John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, while I commend Chairman Sensenbrenner for heeding the advice of Representative Bobby Scott and offering an amendment that will allow DC residents to have their day in court, I am concerned that the amendment does not grant similar protections to residents of U.S. territories. This is because the local courts in the U.S. Virgin Islands (codified at 48 U.S.C. Sec. 1611, population 110,000 residents); the Northern Mariana Islands (codified at 48 U.S.C. Sec. 1821, population 78.000); and Guam (codified at 48 U.S.C. Sec. 1424, population 160,000); were all created by acts of Congress, not the local legislatures. Since this bill provides that ``[n]o court created by an Act of Congress'' shall have any jurisdiction to hear cases concerning the constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance, the net result is that under H.R. 2028, no judicial review would be available for Pledge of Allegiance cases for the nearly 350,000 combined residents of these territories. As the majority's own witness, Martin Redish, concluded at the Committee's hearing on court stripping legislation: . . . as long as the state courts remain available and adequate forums to adjudicate federal law and protect federal rights, it is difficult to see how the Due Process Clause would restrict congressional power to exclude federal judicial authority to adjudicate a category of cases, even one that is substantively based. Unfortunately, under the Chairman's amendment, such a local court review would not be possible in Guam, the Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands. As a result, the bill would continue to be unconstitutional with regard to these territories.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. My colleagues, we have before us a measure that is unconstitutional, that undermines the Federal Judiciary, and is totally unnecessary. The bill, of course, violates Marbury versus Madison, which has stated and been the law of the land since 1803. Never in these 201 years has any Congress ever brought a measure like this to the floor of the House. In Marbury, Justice Harlan said, ``it is emphatically the role of the court to determine what the law is.'' And so we violate the very basic fundamental part of the role of the Judiciary in the Constitution. It violates the separation of powers principle because it denies the Supreme Court its historical role of final authority on the constitutionality of our laws. Who wants 50 different decisions coming from the several courts of the States? It violates freedom of speech and religion. And we have Supreme Court cases, West Virginia State Board of Education versus Barnett, and just this year the Third Circuit held in Pennsylvania that the mandated recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance was unconstitutional. Now, I know what you are trying to accomplish by this gross distortion of constitutional history, but ultimately someone has to decide, and we have been deciding for 201 years. To make sure it is constitutional, some minds reason, we should strip the jurisdiction of the subject from the court. What is next: guns, freedom of choice, terrorism? We cannot proceed as a democratic nation without very emphatically joining with Senator Barry Goldwater, and Robert Bork, and our former Judiciary colleague, Bob Barr. I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2028, the so-called ``Pledge Protection Act''. This bill is not only unconstitutional, it undermines our federal judiciary and is totally unnecessary. H.R. 2028 is Unconstitutional: This bill violates just about every principle in our constitution and bill of rights. First, it violates separation of powers principles because it denies the Supreme Court its historical role as the final authority on the constitutionality of our laws. This is a doctrine that was established more than 200 years ago in the landmark Marbury v. Madison decision, and which has served as the cornerstone of our system of checks and balances. Second, it violates Freedom of Speech and Religion. This is because it makes it far more difficult for persons who feel they are being coerced into reciting the pledge to have access to the courts. These cases are not hypothetical. Sixty years ago, the Supreme Court issued the West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnett decision, which held that it was unlawful to expel religious minorities from school if they refused to recite the pledge of allegiance. Just this year the Third Circuit held a Pennsylvania law which mandated recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance was unconstitutional. Third, it violates the equal protection clause. This is because it imposes an undue burden on a specific class of individuals--religious minorities--without a rational basis, other than fear of independent judges. Just read the 1996 Roemer decision, which held it unlawful to pass a law excluding gay and lesbians from legal protections. H.R 2028 Undermines the Federal Judiciary: If H.R. 2028 is enacted, it would constitute the first and only time Congress has ever enacted legislation totally eliminating any federal court from considering the constitutionality of federal legislation--in this case, the Pledge of Allegiance. Adoption of the bill will result in the balkanization of our judiciary and would eliminate any possibility of operating under a single uniform Supreme Court. This is inconsistent with the very words of the Pledge of Allegiance, namely that we are ``one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.'' Dividing our nation into 50 different legal regimes, where the Pledge is permitted in some jurisdictions and not in others, is the very antithesis of this sacred principle. It is no wonder that principled conservatives like former Senator Barry Goldwater found court stripping legislation to be so repugnant. When court stripping legislation was proposed in the 1970's concerning school prayer, abortion, and busing, Senator Goldwater opposed them, warning that the ``frontal assault on the independence of the Federal courts is a dangerous blow to the foundations of a free society.'' Robert Bork, a former Yale Law professor and Reagan appointee for the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, also is strongly opposed to court- stripping measures, arguing, ``[y]ou'd have 50 different constitutions running around out there, and I'm not sure even the conservatives would like the results.'' Our former colleague Bob Barr has written, the principal problem with court stripping bills is ``that it sets a harmful precedent for the future. Our healthy democracy depends on having three separate and independent branches of government . . . I am concerned about having a Congress or President unchecked by the independent judiciary established by the Constitution.'' If we allow H.R. 2028 to pass into law, it truly could be open season on our precious rights and liberties. This was our prediction when the Majority was contemplating the Marriage Protection Act, and here we are again. Today I ask, where will this all end? Why in the world would we exempt these laws from federal judicial review and not laws concerning terrorism, or child pornography? H.R. 2028 is unnecessary: What is most amazing to me is that we are taking up this bill at a time when the Supreme Court--which is dominated by Republican appointees--has not issued a single opinion in any way undermining the Pledge of Allegiance. Why do we have to take up this bill now when the death toll of our men and women fighting for our right to be free from terror has reached record limits and continues to rise every single day. A recent report from the Center for American Progress shows an alarming number of suicides this year among U.S. troops serving in Iraq. Yet, at a time when our troops are working hard to answer the Nation's call, their own needs remain unmet--put at the bottom of the list of priorities. Conclusion: Just as I opposed the ill-considered Marriage Protection Act two months ago, I must oppose this court stripping bill. These efforts to deny our citizens access to the federal courts constitute nothing less than a modern day version of ``court packing.'' Just as President Roosevelt's efforts to control the outcome of Supreme Court decisions by packing it with loyalists was rejected by Congress in the 1930's, thereby preserving the independence of the federal judiciary, so too must this modern day effort to show the courts ``who is boss'' fail as well. Mr. Chairman, I insert for the Record letters from organizations opposing this bill: September 20, 2004. Oppose the ``Pledge Protection Act,'' H.R. 2028 U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representative: We, the undersigned organizations dedicated to protecting women's reproductive health and rights, write to urge you to oppose H.R. 2028, the so-called ``Pledge Protection Act.'' The implications of this bill go far beyond the context of the Pledge of Allegiance. This bill would set a dangerous precedent that would disrupt the traditional separation of powers and undermine the longstanding role of the federal judiciary in safeguarding constitutional rights, including the right of reproductive choice. H.R. 2028 would deny all federal courts--including the U.S. Supreme Court--the jurisdiction to hear any cases concerning the interpretation or constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance. The bill would irreparably alter the relationship between the judicial branch and the two other branches of the federal government by depriving the federal courts of their traditional role as interpreters of the U.S. Constitution. Even more disturbing, unlike other previous versions of court-stripping legislation, H.R. 2028 deprives even the U.S. Supreme Court of jurisdiction, divesting the Court of its historical role as the final authority on the U.S. Constitution. We are deeply concerned about legislation like H.R. 2028 that strips federal courts of their important role in safeguarding constitutional rights and freedoms. While the target today is a controversial view of the Pledge of Allegiance and the separation of church and state (a view that the Supreme Court has not endorsed), there can be no doubt that anti-choice lawmakers and their allies in Congress intend to use this strategy to achieve other policy goals that they are unable to accomplish without toppling the delicate constitutional balance of powers that has served this country for more than 200 years. Recently, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay told reporters that he plans to use ``jurisdiction stripping'' measures to achieve other social policy goals. While he claimed that the time is ``not quite ripe'' to apply this legislative tactic to the issue of abortion, in fact, anti-choice lawmakers have already made the attempt--in 2002, when considering the Federal Abortion Ban. Although that particular effort failed, passage of H.R. 2028 would set a dangerous precedent for future attempts to strip federal courts of jurisdiction to hear cases regarding reproductive choice. The federal courthouse doors should not be closed to women seeking to vindicate their right to obtain critical reproductive health services. For these reasons, we urge you to oppose H.R. 2028. Sincerely, American Association of University Women Center for Reproductive Rights Choice USA Feminist Majority Legal Momentum (the new name of NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund) NARAL Pro-Choice America National Abortion Federation National Council of Jewish Organizations National Council of Women's Organizations National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association Planned Parenthood Federation of America Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I must inform you that Congress in general, and the House of Representatives in particular, is engaged in an unprecedented assault on the Judiciary, the crown jewel of our constitutional system. In the last 2 years, Congress has undertaken a series of discrete, but interrelated actions that undermine our constitutional framework. By hamstringing, harassing, and weakening the Judicial Branch, these actions threaten to rob the Judiciary of its independence. The House has pushed unconstitutional legislation to prevent the courts from reviewing legislation, to take away the ability of judges to issue fair sentences in criminal cases, and to intimidate judges into following politically conservative beliefs when making rulings. If enacted, these bills would, for the first time, prevent federal courts from reviewing the constitutionality of federal laws: First, H.R. 3313 (Marriage Protection Act) prevents federal courts and the Supreme Court from reviewing challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act. It passed the House this past July by a vote of 233-194. Second, H.R. 2028 (Pledge Protection Act of 2003), which prevents courts created by Congress and the Supreme Court from reviewing First Amendment challenges to the Pledge of Allegiance. This will be on the House floor on Thursday, September 23, 2004. Finally, H.R. 3799 (Constitution Restoration Act of 2004) is a response to anger at two federal court decisions that cited foreign law and found certain governmental invocations of God to violate the First Amendment. H.R. 3799 would strip federal courts of jurisdiction to hear such cases. And here's the kicker: H.R. 3799 declares it an impeachable offense for a judge to decide that H.R. 3799 violates the Constitution. In one fell swoop, Congress would overturn the centuries-old principle that judges have the ultimate power to decide if our laws violate the Constitution. Aside from their political attack of the judiciary, these bills are unconstitutional in that they violate separation of powers, equal protection, due process, and the supremacy clause. Congress is challenging Justice John Marshall's famous pronouncement from Marbury v. Madison that it is the province of the courts to ``say what the law is.`' On top of that, permitting state courts to be the final arbiters of federal constitutional law will bring disarray to the Nation, also in violation of the Constitution. The Supremacy Clause of article VI states that the Constitution shall be the supreme law of the land, but dividing our Nation into fifty different legal regimes is the antithesis of this sacred principle. Enacting these proposals would constitute an undesirable precedent and lead to further assaults on the Judiciary. Considering that the highest court in our land has not issued a single opinion undermining the Pledge or the Defense of Marriage Act, it is inexcusable to attack the judiciary to score political points. The irony is that the House is celebrating Justice John Marshall by authorizing a commemorative coin in his honor, at the same time that it is passing the Pledge Protection Act and the Marriage Protection Act. These bills are entirely inconsistent with Marbury v. Madison, Justice Marshall's seminal opinion. At a time when it is more important than ever that our Nation stand out as a beacon of freedom, we should not countenance bills that undermine the very protector of those freedoms-- our independent judiciary. These unprecedented court stripping bills are nothing more than modern day versions of ``court packing.'' Just as President Franklin Roosevelt's efforts to control the outcome of the Supreme Court by packing it with loyalists was rejected by Congress in the 1930s, thereby preserving the independence of the federal judiciary, so too must this modern day effort to show the courts ``who is boss'' fail as well. Last year, Congress undertook another line of attack against the Judiciary through the controversial ``Feeney amendment.'' This misguided legislation eliminated most of the discretion judges had when making sentencing determinations. If we have learned anything over the years, it is that mandatory minimum sentences are counterproductive. They do not reduce crime. They punish the smaller players and their families. They distract from dealing with the real problems. And they waste precious resources. Moreover, the amendment's imposition of burdensome reporting requirements, combined with Congress's demonstrated willingness to investigate the sentencing practices of specific judges, represent a shameless attempt to intimidate judges. Last, but not least, I am concerned that by failing to provide judges with annual cost of living adjustments over the last decade, federal judges have faced the equivalent of a $77,000 reduction in salary. In the last 30 years, while average pay has increased 12 percent for most workers, it has decreased 25 percent for judges. This has made it increasingly difficult for the judiciary to attract and retain talented lawyers to its ranks. That is why I joined my colleagues in introducing a bill, H.R. 2118, to increase the salaries of all federal judges by 16.5 percent. In the short history of our Republic, the political branches of government have all too frequently ridden the prevailing political breeze to constitutional excess. An independent judiciary is all that protects our constitutionally guaranteed rights against the depredations of the political branches. If the judiciary is too cowed or disabled to protect us, each citizen will be at the mercy of the evershifting political winds.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I do not support this legislation because it will have a significant, adverse impact on the ability of civil rights plaintiffs to seek recourse in our courts, it will operate to benefit foreign corporate defendants at the expense of their domestic counterparts, and it will massively skew the playing field against injured victims. This bill must be bad given the number of organizations that are opposed to it. This list includes the United States Judicial Conference, the NAACP, Public Citizen, the Alliance for Justice, People for the American Way, the American Association of People with Disabilities, the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, the American Bar Association, the National Conference on State Legislatures, National Partnership for Women, National Women's Law Center, the Center for Justice & Democracy, Consumers Union, National Association of Consumer Advocates, USAction, U.S. PIRG, and the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. By requiring a mandatory sanctions regime that would apply to civil rights cases, H.R. 4571 will chill many legitimate and important civil rights actions. This is due to the fact that much if not most of the impetus for the 1993 changes stemmed from abuses by defendants in civil rights cases--namely that civil rights defendants were choosing to harass civil rights plaintiffs by filing a series of rule 11 motions intended to slow down and impede meritorious cases. Although the bill states that the proposed rule 11 changes shall not be construed to ``bar or impede the assertion or development of new claims or remedies under Federal, State, or local civil rights law,'' the language does not clearly and simply exempt civil rights and discrimination cases, as should be the case. Determining what a ``new claim or remedy'' is will be a daunting and complex issue for most courts and clearly does not cover all civil rights cases in any event. Section 4, the ``forum shopping'' provision, would operate to provide a litigation and financial windfall to foreign corporations at the expense of their domestic competitors. This is because, instead of permitting claims to be filed wherever a corporation does business or has minimum contacts, as most state long-arm statutes provide, the bill only permits the suit to be brought where the defendant's principal place of business is located--in the case of a foreign corporation, that does not exist in the United States. If a U.S. citizen is harmed by a product produced or manufactured by a foreign competitor, under H.R. 4571 the harmed U.S. citizen could have no recourse against a foreign corporation, whereas he or she would have recourse against a comparable U.S. corporation. This is unfair to both the U.S. citizen and all U.S. companies that compete against the foreign firm. I urge you to vote ``no'' to this poorly drafted and unfair piece of legislation. September 13, 2004. Dear Representative: We, the undersigned civil rights groups, urge you to vote against H.R. 4571 and H.R. 3369. If enacted, these bills will embolden some to unlawfully discriminate without fear of being held accountable. This legislation will turn back the progress civil rights organizations have made to achieve equal rights under the law these past decades. Currently, Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure gives judges discretion to determine whether a claim or defense is frivolous and if so, the appropriate sanctions for such a filing. H.R. 4571 would take away the judge's discretion to impose sanctions and changes Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in significant ways that will harm victims of discrimination. By removing the ``safe harbor'' provision that allows a party to withdraw or amend the claim or defense that an opponent argues violates Rule 11 and making sanctions more severe and mandatory, the bill will trigger additional, contentious judicial proceedings that have little to do with the merits of the claims. Thus even civil rights plaintiffs who pursue their legitimate claims with the heightened risk of severe sanctions, may give up at the hands of litigious defendants who employ a rope-a-dope technique to simply wear out their opponents. Our concerns about the threat to civil rights cases posted by H.R. 4571 are well founded and based on real life experience. More than a decade ago, civil rights organizations--including several of the undersigned organizations--worked to amend Rule 11 because the old rule unfairly discouraged meritorious civil rights claims. Nationwide surveys about the former rule found that motions for sanctions were most frequently sought and granted in civil rights cases. Expressing his concern about the former Rule 11, the Honorable Robert L. Carter, United States District Court Judge for the Southern District of New York, noted, ``I have no doubt that the Supreme Court's opportunity to pronounce separate schools inherently unequal [in Brown v. Board of Education] would have been delayed for a decade had my colleagues and I been required, upon pain of potential sanctions to plead our legal theory explicitly from the start.'' H.R. 4571 seeks to take back the changes made in 1993 to Rule 11 and force litigants to operate under the terms that we fear, like the former rule we worked so hard to amend, will be used to punish and deter valid claims of discrimination. But H.R. 4571 goes even further. Not content with changing the rules for federal courts, the bill extends its reach to State court cases. Upon motion, the court is required to assess the costs of the action ``to the interstate economy.'' If the court determines that the state court action ``affects interstate commerce,'' Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ``shall apply to such action.'' Imagining the proceedings necessary to determine whether a particular state court action ``affects interstate commerce'' is mind-boggling. Moreover, the total disregard for federalism is astounding. We also oppose H.R. 3369, the ``Nonprofit Athletic Organization Protection Act.'' This bill gives immunity to nonprofit athletic organizations. The scope of the legislation could protect an organization that violates federal or state law by discriminating against an athlete on the basis of race, gender, disability or other protections given under federal or state law. No evidence has been presented that nonprofit athletic organizations need such protection. Coaches and other volunteers are already protected from liability under the 1997 Volunteer Protection Act. We understand that members of Congress who oppose H.R. 3369 risk being accused of siding with ``trial lawyers'' over ``Little Leagues,'' particularly this election season. But it is not the ``trial lawyers'' that need your protection; it is the players themselves and others who may be discriminated against and may have no recourse under this bill who need your protection. Therefore, we respectfully ask you to oppose the bill. If you have any questions or need more information, please contact Hilary O. Shelton, Director, NAACP Washington Bureau, 202.463.2940 or Sandy Brantley, Legislative Counsel, Alliance for Justice, 202.822.6070. Sincerely, Alliance for Justice, American Association of People with Disabilities (AAPD), Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), National Partnership for Women, National Women's Law Center, People For the American Way, USAction, U.S. Public Interest Research Group (U.S. PIRG).

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I cannot support H.R. 1084, the ``Volunteer Pilot Organization Protection Act'' for the following reasons: First, it undoes the balance achieved in the Volunteer Protection Act by specifically exempting pilots and aircraft carriers from liability; second, it not only applies to pilots, but also to staff, mission coordinators, officers and directors of volunteer pilot organizations, and referring agencies, whether for profit or not-for-profit; third, it would leave innocent victims without recourse in some situations by reducing the standard of care applicable to pilots; fourth, it does nothing to tackle the real problem, which is the insurance industry's failure to offer insurance to the volunteer pilot organizations; finally, it is poorly drafted and includes loopholes that would insulate international terrorist organizations from liability and subjects innocent bystanders to harm without any recourse. H.R. 1084 flies in the face of the Volunteer Protection Act, a bill Congress passed into law after 8 years of debate extending over 5 Congresses. The Volunteer Protection Act was carefully deliberated and negotiated, but this bill wipes the slate clean by giving volunteer pilots protection from liability despite the fact that the Volunteer Protection Act specifically excluded that category of volunteers from protection. Under the Volunteer Protection Act, pilots and those operating aircraft were specifically left out of the liability exemption because of the highly dangerous nature of the activity and the fact that States require these pilots to have insurance. This bill undoes that and exempts pilots from liability. Moreover, it goes further than the Volunteer Protection Act was willing to go by giving this exemption to not only the pilots, but also to staff, mission coordinators, officers and directors of volunteer pilot organizations, and referring agencies, whether for profit or not- for-profit. In the Volunteer Protection Act, Congress made sure that it was only the volunteers being protected. Finally, H.R. 1084 does nothing to tackle the real problem, which is the insurance industry's failure to offer insurance to the volunteer pilot organizations. In testimony we heard on this bill, it was suggested that these nonprofit volunteer pilot organizations need liability protection because they can't get insurance. If this is the case, why not have a bill that requires insurance agencies to offer insurance to these organizations? Why not that instead of exempting everyone under the sun from liability? This bill establishes national policy specifically allowing certain pilots to operate their aircraft negligently and still escape liability. And by immunizing both the negligent pilot and the organization that arranges and provides the transportation, this bill will in many cases leave the victims of an air tragedy--and their surviving families--with no means of seeking compensation for their loss. Congress should not turn its back on the victims of air tragedies. For these reasons, I cannot support passage of this bill.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the Rebuild Lives and Families Re-Entry Enhancement Act of 2004. This legislation will be the next important step in establishing policy to help the men and women emerging from our Nation's prisons and jails re-integrate into society and rebuild their lives. While our national crime rates have fallen over the last decade, we have seen an unprecedented explosion in our prison and jail populations. Over two million prisoners are now held in Federal and State prisons and local jails. Each year, approximately 650,000 people return to their communities following a prison or jail sentence, resulting in more than 6.7 million under some form of criminal justice supervision. Reentry refers to the return of incarcerated individuals from America's jails and prisons to the community and their reintegration into society. There is a pressing need to provide these individuals with the education and training necessary to obtain and hold onto steady jobs, undergo drug treatment, and get medical and mental health services. However, they are confronted with the ``prison after imprisonment''--a plethora of seemingly endless obstacles and impediments which stymie successful re-integration into society. These obstacles have substantially contributed to the historically high rate of recidivism, with two-thirds of returning prisoners having been rearrested for new crimes within 3 years. This legislation is designed to assist high-risk, high-need offenders who have served their prison sentences, but who pose the greatest risk of reoffending upon release because they lack the education, job skills, stable family or living arrangements, and the substance abuse treatment and other mental and medical health services they need to successfully reintegrate into society. Title I of the bill reauthorizes and enhances our early adult and juvenile reentry programs to broaden the availability of critical ex-offender services, while Title II addresses the substantive federal barriers to successful reentry. Both titles include provisions requiring that the funded programs be rigorously evaluated and the results widely disseminated, so that reentry programs can be modified as needed, to ensure that recidivism is reduced and public safety enhanced. A recent study by Peter D. Hart Research Associates reveals that Americans strongly favor rehabilitation and reentry programs as the best method of insuring public safety. With this changing paradigm in public opinion, the opportunity is ripe to sensibly reassess the role and impact of criminal justice policies. This legislation translates this emerging public perception into balanced policies and procedures which dismantle the structural impediments to successful reintegration into society.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, as Dean of the Congressional Black Caucus, and Chairman of the Jazz Forum and Concert, which occurs during our Foundation's Annual Legislative Conference, I rise today to salute the lifetime achievements of one of the most distinguished artists in American music history, Ron Carter. Just a few years ago, in 1998, Ron Carter received the prestigious Jazz Masters Award from the National Endowment of the Arts. The following biography, found on Carter's own web page, chronicles a career of accomplishment deserving of such high recognition, and of this body's thoughtful attention and respect: Ron Carter is among the most original, prolific, and influential bassists in jazz. With more than 2,500 albums to his credit, he has recorded with many of music's greats: Tommy Flanagan, Gil Evans, Lena Horne, Bill Evans, B.B. King, the Kronos Quartet, Dexter Gordon, Wes Montgomery, and Bobby Timmons. In the early 1960s he performed throughout the United States in concert halls and nightclubs with Jaki Byard and Eric Dolphy. He later toured Europe with Cannonball Adderley. From 1963 to 1968, he was a member of the classic and acclaimed Miles Davis Quintet. Ron Carter was named Outstanding Bassist of the Decade by the Detroit News, Jazz Bassist of the Year by Downbeat magazine, and Most Valuable Player by the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences. In 1993 Carter earned a Grammy award for Best Jazz Instrumental Group, the Miles Davis Tribute Band, and another in 1998 for Call 'Sheet Blues, an instrumental composition from the film Round Midnight. In addition to scoring and arranging music for many films, including some projects for the Public Broadcasting System, Carter has composed music for A Gathering of Old Men, starring Lou Gosset Jr., The Passion of Beatrice directed by Bertrand Tavernier, and Blind Faith starring Courtney B. Vance. Carter also shares his expertise in the series of books he authored, among which are Building Jazz Bass Lines and The Music of Ron Carter; the latter contains 130 of his published and recorded compositions. Carter earned a bachelor of music degree from the Eastman School in Rochester and a master's degree in double bass from the Manhattan School of Music in New York City. He has also received two honorary doctorates, from the New England Conservatory of Music and the Manhattan School of Music, and was the 2002 recipient of the prestigious Hutchinson Award from the Eastman School at the University of Rochester. Carter has lectured, conducted, and performed at clinics and master classes, instructing jazz ensembles and teaching the business of music at numerous universities. He was Artistic Director of the Thelonious Monk Institute of Jazz Studies while it was located in Boston and, after 18 years on the faculty of the Music Department of The City College of New York, he is now Distinguished Professor Emeritus although, as a performer, he remains as active as ever. Bass Frontiers, in one of the many statements of acclaim reflected on Carter's web page sums it up and says it all: ``[Carter] has proven through many years of performing and recording why he is a true jazz legend.'' Ron Carter's most recent recording in 2003 was The Golden Striker (Blue Note Records), featuring Mulgrew Miller and Russell Malone. Earlier that same year he released Eight Plus (Dreyfus Records).

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, as Dean of the Congressional Black Caucus, and Chairman of the Jazz Forum and Concert, which occurs during our Foundation's Annual Legislative Conference, I rise today to salute the lifetime achievements of one of the most distinguished artists in American music history, Andy Bey. Earlier this year, Bey was named the Jazz Journalist Association's 2004 Male Vocalist of the year. The following biography, found on Bey's own web page, chronicles a career of accomplishment deserving of such high recognition, and of this body's thoughtful attention and respect: Born in 1939, the Newark, NJ native was a genuine child prodigy as a pianist and singer, garnering appearances at the famed Apollo Theater and on television's Spotlight On Harlem and The Star Time Kids, sharing stages with the likes of Louis Jordan, Sarah Vaughan and Dinah Washington, before he turned 18. He then formed a vocal trio alongside his sisters Salome and Geraldine and embarked for Europe; Andy & The Bey Sisters were celebrated regulars at The Blue Note in Paris and other venues in Europe from the late 1950s into the early 1960s, when they returned to the U.S. and continued to perform and record (for RCA and Prestige) until the trio disbanded in 1966. For the two decades thereafter, Bey recorded and performed with such notables as McCoy Tyner, Lonnie Liston Smith, Thad Jones/Mel Lewis, Eddie Harris and others. He was featured vocalist on Gary Bartz's acclaimed Harlem Bush Music projects and for an extended period with Horace Silver, including Silver's The United States of Mind album sequence. In 1991, Bey returned to Europe to teach vocal instruction in Austria; he remained there until 1993, when he returned to the States to record his ``comeback album,'' accompanied only by his own piano, called Ballads, Blues & Bey. One of the great unsung heroes of jazz singing, Andy Bey is a commanding interpreter of lyrics who has a wide vocal range and a big, rich, full voice. Bey enjoys a following that swears by him; nonetheless, he isn't nearly as well known as he should be. The release of Ballads, Blues & Bey in 1996, and his subsequent Shades of Bey, recorded with Bartz, Victor Lewis, Peter Washington and other jazz notables and released in 1998, heralded Bey's ``renaissance'' in the business he's been in for nearly five decades. Which leaves Bey somewhat bemused: ``I never went away, actually. I don't know about this renaissance. `` It's . . . well, it's new in a sense, but it's not like I left the business.'' Bey has continued to make his presence felt in the jazz arena with the release of Tuesday's in Chinatown in 2001, and his latest outing earlier this year on Savoy entitled American Song.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, as Dean of the Congressional Black Caucus, and Chairman of the Jazz Forum and Concert, which occurs during our Foundation's Annual Legislative Conference, I rise today to salute the lifetime achievements of one of the most distinguished artists in American music history, James Moody. Just a few years ago, in 1998, James Moody received the prestigious Jazz Masters Award from the National Endowment of the Arts. The following biography, found on Moody's own web page, chronicles a career of accomplishment deserving of such high recognition, and of this body's thoughtful attention and respect: For nearly four decades, saxophone master James Moody has serenaded lovers with his signature song Moody's Mood for Love; an improvisation on the chord progressions of I'm in the Mood for Love. Born in Savannah, Georgia on March 26, 1925, and raised in Newark, New Jersey, James Moody took up the alto sax, a gift from his uncle, at the age of 16. Within a few years he fell under the spell of the deeper more full-bodied tenor saxophone after hearing Buddy Tate and Don Byas perform with the Count Basie Band at the Adams Theater in Newark, New Jersey. In 1946, following service in the United States Air Force, Moody joined the seminal bebop big band of Dizzy Gillespie, beginning an association that--on stage and record, in orchestras and small combos-- afforded a young Moody worldwide exposure and ample opportunity to shape his improvisational genius. Upon joining Gillespie, Moody was at first awed, he now admits, by the orchestra's incredible array of talent, which included Milt Jackson, Kenny Clark, Ray Brown and Thelonius Monk. The encouragement of the legendary trumpeter-leader, made its mark on the young saxophonist. His now legendary 16-bar solo on Gillespie's Emanon alerted jazz fans to an emerging world-class soloist. During his initial stay with Gillespie, Moody also recorded with Milt Jackson for Dial Records in 1947. One year later he made his recording debut as a leader on James Moody and His Bop Men for Blue Note. In 1949 Moody moved to Europe where in Sweden he recorded the masterpiece of improvisation for which he is renowned, Moody's Mood for Love. Returning to the States in 1952 with a huge ``hit'' on his hands, Moody employed vocalist Eddie Jefferson. Also, working with him during that period were Dinah Washington and Brook Benton. In 1963 he rejoined Gillespie and performed off and on in the trumpeter's quintet for the remainder of the decade. Moody moved to Las Vegas in 1973 and had a seven year stint in the Las Vegas Hilton Orchestra, doing shows for Bill Cosby, Ann-Margaret, John Davidson, Glen Campbell, Liberace, Elvis Presley, The Osmonds, Milton Berle, Redd Foxx, Charlie Rich, and Lou Rawls to name a few. Moody returned to the East Coast and put together his own band again--much to the delight of his dedicated fans. In 1985, Moody received a Grammy Award Nomination for Best Jazz Instrumental Performance for his playing on Manhattan Transfer's Vocalese album thus setting the stage for his re-emergence as a major recording artist. Moody's 1986 RCA/NOVUS debut Something Special ended a decade-long major label recording hiatus for the versatile reedman. His follow-up recording, Moving Forward showcased his hearty vocals on What Do You Do and his interpretive woodwind wizardry on such tunes as Giant Steps and Autumn Leaves. Music is more than a livelihood to Moody, so much so that portions of Sweet and Lovely, dedicated to his wife, Linda, figured prominently in the saxophonist's wedding ceremony on April 3, 1989. As well as being on the album, Gillespie was best man at the wedding for his longtime friend. The bride and groom walked down the aisle to Gillespie's solo on Con Alma then everyone exited the church to the vamp on Melancholy Baby. As their first act of marriage Linda and James Moody took communion accompanied by the groom's recording of Sweet and Lovely. In 1990, Moody and Gillespie received a Grammy Award Nomination for their rendition of Gillespie's Get the Booty, which showcases scatting at its best. Moody returns the soprano sax to his woodwind arsenal on Honey, his nickname for his wife, Linda, and Moody's last recording for RCA/ NOVUS. On March 26th, 1995 Moody got the surprise of his life with a birthday party in New York. It was an evening of historical significance for Jazz with many guest stars and Bill Cosby as the emcee. It can be heard on Telarc's recording, Moody's Party--James Moody's 70th, Birthday Celebration, Live at the Blue Note. In 1995 Moody's Warner Bros. release of Young at Heart, was a tribute to songs that are associated with Frank Sinatra. With an orchestra and strings, many people feel this is among the most beautiful of all James Moody recordings. Moody's follow-up recording for Warner Bros., was called Moody Plays Mancini. It showcased Moody on all of his horns and flute. Moody's most recent recording Homage (for Savoy Records) features music especially composed for him by Herbie Hancock, Chick Corea and Joe Zawinul, among others. Whether Moody is playing the soprano, alto, tenor, or flute, he does so with deep resonance and wit. Moody has a healthy respect for tradition, but takes great delight in discovering new musical paths, which makes him one of the most consistently expressive and enduring figures in modern jazz today. To quote Peter Watrous of the New York Times, ``As a musical explorer, performer, collaborator and composer he has made an indelible contribution to the rise of American music as the dominant musical force of the twentieth century.''

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay respect to Joseph L. Nellis, 87, former Chief Counsel of the House Judiciary Committee during the early 1980s, who passed away July 10 from congestive heart failure at his home in Northwest Washington, DC. He also served as Chief Counsel of the House Select Committee on Narcotics Abuse and Control, and Associate Counsel of the Kefauver Committee (the U.S. Senate Committee to Investigate Crime in Interstate Commerce). Joe was also a prominent local businessman, Democratic Party insider, and Washington area resident for more than 60 years. In addition to his public service on Capitol Hill, he argued a number of landmark cases before the Nation's highest courts, developed downtown properties, and founded the G.E.M. (Government Employees Mart) Department Stores. Born in 1916 in Minsk in what is now Belarus, Joe grew up in Chicago and attended the University of Michigan, the University of Wisconsin, and Northwestern University's School of Law. He moved to the Washington area to work at the Office of Price Administration and Control in 1944. His service as a Captain in the Army Air Corps during World War II was marked by several decorations, including one for work with the cryptology team that broke the Japanese Navy's secret code and led to the American victory at Midway. Following a stint at the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration (UNRRA) guiding post-war relief efforts in Greece and Italy in the late 1940's, he returned to Washington to enter private practice. In late 1949, Senator Estes Kefauver (D-Tennessee) called him and asked, ``Joe, I'm about to get the Senate to pass a resolution authorizing an investigation of organized crime. It's never been done before. Why don't you come up to the Hill and help me chase some gamblers?'' Nellis became associate counsel and the youngest member of the first Senate investigation into the activities of organized crime in interstate commerce. He achieved instant recognition among audiences nationwide when the committee's New York hearings--featuring such legendary mob figures as Virginia Hill and mafia boss Frank Costello-- became the first nationally televised congressional hearings. After conducting a 2:00 a.m. ``secret'' deposition of entertainer Frank Sinatra regarding his connection with then-exiled mob boss Lucky Luciano, Joe determined that calling Sinatra as a public witness would not further the mission of the committee and might only serve to damage Sinatra. Joe was a prominent advisor to Presidential candidates, including former Illinois Governor Adlai Stevenson, and Senator Kefauver during both his 1952 and 1956 bids for the Democratic Party Presidential nomination. In 1968, he served as Deputy Director of Citizens for Humphrey-Muskie. For a number of years, Joe was also a friend and advisor to Eleanor Roosevelt and later served as general counsel for the Eleanor Roosevelt Memorial Foundation. In private law practice, Nellis argued major civil and corporate cases. He challenged the constitutionality of the DC abortion statute in the first abortion rights case accepted for argument before the U.S. Supreme Court (United States v. Milan Vuitch, 1971). In a newspaper interview, Joe commented, ``The key questions here are: does a woman have an absolute right to control the reproductive processes of her own body, . . . and does her physician have the freedom to prescribe medical treatment as he sees fit, without vague threats of prosecution for a felony?'' He then played a role in the successful argument of Roe v. Wade by assisting the attorneys to prepare for their appearance before the Court. Joe was also the author of numerous articles in professional and popular journals and coauthor of The Private Lives of Public Enemies (McKay, 1974 and Dell, 1974). Surviving family includes his wife, Muriel, sons David M. Nellis and Adam Pressman, daughters Barbara Nellis and Amy Pressman, and nine grandchildren. Because the House Judiciary Committee is a family of sorts, I would like to recognize Joe's extended family. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, we have lost a former Hill staffer who served the House and Senate for many years with distinction on critical issues to this country.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to acknowledge one of my constituents, Lieutenant Colonel Lawrence A. Millben, Support Group Commander of the 127th Wing of the Selfridge Air National Guard Base in Michigan. This Saturday, July 24, 2004, he will be recognized by the North American Black Historical Museum with a Champion of Excellence Award for his many achievements, particularly within the realm of aviation. Like the North American Black Historical Museum, I am impressed by his accomplishments in the United States and Canada. I am especially proud of Lieutenant Colonel Millben because of the numerous contributions and firsts realized in my District, the 14th Congressional District of Michigan, because of him. Lieutenant Colonel Millben, born in Detroit, Michigan and educated in the Detroit Public School System, has achieved many firsts and has set an exceptional example. He was the first African American to graduate from Aero Mechanics High School, one of four schools in the country that specializes in aircraft maintenance. After high school, he became the first African American to enlist in the Michigan Air National Guard. In 1957, he continued his education and attended the basic and the advanced technician level Aircraft Electrical Schools, completing both simultaneously. This was the first time in the history of the Air Force School that anyone completed both schools simultaneously. After attending the Air Force School, he went on to have a rewarding career in the private sector, as well as in the military. He was employed by the Burroughs Corporation from 1959 through 1975 and holds several United States Patents. He has also advised the Detroit Public School System on Aircraft Avionics and Aerospace subjects as a consultant. Military highlights for the Lieutenant Colonel include serving as a full time Avionics Officer from 1975 until 1983, acting as the 191st Consolidated Aircraft Maintenance Squadron Commander in 1983, becoming the first African American Line Officer promoted to the grade of Lieutenant Colonel Millben in 1986, and assuming the position of Deputy Commander for Maintenance in 1988. From 1987-1988, he also served as the President of the 12,000 members National Guard Association of Michigan, the first African American Air Guardsman to do so. Finally, in his current capacity of Support Group Commander of the 127th Wing of the Selfridge Air National Guard Base in Michigan, he accomplished another first, as he was the first African American to assume this role as well. Awards and decorations received by Lieutenant Colonel Millben include the Air Force Outstanding Unit Award, National Defense Service Medal, Air Reserve Forces Meritorious Service Award, and the Major General John A. Johnston Award for Excellence. He also received the State of Michigan Award for Continued Support of Vocational Education in 1985 and the Spirit of Detroit Award in 1987. He completed Air Command and Staff College in 1980 and Air War College in 1993. He is married to the former Jean Wilburn and is the father of Sheryl, Patricia Millben- Craft, and Lawrence, Jr.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I begin by thanking the leader and the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), for allowing us to add 10 minutes on each side to this debate. Now, let us begin with the nature of H.R. 3313. This is not about marriage. This is about whether the third branch of government, the judiciary, since Marbury v. Madison will continue to be the arbiter of what is constitutional in the American system. So I begin by pointing out that to deny any branch, any issue the right to full judicial review would bring about more chaos than even the proponent of this change, which is patently unconstitutional, would want. The legislation is the first of its kind that has ever been brought to the floor of the House of Representatives. Never have we ever tried to do something as breathtaking as taking away the right of a Federal appeal when it is clearly permissive not even to go to the Supreme Court. We had an amendment that would have allowed the Supreme Court at least to take precedent. It was voted down by the conservatives in the Committee on the Judiciary. This would be the only instance in the history of the Congress that we have totally precluded the Federal courts from considering the constitutionality of Federal legislation. The other body only last week decided this question the same way that I pray we will today. They turned it back. It was considered too unconstitutional and too unprecedented. Now, make no mistake about it, were the bill to be enacted, the chaos that would ensue from 50 States plus the District of Columbia issuing conflicting opinions on the marriage law would be irrational. Why, I ask my colleagues, and I will yield, why would anyone want to create out of this rational body a law that would prevent the Federal courts from deciding cases rather than allowing anywhere up to 50, 51 different decisions? I yield to anyone in this body. So I want to urge to you that the reason is that we are actually stripping the Federal courts from jurisdiction that has historically been theirs. We have these branches in the judiciary. Now, what would have happened had conservatives decided during the civil rights battles of the sixties to have decided that we would just take the decisions away from the courts, or Brown v. The Board or any of the tests against the Civil Rights Act, the Voter Rights Act, would have had nowhere to go had someone come across this incredibly weird decision. So I rise in strong opposition to this. I urge the Members, as the leader who preceded me said, may rationally analyze where stripping the Federal courts from any one single issue, where that would lead this great Constitution and democracy of over 209 years. I rise in strong opposition to this unconstitutional, discriminatory, divisive, and unprecedented bill. The only reason we are debating today is that the President is in danger of losing his job and wants to detract attention from his failure in Iraq and to bolster support amongst right-wing conservatives. In the past few weeks, I am sorry to say the death toll of U.S.-led forces in Iraq topped 1,000. The bipartisan 9-11 Commission found, contrary to the President's implications, that there was no ``collaborative relationship'' between Iraq and Al Qaeda. And we all know that no weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq. What did the President do about it? He followed the advice of conservative organizers and ``changed the subject'' so he could have a chance of winning in November. That is why we are here. The President and the Republican leadership know that a constitutional amendment could not pass; in fact, it failed the Senate last week. Instead, they are moving this divisive and unconstitutional bill, which proposes to strip all federal courts and the Supreme Court from reviewing not just one but two acts of Congress. I cannot believe that proponents of this bill understand its implications. Imagine if, in the early 1950's, a conservative Congress had succeeded in stripping the federal courts of jurisdiction to hear segregation cases. The Supreme Court would never have issued its historic Brown v. Board of Education decision declaring that separate was not permitted in education. Alternatively, consider the implications if a more liberal Congress opted to prevent federal courts from hearing any Second Amendment cases. How would my conservative colleagues like it if the California or the Massachusetts Supreme Court was the final arbiter of the right to bear arms in their states? Would they think it fair that a single class of citizens--gun owners--were excluded from appeals to our federal judicial system? Yet that is what H.R. 3313 would do--deny any judicial review, even by the Supreme Court--of any case brought challenging the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, which clarifies that states need not give full faith and credit to same sex marriages entered into in other states. This legislation would be the first and only instance in which Congress had totally precluded the federal courts from considering the constitutionality of federal legislation. This runs totally contrary to our bedrock principles. Article III of the Constitution says ``the judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court.'' And in the more than 200 years that have passed since Marbury v. Madison, judicial review has served as the very touchstone of our constitutional system and our democracy. It is no wonder that, when court stripping legislation was proposed in the 1970's concerning school prayer, abortion, and busing, conservatives found the proposals to be so repugnant. Then-Yale Law School Professor Robert Bork wrote of the bills, ``you'd have 50 different constitutions running around out there, and I'm not sure even conservatives would like the results.'' Senator Barry Goldwater stated that the ``frontal assault on the independence of the Federal courts is a dangerous blow to the foundations of a free society'' and warned ``there is no clear or coherent standard to define why we shall control the Court in one area but not another.'' Today, the stakes are no less significant. As emotionally charged and politicized as the issue of same sex marriage has become, we should not use that controversy to permanently damage the courts, the Constitution, and the Congress. At a time when it is more important than ever that our Nation stand out as a beacon of freedom, we must not countenance a bill that undermines the very protector of those freedoms--our independent federal judiciary. The bill is even more misguided considering that it was a state court, not a federal court, that issued an opinion that permitted same sex marriage. Further, no federal court has even opined on the constitutionality of DOMA. Make no mistake about it. If this bill is enacted, chaos will ensue when the fifty states and the District of Columbia issue conflicting opinions on DOMA. Then my colleagues on the other side will be clamoring for review by a Supreme Court that has seven Republican appointees and two Democratic appointees. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this legislation. Congressional Research Service. Memorandum To: House Committee on the Judiciary, Attention: Perry Apelbaum. From: Johnny H. Killian, Senior Specialist, American Constitutional Law, American Law Division. Subject: Precedent for Congressional Bill. This memorandum is in response to your query, respecting H.R. 3313, now pending before the House of Representatives, as to whether there is any precedent for enacted legislation that would deny judicial review in any federal court of the constitutionary of a law that Congress has enacted, whether a law containing the jurisdictional provision or an earlier, separate law. We are not aware of any precedent for a law that would deny the inferior federal courts original jurisdiction or the Supreme Court of appellate jurisdiction to review the constitutionality of a law of Congress. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, this is the proudest moment in the 108th Congress and maybe even going all the way back to the anti-apartheid resolution, the sanctions that were passed against South Africa. In the midst of the intense partisanship that has informed nearly every issue that has come to the Congress, somehow the Members on both sides of the aisle have come together in the most remarkable way. I cannot explain it. I am humbled by it. But I rise to say only this, that this is only the first step, Mr. Speaker, because we have a long way to go now. Thank goodness that we got this resolution in, which is easy to predict that it will succeed. But we have the distinguished other body, we have to engage the administration of this country, we have to go to the United Nations and to the Security Council before anything begins to happen. So I know all of us will join and continue this struggle. I lift up the name, in addition to all of us, of the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert); the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde); and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner), who have made all of this possible tonight. Just two weeks ago, my colleague from Virginia, Congressman Frank Wolf, and I convened a bipartisan meeting of Members to develop an action plan to address the catastrophic loss of life that is occurring in Darfur, Sudan. We all agreed that the first critical step was to raise the voices of the U.S. Congress in a call to action by declaring unequivocally that what is happening in Sudan is genocide. In my 39 years in the House of Representatives, I have never seen such incredible bipartisan, bicameral cooperation. And in an election year no less, with a highly polarized electorate. But the reason is simple. The tragedy in Sudan is not a Democrat or Republican issue; its not a Muslim or Christian issue; its not only an issue of race. Genocide is a human issue. When genocide occurs, we must all stand up and act with determination to end the systematic effort to exterminate a people. These are the lessons of the Holocaust, of Cambodia, and most recently, of Rwanda. In Rwanda, we shrugged our shoulders and waited until eight hundred thousand (800,000) people were killed, before we identified that event as a genocide. In 1948, the United Nations put forth the Convention Against Genocide and the United States and many other nations signed on to that convention, agreeing to prevent genocide wherever and whenever it happens. Our nation has taken an important role in this crisis-- negotiating a settlement to the war, providing the bulk of the humanitarian aid, increasing the pressure on the Sudanese government. Now--before it is too late to save the one million lives at risk of death--now, we must rally our allies and the U.N. Security Council to take action. Now is the time to authorize multilateral troops. Now the world must send a clear message that genocide will no longer be tolerated, anywhere. If we can come together in this Congress on such an urgent human issue, I believe that we can bring together our friends in Europe, Africa, Asia and Latin America to address this genocide in the Security Council. That effort is our moral imperative. Passage of this historic resolution is the first time this body has declared a humanitarian or political crisis to be genocide. This would not have been possible without the efforts of my Republican colleagues--Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL), Chairman of the International Relations Committee, Henry Hyde (R-IL), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere, Cass Ballenger (R-NC), Chairman of the Africa Subcommittee Ed Royce (R-CA), Congressman Frank Wolf (R-VA), and Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO). My fellow Democrats played a critical role in moving this resolution to the floor, including--Congressman Tom Lantos, Ranking Member of the International Relations Committee, Congressman Donald Payne, Ranking Member of the Africa Subcommittee (D-NJ) and the sponsor of this resolution, the many Members of the Congressional Black Caucus, under the leadership of Congresman Elijah Cummings (D-MD). And we must thank our friends in the Senate--Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) and Senator Jon Corzine (D-NJ) for their passionate, diligent work and cooperation on this issue. While I congratulate you all, I hope that the real victory will go to the people of Sudan. This vote is an important step to saving lives. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Hose and Senate, the Administration and the United Nations to continue this important effort to stop this genocide.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) and the members of the committee. I am delighted to join with all of them in celebration of 10 years of rule in a democratic way in the Republic of South Africa. I can remember the days in Congress when the question of sanctions consumed, as the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) and the others here remember, a couple of years' worth of rather fierce debate as to whether they were appropriate or not. I think fondly of our former colleagues, Ron Dellums of California, Bill Gray of Pennsylvania, and those of us that are here with us now, including the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) and many others. The fact of the matter is that the turning point toward this 10 years of celebration of a democratic Republic of South Africa occurred because it was finally determined that the time had come that we would impose sanctions, that we would not approve of doing business or continuing relationships with a country whose government was so one- sided, so unfair, so oppressive to the majority of its citizens. And so it is in that remembrance and out of those memories of the struggle that I am so happy to join this evening in this decade celebration of how far they have come. Obviously, all the problems are not solved. How could they be in 10 years after the long reign of oppression that occurred there? But this was the finest hour of this Congress and our country to have played this leading role in making it clear to all of the nations of the world that we can no longer sit by and silently suffer that kind of rule. The same situation regrettably still may apply and leave us with the same responsibilities now as applied then. I think now of the Congo. I think of the Sudan. I think of Haiti, all countries who are desperately in need of the continued support of this country. And that makes our foreign policy and the decisions we make in the committee that control foreign policy legislation so incredibly important. I congratulate the authors of this very important resolution.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in tribute to a longtime public servant, Carolyn Crawford Donnelly, who is retiring from government service after 25 years. She began her career in government service with Representative (now Senator) Barbara Boxer in January 1983 as a Computer Operator. In 1991, she joined the Committee on Government Operations as a Clerk for the Subcommittee on Government Activities and Transportation. In 1993, she moved to the Full Committee as a Clerk for the Management Team. In 1995, she provided investigative support to staff and served as backup to the division secretary of the Department of Defense, Office of the Inspector General Office of Departmental Inquiries. In 1999, she joined the Committee on the Judiciary as a staff assistant. In 2002, her title changed to professional staff. Carolyn has served under one Democratic Chairman, two Republican Chairmen and one Democratic Ranking Member. She has always handled all aspects of her job in an exemplary fashion. No matter what her title has been, Carolyn's role has remained constant. She has been one of the pillars of the Committee, ensuring that the office runs smoothly. She has always been calm and professional in the eye of the storm. No matter how frenetic, no matter how pressured, no matter how stressful the situation, Carolyn has maintained a sense of humor and cheer that has proved contagious and helped to get the job done. Moreover, there have been many occasions on which she brought a needed human touch to the sometimes intense work of the Congress and its committees. Throughout her tenure, Carolyn has exhibited an extraordinary personal commitment to the Committee. Carolyn has always been there for the Members and staff, whether it's problems with supplies or guidance on where to turn for special requests. Whenever a major project needed additional volunteers, Carolyn was always the first to sign up and work long hours whenever needed. She has always been willing to listen, to share her professional and personal opinions, and to lift spirits during an especially long or difficult day. In addition to her work on the Hill, Carolyn has been active in the community, volunteering for numerous organizations over the years. She currently feeds the homeless with SOME (So Others Might Eat) on Sunday mornings, several times each month, and works with the Washington Animal Rescue league. She is also a member of the altar guild at St. Patrick's Episcopal Church. Our loss is the gain of these organizations, as I am confident that Carolyn will lend her talents to the pursuit of their important missions. Mr. Speaker, Members and staff, please join me in thanking Carolyn for her service and wishing her all the best as she leaves the Hill. The Committee on the Judiciary was indeed fortunate to have her on board for these years.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, my congratulations to the gentleman from Vermont for bringing this forward. Mr. Chairman, there are two ways that we can get the information from libraries, book stores, video stores, and that is through a regular criminal warrant and through a grand jury subpoena, all of which is frequently used. But doing it this way violates the fourth amendment, unreasonable searches and seizures; the fourteenth amendment, due process; the first amendment, freedom of speech; and the fifth amendment, due process. For those who think they can call the Department of Justice's hotline and get the information, this information is classified. They will not reveal to the Committee on the Judiciary whether they have used it and how much they have used it. We know that they have through an American Civil Liberties Union lawsuit, which in the course of the suit it came out that they use it, but they will not give this information. For those who want to suggest that the oversight by Congress will take care of the Sanders amendment, let me tell them the entire PATRIOT bill was substituted the night before it was unanimously reported from the House Committee on the Judiciary by the Department of Justice up in the Committee on Rules. So much for oversight by Congress. Support the Sanders amendment.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, the President of the United States is in Michigan today complaining of the lack of support he is getting for judicial appointments. I, as the ranking member on the Committee on the Judiciary, rise to point out to our President that the Senate has confirmed 97 percent of the appointees put forward by President Bush and that the vacancy rate on the Federal courts is only 5 percent, the lowest that it has been in 14 years. The rest of my remarks concern why there is opposition, frequently from Senate Democrats but Democrats in the other body and sometimes Republicans against Ms. Priscilla Owen, Charles Pickering, Miguel Estrada, whose nomination was thankfully withdrawn, Carolyn Kuhl, William Pryor and Janice Rogers Brown.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize and commemorate the 40th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I commend my colleague, Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton, for authoring H. Res. 676 and ensuring that this Congress appropriately marks the passage of the most comprehensive civil rights legislation in our Nation's history. This year our Nation has honored and celebrated several extraordinary accomplishments that were born of the Civil Rights Movement. Last month we observed the 50th anniversary of the May 19, 1954, Brown v. Board of Education decision. That landmark decision not only struck down the doctrine of ``separate, but equal'' and desegrated public schools. It ultimately led to the passage of key federal legislation that desegregated every segment of our society--the Civil Rights Act of 1964. the civil rights act of 1964 In every real sense, the 1964 Act was a response to the Civil Rights Movement sweeping the country. This Act could not have been achieved without the tireless effort of the great, civil rights leader, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. It was Dr. King that motivated hundreds of thousands of activists--of all colors--to demand that this Nation realize equality for all. It was because of his leadership that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was conceptualized and implemented. The Act, which was signed into law on July 2, 1964 by President Lyndon B. Johnson, established safeguards and legal remedies to combat both the dejure and defacto discrimination that plagued minorities in almost every aspect of their lives. First, and foremost, the Act moved to ensure an equal right to vote. The unequal application of voter registration requirements that effectively disenfranchised millions of African-Americans--poll taxes, literacy tests, grandfather clauses--was deemed unlawful in Title I of the Act. This provision made state and local governments accountable to their citizens and opened the path for equal political participation. Titles II and III of the Act created a federal remedy to fight discrimination in public accommodations. Through these provisions, the Attorney General had the appropriate means to obtain injunctive relief and bring suit in instances where equal access to a public facility had been denied. The lunch counter sit-ins and marches now had real effect in that the federal government could intervene to ensure equal treatment in society, regardless of race or other factors. The language of ``all deliberate speed'' in the Brown decision was given meaning, as the federal government now had the tools in Title IV of the Act to end segregation in public schools. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 would serve as strong legislative policy against discrimination in public schools and colleges because it stood on the shoulders of the profound Brown decision, in which Chief Justice Warren, writing for a unanimous court, declared that ``in the field of education, the doctrine of `separate, but equal' has no place.'' More broadly, under Title V of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Commission on Civil Rights, established in 1957, was provided with additional guidance in its charge to study, investigate, and report on civil rights policy. Title VI of the Act protects persons from discrimination based on their race, color, or national origin in programs and activities that receive federal financial assistance. This provision has been broadly used to ensure that entities receiving federal funds cannot deny service, provide different services, or segregate or separately treat individuals. The Title VII provision of the Act would grow to become one of its most important and extensively utilized provisions. Going beyond its impact in the racial and ethnic minority community, Title VII acknowledged that sex discrimination in the workplace was a major problem and would be widely used to ensure protections for women in the workplace. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which was also created in the 1964 Act to serve as the premier vanguard of workplace discrimination, had its authority enhanced with amendments in 1972 and 1991. In 1972, the EEOC was given the right to sue non-government respondents and the federal government, state and local governments, as well as educational institutions, were made subject to Title VII. The 1991 amendments allowed plaintiffs to recover fees and costs in suits in which they prevailed, as well as entitled plaintiffs to recover compensatory and punitive damages in intentional employment discrimination suits. Injustices Remain in 2004 Without doubt, substantial progress toward equality has been made as a result of the passage of the 1964 Act, but there remains substantial work. I can recount a list of sobering statistics in the realm of employment, education, healthcare, and the political process: In terms of employment, the average white woman earns only 73 cents for every dollar earned by the average white man. The average African American woman earns just 63 cents to every dollar earned by the average white man. With regard to education, today, sadly, most schools have become resegregated. In the 2001-2002 school year, the Civil Rights Project found that the average African American attended a school where minorities formed almost 70 percent of the student body. The average Latino school child attended a school that was 71 percent minority. By contrast, the average white student attended a school where whites composed 79 percent of the student body. In the realm of healthcare, the disparities are startling. Minority Americans are at least twice as likely as white Americans to be uninsured. More than 30 percent of Latinos and 20 percent of African Americans do not have health insurance. Minorities remain disenfranchised from the political process. The precious right to vote was repeatedly violated in the much contested Presidential election of 2000. In the state of Florida and at polling booths across the county, a disproportionate number of people of color were excluded from the political process. In addition to the modern day disparities that serve to undermine the Act, several Supreme Court decisions have whittled away at some of its key protections. In Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275 (2001), the Supreme Court held that there is no private right of action to enforce Title VI regulations forbidding practices that have an unjustified discriminatory effect on the basis of race, national origin, or color. Also, a dangerous precedent may have been set in Barnes v. Gorman, 536 U.S. 181 (2002), a case in which the Supreme Court held that punitive damages are unavailable for intentional violations of laws protecting those with disabilities. We must ensure that such punitive damages that are awarded for intentional discrimination under Title VI and Title VII are protected. We must also ensure that the true intent of the Act is adhered to. The Future of the 1964 Act Congresswoman Norton's resolution encourages all Americans to recognize and celebrate the important historical milestone of the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. However, rather than engaging in mere self congratulation, we should recommit ourselves to continuing and building on the progress created by the 1964 Act. We must pledge to acknowledge and address the modern day disparities that prevent the country from fully realizing the potential embodied in the Civil Rights Act. I look forward to working with every Member of Congress in doing just that in the months and years ahead.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the ``Promoting Responsible Interrogation Standards Enforcement Act of 2004'' or ``PRISE Act,'' legislation that reaffirms the United States' longstanding commitment to refrain from engaging in torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. I am joined by Representatives Lofgren, Meehan, Waters and Sanchez. This nation's foreign and military policies have been substantially undermined as a result of the Iraqi prisoner and detainee abuse scandals. The PRISE Act is designed to prevent similar abuses from occurring. In doing so, the legislation takes several important steps. First, it codifies the United States' legal and international treaty obligations with respect to the prohibition on the use of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Second, the bill directs the Secretary of Defense to issue guidelines to ensure compliance with this obligation. Third, in the unfortunate event that a member of the Armed Forces or Department of Defense contractor violates this prohibition, the bill requires the Defense Secretary to submit to Congress, in a manner that protects national security, a report highlighting the details of such violations. Finally, it closes a loophole created by the PATRIOT Act that may allow torture at U.S. military facilities overseas. As we continue to define our values as a country, we must make it abundantly clear that we will not compromise our principles. The use of torture is not only wrong, but it is an ineffective interrogation tactic because it produces unreliable information. People who are being tortured will often lie to their interrogator in order to stop the pain. I am hopeful that Congress can move quickly to enact this worthwhile and timely legislation.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce a resolution of inquiry to request documents about the abuse of detainees and prisoners in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay. Two weeks ago, Democrats publicly requested that the White House release all documents concerning the growing Iraq prison abuse scandal. We were ignored, so today I am offering a resolution of inquiry which formally requests that the White House to release the documents. We are in the midst of one of the most serious incidents of human rights abuses in our Nation's history. In Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo, it is increasingly clear that our Nation's military and civilian contractors--at the behest of the very highest officials in the administration--engaged in physical, psychological, and sexual abuse on a widespread basis. Scores of detainees were murdered. Numerous warnings were ignored. The Justice Department provided the legal cover necessary to justify torture. The resolution I am offering today will ensure that the administration no longer picks and chooses what information it will share with us. While the administration released a number of documents yesterday pertaining to the treatment of detainees and prisoners, we've all learned that it only shares what information reflects on it best. There is no reason to believe that the memos made public yesterday represent all of what the President and his Cabinet approved. The documents also touch on only one of many issues that need investigation. While understanding how the administration came to deny Geneva Convention protections to detainees is important, it is also critical to determine what the administration did once it realized its military was committing abuse, what role contractors had in this mess, whether warnings were ignored, and more. Therefore, I ask my colleagues to support this resolution so that we may get the rest of the documents in the administration's possession so that we may conduct a thorough investigation. The prison scandal is a stain on our Nation and an impediment to the prosecution of the war against terror. If this Congress can't find the will to investigate an abuse of this magnitude, it calls into question our entire constitutional system of checks and balances. We've given the President and the Republican majority every opportunity to participate in what any decent society demands-- accountability for inhuman and degrading acts committed in our name. If they won't help us get to the bottom of why these atrocities happened, we'll do it without them. H. Res.-- Resolved, That the President is requested, and the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, and the Attorney General are each directed, to transmit to the House of Representatives not later than 14 days after the date of the adoption of this resolution all documents in their possession, except those documents in the Attorney General's possession that have been found by a court to be protected by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e) in a proceeding at which the Attorney General or the Department of Justice is a party, relating to the treatment of prisoners or detainees in Iraq, Afghanistan, or Guantanamo Bay and any requisite instructions for handling such documents, including-- (1) every report, memorandum, or complaint from the International Committee of the Red Cross relating to the treatment of detainees or prisoners and any documents that reference such memorandum, report, or complaint by the President, by any Federal official covered by this resolution, or by any agency under any such Federal official; (2) every report, memorandum, or complaint from Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, Iraqi Human Rights Association, Afghan Human Rights Commission, Physicians for Human Rights, or Human Rights First relating to the treatment of detainees or prisoners and any documents that reference such memorandum, report, or complaint by the President, by any Federal official covered by this resolution, or by any agency under any such Federal official; (3) every document relating to interrogation techniques; (4) every internal report of a law enforcement, military, or intelligence agency or organization concerning interrogation or detention operations; (5) every internal report of a law enforcement, military, or intelligence agency in response to allegations that the treatment of prisoners or detainees violated or continues to violate international or American law; (6) every document and memorandum regarding the applicability of the Geneva Conventions, the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, the International Covenant on Political and Civil Rights, sections 2340-2340A of title 18, United States Code, the War Crimes Act of 1996, and the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States to the treatment of prisoners or detainees; (7) every document and memorandum relating to command relationships between military police units and military intelligence units; (8) every document and memorandum directing personnel to abstain from using specific interrogation techniques or to withdraw themselves from interrogations being conducted by other departments; (9) any Presidential directive or other writing authorizing the use of interrogation tactics or claiming the constitutional authority to do so; (10) any documentation of training received by the 800th Military Police Brigade and the 205th Military Intelligence Brigade regarding the treatment of prisoners or detainees; (11) any documentation of special access programs as they were applied to prisoners or detainees; (12) all records of meetings regarding the treatment of prisoners or detainees at which one or more officials of the Department of State, Department of Defense, Department of Justice, or Central Intelligence Agency were present and the presence of those officials is apparent from the face of the record; (13) every document and memorandum concerning the practice of keeping prisoners or detainees off the official roster; (14) a list of every ongoing and completed investigation into the treatment of prisoners or detainees, and any written reports produced by any such investigation; (15) every document relating to civilian contract employees and their role in prisons; (16) all written statements of prisoners or detainees, military personnel, civilian employees of the Federal Government, or civilian contractors regarding the treatment of prisoners or detainees; (17) all reports of interrogation of each prisoner or detainee that reflect a claim of abuse by military or civilian personnel or by civilian contractors; (18) any documents for work under contracts (including subcontracts and task orders) and all reports on such documents, for interrogation or translation work by CACI International, Titan Corporation, and any other entity that may have performed such work; (19) any documents or testimony presented to or prepared by the Detainee Assessment Branch at Abu Ghraib prison at any time after September 1, 2003 regarding the treatment of Iraqi prisoners or detainees by members of the Armed Forces or by civilian contractors working in Iraq employed on behalf of the Department of Defense; (20) any complaint forms filled out and submitted at any time after March 1, 2003 by a member of the Armed Services or by a civilian contractor employed on behalf of the Department of Defense or Central Intelligence Agency regarding the treatment of detainees or prisoners; and (21) any reports or documents reflecting the death or injury of prisoners or detainees.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to announce the introduction of the ``Importation of Safe Food Act of 2004.'' The Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002 (the Act) imposes new requirements intended to protect U.S. consumers from adulterated food products. Unfortunately, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, in attempting to comply with the Act, has overstepped its authority in a manner that could lead to the unintended consequences of raising consumer prices, increasing job losses, and threatening legitimate U.S. businesses. This legislation would prevent the loss of these important jobs. A proposed FDA regulation is scheduled for full enforcement on August 13, 2004, and would require that confidential manufacturing facility registration numbers appear on all prior notices submitted to the FDA as a condition of food import. This requirement would be impossible to meet for lawful third-party importers who do not deal directly with the manufacturers and thus have no means of obtaining the confidential numbers. The adversely-affected importers include food wholesalers distributing in the secondary marketplace or reimporting American- manufactured products, and manufacturers bringing competitors' articles into this country for sampling or testing. The requirement also would create domestic job losses and raise consumer prices. For example, it is estimated that thousands of jobs within the secondary market industry alone could be at stake. In addition, numerous freight forwarders, truckers, and warehousemen who work in conjunction with the industry likely would face similarly substantial economic hardship. Moreover, the secondary market results in cost savings to consumers ranging between 10 and 15 percent. That is a major benefit to the American economy that cannot be discounted. That is why we are introducing the Importation of Safe Food Act of 2004. This bill would clarify that (1) the notice must contain the name and address of the manufacturer and that the importer must identify those parties required to be shown by whatever means available to it; and (2) food articles may not be automatically rejected solely on the basis of an incomplete notice unless the Secretary is presented with additional evidence that the article poses a threat to the health of an animal or human. It also would give the government more authority in regulating food facilities so that tainted foods cannot enter the Nation's food supply.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to enter into the Congressional Record the attached column by Paul Krugman in today's New York Times. Mr. Krugman describes how the Attorney General has politicized the war on terrorism. [From the New York Times, June 22, 2004] Noonday in the Shade (By Paul Krugman) In April 2003, John Ashcroft's Justice Department disrupted what appears to have been a horrifying terrorist plot. In the small town of Noonday, Tex., F.B.I. agents discovered a weapons cache containing fully automatic machine guns, remote-controlled explosive devices disguised as briefcases, 60 pipe bombs and a chemical weapon--a cyanide bomb--big enough to kill everyone in a 30,000-square-foot building. Strangely, though, the attorney general didn't call a press conference to announce the discovery of the weapons cache, or the arrest of William Krar, its owner. He didn't even issue a press release. This was, to say the least, out of character. Jose Padilla, the accused ``dirty bomber,'' didn't have any bomb-making material or even a plausible way to acquire such material, yet Mr. Ashcroft put him on front pages around the world. Mr. Krar was caught with an actual chemical bomb, yet Mr. Ashcroft acted as if nothing had happened. Incidentally, if Mr. Ashcroft's intention was to keep the case low-profile, the media have been highly cooperative. To this day, the Noonday conspiracy has received little national coverage. At this point, I have the usual problem. Writing about John Ashcroft poses the same difficulties as writing about the Bush administration in general, only more so: the truth about his malfeasance is so extreme that it's hard to avoid sounding shrill. In this case, it sounds over the top to accuse Mr. Ashcroft of trying to bury news about terrorists who don't fit his preferred story line. Yet it's hard to believe that William Krar wouldn't have become a household name if he had been a Muslim, or even a leftist. Was Mr. Ashcroft, who once gave an interview with Southern Partisan magazine in which he praised ``Southern patriots'' like Jefferson Davis, reluctant to publicize the case of a terrorist who happened to be a white supremacist? More important, is Mr. Ashcroft neglecting real threats to the public because of his ideological biases? Mr. Krar's arrest was the result not of a determined law enforcement effort against domestic terrorists, but of a fluke: when he sent a package containing counterfeit U.N. and Defense Intelligence Agency credentials to an associate in New Jersey, it was delivered to the wrong address. Luckily, the recipient opened the package and contacted the F.B.I. But for that fluke, we might well have found ourselves facing another Oklahoma City-type atrocity. The discovery of the Texas cyanide bomb should have served as a wake-up call: 9/11 has focused our attention on the threat from Islamic radicals, but murderous right-wing fanatics are still out there. The concerns of the Justice Department, however, appear to lie elsewhere. Two weeks ago a representative of the F.B.I. appealed to an industry group for help in combating what, he told the audience, the F.B.I. regards as the country's leading domestic terrorist threat: ecological and animal rights extremists. Even in the fight against foreign terrorists, Mr. Ashcroft's political leanings have distorted policy. Mr. Ashcroft is very close to the gun lobby--and these ties evidently trump public protection. After 9/11, he ordered that all government lists--including voter registration, immigration and driver's license lists--be checked for links to terrorists. All government lists, that is, except one: he specifically prohibited the F.B.I from examining background checks on gun purchasers. Mr. Ashcroft told Congress that the law prohibits the use of those background checks for other purposes--but he didn't tell Congress that his own staff had concluded that no such prohibition exists. Mr. Ashcroft issued a directive, later put into law requiring that records of background checks on gun buyers be destroyed after only one business day. And we needn't imagine that Mr. Ashcroft was deeply concerned about protecting the public's privacy. After all, a few months ago he took the unprecedented step of subpoenaing the hospital records of women who have had late-term abortions. After my last piece on Mr. Ashcroft, some readers questioned whether he is really the worst attorney general ever. It's true that he has some stiff competition from the likes of John Mitchell, who served under Richard Nixon. But once the full record of his misdeeds in office is revealed, I think Mr. Ashcroft will stand head and shoulders below the rest.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I rise today to congratulate the Detroit Pistons on winning this year's National Basketball Association championship. It has been 14 long years since the Pistons last brought the Larry O'Brien championship trophy home, but their hard won victory of defeating the Lakers is the epitome of the teamwork at its absolute best. If ever a championship fits the personality of a community, this one does. The Pistons entered this year's NBA tournament as the definitive dark horse. While Detroit's stifling defensive was universally acknowledged, few outside of the Detroit Metro area and the Piston fan diaspora thought the Pistons' gritty offense and stifling defense could beat the defending Eastern Conference Champion New Jersey Nets. However, the Pistons, like they did all year, proved their critics wrong. Demonstrating the strength and determination that would become their hallmark in the series against the Lakers, the Pistons came back to win the series against the Nets after a triple overtime loss in Game 5 as well as a heart breaking loss to the Lakers in game 2 of the Finals. Indeed, the Pistons' ability to rebound after stunning losses have gained the admiration of America. This team was about true sportsmanship and selflessness. Every Piston could vie for the Most Valuable Player award because each of them played with remarkable fortitude and consistence. Whether Detroit won because of the stepped up play of Richard ``Rip'' Hamilton (averaging over 21.5 points and 4.2 assists per game throughout the post-season), Ben Wallace's season-long hard nosed defensive leadership (averaging a double-double in points scored, with 10.3 per game, and rebounds, with 14.3 per game), Chauncey Billups's post-season play against the Lakers (averaging 21 points and 5.2 assists for the Pistons despite being guarded by two future Hall of Famers, Gary Payton and Kobe Bryant), or the tremendous Pistons bench. They are a true model of what can be achieved with team work: success. I am particularly excited that the city of Detroit won this championship at this time. Mr. Speaker, during the past few years the Metro Detroit area has lost tens of thousands of manufacturing jobs, some of which will never come back to this great city. The Detroit Pistons winning this championship has brought back hope and a sense of optimism that Detroit desperately needs. Specifically, the team's motto, ``Goin' to work. Every night,'' exemplifies the strength and tenacity both of the Pistons and of the great citizens of Detroit. The moral of this championship is that you never know what you can achieve until you try. Go Pistons.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am here to announce the celebration of the Detroit Pistons in their sweep last night and offer my condolences to those Members of the House, in particular from the Los Angeles area. I will not mention any names, but one, M.W., comes to mind. I wanted Members to know how wonderful it feels after some 14 years to come back as strong as they did. It has a lot to do with the teamwork and the spirit of basketball. By the way, there were no incidents in Detroit. The gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick) has some additional comments to make. We have a resolution we would like Members to join on.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, congratulations to our 2004 Detroit Pistons who brought Detroit its first NBA championship title in 14 years. It has been a long hard climb back up the championship ladder from our two Championships in 1989-90, but the Pistons have finally reached the top again and can proudly call themselves world champions. Whereas on June 15, 2004, the 2-time champion Detroit Pistons won the 2004 National Basketball Association championship, defeating the 9-time champion Los Angeles Lakers; Whereas the Pistons defeated the Milwaukee Bucks 4 games to 1 in the first round of the playoffs; Whereas the Pistons defeated the Defending Eastern Conference Champion New Jersey Nets 4 games to 3 in the hard fought Conference Semifinals; Whereas the Pistons defeated the regular season Eastern Conference Champion Indiana Pacers 4 games to 2 in the Conference Finals; Whereas in the finals against the Lakers, the Pistons won 4 games to 1, giving them their 1st NBA Championship since 1990, and making them the first team from the Eastern Conference to win the title in 5 years; Whereas the Pistons are the first team to win the three middle games of the finals since the 2-3-2 format went into effect in 1985. Whereas the Pistons' gritty offense was lead by Rip Hamilton, who averaged more than 21.5 points and 4.2 assists per game through-out the post-season; Whereas Rasheed Wallace overcame foot injury to provide 26 points and 13 rebounds in the crucial game 4 victory; Whereas Ben Wallace, two-time NBA defensive player and three-time NBA All-Defensive First Team, lead the Pistons stifling defense and has brought a working-class mind-set that symbolizes the lunch-pail anonymity which has become the face of the team; Whereas Tayshaun Prince was tenacious on the ball defense and mitigated the Los Angeles Lakers talented back court; Whereas Chauncey Billups was voted Most Valuable Player, in acknowledgment of his outstanding offensive and defensive performance throughout the post-season, averaging 21 points a game and 5.2 assists versus 2.6 turnovers in the finals. Whereas Coach Larry Brown has done an outstanding job preparing his Pistons to take on an exceptional Lakers team, giving him the unique distinction of being the first coach to win both the NBA and NCAA championships; Whereas former Piston and current President of Basketball Operations Joe Dumars, Coach Brown, and his staff John Kuester, Mike Woodson, Dave Hanners, Herb Brown and Igor Stefan Kokoskov have provided strong leadership and solid coaching, resulting in a basketball team in which teamwork and hard work are the rules and not the exceptions; Whereas the Pistons fans have shown undying support for their team, leading the league in attendance in a year where attendance records were shattered all over the NBA. Whereas the Pistons exemplify what can be achieved by a talented group of players working together in concert for a common goal, overcoming a championship proven Lakers' team comprised of NBA all-stars. Whereas the Pistons have shown that basketball remains a team sport and have reminded us fans that the game is still a team game with fundamentals at its heart and soul; Whereas, as sports writer Eric Neel so cleverly put it ``Once upon a time, there was a shared ball on offense and a shared responsibility on defense. In their Game 5 victory, as in the previous four games, it was that time all over again. We've got retro jerseys and throwback sneaks, now we've got a world champion from back in the day, to go with them.'' Whereas the Pistons's success resulted from contributions from the entire roster of players, including Chauncey Billups, Elden Campbell, Darvin Ham, Richard Hamilton, Lindsey Hunter, Mike James, Darko Milicic, Mehmet Okur, Tayshaun Prince, Ben Wallace, Rasheed Wallace, and Corliss Williamson; Whereas the Pistons have displayed great strength, ability, and perseverance this season, which are all reflective of the hardworking people of the metropolitan Detroit region and the great State of Michigan, which furthermore is reflected in the team slogan ``Going to work. Every night.'': Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the House of Representatives-- (1) Congratulates the Detroit Pistons for winning the 2004 World championship and for their outstanding performance during the entire 2004 season, and congratulates all of the 16 NBA teams who made it into the post-season; (2) Salutes the achievements of all of the players, coaches, and staff of the Pistons, who worked hard and who were instrumental in bringing the City of Detroit its third NBA championship; (3) Commends the Los Angeles Lakers for a valiant performance during the playoff finals and for displaying their strength and skill as a team; (4) Directs the Clerk of the House of Representatives to transmit an enrolled copy of this resolution to the Pistons players, Head Coach Larry Brown, General Manager Joe Dumars and President and team owner William Davidson.