John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, earlier this year, the 9-11 Commission reached across the partisan divide and came up with a unanimous agreement. Ten members, five Democrats and five Republicans, held countless hearings and issued a well-written report with well-reasoned recommendations. To the disappointment of partisans, the Commission refused to divert itself with election-year political considerations, declining to cast blame on this Administration or its predecessors. The Senate, almost evenly split between Republicans and Democrats, followed the Commission's example by taking up a bipartisan bill, authored by Senators McCain, Lieberman and Collins. Today, at last, the House has seen fit to follow this fine example. The product we have before us is the product of extensive negotiations, that included all parties Democrats and Republicans. My Democratic colleagues on the conference deserve credit for their determination and hard work. I want to offer praise for the work of Ranking Member Harman and her staff. They have been steadfast. I want to offer particular praise across the aisle to my Republican colleagues who have worked so hard on this bill: my colleague from Michigan, Chairman Hoekstra, Mr. Shays and the Speaker of the House and his Chief of Staff. Like any product of compromise, this bill falls far short of what any of us would consider perfect. Some of my Republican colleagues wanted extraneous immigration provisions that would penalize victims of torture and asylum seekers. Those are not in this bill. Others did not want a board to oversee violations of privacy and civil liberties. That is in the bill, albeit in significantly weakened form. I did not want any additions to the Patriot Act. One provision, on material support for alleged terrorist organizations, is in the bill. Like other provisions of the Patriot Act, it sunsets in two years. For both sides, there will be time for oversight of the provisions they did not want. I predict the next Congress will see a substantial debate about the Patriot Act, what should be renewed in it and what should be allowed to expire. But today, we have a product that keeps faith with the 9-11 Commission and the 9-11 families that worked so hard to make this legislation happen. First and foremost, this bill represents a truly comprehensive 9-11 reform bill. Second, the approach outlined in the substitute has been endorsed by members of the 9-11 Commission and the family members of the 9-11 victims. Third, the substitute includes strong budgetary authority for the newly created National Intelligence Director, and targets terrorist traveling, as recommended by the 9-11 Commission. The choice today is clear. We can either choose the status quo--a broken system of competing intelligence bottlenecks or a positive and promising reform. I urge my colleagues to vote for this bill. Our number one priority is to protect the American people and this bill is a step in the right direction.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise only to congratulate the House leadership of the Committee on the Judiciary for the really tireless efforts that they brought to the negotiation process to get us to where we are. We have come a considerable way, and I want to start out by thanking our ranking member on the subcommittee, who has been absolutely brilliant in negotiating with the other side, and our chairman and subcommittee chairman as well.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am so happy that we are working together on a health care issue. They are critical to the United States where we have so many people without the ability to get health care. Against that background and this positive attitude, someone in this body must say, well, why are we bringing doctors in from out of the country to the most affluent nation on planet Earth, and they are providing very important necessary care? I think that is a question that will be taken up in the following upcoming session, but it is one that is troublesome. Right now I join with the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), our ranking member, in proudly supporting the work that has taken place to expand the boards. There are places where, for example, Indian reservations, technically not within the jurisdiction, will now be able to receive help. And even more important is the ability now to bring in specialists, pediatric specialists, diabetes specialists, to work in areas where, without this intervention, patients would be hundreds and hundreds of miles away from the proper medical treatment. This is an excellent bill. It is a product of bipartisan work in the committee, and I am happy to be a part of it. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the gentleman, because it was the senior Senator from North Dakota that put this program together almost a decade ago, and I commend both of the gentlemen.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman), ranking member of this very important Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property, for yielding me this time. His explanation has been more than sufficient in which we make sure that what we are doing with the Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel is done correctly. And with H.R. 1417, with which I was pleased to join him and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) and gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), subcommittee chairman, on, with the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman), does it. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation. Those of us in Congress and the private sector who follow how the government sets copyright royalty rates agree that the current system needs change. It is expensive, unwieldy, and too unpredictable. Based on that, subcommittee Chairman Smith, subcommittee Ranking Member Berman, and I introduced legislation, H.R. 1417, that would make substantial procedural changes. We heard the current system is costly because the copyright owners and users have to pay for the arbitrators. Because copyright law subjects copyright owners and users to a compulsory process, we believe the law should not place this additional financial burden on them. Our bill creates 3 Copyright Royalty Judges who would be paid from appropriated funds to set royalty rates and distribute royalty fees. Another complaint was that the CARP does not have adequate rules on how to address hearsay evidence. This bill explicitly requires that the judges treat hearsay evidence in the same manner that it is treated in Federal court. This will bring uniformity to the proceedings for parties on both sides of royalty disputes. This bill also alters the terms for which certain royalty rates are in effect. Rates that are determined by the Judges will be in effect for 5 years. This should create some predictability and uniformity for those who rely on the Judges' determinations. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this bill as amended.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This is a great day in the Federal system where we on the Committee on the Judiciary have decided to authorize a COLA for the members of the Federal judicial system in America. Now, there are only a couple of problems here, and I, of course, enthusiastically support H.R. 5363. The first is that those who work in the administrative office of the courts, those who work for the Federal judges, now enjoy greater salaries than the judges themselves. The second thing is that, under the system that we are implementing, Article III, section 1 of the Constitution, the fact of the matter is that the failure to provide past cost-of-living adjustments to our Federal judiciary has, in the last decade, resulted in an economic reduction in salary in the equivalent amount of $77,000, and so we are now faced with a crisis of dozens, six dozen, judges having left the judiciary in the past several years. I think it is obvious to all that it is hard to continue to maintain a qualified and independent judiciary if we are not paying them a just wage. Having said this, we have brought this measure forward, not a moment too soon, to provide for them a cost-of-living adjustment for the present term. So I enthusiastically join the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) in supporting this measure.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, on February 5 of this year, a legendary American naval hero passed away in Bethesda, Maryland. Admiral Thomas H. Moorer epitomized the finest qualities of dedication and national service. His distinguished naval career spanned 41 years, including service as a naval aviator, as one of the first pilots off the ground during the attack on Pearl Harbor, as a decorated hero of numerous combat missions in the Southwest Pacific and the Battle of Midway, as Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet, as commander of NATO's U.S. Atlantic Command and the U.S. Atlantic Fleet, becoming the only officer in the Navy's history to command both our Atlantic and Pacific Fleets, as Chief of Naval Operations, as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and as a tireless advocate for American veterans. Admiral Moorer was instrumental in establishing the United States Navy Memorial on Pennsylvania Avenue. In numerous appearances before Congressional Committees, Admiral Moorer provided valuable testimony on a variety of national security concerns. Capping this extraordinary career, Admiral Moorer made his final appearance on Capitol Hill on October 22, 2003, as Chairman of the Independent Commission of Inquiry into the 1967 attack on the USS Liberty. It is a privilege for me to introduce the Findings of the Independent Commission of Inquiry Into the Israeli Attack on the USS Liberty into the Congressional Record. Findings of the Independent Commission of Inquiry Into the Israeli Attack on the USS ``LIBERTY,'' the Recall of Military Rescue Support Aircraft While the Ship Was Under Attack, and the Subsequent Cover-Up by the United States Government We, the undersigned, having undertaken an independent investigation of Israel's attack on the USS Liberty, including eyewitness testimony from surviving crewmembers, a review of naval and other official records, an examination of official statements by the Israeli and American governments, a study of the conclusions of all previous official inquiries, and a consideration of important new evidence and recent statements from individuals having direct knowledge of the attack or the cover up, hereby find the following: 1. That on June 8, 1967, after eight hours of aerial surveillance, Israel launched a two-hour air and naval attack against the USS Liberty, the world's most sophisticated intelligence ship, inflicting 34 dead and 172 wounded American servicemen (a casualty rate of seventy percent, in a crew of 294); 2. That the Israeli air attack lasted approximately 25 minutes, during which time unmarked Israeli aircraft dropped napalm canisters on the Liberty's bridge, and fired 30mm cannons and rockets into our ship, causing 821 holes, more than 100 of which were rocket-size; survivors estimate 30 or more sorties were flown over the ship by a minimum of 12 attacking Israeli planes which were jamming all five American emergency radio channels; 3. That the torpedo boat attack involved not only the firing of torpedoes, but the machine-gunning of the Liberty's firefighters and stretcher-bearers as they struggled to save their ship and crew; the Israeli torpedo boats later returned to machine-gun at close range three of the Liberty's life rafts that had been lowered into the water by survivors to rescue the most seriously wounded; 4. That there is compelling evidence that Israel's attack was a deliberate attempt to destroy an American ship and kill her entire crew; evidence of such intent is supported by statements from Secretary of State Dean Rusk, Undersecretary of State George Ball, former CIA director Richard Helms, former NSA directors Lieutenant General William Odom, USA (Ret.), Admiral Bobby Ray Inman, USN (Ret.), and Marshal Carter; former NSA deputy directors Oliver Kirby and Major General John Morrison, USAF (Ret.); and former Ambassador Dwight Porter, U.S. Ambassador to Lebanon in 1967; 5. That in attacking the USS Liberty, Israel committed acts of murder against American servicemen and an act of war against the United States; 6. That fearing conflict with Israel, the White House deliberately prevented the U.S. Navy from coming to the defense of the Liberty by recalling Sixth Fleet military rescue support while the ship was under attack; evidence of the recall of rescue aircraft is supported by statements of Captain Joe Tully, Commanding Officer of the aircraft carrier USS Saratoga, and Rear Admiral Lawrence Geis, the Sixth Fleet carrier division commander, at the time of the attack; never before in American naval history has a rescue mission been cancelled when an American ship was under attack; 7. That although the Liberty was saved from almost certain destruction through the heroic efforts of the ship's Captain, William L. McGonagle (MOH), and his brave crew, surviving crewmembers were later threatened with ``court-martial, imprisonment or worse'' if they exposed the truth; and were abandoned by their own government; 8. That due to the influence of Israel's powerful supporters in the United States, the White House deliberately covered up the facts of this attack from the American people; 9. That due to continuing pressure by the pro-Israel lobby in the United States, this attack remains the only serious naval incident that has never been thoroughly investigated by Congress; to this day, no surviving crewmember has been permitted to officially and publicly testify about the attack; 10. That there has been an official cover-up without precedent in American naval history; the existence of such a cover-up is now supported by statements of Rear Admiral Merlin Staring, USN (Ret.), former Judge Advocate General of the Navy; and Captain Ward Boston, USN, (Ret.), the chief counsel to the Navy's 1967 Court of Inquiry of the Liberty attack; 11. That the truth about Israel's attack and subsequent White House cover-up continues to be officially concealed from the American people to the present day and is a national disgrace; 12. That a danger to our national security exists whenever our elected officials are willing to subordinate American interests to those of any foreign nation, and specifically are unwilling to challenge Israel's interests when they conflict with American interests; this policy, evidenced by the failure to defend the USS Liberty and the subsequent official cover-up of the Israeli attack, endangers the safety of Americans and the security of the United States. Whereupon, we, the undersigned, in order to fulfill our duty to the brave crew of the USS Liberty and to all Americans who are asked to serve in our Armed Forces, hereby call upon the Department of the Navy, the Congress of the United States and the American people to immediately take the following actions: First, That a new Court of Inquiry be convened by the Department of the Navy, operating with Congressional oversight, to take public testimony from surviving crewmembers; and to thoroughly investigate the circumstances of the attack on the USS Liberty, with full cooperation from the National Security Agency, the Central Intelligence Agency and the military intelligence services, and to determine Israel's possible motive in launching said attack on a U.S. naval vessel; Second, That every appropriate committee of the Congress of the United States investigate the actions of the White House and Defense Department that prevented the rescue of the USS Liberty, thereafter threatened her surviving officers and men if they exposed the truth, and covered up the true circumstances of the attack from the American people; and Third, That the eighth day of June of every year be proclaimed to be hereafter known as USS Liberty Remembrance Day, in order to commemorate the Liberty's heroic crew; and to educate the American people of the danger to our national security inherent in any passionate attachment of our elected officials for any foreign nation. affidavit of captain ward boston, usn, jag (ret.), Senior counsel to the U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry For more than 30 years, I have remained silent on the topic of the USS Liberty. I am a military man and when orders come in from the Secretary of Defense and President of the United States, I follow them. However, recent attempts to rewrite history compel me to share the truth. In June of 1967, while serving as a Captain in the Judge Advocates General Department of the Navy, I was assigned as senior legal counsel for the Navy's Court of Inquiry into the brutal attack on the USS Liberty, which had occurred on June 8th. The late Admiral Isaac C. Kidd, president of the Court, and I were given only one week to gather evidence for the Navy's official investigation into the attack. Admiral John S. McCain, Jr., then Commander-in-chief, Naval Forces Europe (CINCUSNAVEUR), at his headquarters in London, had charged Admiral Kidd (in a letter dated June 10, 1967) to ``inquire into all the pertinent facts and circumstances leading to and connected with the armed attack: damage resulting therefrom; and deaths of and injuries to Naval personnel.'' Despite the short amount of time we were given, we gathered a vast amount of evidence, including hours of heartbreaking testimony from the young survivors. The evidence was clear. Both Admiral Kidd and I believed with certainty that this attack, which killed 34 American sailors and injured 172 others, was a deliberate effort to sink an American ship and murder its entire crew. I am certain that the Israeli pilots that undertook the attack, as well as their superiors who had ordered the attack, were aware that the ship was American. I saw the flag, which had visibly identified the ship as American, riddled with bullet holes, and heard testimony that made it clear that the Israelis intended there be no survivors. Not only did the Israelis attack the ship with napalm, gunfire, and missiles, Israeli torpedo boats machine- gunned three lifeboats that had been launched in an attempt by the crew to save the most seriously wounded--a war crime. I am outraged at the efforts of the apologists for Israel in this country to claim that this attack was a case of ``mistaken identity.'' In particular, the recent publication of Jay Cristol's book, The Liberty Incident, twists the facts and misrepresents the views of those of us who investigated the attack. It is Cristol's insidious attempt to whitewash the facts that has pushed me to speak out. I know from personal conversations I had with Admiral Kidd that President Lyndon Johnson and Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara ordered him to conclude that the attack was a case of ``mistaken identity'' despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Contrary to the misinformation presented by Cristol and others, it is important for the American people to know that it is clear that Israel is responsible for deliberately attacking an American ship and murdering American sailors, whose bereaved shipmates have lived with this egregious conclusion for many years. commonly asked questions about the uss ``liberty'' 1. What happened to the USS Liberty? The USS Liberty was a virtually unarmed American Navy ship that was attacked by Israeli planes and torpedo boats on June 8, 1967. 2. What were the American casualties? 34 American sailors were killed and 172 injured that day, a casualty rate of 70%. This is the highest casualty rate ever inflicted upon a U.S. naval vessel that remained afloat after an attack. 3. What was Israel's explanation for the attack? Israel claimed the attack was ``a case of mistaken identity''; that they didn't know it was an American ship. 4. Why would we question that explanation more than 30 years later? The ship's survivors were afraid to speak out in the early years because of threats of ``court martial, prison or worse'' if they did not remain silent. However, as time passed, they have stepped forward to say the attack was deliberate. Recently, high government and military officials have suggested that not only was the attack deliberate, but that the US government covered up the incident. Today, an Independent Commission of Inquiry has found that Israel committed ``an act of war'' against the United States (see Findings of Independent Commission). In addition, the Navy's chief attorney to the original 1967 military Court of Inquiry has issued a statement that orders to cover up the incident were issued by President Lyndon Johnson and Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara [see Statement of Captain Ward Boston, USN, JAG (Ret.)]. 5. Did Israel have reason to believe the USS Liberty was an Egyptian ship? Israel says its pilots and torpedo boat commanders confused the USS Liberty with the El Quseir, an Egyptian ship allegedly firing upon its forces in the Sinai. But there was no Egyptian naval bombardment that day; nor did the El Quseir (an unarmed 1920s-era horse carrier out of service in Alexandria) bear any resemblance to the Liberty. 6. Isn't it difficult to identify a ship if you're in an airplane? In 1967, the USS Liberty was the most sophisticated intelligence ship in the world, with dozens of large antennas, including a large moon-bounce ``satellite-dish'' mounted on a tall structure near the stern. It may have been one of the most easily identifiable ships of any navy in the world. With a displacement of 10,000 tons, it was four times the size of the antique Egyptian transport it is claimed to have resembled. Freshly painted, the Liberty carried large white identification numbers on its bow. Egyptian hull numbers are painted black. 7. Doesn't Israel say that the Liberty flew no flag? According to American survivors, a 5-by-8 feet American flag was hoisted early that morning and was flying all day until it was shot away by attacking aircraft. Within several minutes, it was replaced by the giant 7-by-13 feet holiday ensign, which flew for the duration of the attack. 8. Could Israel have thought the ship was in a war zone, acting suspiciously? According to surviving crewmembers, Israeli reconnaissance aircraft closely studied the Liberty over an eight-hour period prior to the attack, one flying within two hundred feet of the ship. At all times the Liberty was a clearly marked American ship in international waters, proceeding at a speed of only 5 knots. 9. What was the weather like the day of the attack? Weather reports confirm that it was a clear day with unlimited visibility. The Israeli reconnaissance planes could have seen the Liberty's crew sunbathing on the upper decks just before the attack. The flag was flying in a 12-knot breeze for most of the afternoon. 10. Doesn't Israel say they ended the attack the minute they saw someone hoist an American flag? The Israeli attack by combined air and naval forces spanned two hours--as long as the attack on Pearl Harbor. The air attack alone lasted approximately 25 minutes: consisting of more than 30 sorties by approximately 12 separate planes using napalm, cannon, and rockets which left 821 holes in the ship. Following the air attack, three Israeli motor torpedo boats torpedoed the ship, causing a 40' x 40' wide hole in her hull, and machine- gunning firefighters and stretcher-bearers attempting to save their ship and crew. More than 3,000 machine-gun bullet holes were later counted on the Liberty's hull. After the attack was thought to have ended, three life rafts were lowered into the water to rescue the most seriously wounded. The Israeli torpedo boats returned and machine-gunned these life rafts at close range. This was followed by the approach of two large Israeli Army assault helicopters filled with armed commandos carrying what appeared to be explosive satchels (they departed after hovering over the ship for several minutes, making no attempt to communicate). 11. Did the Liberty send out a distress signal when it was under attack? Throughout the air attack, the Liberty's radio operators found it difficult to transmit a distress signal because the attacking Israeli aircraft jammed all five of the Liberty's American, not Egyptian, emergency radio channels. However, a call for help did reach the U.S. Navy command in the Mediterranean. 12. What was the American response time? Although American carrier-based air support was only 40 minutes away, help did not reach the USS Liberty for seventeen hours. Navy fighters were launched from the aircraft carriers America and Saratoga while the Liberty was under attack. However, they were quickly recalled by the White House. This is the only instance in American naval history where a rescue mission was cancelled when an American ship was under attack. 13. Why would Israel have deliberately attacked an American ship? Israel's motive for launching the attack has never been determined with certainty. This is why an impartial investigation is critical. One hypothesis is that Israel intended to sink the ship (with no survivors) and blame Egypt because this might have brought the United States into the 1967 war. Another hypothesis is that the Liberty was gathering intelligence about activities that Israel did not want revealed. Examples might include the massacre of Egyptian prisoners of war that was then occurring in the Sinai, as well as Israel's impending invasion of Syria. 14. Has the incident been investigated in the past? Some people say that there have been ``thirteen official investigations'' all concluding the attack was a case of mistaken identity. Several were conducted by Israel. Upon examination, however, every one is based upon the conclusions of the original 1967 U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry, which accepted the Israeli version, but which has been exposed and discredited by its chief attorney as a cover-up. 15. Did the surviving crewmembers testify in the other investigations? In not one of these ``investigations'' were any of the Liberty's surviving crewmembers permitted to publicly testify. 16. Why would the White House prevent the rescue of an American ship? This is, perhaps, the most disturbing question arising out of Israel's attack. It is why there needs to be a thorough investigation of the actions taken by the White House and the Secretary of Defense. Why did they order the recall of the planes that had been sent to rescue the Liberty? Why did they order that the survivors be silenced and the true facts be withheld from the American people? 17. What kind of investigation are you calling for? We are calling for a new Court of Inquiry by the Department of the Navy, with congressional oversight, to take public testimony from surviving crewmembers and otherwise thoroughly examine the circumstances of the attack. 18. Why are you calling for a naval--and not a congressional--investigation? We believe this would remove the inquiry from the political pressures traditionally exerted by special interest groups upon individual congressional offices. Fundraising and election pressures have prevented an honest investigation from being conducted for the past 36 years. 19. Why is this significant for the American people 36 years later? We have a duty to the crew of the USS Liberty, while the survivors are still alive to testify, and while the perpetrators can be brought to justice. Furthermore, any policies that paralyze our elected leadership to the extent they become unable or unwilling to protect Americans and American interests, endangers not only the safety of all Americans but also the national security of the United States. 20. Doesn't America have a special relationship with Israel? No nation or people should be above the law; nor should American interests be subordinated to the interests of any foreign nation. Those Israelis responsible for ordering the attack and the resulting murder of American sailors must be held accountable for their actions. the independent commission of inquiry Admiral Thomas H. Moorer, former Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff--The distinguished naval career of Admiral Thomas H. Moorer spanned 41 years. Following his Graduation from the Naval Academy in 1933, he became a Navy pilot, a war hero, and a ship's captain. On December 7, 1941, as a naval aviator, Lieutenant Moorer was one of the first pilots off the ground following the attack on Pearl Harbor. A hero of the Battle of Midway, his numerous decorations for valor during WWII include the Silver Star and Purple Heart. In 1957, Moorer was promoted to the rank of Admiral. In 1965, he broke new ground, becoming the only American admiral to have ever commanded both our Atlantic and Pacific Fleets. He later served as Chief of Naval Operations, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The F-14 Tomcat, the Navy's main fighter for many years, was named for Admiral Moorer. Since his retirement in 1974, Admiral Moorer has served on the boards of many American corporations, and is a tireless advocate for American veterans. Working with Admiral Arleigh Burke (CNO), Admiral Moorer was instrumental in establishing the United States Navy Memorial on Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, D.C. He is currently Chairman of the Liberty Alliance, an organization dedicated to obtaining an honest investigation of Israel's attack on the USS Liberty and the official cover-up that followed. General of Marines Raymond G. Davis (MOH), former Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps--General Davis, one of America's most decorated heroes, passed away on September 3, 2003. As a combat veteran of three wars and a dedicated member of the Marine Corps for 34 years, General Davis received the Congressional Medal of Honor--the nation's highest award for valor--as well as the Navy Cross, two Distinguished Service Medals, two Silver Stars, two Legion of Merit awards, the Bronze Star, and the Purple Heart. General Davis was renowned for his exploits in the Pacific during WWII, as a battalion and regimental commander during the Korean War, and as Commanding General of the 3rd Marine Division in Viet Nam. Attaining four-star rank in 1971, Davis served as Assistant Commandant of the Corps before retiring in 1972. A strong proponent of veterans' issues, General Davis served as chairman of the advisory board to the Korean War Veterans Memorial in Washington, D.C., dedicated in 1995. Prior to his death, General Davis served as Vice Chairman of the Liberty Alliance and was a principal member of the Commission of Inquiry into the cover-up of the attack on the USS Liberty. Rear Admiral Merlin Staring, former Judge Advocate General of the Navy--Merlin Staring's distinguished naval career, which spanned nearly 25 years, began as an ensign in December 1941. Among his numerous decorations, Admiral Staring was awarded the Navy Distinguished Service Medal. In June of 1967, Staring served as Staff Legal Officer to Admiral John S. McCain, Jr., the Commander-in-chief, U.S. Naval Forces Europe (CINCUSNAVEUR) in London, which encompassed the Mediterranean, and was assigned to review the record of the Navy Court of Inquiry's investigation into the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty. Admiral Staring later served as the Navy's legal advisor to Secretaries of the Navy Paul R. Ignatius and John H. Chafee. Attaining the rank of Rear Admiral in 1972, he was appointed Judge Advocate General of the Navy--the Navy's chief attorney--a position he held through 1975. Currently, Admiral Staring is Treasurer and a director of the Liberty Alliance. Ambassador James Akins, former U.S. Ambassador to Saudi Arabia--James Akins served his country for 25 years as a distinguished member of the diplomatic corps. From 1963-1965, he served as an attache at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, and later as the U.S. Ambassador to Saudi Arabia during the Nixon administration. An internationally respected expert on the Middle East and energy issues, Ambassador Akins has been an active and outspoken proponent for a just resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict. He is a respected and highly sought speaker and analyst on the Middle East peace process as well as Arab politics in general. Author Jeans-Jacques Servan Schreiber called Ambassador Akins ``the westerner who knows the most about the Middle East and has the closest relationship of trust with its leaders.'' Ambassador Akins is a director of the Liberty Alliance.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly rise to tell the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler) of the Committee on the Judiciary that this breaks our deadlock, but it simply does not go far enough; and I am hoping that he will carefully consider the arguments being made by his colleagues, particularly on the Committee on the Judiciary, to see why it is that we think that even the Hostettler amendment can be approved. I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. the Hostettler Amendment allows for some of the broadest and most damaging immigration changes we will have passed in several decades, and will decimate legal protections in our laws of expedited removal, asylum, and extraordinary rendition and torture. Expedited removal (Section 3006)--The Hostettler Amendment would amend the immigration laws to permit summary deportations for persons who cannot prove that have physically been in the U.S. for more than 5 years. While the amendment deletes the provision that would have applied this summary deportation provision to asylee applicants, it still suffers from several glaring loopholes that would result in deserving immigrants facing the legal nightmare of summary deportation. Groups who would lose legal protections under the Hostettler Amendment include: Trafficking victims, and victims of rape, incest, kidnaping, and domestic violence. Currently, the Trafficking Victims Protection Act allows these victims to remain in the U.S. so they are not subject to further violence and abuse. Under the Hostettler amendment, trafficking victims and other victims of rape, incest and kidnaping would be subject to mandatory deportation. Batterred women and children. The Violence Against Women Act provides that battered immigrant women and children are permitted to remain here, so they are not forced to face further battering and violence. Under the Hostettler amendment, these immigrants could be plucked off the street and subject to mandatory deportation. Cubans who arrive in the U.S. by sea or by land. Currently, the Attorney General has only discretionary power to exempt Cubans who arrive in the U.S. via land or sea from expedited removal. Under the Hostettler amendment, this discretionary power would again be obviated by the mandatory requirement of expedited removal. This would mean that Cubans who arrive at our shores would face automatic summary deportation Asylum (Section 3007)--Under the Hostettler amendment, the rights of all asylum candidates would be impaired, decimating our historic commitment to refugees and persecuted immigrants. Among other things, the Hostettler Amendment would: Require an asylum applicant to prove that a central reason for his or her being persecuted was race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion; a far more difficult evidentiary burden than current law. Permit adjudicators to deny asylum because the applicant is unable to provide specific corroborating specific, and deny judicial review of such denials. Introduce brand new credibility grounds for denying asylum, such as ``demeanor,'' any inconsistency in statements (even if attributable to fear of retribution), and other subjective grounds that introduce new cultural barriers to asylum, particularly for traumatized victims of torture and violence. Exclude country conditions from human rights organizations, journalists, and other relevant, reliable and more recent information than may be obtained from State Department reports. Extraordinary Rendition/Torture (Section 3032)--The Hostettler Amendment would also allow immigrants to be returned to countries where they could be tortured in violation of the Convention Against Torture. This is because the amended provision would allow our government to send an individual to a country with a history of human rights violations even if a U.S. immigration judge has determined he or she would face torture, as long as the Secretary of State had merely asked the country if they would agree not to torture the immigrant. In essence, we would be substituting the judgment of a foreign diplomat from Syria, China or the Sudan, for that of a judge in the U.S., with the immigrant facing excruciating torture if the judge was right. Another problem with the Hostettler Amendment is that it would create unreviewable authority on the part of the DHS to detain non-citizens who are found to be at risk of torture or persecution in their home countries. The Hostettler amendment is opposed by a wide range of human rights, civil liberties and immigration groups, including the ACLU, the American Immigration Lawyers Association, Amnesty International, the Center for Victims of Torture, the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, Human Rights Watch, the US Committee for Refugees, the National Council of La Raza and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. I urge No vote.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased now to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. I begin by thanking the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) for her brilliant opening statement. This measure before us today could be called, A Tale of Two Bills. One is our substitute, that reflects both the spirit and the substance of the 9/11 Commission's work, and like the Commission itself, it is bipartisan, a theme that we continue to underscore even in the closing days of the 108th Congress. We are supported by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) and Senators McCain, Collins and Lieberman. Yesterday, in the other body, this measure that we will bring forward here this evening passed the other body by a vote of 96 to 2. In substance, it reflects exactly what the 9/11 Commission recommendations contained, and it was endorsed by the commission and by the September 11 families. On the other hand, we have before us a bill that was cobbled together haphazardly, with only the input of one party. It fails to implement many of the Commission's recommendations, and therein lies our grievance, and contains provisions that the Commission, after months of study, did not ask for at all. But the main omission is that the 9/11 Commission recommended, at a time of increased and consolidated government authority, there should be a board within the executive branch to oversee adherence to the guidelines we recommend and the commitment the government makes to defend our civil liberties. Why is there no civil liberties board in the majority bill? Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I control the time on the minority side for the purpose of yielding time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff), a former U.S. attorney and a distinguished member of the California bar.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am now pleased to yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), a distinguished member of the Committee on the Judiciary. (Ms. LOFGREN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watts), the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law of the Committee on the Judiciary, to close for our side. (Mr. WATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation, of which I am an original cosponsor. I first would like to note the comity that went into drafting this bill. We worked with the Commerce Committee on addressing the relevant issues based on jurisdiction. Further, Chairman Sensenbrenner and his staff worked diligently with us on drafting this legislation. I would particularly like to thank David Whitney, counsel to the majority, whose diligence and bipartisanship are the only reason we are here today. In 1999, we passed the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act to allow satellite companies to retransmit distant network signals to customers who could not receive clear over-the-air television signals. Such companies have to pay a government-set rate to the broadcast copyright owners. While I had, and still have, hesitations about creating compulsory licenses that require content owners to sell their work for a set fee, I believe this license led to significant competition in programming distribution. As a result of this policy decision, the satellite industry has dedicated significant technological and financial resources to expanding the choices available to consumers. I am certain we can all agree that is a good thing. The 1999 law expires at the end of this calendar year, so we must reauthorize it. The bill before us extends the license for 5 years. Importantly, the bill goes beyond that in addressing the desires of consumers in that it permits the satellite companies to retransmit a significantly viewed local signal to a customer. The bill also settles a gray area in terms of what satellite service customers can get when local-to-local satellite television is available. Under the new regime, current subscribers will be allowed to choose between the distant signal service or the local service. New customers would be provided with the local service. Despite the benefits of this legislation and the work of the interested parties, much remains to be done in terms of providing complete television service across the country. I look forward to working with the content owners and satellite companies in making that happen. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this legislation.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, bringing up a bill today, nearly 2 days since it was introduced without a hearing, to anybody in any committee, nothing, to just bring it up today, 3 days before the end of the session, makes it very clear what is on the minds of the leadership in this House. This is a smoke screen to divert the focus from the real facts about the war in Iraq. The authors of this bill want a hearing. Why do you not want a hearing? Why do you want to bring it up out of nowhere? This was not even scheduled. Yesterday, this was not scheduled or noted for scheduling. But they do not want a hearing because they do not want the public thinking about the fact that, as of today, we have spent nearly $200 billion on this war, the United States has lost over 1,000 lives, these figures represent 90 percent of the costs of the war, and more than 90 percent of the casualties in what the President continues to paint as a global problem led by a willing coalition, when no coalition exists. Worse, the President sends our troops into Iraq without body armor, without sufficient troop strength, and without any discernible exit strategy, and guess what? We are running out of troops. It is not a secret, I say to my colleagues. We are continuing to keep National Guardsmen in the service beyond their career. We are taking Reservists and we are running out of volunteers. So let us not be astounded that what follows that is a draft. The only problem is that we cannot announce it until after the election. Bringing this bill up today--nearly two years since the day we introduced it--is nothing but a Republican attempt at a smokescreen to divert the focus from the real facts about the war in Iraq. The Republicans don't want the public thinking about the fact that as of today, we've spent nearly $200 billion on this war, and the United States has lost over 1000 lives. These figures represent ninety percent of the cost of this war and more than ninety percent of the casualties--in what the President continues to paint as a global problem led by a willing coalition. No such coalition exists. Worse, President Bush sends our troops into Iraq without sufficient troop strength, and without any discernable exit strategy or plan to win the peace. The Administration doesn't want the public to know that, when it comes to Iraq, this President has failed the American people. Even Paul Bremmer, the U.S. official who governed Iraq after the invasion, has admitted that the United States made a mistake in not deploying enough troops in Iraq, and then made a mistake in not containing the violence and looting after the ouster of Saddam Hussein. The Administration doesn't want to call attention to the fact that the Pentagon has had to resort to the use of a ``stop loss'' policy to mask the fact that we do not have enough troops in Iraq. This policy is in a sense a military draft because it is used to keep tens of thousands of soldiers bound for Iraq and Afghanistan in their service beyond their originally scheduled discharge dates. Under this policy, the Army alone has blocked the retirements and departures of more than 40,000 soldiers, about 16,000 of them National Guard and reservists who were eligible to leave the service this year. This just shows that politics has taken priority over readiness. The administration uses these policies to meet the needs in Iraq because they are expedient and convenient, but all it amounts to is playing politics with the lives of the men and women overseas, and with their families back home. And while the Administration likes to talk about what a good job it's doing in Iraq, it consistently fails to mention the other impending crises we will eventually have to deal with. Iraq does not scratch the surface when you consider the situation we're in with North Korea and Iran. No, rather than have the American people focusing on these facts and statistics, the Republican members of Congress want to use this bill as a political maneuver to kill rumors that the President plans to reinstate the draft after the election. The Republicans want to use this bill--a bill that strives to bring equality to our military--to shift the focus from their extreme and devastating shortcomings. What our bill does is address the growing disparity in socio-economic background between those who go to fight our nation's conflicts and those who send them. The statistics show that minorities and the working class segments of society constitute a disproportionate percentage of the military. African Americans represent 21 percent of the military as opposed to 13 percent of the civilian age population. Only 24 percent of the persons in the military have parents in white collar management jobs, while that is true for 34 percent of the general military population. It is plain fact that the military does not come from the higher socio-economic status of society. This bill deserves better than placement on the suspension calendar. It deserves serious consideration. As my colleague Mr. Rangel has stated, we should be hearing testimony and gaining an understanding of our needs in Iraq. But as it stands, the Republicans only care about his bill to divert attention from the true fact--that the President has made a colossal error in judgment that is costing American lives every single day.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 seconds to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the very courageous gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), a distinguished member of this body.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).