the Knoxville News Sentinel. Departing Chairman Says Utility Still Faces Financial, Environmental Challenges (By Duncan Mansfield) Departing Chairman Glenn McCullough said the Tennessee Valley Authority is stronger than when he arrived in 1999, but the nation's largest public utility still faces financial, environmental and competitive challenges. Tougher soot and smog requirements on coal-fired power plants could cost TVA $4 billion to $5 billion beyond the $6 billion it has already spent or committed for pollution controls. Rising fuel prices for its fleet of fossil plants, gas turbines and nuclear stations could force further cost- cutting and a likely electric rate increase that would affect some 8.5 million people receiving TVA power in Tennessee and six surrounding states. Yet as McCullough nears the end of his term on Wednesday, May 18, as the 12th and final full-time chairman in the 72- year history of TVA, he remains optimistic about TVA's future. ``I think TVA will continue to be a high performer,'' McCullough told The Associated Press in a recent interview in his 12th floor office at TVA headquarters in Knoxville. McCullough, 50 was mayor of his hometown of Tupelo, Miss.-- TVA's first member city--when he was appointed to an unexpired term on the three-member TVA board in 1999 by President Clinton. In 2001, President Bush elevated McCullough, backed by then-Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., to chairman. During his tenure, TVA changed its Tennessee River watershed plan to improve recreational use, set rising peak- power demand records, adopted a rate increase in 2003 to pay for coal plant pollution controls and developed the first commercial wind farm in the Southeast. TVA also reduced a nearly $28 billion long-term debt by $1.8 billion. In doing so, the agency eliminated hundreds of jobs and put one of its twin headquarters towers in Knoxville up for sale as surplus. The tower sale is pending, and the payroll stands at 12,700--compared to more than 30,000 in the 1980s. The self-financing government agency with a $7 billion budget also took heat over extravagant travel and entertainment spending by executives but moved quickly to crack down with new internal policies. However, McCullough said the boldest actions were the 2001 write-off of $3.4 billion in non-producing assets, including three unfinished nuclear reactors, and the $1.8 billion decision to restart a mothballed reactor at the Browns Ferry station in Alabama by 2007. ``It was a good business decision, not an easy one,'' he said of the write-offs, while the gamble on the Browns Ferry reactor--60 percent complete--could pay off in meeting baseload demand through 2014. ``All of those things kind of roll off the tongue, but I tell you, there are thousands of people that did their job better so that TVA could have record generation and record clean air and record economic growth and record debt reduction,'' McCullough said. Looking ahead, McCullough said a rate increase, which has become rare in recent years at TVA, seems inevitable because of rising fuel costs that can't be controlled. ``I think the future board will have to determine what rates need to be and when adjustments are necessary,'' he said. ``I don't know how much, and I don't know when.'' McCullough doesn't know if he will be on an expanded part- time board that is being created after he leaves. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., pushed the board restructuring to make the group more open and responsive. The White House has yet to name nominees. McCullough sees plenty of opportunities and challenges ahead for them. TVA is working with two national consortiums studying designs and licensing for the next generation of nuclear plants, while TVA assesses the feasibility of using its unfinished Bellefonte nuclear plant in Alabama as a possible project site. Meanwhile, TVA continues to review efficiencies and costs of new ``clean coal'' technologies for its fossil fleet. McCullough believes coal and nuclear should remain the foundation of TVA's power system. ``We are also looking at the business model,'' McCullough said. ``There could be some opportunities for TVA to do joint ventures with perhaps other utilities or other entities that make good business sense.'' He cited TVA's deal set up a few years ago to buy power from the Red Hills Power Plant and Mississippi Lignite Mining Co. near Ackerman, Miss., as an example of a successful joint venture. Meanwhile, growing private and commercial development along the Tennessee River continues to stir resentment among the families of former residents displaced by TVA's hydroelectric dam projects in the 1930s and '40s. McCullough is sympathetic to a point. ``Land in the valley is almost sacred. That is a characteristic of the South that I am frankly proud of--`Don't mess with the land.' I understand that,'' he said. ``But if you look on the TVA seal, you see the words `Progress Through Resource Development,' '' he said. ``And you can't make progress without some development.'' McCullough said he is looking forward to going home to Tupelo and spending time with his wife, Laura, and two teenage sons, and weighing his career options. More low-key than his predecessors, McCullough said being chairman of TVA, like being mayor of Tupelo, was ``a wonderful opportunity to make a positive difference.'' ``I didn't ask to come to TVA, and I didn't ask to be chairman. But I was asked to do this job, and it was a unique opportunity,'' he said. ``If you get it right, if you make good decisions and fulfill the mission of TVA, then the people of the valley can be better off for generations to come. And that can be satisfying.''

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to the attention of the American people an editorial that raises the important questions regarding our uncertain course of action in Iraq. In particular, the author, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, addresses the dilemma that looms in the not-so-distant horizon--do we increase the military effort or do we end it? He also brings to light the ``Downing Street Memo,'' which indicates a pre-war orchestration by the President and Prime Minister Blair to the point of cooking intelligence to meet the President's needs. Mr. Speaker, 87 of my colleagues and I sent the President a letter last week asking him to respond to these serious charges. We await his response. Staying What Course? (By Paul Krugman) Is there any point, now that November's election is behind us, in revisiting the history of the Iraq war? Yes: any path out of the quagmire will be blocked by people who call their opponents weak on national security, and portray themselves as tough guys who will keep America safe. So it's important to understand how the tough guys made America weak. There has been notably little U.S. coverage of the ``Downing Street memo''--actually the minutes of a British prime minister's meeting on July 23, 2002, during which officials reported on talks with the Bush administration about Iraq. But the memo, which was leaked to The Times of London during the British election campaign, confirms what apologists for the war have always denied: the Bush administration cooked up a case for a war it wanted. Here's a sample: ``Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and W.M.D. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.'' (You can read the whole thing at www.downingstreetmemo.com.) Why did the administration want to invade Iraq, when, as the memo noted, ``the case was thin'' and Saddam's ``W.M.D. capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea, or Iran''? Iraq was perceived as a soft target; a quick victory there, its domestic political advantages aside, could serve as a demonstration of American military might, one that would shock and awe the world. But the Iraq war has, instead, demonstrated the limits of American power, and emboldened our potential enemies. Why should Kim Jong II fear us, when we can't even secure the road from Baghdad to the airport? At this point, the echoes of Vietnam are unmistakable. Reports from the recent offensive near the Syrian border sound just like those from a 1960's search-and-destroy mission, body count and all. Stories filed by reporters actually with the troops suggest that the insurgents, forewarned, mostly melted away, accepting battle only where and when they chose. Meanwhile, America's strategic position is steadily deteriorating. Next year, reports Jane's Defense Industry, the United States will spend as much on defense as the rest of the world combined. Yet the Pentagon now admits that our military is having severe trouble attracting recruits, and would have difficulty dealing with potential foes--those that, unlike Saddam's Iraq, might pose a real threat. In other words, the people who got us into Iraq have done exactly what they falsely accused Bill Clinton of doing: they have stripped America of its capacity to respond to real threats. So what's the plan? The people who sold us this war continue to insist that success is just around the corner, and that things would be fine if the media would just stop reporting bad news. But the administration has declared victory in Iraq at least four times. January's election, it seems, was yet another turning point that wasn't. Yet it's very hard to discuss getting out. Even most of those who vehemently opposed the war say that we have to stay on in Iraq now that we're there. In effect, America has been taken hostage. Nobody wants to take responsibility for the terrible scenes that will surely unfold if we leave (even though terrible scenes are unfolding while we're there). Nobody wants to tell the grieving parents of American soldiers that their children died in vain. And nobody wants to be accused, by an administration always ready to impugn other people's patriotism, of stabbing the troops in the back. But the American military isn't just bogged down in Iraq; it's deteriorating under the strain. We may already be in real danger: what threats, exactly, can we make against the North Koreans? That John Bolton will yell at them? And every year that the war goes on, our military gets weaker. So we need to get beyond the cliches--please, no more ``pottery barn principles'' or ``staying the course.'' I'm not advocating an immediate pullout, but we have to tell the Iraqi government that our stay is time-limited, and that it has to find a way to take care of itself. The point is that something has to give. We either need a much bigger army--which means a draft--or we need to find a way out of Iraq.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose this amendment. While I salute the hard work of our volunteer firefighters, it appears to me that this amendment we have before us a very stringent solution in search of an actual problem. Although the amendment is supposed to encourage the donation of firefighter equipment by eliminating civil liability barriers, there have been no reported cases of businesses refusing to donate equipment nor cases of volunteer firefighter companies suing donators. At a minimum, this bill should be reviewed in accordance with regular House order. There have been no hearings or markups in the Judiciary Committee, no opportunity for the members to debate this issue to date. Companies should not be given blanket immunity to companies for donating fire fighting equipment. While it may be true that most of the equipment is perfectly usable, companies should be prevented from donating obsolete equipment. Certain equipment like protective gear and breathing apparatuses can deteriorate over time and may not be suitable for reuse. If firefighters work to protect and keep citizens safe, should not they have the best protective equipment possible? This ``so-called'' problem can clearly be solved without congressional action. First, volunteer fire companies could simply sign a contract waiving the liability of the donors for negligence resulting from donating firefighting equipment. This tactic would ensure that the fire companies are informed and have consented to the immunity of the donor. Second, this issue is a matter that can be dealt with by the States. There is nothing Federal about local volunteer fire departments; it is purely a State issue. With all of the other pertinent issues that are before Congress, I find it problematic that we are entertaining this non-problem. I urge my colleagues to reject this truly anti-firefighter protection amendment.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I take this time to honor and commemorate the life and the accomplishments of our former colleague Congressman Peter Rodino, elected to the House of Representatives in 1949, who served his district in New Jersey for 40 years with great integrity, humility, fairness, dignity and honor. Originally known for making Columbus Day a national holiday, Chairman Peter Rodino spent his whole life fighting for people's rights, and I recall personally his strong commitment to human rights, his unwavering support for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and the Voting Rights Extension Act of 1982. He introduced many of these bills and shepherded them through Congress as chairman of the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives. He was also responsible for the enaction of the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act which reviewed determinations of mergers of huge corporations in America, and he was instrumental in reforming immigration laws in both the Simpson-Rodino legislation and the Kennedy-Rodino legislation, both of which improved mechanisms for people in the country illegally to legalize their immigration status. In 1973, Mr. Rodino replaced the legendary Emanuel Celler as the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary. I was then a member of the committee, and he impressed all of us with his determination to do the right thing and his considerate treatment of all committee members. He displayed this common touch in his ability to relate to citizens of every background and from all walks of life. Of course, Peter Rodino has earned his record in history for his role as chairman of the House Committee on the Judiciary, presiding over the Watergate hearings which led to the impeachment of then President Richard Millhouse Nixon. History has recorded the debt all Americans owe him for presiding firmly, responsibly and fairly over these hearings and subsequent proceedings. Many people were very alarmed at what the impeachment of a President would mean, and they wondered aloud in our public media whether this country could survive an impeachment. He handled this very sensitive matter, and it turned Chairman Peter Rodino into a national hero. It was his calm steering of the committee to a final conclusion that ultimately preserved, without any disruption, the constitutional system of the United States, which has been emulated throughout the world. After he retired from Congress in 1990, he returned to New Jersey as a professor of law at Seton Hall Law School in Newark, New Jersey, and he was active up until even last year. When I visited him there, he was still going strong. I would like to close by announcing that his memorial service will be held in Newark on this coming Monday, and we want to invite as many of his friends in and out of the Congress who remember his great work to join us at 11 a.m. at the Catholic church of which he was closely connected for his memorial service.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. My colleagues, this is a measure that we should be able to identify the problem, study the data, and work together to craft a commonsense response to youth violence. But the measure before us has fatal flaws which authorizes trying more juveniles as adults and provides for more mandatory minimums and more death penalties. None of these things will correct and reduce the youth violence problem, but they will seriously harm our system of juvenile justice. Now, the one thing that we should know before we go to a vote here is the organizations that have joined myself and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the ranking subcommittee member, and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), who has worked tirelessly on this issue across the years with the Congressional Black Caucus. For instance, the Judicial Conference of the United States opposes this measure. The Sentencing Commission opposes this measure; the Alliance for Children and Families, the Children's Defense Fund, the Youth Law Center, the American Civil Liberties Union, the American Correctional Association, the Chamber of Commerce, the National Federation of Independent Businesses, the National Council of La Raza, the Presbyterian Church, and the Volunteers of America. And let me tell my colleagues why these groups oppose this legislation. Because, first, they know that trying children as adults and transferring them to adult jails not only does not work, but it makes the situation more likely that they will commit crimes upon release. There are studies that back this up; that they will commit violent crimes upon release, and they will commit crimes sooner upon release. The Miami Herald study concluded that, since adult prisons are, in effect, often crime schools, sending a juvenile there increases by 35 percent the odds that they will commit another offense within a year of release. Secondly, we know that mandatory minimums distort the sentencing process because the Judicial Conference and the Sentencing Commission have found that mandatory minimums ``destroy honesty in sentencing by encouraging charge and fact plea bargains.'' Again, the legislation before us ignores these facts and creates numerous new mandatory minimums that will lead to far greater disparities and further discrimination. At a time when we have more than 2.1 million Americans in prisons or jails, more than any Nation on the planet, and 10 percent of these individuals are already serving life sentences, it is difficult for reasonable legislators to see how more jail time for more youth can accomplish anything constructive. Finally, we know now that the death penalty system in this country is incredibly prone to error. So I urge that the Members of this House return this measure to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, but we are trying to get rid of criminals from coming into the country, and what the gentleman is doing in this amendment is keeping them in the country. In other words, deporting them is not good enough. We want to keep them in our prison systems, which now house more citizens, and now, we are adding noncitizens to the population of those incarcerated in America. And I have some reservations about piling it on. We have never talked about this position before in the subcommittee or full committee of the Committee on the Judiciary. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time to make that observation.

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

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, could I ask the distinguished author of this amendment if this idea occurred to him during the time that we considered the bill in the Committee on the Judiciary? Because I have never heard of this before.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in tribute to a friend and champion of democracy, Lloyd Cutler. Sadly, Lloyd passed away this past Sunday. His accomplishments are too numerous to list. Serving as Counsel to two presidents and founding a distinguished law firm are just two of the feats he is known for. But Lloyd was more than just the Washington insider he is often portrayed as and his legacy extends far beyond the highest levels of our government; his connections to Presidents did not diminish his resolve to fight for the rights of all Americans. At President Kennedy's request, he founded and co-chaired the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law and developed the organization's mission to engage private lawyers in securing equal justice for all minorities and races in our nation. Indeed, it was because of Lloyd's efforts that many of those arrested for protesting segregation decades ago received legal representation. He also never wavered in his commitment to the preservation of our democracy anytime the strength of our democracy came into question. After the tragedy of September 11, he was a welcome co-chair of the Continuity of Government Commission. After the 2000 elections, he led the National Commission on Federal Election Reform to ensure no American would be denied the right to vote. What many may not know is that even as a young man, Lloyd was not content to sit by the sidelines in times of trouble. As a newly minted lawyer, he left a high-profile New York law firm at the start of World War II to enlist in the Army. Time and time again, the pattern has repeated itself; where others saw challenges and setbacks to our country, Lloyd saw another opportunity to serve. He was a model of civility and bipartisanship that almost seems anachronistic in today's strident debates. It has been said that cooler heads prevail; it must be true because Lloyd accomplished so much.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this supplemental appropriations bill and the anti-immigrant legislation it contains. If we truly believe all the rhetoric we hear about the importance of freedom and liberty from the president and others, we will vote down this bill, which denies so much freedom and liberty to immigrants in our own country. H.R. 1268 includes numerous provisions limiting the rights of refugees, imposing onerous new driver's license requirements on the states, making it easier to deport legal immigrants, waiving all federal laws concerning the construction of fences and barriers anywhere within the United States, and denying immigrants long standing habeas corpus rights. If enacted into law, this legislation will close America's doors to religious minorities escaping religious persecution and women fleeing sex trafficking and rape. We have been down this road of overreaction in the past. During the Civil War, General Grant sought to expel the Jews from the South. The aftermath of World War I brought about the notorious Red Scare and the anti-immigrant Palmer raids. World War II led to the unconscionable internment of Japanese Americans. In the wake of the 9/11 tragedy, and even after the PATRIOT Act, this legislation would further target immigrants for crimes they have not committed, and sins they are not responsible for. At some point, we have to treat terrorism as a problem that requires an intelligence response, as opposed to an excuse to scapegoat immigrants. It is for all these reasons that so many groups strongly oppose this bill, including groups concerned about immigrant rights, civil rights and liberties, privacy rights; Labor rights; the environment; Native- American rights; state rights, and international human rights. I urge a ``no'' vote. We cannot and should not close ourselves off to the most vulnerable members of our society.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, may I ask the chairman of the committee how many speakers he has remaining.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), our minority leader.

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