John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, you might remember a failed experiment the U.S. government tried in the 1920s called Prohibition. Today, Congress is rushing to pass a similar ill-conceived prohibition of Internet gambling. Gaming prohibitionists believe they can stop the millions of Americans who gamble online by prohibiting the use of credit cards to gamble on the Internet. Just as outlawing alcohol did not work in the 1920s, current attempts to prohibit online gaming will not work, either. Let me explain why. In addition to the problems I addressed earlier, this bill lacks a number of important protections. It does not require that the businesses getting the special exception be licensed for Internet gambling, any kind of license will do. It does not require that these businesses keep minors from gambling as a condition of the license. It does not even require that these businesses limit the amount that can be gambled to protect problem gamblers. And what about lotteries? Family values conservatives fight the lotteries in State after State. They say that there is no greater evil than State-sponsored gambling. The Justice Department said in their testimony that this bill would ``absolutely'' allow Internet gambling on lotteries. This is not just my interpretation of this bill. The Free Congress Foundation, led by conservative activist Paul Weyrich, says this bill expands gambling. The Traditional Values Coalition, led by the Reverend Lou Sheldon, says this bill expands gambling. The United States Justice Department says this bill expands gambling. And while many powerful gambling interests receive an exemption, less favored interests get the short end of the stick. Native Americans became more tightly regulated than the horse racing industries. It is unfair and unjustifiable public policy. Instead of imposing an Internet gambling prohibition that will actually expand gambling for some and drive other types of Internet gambling offshore and into the hands of unscrupulous merchants, I believe Congress should examine the feasibility of strictly licensing and regulating the online gaming industry. A regulated gambling industry will ensure that gaming companies play fair and drive out dishonest operators. It also preserves State's rights. The rules should be simple: if a State does not want to allow gambling in its borders, a licensed operator should exclude that State's residents from being able to gamble on its website. That is why I introduced H.R. 1223, the ``Internet Gambling Licensing and Regulation Commission Act.'' The bill will create a national Internet Gambling Licensing and Regulation Study Commission to evaluate how best to regulate and control online gambling in America to protect consumers and prevent criminal elements from penetrating this industry. In addition, the Commission will study whether the problems identified by gambling prohibitionists--money laundering, underage gambling, and gambling addictions--are better addressed by an ineffective ban or by an online gaming industry that is tightly regulated by the States. Until now, Republicans and Democrats have stood together against those who wanted to regulate the Internet, restrict its boundaries, or use it for some special purpose. Except in the narrow areas of child pornography and other obvious criminal activities, Congress has rejected attempts to make Internet Service Providers, credit card companies, and the technology industry policemen for the Internet. We should not head down this road now. Attempts to prohibit Internet gambling in the name of fighting crime and protecting children and problem gamblers will have the opposite effect. Prohibition will simply drive the gaming industry offshore, thereby attracting the least desirable operators who will be out of the reach of law enforcement. A far better approach is to allow the States to strictly license and regulate the Internet gambling industry, to foster honest merchants who are subject to U.S. consumer protection and criminal laws. There are many different concerns with this bill, some of which I just mentioned. These concerns range from doubts about the desirability of having government regulate the personal behavior of competent adults to the fact that the bill, under the guise of banning Internet gambling, actually enables some favored gambling industries on-line. There are concerns about the bill's fundamental unfairness to native American tribal governments, and concerns about the precedent of deputizing financial institutions to regulate the Internet. For all of these concerns, I urge you to vote, ``no'' on H.R. 2143.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee). (Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman, what an exciting day on the floor of the House. The Unlawful Internet Gambling Funding Prohibition Act just happens to have one problem: It accepts horse racing. Now, can somebody explain to me why that is so? We are going to ban Internet gambling except horse racing. Why? Well, it is because the horse racing lobbyists and the dog racing lobbyists have said that is what we ought to do. Why did they write a bill like this? This is a bill that expands gambling, expands gambling by accepting two industries. Now I have been in touch with Reverend Lou Sheldon of the Traditional Values Coalition and Paul of the Free Congress Foundation, and they have told me this is a bad, bad bill, not to do it. We have a wire act from 1961 that has forbidden gambling, and now we are making the exception for horse racing. Can someone suggest why this bill was written this way? Anyone on the floor, I yield. I did not think so.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this legislation offered by Mr. Sensenbrenner. We have worked hard, along with a number of standard development organizations, technology companies and other private interests to craft a bill that will provide some important protections to encourage nonprofit standard development organizations, or SDOs, to continue their critical work of collaborating to set pro-competitive standards in this industries. SDOs set thousands of standards that keep us safe and provide uniformity for everything from fire protections to computer systems to building construction, for example. This bill provides a commonsense safe harbor for standard development organizations. Those that voluntarily disclose their activities to federal antitrust authorities will only be subject to single damages should a lawsuit later arise. Those who refuse to disclose their activities, or those who take actions beyond their disclosure, will still be subject to treble damages under the antitrust statutes. This bill does not exempt anyone from the antitrust laws, but it does apply the rule of reason to SDOs. Therefore the procompetitive market effects will be balanced against the anticompetitive market effects of an action before a violation of the antitrust laws is found. Organizations that commit per se violations--making agreements or standards about price, market share or territory division, for example--will still be fully liable for their actions. The rationale for such favored treatment is the SDOs, as nonprofits that serve a cross-section of an industry, are unlikely themselves to engage in anticompetitive activities. However, if free from the threat of treble damages, they can increase efficiency and facilitate the gathering a wealth of technical expertise from a wide array of interests to enhance product quality and safety while reducing costs. This is the third bipartisan bill in the last 20 years that has provided some limitation on damages for antitrust liability in order to encourage cooperative behaviors by entities seeking to engage in procompetitive activities. This policy has worked well for research and joint ventures under the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993 and I trust it will improve the creative environment for standards setting organizations as well. An expansion of this policy to standard development organizations will allow them to improve their innovative efforts, involve a wider range of industries and technical entities, and improve product safety and development. I'd like to thank the chairman for his cooperative efforts on this bill and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court has accorded some deference to congressional findings as Congress is the legislative body representing the people. The Court has ruled that it is not necessary for Congress to present conclusive evidence when declaring findings, and Congress has the discretion to weigh evidence and make reasonable inferences. Nonetheless, the courts do not blindly follow congressional findings. In numerous cases, including Turner, Morrison, and Pennhurst, courts review evidence and look at sworn testimony that is subject to cross- examination before coming to a conclusion. Thus, the implication in H.R. 760 that courts strictly defer to congressional findings is not correct. H.R. 760 cites Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission (``Turner I'') and Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission (``Turner II'') to show that the Court pays great deference to congressional findings. However, in Turner I and Turner II, the Court deferred to the overwhelming array of factual evidence presented by Congress. Evidence presented included extensive case law, Senate Reports, numerous hearings held by numerous committees and subcommittees, declarations, and reports. The Court paid great deference to the factual propositions Congress presented. The Court stated that Congress could weight the evidence it uncovered and make ``reasonable inferences based on substantial evidence.'' The key difference is that H.R. 760 simply states that the District Court erred in its findings of fact and law. Gainsaying, no matter how presented, is not the same as fact findings. For example, H.R. 760 does not add a health exception but instead simply states that the procedures covered by the bill are not necessary and that their probation poses no risk to the mother's health. This declaration goes directly against the ruling of the Supreme Court in Stenberg and the findings of fact in the lower court. The ``findings,'' in effect, are an attempt to overturn Stenberg. Congress cannot simply refute findings of fact made by the District Court by presenting its own ``findings'' that are contrary to the evidence the Court depended upon to make its ruling. In Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman, a patient at a Pennsylvania hospital for the mentally retarded challenged the conditions of the hospital. The patient claimed Pennhurst Hospital had violated the terms of Sec. 6010 of the Developmentally Disabled Assistance and Bill of Rights Act of 1976 (``DDABRA''). Sec. Sec. 6010(1) and (2) of the DDABRA was ``the bill of rights provision,'' and it ``grant[ed] to mentally retarded persons a right to `appropriate treatment, services, and habilitation' in `the setting that is least restrictive of . . . personal liberty.' ``In Sec. 6010, Congress made a series of findings that were repudiated by the Court. The Court found that Sec. 6010 ``is simply a general statement of `findings' '' and ``does no more than express a congressional preference for a certain kind of treatment.'' The Court held that the ``bill of rights'' did not create a requirement for States to provide the least restrictive environment or to provide certain kinds of treatment to the mentally retarded. Likewise, in United States v. Morrison, the Court struck down a section of the Violence Against Women Act (``VAWA'') as a violation of the Commerce Clause in the face of overwhelming congressional findings that domestic violence affected interstate commerce. The Court stated, ``[T]he existence of congressional findings is not sufficient, by itself, to sustain the constitutionality of Commerce Clause legislation.'' Therefore, although the Court defers to congressional findings, findings alone are not sufficient to make an unconstitutional act constitutional. As with Pennhurst, the ``findings'' in H.R. 760 express a congressional preference, and it is unlikely that any court would defer to the findings. The language in the proposed bill is similar to the challenged language in Pennhurst in that the ``findings'' include precatory language. For example, the ``findings'' include the statement that so-called ``partial-birth'' abortions are never medically necessary even though the Court in Stenberg concluded otherwise. H.R. 760 also purports to rely on the Supreme Court's holding in Katzenbach v. Morgan for the proposition that the Court will employ a ``highly deferential review of Congress's factual conclusions.'' However, Katzenbach involved Congress's power under section 5 of the 14th Amendment to craft a remedy to a 14th amendment violation Congress had identified. Congress went beyond what the Supreme Court had deemed required as a remedy by the 14th Amendment. In that case, the Court held that provisions of the Voting Rights Act prohibiting the enforcement of a New York law requiring the ability to read and write English as a condition of voting was an appropriate exercise of Congress's section 5 powers. Specifically, the Court said that while Congress could use its enforcement power to provide additional protections for a right guaranteed by the 14th Amendment, it could not narrow that right. H.R. 760 would do exactly the opposite of what the Court approved in Katzenbach in that it narrows, rather than enforces a right protected under the 14th Amendment; in this case, the right to choose as delineated in Roe. Moreover, in the intervening years, the Court has become far less deferential to Congress's enforcement powers under sec. 5, and to Congress as a finder of fact. It is unclear what types of procedures are covered by the legislation. Although some believe the legislation would apply to an abortion technique known as ``Dilation and Extraction'' (D & X), or ``Intact Dilation and Evacuation,'' it is not clear the term would be limited to a particular and identifiable practice. For example, the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecologists has noted that the definitions in the bill ``are vague and do not delineate a specified procedure recognized in the medical literature. Moreover the definitions could be interpreted to include elements of many recognized abortion and operative obstetric techniques.'' As a result, the bill could well apply to additional abortion procedures known as D & E (Dilation and Evacuation), and induction. In the wake of the controversies over partial birth abortions, a number of states have taken up similar legislation. Like the federal bill, most of the state measures are so vague and so broad that they cover a wide range of abortion methods. The overwhelming majority of courts to have ruled on challenges to state so-called ``partial-birth abortion'' bans have declared the bans unconstitutional and enjoined their enforcement. In the last three years, medical providers have challenged the state statutes that ban ``partial-birth abortion'' in twenty states. In eighteen of those states--Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, Rhode Island, West Virginia, and Wisconsin--the bans are currently enjoined, in whole or in part. In a nineteenth, Alabama, the state attorney general has limited the ban's enforcement to post- viability abortions. In only one state, Virginia, has a court considered the constitutional challenges but nevertheless permitted enforcement of the statute pending further proceedings. Six federal district courts have entered permanent injunctions against statutes that are virtually identical, word for word, with H.R. 760. The reality concerning quantitative data is that there is no national figures on the absolute number of D & X procedures performed. The two authorities which have the most comprehensive information on abortion-- the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI) do not compile data on the number of D & X procedures before or after viability. According to AGI, in the most recent year for which data is available--1996--the total number of abortions nationally fell to 1.35 million from a high of 1.61 million in 1990. Of these, ``an estimated total of 31 providers performed the [D&X] procedure 2,200 times in 2000, and 0.17% of all abortions performed in that year used this method.'' Proponents of H.R. 760 also ignore the fact that most women do not simply elect to delay the time of their abortion or gratuitously choose the D & X procedure. The causes for delay are varied, including a dearth of abortion providers in many poor or rural areas, lack of availability of Medicaid funding, fear of violence at local clinics, teenagers fearful of notifying their parents or subject to delays caused by notice and informational requirements, and women who only learn of severe fetal abnormalities as a result of late term ultrasound or amniocentesis tests (which is subject to a mandatory wait for results). Physicians will not recommend a particular type of abortion procedure--D & X or otherwise--unless they believe it to be the safest for their patients.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank very much the ranking member of the subcommittee on Judiciary that is managing this bill, I want to thank him for the great work that he and the Judiciary staff have done in trying to bring some understanding to the significance of what we are doing here today. First of all, let us begin the discussion by recognizing that the term ``partial-birth abortion'' is a political term or a rhetorical term. It is not found in the medical journals. It is not found in the textbooks on medicine. The reason is that it was invented in the Congress. Okay? The bill before us is different from other bills that have attempted to ban abortion because this bill has now determined that they would get around the Supreme Court ban on these procedures which require the health of the mother be taken into consideration by saying, we have a bill here that has about 14 pages of findings, congressional findings, that now make it unnecessary to follow Roe v. Wade and the other major case that precludes these bills from being constitutional. They have been struck down repeatedly, repeatedly, repeatedly. But this bill is now going to be okay because we have congressional findings. Flash to the Congress. All congressional findings are not approved by the Supreme Court. Sorry about that, gentlemen. We have here, that I will put into the Record, and I hope we will have some discussion on it, the Turner Broadcasting case, Supreme Court case; the Morrison case, the Penhurst case, we go on and on with a long list of cases that say all findings are not findings and that therefore the Supreme Court is going to say, oh, okay, you had two or three doctors testify before your subcommittee and from this you draw findings and so, therefore, now all the Supreme Court decisions about the protection of the health and life of the mother are void. Not so. The reason is that H.R. 760 simply states that the district court erred in its finding of fact and law, but as a matter of fact, this bill does not add a health exception, but instead simply states that the procedures covered by the bill are not necessary and that therefore their use pose no risk to the mother's health. We listen to some doctors, we then determine that we have now exceptions and we pack them into this bill and we say, That's it. We don't need to determine that the health and welfare of the mother is as critical as the Supreme Court used to think because now we have findings, congressional findings. And the Supreme Court has got to follow congressional findings. Right? Wrong. It would seem that on the basis that this was done, it will be pretty easy for the Supreme Court to look behind this bill, H.R. 760.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, since this Nation's founding, more than 55 million immigrants from every continent have settled in the United States. Many of these immigrants have not only payed taxes and adopted the American way of life, they have honorably defended our Nation as members of the military. During the recent war with Iraq, immigrant soldiers have continued to defend our country in large numbers, and tragically 10 noncitizens have lost their lives. It is important that we honor the extraordinary contributions these immigrants make to the Armed Forces by facilitating their naturalization and establishing important protections for their families if they are killed in action. Surely, if these immigrants are willing to risk their lives for our country, the least we can do is grant them the citizenship they so greatly desire. Unfortunately, the rigidness of current immigrant laws often prevents individuals like these soldiers, who are truly deserving, to be granted citizenship. In particular, a noncitizen who is honorably serving in our military must leave his post abroad and return to the United States to file a naturalization application, be interviewed for the application, and to take the oath of citizenship. Consequently, soldiers serving abroad must spend prohibitive amounts of money in order to become citizens of the country they are defending. And yet even more shocking is the scenario in which a citizen or noncitizen soldier is killed while serving in our military; current law would void most pending applications for immigration benefits made by the soldier on behalf of his immediate family. This is hardly a way to show our thanks to families that have sacrificed their loved ones in the name of our country. H.R. 1954, the Armed Forces Naturalization Act of 2003, reduces the 3 year military requirement to naturalize to 1 year, waives fees for naturalization petitions, and allows surviving family members of citizens and posthumous granted citizens to apply for immigration benefits. These substantive changes to immigration law will surely benefit those defending our Nation and will ensure that immigrant families of our fallen soldiers are not penalized for their great sacrifice to our nation. This is not a perfect bill. For example, it does not go as far as I would have liked in helping the families of deceased servicemen and women obtain green cards. The result is that spouses, children, and parents of a soldier killed in combat who have been rendered removable or ineligible for immigration benefits by the 1996 immigration laws will be precluded from enjoying the benefits of this bill. This means that we will be deporting many of the spouses, children and parents of soldiers who have given their lives serving our country. I am also concerned with two amendments added to this legislation in the Judiciary Committee. The first amendment will require revocation of citizenship granted through 1 year of military service if the soldier is discharged under less than honorable terms within his first 5 years of military service. This bill was drafted with the intent to reward those who have taken a great risk and made great sacrifice for our country. However, allowing for the revocation of naturalization for less than honorable discharge would punish Service Members in a way that does not currently exist for soldiers applying for naturalization pursuant to completion of service during a time of peace. The second amendment added to the bill in the Judiciary Committee will prevent parents of citizen soldiers and the parents of soldiers granted citizenship posthumously from obtaining immigration benefits if they are out of the country at the time that their child is killed in combat. The amendment is drafted in such a broad manner that it would exclude from benefits even parents who have not violated any immigration laws, including parents who are waiting abroad for a pending petition filed by their citizen child to be approved. Rather than honoring the sacrifice made by the fallen soldier and his parents, this amendment arbitrarily picks out the category of parents and adds a new requirement that would not have existed had the soldier lived and applied for benefits on behalf of his parents. H.R. 1954 is a positive step in loosening the rigid restrictions immigration law has imposed on immigrant soldiers and their families. H.R. 1954 would: (a) Expedite the naturalization process by allowing military members to naturalize after serving 1 year in the military, waive naturalization fees, and allow naturalization interviews and oath ceremonies to take place abroad; (b) waive posthumous citizenship fees; and (c) ensure the ability of lawful permanent resident spouses, parents legally present in the United States, and unmarried children of citizen or posthumous granted citizen soldiers killed as a result of military service to self petition for immigration benefits or continue to pursue already filed petitions as if the U.S. citizen had not died. These substantive changes to immigration law will benefit those defending our Nation and will help ensure that many immigrant families of our fallen soldiers are not penalized for their great sacrifice. I am disappointed, however, that the bill passed by the committee is not more generous in addressing the unique needs of immigrant families and, in some cases, makes existing law worse. More than 37,000 noncitizen soldiers are currently serving on active duty in the U.S. Armed Forces and some of the first U.S. casualties in the current war in Iraq were noncitizens. Unfortunately, the rigidness of current immigration laws often prevents individuals like these soldiers, who are truly deserving, to be granted citizenship. In particular, a noncitizen who is honorably serving in our military must leave his post abroad and return to the United States to file a naturalization application, be interviewed for the application, and to take the oath of citizenship. Consequently, soldiers serving abroad must spend prohibitive amounts of money in order to become citizens of the country they are defending. And yet even more shocking is the scenario in which a citizen or noncitizen soldier is killed while serving in our military; current law would void most pending applications for immigration benefits made by the soldier on behalf of his immediate family. H.R. 1954 makes many meaningful improvements to existing law. However, I would have preferred that the committee go much further in assisting the immigrant families of our fallen soldiers. One of the unjust consequences of the 1996 immigration laws is that many individuals in the U.S. became ineligible for permanent residence due to a prior unlawful entry or a minor scrape with the law many years prior. The result is that spouses, children, and parents of a soldier killed in combat who have been rendered removable or ineligible for immigration benefits by the 1996 laws will be precluded from enjoying the benefits of this bill. This means that we will be deporting many of the spouses, children and parents of soldiers who have given their lives serving our country. In response, Reps. Howard Berman and Linda Sanchez offered an amendment, defeated by a party line vote, that would have waived certain documentation requirements, and authorized the Department of Homeland Security, on a discretionary basis, to waive categories of inadmissibility for spouses, children, and parents of soldiers killed in service to the military. This proposal would have balanced the goal of honoring the sacrifice these families have made with our duty to national security. I further believe that this bill does not go far enough in extending immigration benefits to all noncitizens serving the U.S. military, including the Selected Reservists. Current law grants the President authority to designate by Executive order a period of military hostilities that would trigger immediate naturalization eligibility for active duty members of the Armed Forces. Unlike traditional members of the Armed Forces, Selected Reservists are not eligible for immediate citizenship under this law if they do not serve in combat during times of hostility. Rep. Zoe Lofgren offered an amendment, defeated by voice vote, that would have applied immediate naturalization benefits to Select Reservists during times of hostility regardless of whether they serve in combat. This amendment would have addressed the fact that the rationale for providing benefits to members of the Armed Forces and members of the Select Reserves is nearly identical because during times of hostility they both must be ready to leave family, friends, and familiar surroundings at a moment's notice and potentially die for their country. I take great issue with two amendments added to this legislation by Rep. Steve King. The first amendment will require revocation of citizenship granted through 1 year of military service if the soldier is discharged under less than honorable terms. This bill was drafted with the intent to reward those who have taken a great risk and made great sacrifice for our country. However, allowing for the revocation of naturalization for less than honorable discharge would punish Service Members in a way that does not currently exist for soldiers applying for naturalization pursuant to completion of service during a time of peace. I understand Rep. King's desire to make the bill parallel to current law in 329(c) of the INA, but he overlooks that 329(c) applies exclusively to a special case in which members of the Armed Forces are eligible for immediate naturalization during a time of hostility without the requirement of any prior service or commitment to the military. The provision added to H.R. 1954 would bestow conditional citizenship on all immigrants naturalized through a demonstrated commitment to military service and would create a perverse incentive for noncitizens not to join the military. Moreover, this language would allow military authorities to routinely make legal decisions that in effect would deprive a U.S. citizen of his or her citizenship. In some cases, these decisions would be based on conduct that would be completely lawful in civilian contexts, but is considered a military offense under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The second amendment added to the bill by Representative King will prevent parents of citizen soldiers and the parent of soldiers granted citizenship posthumously from obtaining immigration benefits if they are out of the country at the time that their child is killed in combat. The amendment is drafted in such a broad manner that it would exclude from benefits even parents who have not violated any immigration laws, including parents who are waiting abroad for a pending petition filed by their citizen child to be approved and parents who lawfully reside in the United States, but have left the country temporarily at the time of their child's death. Rather than honoring the sacrifice made by the fallen soldier and his parents, this amendment arbitrarily picks out the category of parents and adds a new requirement that would not have existed had the soldier lived and applied for benefits on behalf of his parents. I reiterate that the Armed Forces Naturalization Act of 2003 does not go far enough in assisting the immigrant families of our fallen soldiers. Moreover, amendments added to the bill in the Judiciary committee would punish noncitizen soldiers and their families, rather than reward them for their service and sacrifice, by creating a conditional class of citizenship and putting additional restrictions on immigrant parents of soldiers. While this bill is not perfect, it does make many meaningful improvements to existing immigration law and takes a significant step help our soldiers and their families be granted the citizenship they so greatly desire. It is my hope that as this bill goes to conference will seriously consider the negative repercussions these two amendments will have on the people this bill intends to honor. It is for these reasons that I think we can all support this bill.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, the reason this is on the consent calendar is that the members of the Committee on the Judiciary, as well as the Members in the House, agree that we should take steps to make sure citizenship is granted to some 37,000 military people who happen to be noncitizens. And it is in that spirit that I rise to commend the ranking subcommittee chair, the gentlewoman from Houston, Texas (Ms. Jackson- Lee), and the subcommittee chairman, the chairman of the full committee, and all of the members on the Committee on the Judiciary that worked on this. We are trying to still improve this measure as it goes to conference, and I would like to urge everyone to give it a rousing vote this afternoon.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, in 2002, the Institute of Medicine released a telling report entitled: Unequal Treatment: Confronting Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Health Care. The report documented many troubling findings which unfortunately, health experts in the underserved communities have been crying out about for decades. It documents the case that the American health care system was set up so that African Americans, Hispanics, and other underserved minorities would receive ``second class back of the bus health care'' in public hospitals and community clinic--many of which are on the verge of economic collapse. 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--and the gap has been widening over the last decade. Astoundingly, minorities now account for two thirds of the new AIDS cases, and HIV infection is the leading cause of death among younger African Americans. Yet, African Americans are 41 percent-73 percent less likely than whites to receive particular drug therapies. African American women are far less likely to receive a mammogram than white women and are at far greater risk of being diagnosed with breast cancer. Black men are also 1.5 times more likely to develop prostate cancer than white men, and they are three times more likely to die of the disease. Even more disturbing, African American children are plagued by asthma. They are twice as likely to be diagnosed with the disease and a whopping six times as likely to die from it as white children. Just last month the Harlem Hospital found that an incredible 25 percent of children in central Harlem has asthma--one of the highest rates ever documented in an American neighborhood. Add to all the previously noted findings the fact that African American infant mortality rates are three times higher than the rate for white American babies, and the diagnosis for the future of the African American family seems not only chilling but painfully malignant. Under George W. Bush and the Republicans, the current health disparities are likely to get worse--the principle reason is that they are gutting health care in general and Medicaid in particular. Medicaid is the bedrock of health coverage for poor Americans in general and minorities in particular--it insures one out of five children in America and two thirds of all nursing home residents. Because of the budget crisis in the states, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has predicted that as many as 1.7 million Americans could lose health coverage entirely under Medicaid cut back proposals in the states. Amazingly, the Bush Administration is opposing efforts to help the States pay their Medicaid responsibilities and help keep poor and minority Americans insured. This Congress I have been dedicated to bridging the gap in health care disparities amongst Americans. I have introduced a bill that would provide universal health care for all Americans. H.R. 676, ``Medicare For All'' is a national health insurance bill endorsed by 4000 physicians across the country. I also reintroduced H. Con. Res. 99, a resolution that commits to covering all of the uninsured by 2005. Just last month, the Congressional Black Caucus launched campaign to end racial disparities in healthcare by backing my universal healthcare resolution. I am also planning to introduce legislation that will bring Medicaid to anyone earning less than 200 percent of the poverty level. This will allow almost all working poor and unemployed Americans to have health coverage. It will also ensure that major urban hospitals can receive sufficient reimbursements so that they are not forced to shut their doors. In 2003, in without a doubt the most powerful and wealthy society in the history of the world, there is absolutely no excuse for the health disparities that are crippling and killing off our African American and minority communities. I urge my colleagues today to support the efforts of the CBC and others who are fighting to improve the health of all Americans.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the ``Judicial Use of Discretion to Guarantee Equity in Sentencing Act of 2003'' or ``JUDGES Act,'' legislation that restores the independence and integrity of the federal judiciary by repealing many of the criminal sentencing provisions recently enacted in section 401 of the PROTECT Act of 2003. I am joined by Representatives Berman, Delahunt, Watt, Waters, Jackson-Lee, Linda Sanchez, Sanders, Lee, McDermott, Filner, Millender-McDonald, Tubbs Jones, and Honda. Section 401 of the PROTECT Act was passed into law despite the many concerns raised by several legal scholars and experts including, Chief Justice Rehnquist, the U.S. Judicial Conference, the American Bar Association, the Federal Bar Association, the Leadership Council on Civil Rights and various other law school professors and legal commentators. When asked to comment on the legislation, Chief Justice Rehnquist best described the major problems with the controversial provisions when he wrote that the, ``legislation, if enacted, would do serious harm to the basic structure of the sentencing guideline system and would seriously impair the ability of courts to impose just and responsible sentences.'' The JUDGES Act of 2003 seeks to address these concerns by repealing most of the provisions of section 401, except those that specifically deal with the prevention of the exploitation of children. More specifically, the bill repeals the burdensome reporting requirements imposed on judges, restores the ``due deference'' standard of review, reforms the sentencing guidelines governing the acceptance of responsibility and repeals the changes that section 401 made to the composition of the sentencing commission. The bill also directs the Sentencing Commission to carefully study the issue of downward departures and report its findings to Congress within 180 days. Judges should be free to impose fair and just sentences completely devoid of the political process. The JUDGES Act of 2003 helps to achieve this goal. I am hopeful that Congress can move quickly to enact this worthwhile and timely legislation.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the ``MEDIA (Maintaining and Ensuring Diversity and Integrity on the Airwaves) Act of 2003,'' legislation that would provide greater protection to small and minority-owned businesses in the media industry. Access to the media is at the foundation of our democracy. As part of its effort to advance one of its primary strategic goals of promoting competition, diversity and localism, the FCC has strived to ensure that every person has equal access and that small and minority owned businesses are fairly and adequately represented in the media. To accomplish this objective, under Section 257 of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, the FCC is required to identify and eliminate market entry barriers for small telecommunications businesses. Section 257 also requires the FCC to report every three years on any regulations prescribed to eliminate any such barriers. Section 257 was written to ensure that greater consolidation in the media industry would not occur without concern for diversity in ownership and content. Specifically, the section was meant to address barriers involving race and gender discrimination. The FCC has not yet completed its Section 257 Report to Congress. At the same time, the FCC is one short week away from significantly relaxing its current media ownership rules, which may permit networks to own stations that can reach 90 percent of the nation, allow companies to own three television stations in a market, and abolish the ban on cross-ownership between TV stations and newspapers. These new rules are likely to have significant negative consequences for many small and minority owned businesses, but the FCC has not provided its report demonstrating that it has analyzed the impact on these businesses and has not provided adequate assurance that steps are being taken to eliminate any negative consequences. Adding fuel to the fire, the FCC is embarking on this course without providing any notice and opportunity to respond to the specific rules it is considering. The MEDIA Act addresses these concerns. First, the Act requires the FCC to publish and seek comment on its proposed rules prior to enactment. Second, responding to the concern that requiring a biennial review places an undue burden on the FCC as well as the many small and minority owned companies who need greater certainty to grow their businesses, the Act instructs the FCC to review its media ownership rules every five years instead of every two years. Third, the Act prevents the FCC from repealing its media ownership rules or approving mergers in excess of $50 million until it has completed its 2003 Section 257 report to Congress identifying and eliminating market entry barriers for small telecommunications businesses, as well as analyzing how any change of the existing regulations would be consistent with the national policy of promoting diversity and competition and how any change would affect barriers to entry for small businesses. The vast majority of public responses regarding the FCC's decision to change its media ownership rules have criticized the FCC for so hastily running through the process without affording adequate time for a meaningful analysis and public comment on concerns with the new rules. If the FCC will not Act to ensure that any changes are in the public interest and that small and minority owned businesses are adequately represented in the media, Congress must step in. I am hopeful that Congress can move quickly to enact this worthwhile and timely legislation.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, this evening I implore my fellow colleagues to invest in our American families. The issue of this country's economic growth and stability is before us yet again, and it appears as if we are about to worsen the situation. We first failed our American families by approving a budget that neglects the economic and social needs of this country's citizens. This Congress also ensured that future generations will be burdened with debt as well. We must not fail our American families again. The Members of Congress have the opportunity to extend unemployment benefits as such benefits expire on May 31, 2003. We must do so. Our African American families have fared the worst during this economic crisis. The unemployment rate for African Americans is almost 11 percent at 10.9 percent. This rate is twice that of whites. In February, the number of unemployed African Americans totaled 1.7 million. Every Member of Congress is witnessing firsthand the toll that this economy is taking on our constituents. Not one state is unaffected by this issue. The unemployment rate in Michigan is 6.7 percent. The unemployment rate in Detroit is 7.2 percent. This particular statistic has more than doubled since the last Administration. In November of 2000, the unemployment rate in Detroit was at 3.0 percent. The budget resolution approved last month guarantees that this country has not yet seen the worst of these unemployment statistics for my District, our community, and the entire country as well. The Administration claims that the approved budget will create 190,000 jobs. Is the Administration to be commended for creating 190,000 jobs? This number equates to less than the number of jobs that were lost during February and March of this year. During those months, 477,000 jobs were lost. How are we to alleviate this economic downturn when we fail to provide employment opportunities for this country's citizens? How can we then fail to give those hard-working Americans, who have been laid off with no job prospects in sight, sustenance during these hard times. While I have highlighted the unemployment statistics within the African American community and Michigan, let me make it clear--this is not a Black issue or a Michigan issue. This is an issue that affects all Americans and as such, we must extend the Temporary Emergency Unemployment Compensation Program (TEUC).

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remind America what we all owe to the Honorable Damon J. Keith, who has faithfully served on the Federal Bench for some 35 years. His giant legacy looms large on America's legal landscape. He is widely respected by his fellow judges, by the Bar and by informed citizens throughout the land, not only for his constitutional scholarship, but also for the courage of his convictions and his judicious compassion. Judge Keith has had a truly illustrious career. Above all, his decisions have protected the Bill of Rights from assaults by the Executive; and they have vindicated the Founding Fathers' wisdom in giving us an independent Judicial Branch. Like his namesake, the ``Damon'' of Greek mythology, Judge Keith's boundless love of the law and steadfast devotion to justice has won the respect of allies and adversaries alike. Judge Keith was appropriately born on the Fourth of July in 1924. He holds a law degree from Howard Law School and a masters degree in law from Wayne State University. Judge Keith's accomplishments and commitment have garnered awards too numerous to enumerate fully. I will cite just a few. Both the State of Michigan and the City of Detroit have repeatedly honored their native son. The Michigan Chronicle chose Judge Keith to represent the legal profession as one of Ten of ``The Century's finest Michiganders.'' The Detroit Legal News recognized him as one of Michigan's 16 ``Legal Legends of the Century.'' In recognition of his dedication to quality education for all, the Detroit Board of Education named the Damon J. Keith Elementary School in his honor. He was honored by the Detroit Urban League with its Edward J. Devitt Distinguished Service to Justice Award. (He was nominated for the Devitt Award by judges and attorneys throughout the country.) The national legal community has equally recognized his contributions to the rule of law and his devotion to the Constitution. In 1990 President George Bush appointed him to the National Commission on the Bicentennial of the Constitution. Judge Keith's rejection of discrimination in any form earned him the Distinguished Public Service Award from the Anti-Defamation League of the B'nai B'rith. The NAACP awarded Judge Keith its highest accolade, the Spingarn Medal (whose previous recipients include Rev. Martin Luther King, Justice Thurgood Marshall and General Colin Powell.) Almost 40 universities and colleges have conferred honorary degrees on Judge Keith. In 1997, The American Bar Association summed up why Judge Keith is universally held in such high esteem when it gave him its prestigious Thurgood Marshall Award: Judge Keith represents the best in the legal profession. His work reflects incisive analysis of issues, principled application of laws and the Constitution, passionate belief in the court's role in protecting civil rights, a commitment to community service and, most significantly, an independence of mind to do what's right that is at the core of his view of professional responsibility. In 2001, the ABA also conferred on Judge Keith its ABA Spirit of Excellence Award. This brief recital illustrates Judge Damon Keith's extraordinary standing within the Bar. In order for you to understand how he has earned that reputation, however, it is helpful to recall several of his most noteworthy opinions. The ``Pontiac School Desegregation Case'' This weekend, many of us in Detroit will be celebrating the anniversary of the Supreme Court's historic opinion in Brown v. Board of Education, unquestionably one of the greatest of that court's decision in our history. As you well know, however, it took decades of determined labor by many dedicated people to actually implement the proud promise of Brown. They were led, in the North as in the South, by brave federal judges who simply believed that the Constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, must be enforced. Judge Keith's opinion in the Pontiac school desegregation case will always be remembered by those in the struggle as a profile in courage. Judge Keith was not eager to reject the benefits of neighborhood school assignments, nor unmindful of the very strong community feelings. Still, he stayed true to his oath to uphold the Constitution. He enforced the necessary remedies of past de jure school segregation. The ``Keith Case'' Perhaps Judge Keith's most famous decision is aptly now known among constitutional scholars as the ``Keith case.'' Prior to 1970, every modern President had claimed ``inherent Executive power'' to conduct electronic surveillance in ``national security'' cases without the judicial warrant required in criminal cases by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. Then Attorney General John Mitchell, on behalf of President Richard Nixon sought to wiretap several alleged ``domestic'' terrorists without warrants, on the ground that it was a national security matter. Judge Keith rejected this claim of the Sovereign's inherent power to avoid the safeguard of the Fourth Amendment. He ordered the government to produce the wiretap transcripts. When the Attorney General appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Court unanimously affirmed Judge Keith. The Keith decision not only marked a watershed in civil liberties protection for Americans. It also led directly to the current statutory restriction on the Government's electronic snooping in national security cases. The Supreme Court had limited its agreement with Judge Keith that judicial warrants were required in cases involving alleged domestic security threats. The Court left open the question of whether judicial warrants also were required in the case of suspected foreign threats to national security. Nevertheless, the Nixon Administration was afraid to risk a subsequent Supreme Court ruling that they were required in that area, as well. Therefore, President Nixon reluctantly agreed to sign the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act creating a special ``FISA Court'' to hear applications for warrants in foreign national security cases. The ``Haddad Case'' Some thirty years later, history has come full circle. Once again, an overreaching Attorney General is undermining the Bill of Rights on many fronts, ranging from secret, indefinite detention without charges and denial of counsel to ever-expanding efforts to spy on persons for whom no reasonable suspicion of criminal activity has been established. The Attorney General tells us, in essence, that Americans must choose between the liberties that have made our country great and a superficial sense of security. He is wrong. In the post 9-11 world, millions of Americans are deeply concerned about this current struggle between civil liberty claims and Government claims of national security. The Government's intense efforts to weaken the FISA law, that was birthed by the Keith case, have been a centerpiece of that debate. But the FISA Court aftermath of Judge Keith's 1970 opinion in the Keith case is not the only way in which he has left his indelible mark on the current controversy. One of the starkest examples of this Attorney General's disdain for the Bill of Rights came in the recent Haddad case. In a strongly worded, landmark opinion, Judge Keith, speaking for the United States Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, flatly rejected the Attorney General's claim that it could hold deportation proceedings against Rabih Haddad in secret, beyond the scrutiny of press and public. Once against Judge Keith's deeply-rooted concern for the rule of law was offended. He offered a stern rebuke: Today, the Executive Branch seeks to take this safeguard away from the public by placing its actions beyond public scrutiny * * * The Executive Branch seeks to uproot people's lives outside the public eye and behind a closed door. Then, with characteristically concise eloquence, Judge Keith reminded the Department of Justice, in words headlined around the world, that ``Democracies die behind closed doors.'' When he is not crafting judicial thunderbolts from the bench, Judge Keith and his physician wife Rachel Boone Keith, delight in their three daughters, Gildea, Debbie and Cecile, and in their two granddaughters, Nia and Camara. All those who know Damon Keith delight in him. Mr. Speaker, like so many others whose lives he has touched, I am proud to call Damon Keith a mentor, a friend, and an inspiration. He is indeed a national treasure.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, with the passage of the Fairness Act of 2003, the Republicans are once again placing corporate special interests ahead of the public interest. This bill is heavily stacked in favor of corporations and corporate executives with few, if any, protections for the average working American. It does little, if anything, to insure that working Americans retain the hard fought pension plans that they have worked so hard to attain. Alternatively, the Democratic pension plan would help level the playing field by subjecting executive pensions to the same pension rules that apply to rank and file workers. The Democratic plan closes loopholes that allow special executive pension plans, such as deferred compensation plans, trusts and split dollar plans, to escape taxation and to receive special protection against creditors. Further, the Democratic plan would also apply the same uniform and fair vesting and contribution limits to executives that apply to ranks and file employees. Instead of protecting pensions, the Republican plan increases the vulnerability of the hard earned retirement income of workers by allowing investment advice which is tainted by conflicts of interest. Under the Republican plan, provisions currently in place under ERISA would be undermined by allowing employers to give biased, self- interested advice to workers concerning the investment of plan assets, as long as the investment advisor discloses a conflict of interest. The Democratic plan is truly a plan to help average workers, it protects older workers' pensions when a company converts from a traditional pension plan to a cash pension plan. Under the GOP plan, million of workers, especially senior workers, could see their pensions cut by as much as 50 percent. The Democratic plans also ends secret pensions schemes, whereas, the Republican plan locks rank and file workers into company stocks for long periods of time without any legal options. Additionally, the Democratic Plan seeks to limit pension abuses by preventing firms from deducting more than 1 million in executive performance-based compensation if it is obtained through manipulation of the company's pension funds, by imposing an excise tax on executive golden parachutes when they leave behind companies with plummeting shareholder values or which are facing bankruptcy proceedings.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, today I take the well to celebrate one of the great music writing teams in contemporary writing history, and that is the fabulous legendary song writing team of Brian Holland, Lamont Dozier and Edward Holland, who wrote frequently with the Berry Gordy Motown group creating the enduring Motown sound that is still being heard in this country and all over the world. I am happy to point out that these three great songwriters, all from Detroit, Michigan, will be honored by the Broadcast Music Incorporated, BMI, on May 13 with the ICON Award which is reserved for songwriters who have been unique and had indelible influences on generations of music makers. They will receive this award at the 51st Annual BMI Awards Dinner in Beverly Hills, California, and its president and CEO, Ms. Frances Preston, will present the award. I am happy to tell you that I have had the honor of watching this great musical system of Berry Gordy and his family and these writers develop over the years. How interesting to now turn back only a little while ago to find that the Hollands had to go to church and Mr. Dozier did too, and they could not go to the movies on Sunday until they had gone to church. They could not do anything else for the rest of the week if they had not gone to church. And in their home the only music that was allowed was gospel and classical and sometimes Billy Eckstein or Sarah Vaughan or Nat King Cole. And so these youngsters on the west side and east side of Detroit where they went to school, some of them met and knew Aretha Franklin, who was then singing in her father's, the late Reverend C.L. Franklin, church on Linwood Avenue already at the tender age of 9 years old, and they came out of this great family tradition. Mr. Dozier's grandmother, Mrs. Melvine Watson, was the choir director at the Spiritual Israel Church Pentecostal; and when he was in junior high school he had formed the vocal group, The Romeos, five young men who had a recording contract with Atlantic; and then they went to Gwen Gordy, Berry Gordy's sister, Anna Records, and opened up their career and furthered it there. Then Gwen Gordy went with her brother Berry Gordy and they formed the Motown sound. It is just so wonderful to recall how all these artists began, where their first writing was for Jackie Wilson, where they wrote this song, Reet Petite. And then they began to develop, Robert Bateman will always be remembered for bringing them together. It was wonderful. They finally began to click. Madam Speaker, I rise to celebrate the contributions of the legendary songwriting team of Holland-Dozier-Holland, consisting of Brian Holland, Lamont Dozier, and Edward Holland to American cultural history. The songwriting trio, known as H-D-H, wrote most of the songs that created the enduring American ``Motown Sound.'' On May 13, 2003, they will be honored with the 2003 BMI (Broadcast Music, Inc.) ICON Award, which is reserved for songwriters who have been unique and indelible influences on generations of music makers. H-D-H will receive this award at the 51st annual BMI Pop Awards dinner in Beverly Hills, California. BMI President & CEO Frances W. Preston will present the award. Brian Holland, Lamont Dozier, and Eddie Holland are most deserving of this award, which puts them in the company of Chuck Berry, James Brown, Bo Diddly, and Little Richard. In 1959, a young African American Detroiter, Berry Gordy, Jr., formed a company named Motown (an abbreviation of Detroit's `Motor City' moniker). Holland-Dozier-Holland were architects of the instantly recognizable and barrier breaking ``Sound of Young America,'' of Motown, creating the songs that turned a fledgling Detroit record company and its associated songwriters, producers, and artists, into an industry groundbreaker and powerhouse. As songwriters and producers, H-D-H created such classics as ``Reach Out, I'll Be There,'' ``Stop in the Name of Love,'' ``Where Did Our Love Go?'' ``Heat Wave,'' ``Baby Love,'' ``Baby I Need Your Lovin','' ``How Sweet It Is to Be Loved By You,'' and dozens more hits. The blend of sweet and joyful lyrics and complex musical stylings defined an era. Their music is on the soundtrack of countless films and television programs and has become the soundtrack for many American lives. Their innovative style and sound inspired millions of musicians throughout the world to improve and enhance their craft. The astonishing success of H-D-H and Motown was a symbol of change in the United States in the 1960's, and the end of an era when access to an audience was limited by either opportunities or racial prejudice. The sales of Holland-Dozier-Holland's music run into hundreds of millions of dollars and include some of the most widely-recognized pop songs in the world. Holland-Dozier-Holland songs also have accrued nearly 100 million airplays on United States radio and television stations. The songwriting team is a member of the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame, the Songwriters Hall of Fame, and winner of The Rhythm and Blues Foundation's 2002 Pioneer Award. I commend BMI, an American performing rights organization that represents more than 300,000 songwriters, composers, and publishers, in all genres of music, for honoring Brian Holland, Lamont Dozier and Eddie Holland. I also congratulate the three worthy recipients.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to report a new bill that has been introduced by 16 Members of the House and the Senate to create employment in the Haitian textile industry by giving that country the opportunity to become a garment production center. It amends the Trade and Development Act of 2000 by granting duty free status to Haitian apparel articles that are assembled or knit to shape from countries with whom the United States has a free trade agreement or a regional agreement. And it departs from current law, which only allows duty free status to Haitian apparel articles if the articles are made from U.S. fabrics or yarn. It would be a win/win proposition for our American workers because it would encourage the immigration of jobs from other parts of the world back to our hemisphere. I would like Members to know that this measure has been referred to our House Committee on Ways and Means. And at this point, Members should know that in addition to the junior Senator from Ohio, Mr. DeWine, the senior Senator from Florida, Mr. Graham, we have in the House the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman), myself, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Jim Davis), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek), the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender- McDonald), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson). This is a positive piece of legislation. We will be conferring with the ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means for its hearings promptly and hope that we can move it forward. It is sponsored in both bodies of the legislature and we feel very confident that this measure will be an important beginning economic legislative initiative of which there will be more to come. Tonight, I also rise with the rest of the Congressional Black Caucus to encourage my colleagues in Congress to support the Haitian people as they struggle to rebuild their nation. Not only does Haiti play an important role in the world community, but it is also strategically significant to the United States; particularly because it is located only 410 miles from the nearest U.S. shores. Further, historically the Haitian people's fight for freedom has been an inspiration to oppressed people throughout the globe. In 1804, the people of Haiti triumphed over colonial powers by gaining their independence and establishing the first black nation in the Western Hemisphere. Nearly two hundred years later, the people of Haiti are engaged in a battle to preserve their way of life and their nation. Haiti is one of the most impoverished nations in the Western Hemisphere and the fourth poorest country in the world, where life expectancy is only 49 years. The unemployment rate is approximately 60%, only 45% of the population is literate, and half of the population earns $60 or less per year. In addition, the country of Haiti has been devastated by the AIDS epidemic. 90% of all HIV and AIDS infections in the Caribbean are in Haiti, and due to the spread of the disease, 163,000 children have been left orphaned. Furthermore, the infant mortality rate is alarming, with 75 deaths per 1,000 births. Given the statistics I have mentioned, it is not surprising that tuberculosis remains a major cause of adult mortality and there is only one doctor for every 10,000 people in Haiti. Although Haiti is located in our backyard, we continue to endorse a policy that prevents the return of economic stability and democracy of Haiti. Instead of supporting the flow of aid to Haiti in order to resolve the political impasse, the U.S. has adopted a policy of embargos to punish the Haitian government and people. The U.S. government has the power to veto the disbursement of loans to Haiti from financial institutions such as the World Bank, IMF, and Inter- American Development Bank. To the detriment of the people of Haiti, the U.S. government, specifically the Departments of Treasury and State, has exercised this authority. For example, the Inter-American Development Bank has not released $146 million in aid to Haiti, which was initially approved by the IDB Board of Directors. It is more distressing that in the interim, Haiti has been forced to pay arrears payments to maintain its status with the IDB. The Congressional Black Caucus as well as many Members of Congress are concerned about the humanitarian crisis and political situation in Haiti. Particularly, the caucus has worked to assist the people of Haiti by introducing legislation such as the Haitian Economic Recovery Opportunity Act, the Haiti Aid in Transition Initiative, and the Access to Capitol for Haiti bill. We also met with officials from the World Bank, IMF, IDB, and the Departments of State and Treasury to advocate that these institutions release badly needed funds. Further, we have supported economic initiatives, such as the Harding Enterprises proposal for a Hilton Hotel in Haiti, and worked to modify the Millennium Account, so that more African and poor countries like Haiti can access it. Lastly, the caucus has hosted a variety of forums, briefings, and braintrusts on Haiti, and is working on other proposals to assist the people of Haiti. The Congressional Black Caucus is committed to aiding the people of Haiti in their struggle for democracy, the rule of law, and economic stability. I ask that this Congress support realistic policies that will help the people of Haiti, instead of destabilizing their nation.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I had hoped that we would have been able to come together to reach consensus on how best to deal with the difficult problem of child abduction in this country and to pass an AMBER alert bill. The recent rash of child abductions clearly indicate that additional steps need to be taken to protect our children from sexual predators. Unfortunately, the conference was delayed and hung up by provisions which have nothing to do with Amber alert and which should have been dealt with separately. First and foremost, is the highly controversial amendment offered by Rep. Tom Feeney, which would totally hamstring any remaining discretion federal judges have in making sentencing determinations. This provision was added on the floor two weeks ago without proper hearings or committee debate and clearly is not ready for prime time. It is opposed by Chief Justice Rehnquist, by the Federal Judicial Conference, by the American Bar Association, by the Federal Bar Association, by the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, by the NAACP and by countless law professors, prosecutors, and public defenders. In a nutshell, the Freeney Amendment, as introduced, would make it next to impossible for federal judges to reduce sentences below the guidelines, even where mitigating factors such a military service, community involvement and youth are present. Guess who is going to be harmed disproportionally by this harsh approach to sentencing--minorities in general and African Americans in particular. Consider the fact that a full 12 percent of African American men aged 20-34 are in prison--more than 8 times the comparable rate of white males in the same age group. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, nearly one out of every three black men will spend time in prison during their lifetime. So when you toughten sentencing, as the Feeney amendment would do, you should know that you are busting up African American families and decimating our inner cities. You are also creating massive problems concerning reentry when these individuals leave the prison system in another 10 or 15 years. The very least we should do is to leave these critical life decisions in the reasonable discretion of the Federal judge who is closest to the situation. To use the popular AMBER alert measure to alter this long standing principle, and without proper hearings or consideration is to me shameful. Now my friends on the other side of the aisle will claim not to worry, that they fixed the Feeney amendment which they will say is limited to sex offenses. But the truth is that the revised Feeney language would radically alter the sentencing regime for every single criminal case in the legal system. It does this by adding a whole host of new procedural requirements for a judge to show any form of mercy in all federal cases. The bill also adds new requirements on the Justice Department and the Sentencing Commission with regard to downward departures in all Federal cases. At the end of the day, what we will have is something very close to the original purpose of the Feeney Amendment--mandatory minimums in all federal criminal cases. There are other problems in the bill before us, including new death penalties, eliminating statutes of limitation, and criminalizing so- called ``RAVE'' parties. As a result of these provisions and the very broad based and dangerous Feeney amendment, I must reluctantly urge a NO vote on this short sighted measure. [April 9, 2003] Vote No on Child Abduction Prevention Act (S. 151), Which Deprives Federal Judges of Discretion to Make the Punishment Fit the Crime Dear Representative: On Thursday, April 10, the House will consider the Child Abduction Prevention Act (S. 151), Title IV of which would radically limit federal judicial discretion to impose just sentences for federal offenses. This measure, which was attached to the House child abduction bill without committee considerations, goes far beyond any effort to crack down on child abductors. It overrules a key Supreme Court sentencing decision and constitutes a drastic encroachment on the independence of the judiciary and the U.S. Sentencing Commission. Such far-reaching changes in the laws and procedures that govern our federal criminal justice system should not be undertaken without hearings and meaningful debate. Title IV directs the Sentencing Commission to limit a federal judge's power to depart from the Sentencing Guidelines. Departures are in integral part of the Sentencing Reform Act that Congress enacted in 1984. That bipartisan reform struck as balance between uniformity and judicial discretion and was enacted after years of study and consideration of problems in the previous sentencing system. Congress understood that a guidelines system that encompasses every relevant sentencing factor is neither possible nor desirable. Departures are a necessary and healthy part of the guideline system. Departures do not reflect an avoidance of the law by federal judges but rather their conscientious compliance with the Congressional mandate to impose a guideline sentence unless the court finds a circumstance not adequately considered by the Commission that warrants a departure. The Sentencing Reform Act already contains substantial limits on judicial discretion. The overwhelming majority of federal sentences, other than those requested by the government to reward defendants who have provided assistance in prosecuting others or to manage the caseload in border districts, are within the guidelines written by the Sentencing Commission, which is appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Judges may only depart from the guidelines if the case involves circumstances not adequately considered by the Commission. The government may appeal any downward departure. Title IV overturns an important Supreme Court decision. In the 1996 case of Koon v. United States, which was in relevant part a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court interpreted the departure standard in a way that limited departures but left some room for judicial discretion. Title IV of S. 151 recklessly overturns that landmark decision, which recognized that departures are an integral part of the guidelines system that seeks ``to reduce unjustified disparities and so reach toward the evenhandedness and neutrality that are the distinguishing marks of any principled system of justice [but that at the same time preserve the] uniform and constant * * * Federal judicial tradition for the sentencing judge to consider every convicted person as an individual and every case as a unique study in the human failings that sometimes mitigate, sometimes magnify, the crime and the punishment to ensue.'' 518 U.S. 81, 113 (1996). The current bill overturns the basic structure of the carefully crafted guidelines system, without meaningful input from judges or practitioners and based on numbers called into question by the statistics maintained by the Sentencing Commission. Departures preserve some measure of fairness in the Sentencing Guidelines. Without the discretionary authority to depart, all crimes regardless of the circumstances would have to be sentenced exactly the same; one size must fit all, predetermined by the body of experts sitting in Washington, D.C. The Sentencing Guidelines will become a little more than mandatory minimum sentencing laws, which cause rampant injustice and unwarranted racial disparity. The departure process is already under review. Departures are the one area of the Guidelines were the Commission can see if its sentencing policies are working or whether an adjustment needs to be made. A high departure rate in certain types of cases can indicate flaws in the guidelines that the Commission needs to address. This is the careful system of checks and balances that Congress crafted when it created the guidelines. The Sentencing Commission has repeatedly demonstrated its willingness to police the departure power and recently announced that it will be conducting a study of the issue. We urge Congress to let this process work. Thank you for considering our views. Please contact Kyle O'Dowd (202-872-8600, ext. 226) for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers or Ronald Weich for the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights (202-788-1818) if we can provide more information. Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, National Legal Aid and Defender Association, National Association of Federal Defenders, Families Against Mandatory Minimums. Mr.SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the conference report. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I want to bring to your attention a fascinating article in this month's issue of Mother Jones magazine, written by Robert Dreyfuss, and it deals with the question of establishing a permanent presence in the Middle East. I wanted to point out that this issue of oil, which fuels military power, national treasuries and international politics, is no longer a commodity to be bought and sold within the confines of traditional energy supply and demand balances. Rather, it has been transformed into a determinant of well-being of national security and of international power. I recommend it to the attention of all of my colleagues. Mr. Speaker, I submit the above-mentioned article for the Record. Establishing a Permanent Presence in the Middle East If your were to spin the globe and look for real estate critical to building an American empire, your first stop would have to be the Persian Gulf. The desert sands of this region hold two of every three barrels oil in the world- Iraq's reserves alone are equal, by some estimates, to those of Russia, the United States, China, and Mexico combined. For the past 30 years, the Gulf has been in the crosshairs of an influential group of Washington foreign-policy strategists, who believe that in order to ensure its global dominance, the United States must seize control of the region and its oil. Born during the energy crisis of the 1970s and refined since then by a generation of policymakers, this approach is finding its boldest expression yet in the Bush administration--which, with its plan to invade Iraq and install a regime beholden to Washington, has moved closer than any of its predecessors to transforming the Gulf into an American protectorate. In the geopolitical vision driving current U.S. policy toward Iraq, the key to national security is global hegemony--dominance over any and all potential rivals. To that end, the United States must not only be able to project its military forces anywhere, at any time. It must also control key resources, chief among them oil--and especially Gulf oil. To the hawks who now set the tone at the White House and the Pentagon, the region is crucial not simply for its share of the U.S. oil supply (other sources have become more important over the years), but because it would allow the United States to maintain a lock on the world's energy life-line and potentially deny access to its global competitors. The administration ``believes you have to control resources in order to have access to them,'' says Chas Freeman, who served as U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia under the first President Bush. ``They are taken with the idea that the end of the Cold War left the United States able to impose its will globally--and that those who have the ability to shape events with power have the duty to do so. It's ideology.'' Iraq, in this view, is a strategic prize of unparalleled importance. Unlike the oil beneath Alaska's frozen tundra, locked away in the steppes of central Asia, or buried under stormy seas, Iraq's crude is readily accessible and, at less than $1.50 a barrel, some of the cheapest in the world to produce. Already, over the past several months, Western companies have been meeting with Iraqi exiles to try to stake a claim to that bonanza. But while the companies hope to cash in on an American- controlled Iraq, the push to remove Saddam Hussein hasn't been driven by oil executives, many of whom are worried about the consequences of war. Nor are Vice President Cheney and President Bush, both former oilmen, looking at the Gulf simply for the profits that can be earned there. The administration is thinking bigger, much bigger, than that. ``Controlling Iraq is about oil as power, rather than oil as fuel,'' says Michael Klare, professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College and author of Resource Wars. ``Control over the Persian Gulf translates into control over Europe, Japan, and China. It's having our hand on the spigot.'' Ever since the oil shocks of the 1970s, the United States has steadily been accumulating military muscle in the Gulf by building bases, selling weaponry, and forging military partnerships. Now, it is poised to consolidate its might in a place that will be a fulcrum of the world's balance of power for decades to come. At a stroke, by taking control of Iraq, the Bush administration can solidify a long-running strategic design. ``It's the Kissinger plan,'' says James Akins, a former U.S. diplomat. ``I thought it had been killed, but it's back.'' Akins learned a hard lesson about the politics of oil when he served as a U.S. envoy in Kuwait and Iraq, and ultimately as ambassador to Saudi Arabia during the oil crisis of 1973 and '74. At his home in Washington, D.C., shelves filled with Middle Eastern pottery and other memorabilia cover the walls, souvenirs of his years in the Foreign Service. Nearly three decades later, he still gets worked up while recalling his first encounter with the idea that the United States should be prepared to occupy Arab oil-producing countries. In 1975, while Akins was ambassador in Saudi Arabia, an article headlined ``Seizing Arab Oil'' appeared in Harper's. The author, who used the pseudonym Miles Ignotus, was identified as ``a Washington-based professor and defense consultant with intimate links to high-level U.S. policy- makers.'' The article outlined, as Akins puts it, ``how we could solve all our economic and political problems by taking over the Arab oil fields [and] bringing in Texans and Oklahomans to operate them.'' Simultaneously, a rash of similar stories appeared in other magazines and newspapers. ``I knew that it had to have been the result of a deep background briefing,'' Akins says. ``You don't have eight people coming up with the same screwy idea at the same time, independently. ``Then I made a fatal mistake,'' Akins continues. ``I said on television that anyone who would propose that is either a madman, a criminal, or an agent of the Soviet Union.'' Soon afterward, he says, he learned that the background briefing had been conducted by his boss, then-Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. Akins was fired later that year. Kissinger has never acknowledged having planted the seeds for the article. But in an interview with Business Week that same year, he delivered a thinly veiled threat to the Saudis, musing about bringing oil prices down through ``massive political warfare against countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran to make them risk their political stability and maybe their security if they did not cooperate.'' In the 1970s, America's military presence in the Gulf was virtually nil, so the idea of seizing control of its oil was a pipe dream. Still, starting with the Miles Ignotus article, and a parallel one by conservative strategist and Johns Hopkins University professor Robert W. Tucker in Commentary, the idea began to gain favor among a feisty group of hardline, pro-Israeli thinkers, especially the hawkish circle aligned with Democratic senators Henry Jackson of Washington and Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York. Eventually, this amalgam of strategists came to be known as ``neoconservatives,'' and they played important roles in President Reagan's Defense Department and at think tanks and academic policy centers in the 1980s. Led by Richard Perle, chairman of the Pentagon's influential Defense Policy Board, and Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, they now occupy several dozen key posts in the White House, the Pentagon, and the State Department. At the top, they are closest to Vice President Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who have been closely aligned since both men served in the White House under President Ford in the mid-1970s. They also clustered around Cheney when he served as secretary of defense during the Gulf War in 1991. Throughout those years, and especially after the Gulf War, U.S. forces have steadily encroached on the Gulf and the surrounding region, from the Horn of Africa to Central Asia. In preparing for an invasion and occupation of Iraq, the administration has been building on the steps taken by military and policy planners over the past quarter century. STEP ONE: The Rapid Deployment Force. In 1973 and '74, and again in 1979, political upheavals in the Middle East led to huge spikes in oil prices, which rose fifteenfold over the decade and focused new attention on the Persian Gulf. In January 1980, President Carter effectively declared the Gulf a zone of U.S. influence, especially against encroachment from the Soviet Union. ``Let our position be absolutely clear,'' he said, announcing what came to be known as the Carter Doctrine. ``An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.'' To back up this doctrine, Carter created the Rapid Deployment Force, an ``over-the-horizon'' military unit capable of rushing several thousand U.S. troops to the Gulf in a crisis. STEP TWO: The Central Command. In the 1980s, under President Reagan, the United States began pressing countries in the Gulf for access to bases and support facilities. The Rapid Deployment Force was transformed into the Central Command, a new U.S. military command authority with responsibility for the Gulf and the surrounding region from eastern Africa to Afghanistan. Reagan tried to organize a ``strategic consensus'' of anti-Soviet allies, including Turkey, Israel, and Saudi Arabia. The United States sold billions of dollars' worth of arms to the Saudis in the early '80s, from AWACS surveillance aircraft to F-15 fighters. And in 1987, at the height of the war between Iraq and Iran, the U.S. Navy created the Joint Task Force-Middle East to protect oil tankers plying the waters of the Gulf, thus expanding a U.S. naval presence of just three or four warships into a flotilla of 40-plus aircraft carriers, battleships, and cruisers. STEP THREE: The Gulf War. Until 1991, the United States was unable to persuade the Arab Gulf states to allow a permanent American presence on their soil. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia, while maintaining its close relationship with the United States, began to diversify its commercial and military ties; by the time U.S. Ambassador Chas Freeman arrived there in the late '80s, the United States had fallen to fourth place among arms suppliers to the kingdom. ``The United States was being supplanted even in commercial terms by the British, the French, even the Chinese,'' Freeman notes. All that changed with the Gulf War. Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states no longer opposed a direct U.S. military presence, and American troops, construction squads, arms salesmen, and military assistance teams rushed in. The Gulf War put Saudi Arabia back on the map and revived a relationship that had been severely attrited,'' says Freeman. In the decade after the war, the United States sold more than $43 billion worth of weapons, equipment, and military construction projects to Saudi Arabia, and 416 billion more to Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, and the United Arab Emirates, according to data compiled by the Federation of American Scientists. Before Operation Desert Storm, the U.S. military enjoyed the right to stockpile, or ``pre-position,'' military supplies only in the comparatively remote Gulf state of Oman on the Indian Ocean. After the war, nearly every country in the region began conducting joint military exercises, hosting U.S. naval units and Air Force squadrons, and granting the United States pre-positioning rights. ``Our military presence in the Middle East has increased dramatically,'' then-Defense Secretary William Cohen boasted in 1995. Another boost to the U.S. presence was the unilateral imposition, in 1991, of no-fly zones in northern and southern Iraq, enforced mostly by U.S. aircraft from bases in Turkey and Saudi Arabia. ``There was a massive buildup, especially around Incirlik in Turkey, to police the northern no-fly zone, and around [the Saudi capitol of] Riyadh, to police the southern no-fly zone,'' says Colin Robinson of the Center for Defense Information, a Washington think tank. A billion- dollar, high-tech command center was built by Saudi Arabia near Riyadh, and over the past two years the United States has secretly been completing another one in Qatar. The Saudi facilities ``were built with capacities far beyond the ability of Saudi Arabia to use them,'' Robinson says. ``And that's exactly what Qatar is doing now.'' Step four: Afghanistan. The war in Afghanistan--and the open-ended war on terrorism, which has led to U.S. strikes in Yemen, Pakistan, and elsewhere--further boosted America's strength in the region. The administration has won large increases in the defense budget--which now stands at about $400 billion, up from just over $300 billion in 2000--and a huge chunk of that budget, perhaps as much as $60 billion, is slated to support U.S. forces in and around the Persian Gulf. Military facilities on the perimeter of the Gulf, from Djibouti in the Horn of Africa to the island of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, have been expanded, and a web of bases and training missions has extended the U.S. presence deep into central Asia. From Afghanistan to the landlocked former Soviet republics of Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan, U.S. forces have established themselves in an area that had long been in Russia's sphere of influence. Oil-rich in its own right, and strategically vital, central Asia is now the eastern link in a nearly continuous chain of U.S. bases, facilities, and allies stretching from the Mediterranean and the Red Sea far into the Asian hinterland. Step five: Iraq. Removing Saddam Hussein could be the final piece of he puzzle, cementing an American imperial presence. It is ``highly possible'' that the United States will maintain military bases in Iraq, Robert Kagan, a leading neoconservative strategist, recently told the Atlanta Journal Constitution. ``We will probably need a major concentration of forces in the Middle East over a long period of time,'' he said. ``When we have economic problems, it's been caused by disruptions in our oil supply. If we have a force in Iraq, there will be no disruption in oil supplies.'' Kagan, along with William Kristol of the Weekly Standard, is a founder of the think tank Project for the New American Century, an assembly of foreign-policy hawks whose supports include the Pentagon's Perle, New Republic publisher Martin Peretz, and former Central Intelligence agency director James Woolsey. Among the group's affiliates in the Bush administration are Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz; I. Lewis Libby, the vice president's chief of staff; Elliott Abrams, the Middle East director at the National Security Council; and Zalmay Khalilzad, the White House liaison to the Iraqi opposition groups. Kagan's group, tied to a web of similar neoconservative, pro-Israeli organizations, represents the constellation of thinkers whose ideological affinity was forged in the Nixon and Ford administrations. To Akins, who has just returned from Saudi Arabia, it's a team that looks all too familiar, seeking to implement the plan first outlined back in 1975. ``It'll be easier once we have Iraq,'' he says. ``Kuwait, we already have. Qatar and Bahrain, too. So it's only Saudi Arabia we're talking about, and the United Arab Emirates falls into place.'' Last summer, Perle provided a brief glimpse into his circle's thinking when he invited Rand Corporation strategist Laurent Murawiec to make a presentation to his Defense Policy Board, a committee of former senior officials and generals that advises the Pentagon on big-picture policy ideas. Murawiec's closed-door briefing provoked a storm of criticism when it was leaked to the media; he described Saudi Arabia as the ``kernel of evil,'' suggested that the Saudi royal family should be replaced or otherthrown, and raised the idea of a U.S. occupation of Saudi oil fields. He ultimately lost his job when Rand decided he was too controversial. Murawiec is part of a Washington school of thought that views virtually all of the nations in the Gulf as unstable ``failed states'' and maintains that only the United States has the power to forcibly reorganize and rebuild them. In this view, the arms systems and bases that were put in place to defend the region also provided a ready-made infrastructure for taking over countries and their oil fields in the event of a crisis. The Defense Department likely has contingency plans to occupy Saudi Arabia, says Robert E. Ebel, director of the energy program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a Washington think tank whose advisers include Kissinger; former Defense Secretary and CIA director James Schlesinger; and Zbigniew Brzezinski, Carter's national security adviser. ``If something happens in Saudi Arabia,'' Ebel says, ``if the ruling family is ousted, if they decide to shut off the oil supply, we have to go in.'' Two years ago, Ebel, a former mid-level CIA official, oversaw a CSIS task force that included several members of Congress as well as representatives from industry including ExxonMobil, Arco, BP, Shell, Texaco, and the American Petroleum Institute. Its report, ``The Geopolitics of Energy Into the 21st Century,'' concluded that the world will find itself dependent for many years on unstable oil-producing nations, around which conflicts and wars are bound to swirl. ``Oil is high-profile stuff,'' Ebel says. ``Oil fuels military power, national treasuries, and international politics. It is not longer a commodity to be bought and sold within the confines of traditional energy supply and demand balances. Rather, it has been transformed into a determinant of well-being, of national security, and of international power.'' As vital as the Persian Gulf is now, its strategic importance is likely to grow exponentially in the next 20 years. Nearly one out of every three barrels of oil reserves in the world lie under just two countries: Saudi Arabia (with 259 billion barrels of proven reserves) and Iraq (112 billion). Those figures may understate Iraq's largely unexplored reserves, which according to U.S. government estimates may hold as many as 432 billion barrels. With supplies in many other regions, especially the United States and the North Sea, nearly exhausted, oil from Saudi Arabia and Iraq is becoming ever more critical--a fact duly noted in the administration's National Energy Policy, released in 2001 by a White House task force. By 2020, the Gulf will supply between 54 percent and 67 percent of the world's crude, the document said, making the region ``vital to U.S. interests.'' According to G. Daniel Butler, an oil- markets analyst at the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), Saudi Arabia's production capacity will rise from its current 9.4 million barrels a day to 22.1 million over the next 17 years. Iraq, which in 2002 produced a mere 2 million barrels a day, ``could easily be a double-digit producer by 2020,'' says Butler. U.S. strategists aren't worried primarily about America's own oil supplies; for decades, the United States has worked to diversify its sources of oil with Venezuela, Nigeria, Mexico, and other countries growing in importance. But for Western Europe and Japan, as well as the developing industrial powers of eastern Asia, the Gulf is all-important. Whoever controls it will maintain crucial global leverage for decades to come. Today, notes the EIA's Butler, two-thirds of Gulf oil goes to Western industrial nations. By 2015, according to a study by the CIA's National Intelligence Council, three-quarters of the Gulf's oil will go to Asia, chiefly to China. China's growing dependence on the Gulf could cause it to develop closer military and political ties with countries such as Iran and Iraq, according to the report produced by Ebel's CSIS task force. ``They have different political interests in the gulf than we do,'' Ebel says. ``Is it to our advantage to have another competitor for oil in the Persian Gulf?'' David Long, who served as a U.S. diplomat in Saudi Arabia and as chief of the Near East division in the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research during the Reagan administration, likens the Bush administration's approach to the philosophy of Admiral Mahan, the 19th-century military strategist who advocated the use of naval power to create a global American empire. ``They want to be the world's enforcer,'' he says. ``It's a worldview, a geopolitical position. They say, ``We need hegemony in the region.'' Until the 1970s, the face of American power in the Gulf was the U.S. oil industry, led by Exxon, Mobil, Chevron, Texaco, and Gulf, all of whom competed fiercely with Britain's BP and Anglo-Dutch Shell. But in the early '70s, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and the other Gulf states nationalized their oil industries, setting up state-run companies to run wells, pipelines, and production facilities. Not only did that enhance the power of OPEC, enabling that organization to force a series of sharp price increases, but it alarmed U.S. policymakers. Today, a growing number of Washington strategists are advocating a direct U.S. challenge to state-owned petroleum industries in oil-producing countries, especially the Persian Gulf. Think tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation, and CSIS are conducting discussions about privatizing Iraq's oil industry. Some of them have put forward detailed plans outlining how Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and other nations could be forced to open up their oil and gas industries to foreign investment. The Bush administration itself has been careful not to say much about what might happen to Iraq's oil. But State Department officials have had preliminary talks about the oil industry with Iraqi exiles, and there have been reports that the U.S. military wants to use at least part of the country's oil revenue to pay for the cost of military occupation. ``One of the major problems with the Persian Gulf is that the means of production are in the hands of the state,'' Rob Sobhani, an oil-industry consultant, told an American Enterprise Institute conference last fall in Washington. Already, he noted, several U.S. oil companies are studying the possibility of privatization in the Gulf. Dismantling government-owned oil companies, Sobhani argues, could also force political changes in the region. ``The beginning of liberal democracy can be achieved if you take the means of production out of the hands of the state,'' he said, acknowledging that Arabs would resist that idea. ``It's going to take a lot of selling, a lot of marketing,'' he concluded. Just which companies would get to claim Iraq's oil has been a subject of much debate. After a war, the contracts that Iraq's state-owned oil company has signed with European, Russian, and Chinese oil firms might well be abrogated, leaving the field to U.S. oil companies. ``What they have in mind is denationalization, and then parceling Iraqi oil out of American Oil companies,'' says Akins. ``The American oil companies are going to be the main beneficiaries of this war.'' The would-be rulers of a post-Saddam Iraq have been thinking along the same lines. ``American oil companies will have a big shot at Iraqi oil,'' says Ahmad Chalabi, leader of the Iraqi National Congress, a group of aristocrats and wealthy Iraqis who fled the country when its repressive monarchy was overthrown in 1958. During a visit to Washington last fall, Chalabi held meetings with at least three major U.S. oil companies, trying to enlist their support. Similar meetings between Iraqi exiles and U.S. companies have also been taking place in Europe. ``Iraqi exiles have approached us, saying, `You can have our oil if we can get back in there,' '' says R. Gerald Bailey, who headed Exxon's Middle East operations until 1997. ``All the major American companies have met with them in Paris, London, Brussels, all over. They're all jockeying for position. You can't ignore it, but you've got to do it on the QT. And you can't wait till it gets too far along.'' But the companies are also anxious about the consequences of war, according to many experts, oil-company executives, and former State Department officials. ``The oil companies are caught in the middle,'' says Bailey. Executives fear that war could create havoc in the region, turning Arab states against the United States and Western oil companies. On the other hand, should a U.S. invasion of Iraq be successful, they want to be there when the oil is divvied up. Says David Long, the former U.S. diplomat, ``It's greed versus fear.'' Ibrahim Oweiss, a Middle East specialist at Georgetown University who coined the term ``petrodollar'' and has also been a consultant to Occidental and BP, has been closely watching the cautious maneuvering by the companies. ``I know that the oil companies are scared about the outcome of this,'' he says. ``They are not at all sure this is in the best interests of the oil industry.'' Anne Joyce, an editor at the Washington-based Middle East Policy Council who has spoken privately to top Exxon officials, says it's clear that most oil-industry executives ``are afraid'' of what a war in the Persian Gulf could mean in the long term--especially if tensions in the region spiral out of control. ``They see it as much too risky, and they are risk averse,'' she says. ``They think it has `fiasco' written all over it.''

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to put into the Record a letter that I have sent to the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Defense asking that we investigate or have investigated the allegations of conflict of interest and other possible misconduct involving Mr. Richard N. Perle, formerly chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board. As a special government employee, he is caught by all the ethics rules that preclude and severely limit his ability to operate with businesses connected with the military. Madam Speaker, I include for the Record this letter.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss several matters that have become intertwined in the Iraq circumstance, and of course, our thoughts and prayers are with the brave men and women who are fighting overseas, faced with a number of troubling episodes, though, here at home that may involve conflicts of interest of high-level Bush administration officials. I take the floor tonight to raise the discussion on the ongoing revelations that Richard Perle, a member of the Pentagon's defense policy board, may have used his government position for private financial gain. It could be that he did not use his position for private financial gain, but I am alarmed with a number of lucrative government contracts that were recently awarded to the company formerly headed by the Vice President of the United States, Dick Cheney. What I am troubled about is the apparent link between the private financial gains made by the administration and their friends and the administration's prosecution of the war in Iraq. In the short term, American businesses could stand to gain nearly $2 billion in government contracts for reconstruction projects in Iraq; and over the long run, over the long term, the next 3 years, the United Nations Development Program estimates it will cost up to $30 billion or more to rebuild that country. Indeed, some of that money has already been awarded, including a contract to a subsidiary of Halliburton Company, which the Vice President was the CEO of from 1995 to the year 2000. Many in the government are already benefiting from these payouts, including Mr. Richard Perle, who, for example, is on the board of directors for Onset Technology. Onset is the world's leading provider of message conversion technology. The company's customers include Bechtel, a well-known government contractor widely considered the leading candidate for rebuilding the Iraqi infrastructure, and Raytheon Company, which is a provider of defense electronics, including the Patriot and the Tomahawk missiles. There are many ways in which Mr. Richard Perle could be benefiting from his government position on the Defense policy board. For example, he has contracted with bankrupt telecommunications company Global Crossing, Limited to try to win the United States Government approval of its $250 million chapter 11 buyout by two Asian companies, Hutchison Whampoa, controlled by the Hong Kong billionaire Li Ka-shing, and Singapore Technologies Telemedia, a phone company controlled by the Government of Singapore itself. Mr. Perle was being paid $125,000 for his efforts but stood to reap a $600,000 bonus if the sale was approved by his superior, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Both the Department of Defense and the Federal Bureau of Investigation were opposed to the sale for national security reasons because it would place Global Crossing's fiber optic network, used by the United States Government, under foreign control. In a March 7, 2003, affidavit, Mr. Perle said, ``As the chairman of the Defense Policy Board, I have a unique perspective on and intimate knowledge of the national defense and security issues that will be raised by the review process.'' Mr. Perle even acknowledged contacting at least one government official on Global Crossing's behalf, though he refused to identify this person. And though Mr. Perle said he is no longer lobbying on Global Crossing's behalf and will donate his $125,000 fee to American servicemen and their families, which I applaud, the fact remains that he may well have used his government position improperly to secure this fee. It is not relevant what he chooses to do with the money after he gets it. Mr. Richard Perle also serves as managing partner of a private venture capital firm called Trireme Partners that invests primarily in companies that deal in goods and services related to national security. Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh recently reported that on January 3 of this year, Mr. Perle met with Saudi businessmen, including arms dealer Adnan Kashoggi, in Marseilles, France, to secure their investment in Perle's company. The report contains a disturbing quote from Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the Saudi ambassador to the United States, and he said, ``There were elements of the appearance of blackmail. `If we get in business, he'll back off in Saudi Arabia,' as I have been informed by participants in the meeting.'' Though Perle denied that securing investment in his company was the purpose of the meeting, he said that he did meet with the Saudis concerning Iraq. There is also concern about Perle's position as a nonexecutive on the board of directors of software developer Autonomy, a data mining company that lists the Defense Department and Homeland Security Department as customers. For example, last October the company won a major contract with Homeland Security. While Mr. Perle has drawn no salary, he has received more than 120,000 share options from Autonomy. Mr. Perle's award of these share options gives him a direct financial stake in the success of this company. Indeed, the National Association of Pension Funds recently recommended that shareholders abstain when Mr. Perle comes up for reappointment this summer because the group feels that share options compromise the independent status of the independent directors such as Perle. In yet what some term an amazing incident on March 19 of this year, Mr. Perle spoke in a conference call sponsored by Goldman Sachs, in which he advised participants on possible investment opportunities arising from the war in Iraq. The conference title was ``Implication of an Imminent War: Iraq Now. North Korea Next?'' Clearly, Mr. Perle has little regard for the conflict-of-interest rules that are in place for government officials, and I am assuming in that statement that he is aware of the rules in the first place. The most recent Perle revelation is that while on the Defense policy board he advised a major American satellite maker, Local Space and Communications, as it faced government accusations that it improperly transferred rocket technology to China. In an attempt to divert us from continuing to look into these matters, Mr. Perle has recently announced that he would immediately step down as chairman of the Defense policy board last week. Yet he does remain on the board as a member, along with 29 others. According to a recent study by the Center for Public Integrity, of the 30 Defense policy board members, some of them have ties to companies that have won more than $76 billion in defense contracts in last year and the year before. Indeed, four members are, in fact, registered lobbyists, one of whom represents two of the three largest defense contractors. Perle, like the others, continues to be a key adviser to the administration on defense issues, even as he pursues his personal business in the same area, a potential violation of the Federal criminal ethics rules. In order to get to the bottom of this matter, I plan to ask the distinguished Secretary of Defense, Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, to publicly release the financial disclosure forms that each member of the board must file with his office. To date, these forms have not been seen by anyone outside the Pentagon. I am further requesting of the Secretary of Defense to release the minutes of all meetings held by the Defense policy board so that we can see whether issues relating to the private financial interests of the members have been discussed. There are persons on my staff who have security clearance and can view the minutes of these meetings without any danger of compromising national security. As a matter of fact, I would be willing to do so myself. Of course, regardless of what was discussed at the meeting, the fact still remains that the members of the board are still government employees who simultaneously sit on the boards of and are employed by private companies that can and do benefit from Defense Department contracts. This is a direct and disturbing conflict of interest. Mr. Perle and the other members of the Defense policy board are not the only ones capitalizing on the war in Iraq. I turn now to the Vice President of the United States, whose former company, Halliburton, has already secured a number of contracts in the Middle East since the Vice President took office. For example, on March 25 of this year, the United States Army announced that it awarded the main Iraq oil well firefighting contract to a unit of Halliburton, which incidentally was let without any bidding whatsoever. Furthermore, it was reported that Halliburton had been working closely with U.S. Army engineers prior even to the awarding of the contract. This was not the first time Halliburton has profited from a government contract since the Bush-Cheney administration has taken office. Halliburton recently secured a $140 million contract by the Saudi Arabian Government through their state-owned petroleum firm, Saudi Aramco, to develop oil fields in their country. And a Halliburton subsidiary was also hired by the Saudis to build a $40 million ethylene plant. Now, it is a matter of record that Halliburton gave nearly $18,000 to the Bush-Cheney Presidential campaign of 2000. There is some concern that these campaign contributions from Cheney's former company, coupled with Halliburton's success in securing government contracts under this administration, at the very least create the appearance of favored treatment. And while the Vice President divested nearly all of his financial interests in Halliburton when he stepped down as CEO to be President Bush's running mate, he still continues to receive $1 million a year in deferred compensation from his Halliburton severance package. And though he sold most of his shares when he left the company, he retained options worth in the range of $8 million. Like Perle's donation of his $125,000 fee to war victims, the Vice President has also arranged to pay any profits derived from his Halliburton stock to charity. How nice. It seems, Madam Speaker, that the Bush administration is not opposed to using government position for private gain as long as one does not keep all the profits for oneself. Quite frankly, like Mr. Perle, it is time for the Vice President to make a much fuller disclosure than he has up till now. The American people have a right to know if their officials are or are not using their office for self-interested reasons. From the evidence already made public, Mr. Perle and others really should, and I recommend this, give a full accounting of their business dealings; and the Vice President must completely divest himself of any and all financial ties to Halliburton. Then the American people can be sure that their representatives in Washington, their leaders, are working for the good of the many and not in any kind of personal way to benefit themselves. Now, while it is true that Halliburton, and I am not picking on them, but they are the subject of these discussions, while it is true that Halliburton is now out of the running for the prime contract to rebuild Iraq, and I presume they took themselves out, there is nothing that prevents them from being subcontractors in many instances. Madam Speaker, I am submitting for the Record a couple of articles, from the Washington Post and even from the Wall Street Journal, which are critical of Mr. Perle. I quote from today's paper: ``Our own view is that Mr. Perle should have understood that Global Crossing was politically toxic.'' As well, Madam Speaker, I would like to include a statement of Mr. Perle that explains his position and what has happened in this matter. It is one that I think, in all fairness to him, should be reproduced in the Record. [Mar. 31, 2003] For the Record (By Richard Perle) Last week I resigned my position as chairman of the advisory Defense Policy Board after news stories, rich in innuendo, suggested that I had acted improperly in advising Global Crossing (the New York Times) and, in a separate matter, in meeting over lunch with two Saudi businessmen (The New Yorker). They provoked an avalanche of stories, mostly repeating points in those first two, with each iteration making more extreme allegations than the last. There was no way I could quickly quell the press criticism of me, even though it was based on factual errors and tendentious reporting. So I wrote to Donald Rumsfeld, ``I have seen controversies like this better and I know that this one will inevitably distract from the urgent challenge in which you are now engaged. I would not wish to cause even a moment's distraction from that challenge.'' Let me explain my milieu, and context. Government officials, particularly at the most senior level, frequently seek advice from outside the departments they superintended. The perspective of knowledgeable outsiders is often a needed corrective to an institutional view that may have come to dominate the department's thinking. Sometimes senior officials face vexing questions for which their staffs provide unsatisfying answers, or they want a longer-term view. It is only natural that an intellectually curious cabinet officer will reach out to peers who have occupied similar positions, in the hope that their experience will help avoid mistakes or point the way to new ideas. When he does so, he must have confidence that the advice he receives is candid, that it is the product of serious deliberation, and that it is free from advocacy reflecting private interests. The relationship between official and adviser is ultimately one of trust. Most often, the people best able to help are professionally involved in the businesses for which the official is responsible: health professionals or pharmaceutical company executives advising the Department of Health and Human Services, for example, or energy company officials advising the Department of energy, or defense executives advising the Department of Defense. If the secretary of defense wants advice on new approaches to the conflict between India and Pakistan, or how far and how fast to press technical innovation in precision-guided weapons, he is unlikely to turn to a dress designer or a molecular biologist. (Hollywood personalities might be similar ill-equipped, but he is likely to get their advice whether he wants it or not.) There is no way, of course, to be sure that an outside adviser (or for that matter, a subordinate) is not driven by a private passion, a deeply held conviction that skews his judgment, or a private policy agenda. Only by judging the cogency of the advice he receives--and over time the track record of the adviser--can he be confident that he is receiving balanced counsel. But there are ways to ensure that advice does not advance personal financial interests, and they are reflected in rules that apply to the many thousands of individuals serving on hundreds of boards which advise government at all levels. The two key rules are simply and flow from a familiar principle: that public office should not be used for private gain. The first rule is full disclosure of the financial interests of the adviser. This is accomplished by annual filings of the board member's business interests, sources of income, clients, share holdings and the like. The second rule is straighforward: If the discussions or advice of the board should involve matters that have a direct and predictable effect on an adviser's financial interests, he is recused from taking part. An adviser following these rules should be free to give his best candid advice, and the official receiving advice should not have to worry that it might be tainted. These are the rules that members of government advisory boards accept when they agree to serve on them. They are not obliged to terminate their employment or abandon business interests, even those that may benefit from decisions of the department or agency they advise. Since most people with experience and knowledge relevant to defense and national security policy are likely to earn their livelihood in defense-related enterprises, the possibility of conflict of interest is always present and must be contained by adherence to the two rules, disclosure and recusal. Without those rules, and the protection they afford, few individuals with knowledge or experience would agree to serve on advisory boards, and the benefits of those boards would be lost to policy officials. I have been privileged to chair the Defense Policy Board for nearly two years. During that time the board has debated many issues, including U.S. policy with respect to Iraq, weapons of mass destruction, European-U.S. relations, the war on terrorism and the like. The discussions have been lively, the views expressed diverse, and the board's experienced members--former secretaries of state, defense and energy, former directors of Central Intelligence, former speakers of the House from both parties, a former vice-president, professors, a Nobel laureate (in economics) and several recently retired general officers--have used the board's meetings to share their views with the secretary of defense. The Times story about my work for Global Crossing gave the impression that I had been retained to use influence stemming from my chairmanship, my ``close ties to current officials,'' to obtain favorable ruling on the acquisition of Global Crossing by a joint venture including a Hong Kong company. This is incorrect. (When I asked the times to publish a letter in reply, I was told that they would not unless I dropped the word ``incorrect.'' Thus I learned that the Times censors letters to the editor.) In truth, I was retained to advise Global Crossing on how it could meet the government's security concerns about the transaction, not to ``help overcome Defense Department resistance'' to it. To do this I had to persuade Global Crossing to accept some far-reaching safeguards, which it has now done. My task was to make intelligible to Global Crossing the government's concerns, not to use influence to get the government to set those concerns aside--the precise opposite of the Times' characterization. The New Yorker piece by Seymour Hersh is a masterpiece--of falsehood and innuendo. He describes a lunch I had with two Saudi businessmen, during which the situation in Iraq was the sole topic of discussion, as a ``cover story'' for another purpose--eliciting a private Saudi investment in a fund in which I am a partner. And he quotes Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandar to the effect that ``if we get in business,'' I would ``back off on Saudi Arabia.'' Sprinkled in the article are references to conflicts of interest, although the incoherence of the piece reflects Mr. Hersh's Houdini-like twists and turns, intended to question my integrity. Neither piece shows that I departed from the rules of disclosure and recusal. Global Crossing was never a topic in my board. Had it been, I would have recused myself. Mr. Hersh implies that my involvement in a fund set up to invest in homeland security technologies might by itself constitute a conflict of interest. But there is nothing in the rules governing the board, or in any reasonable ethical judgment, that would preclude my working in such a fund. He implies there may be a conflict of interest issue because I am a non- executive director of a software company, Autonomy, which recently won a contract to supply software for homeland security. But Autonomy never came before my board--specific companies almost never do. Had it, I would have recused myself. The Times story further suggested that the very fact that I served on a board--and that this service was mentioned in documents that summarized my background and qualifications-- was in itself a conflict. But this suggestion cannot be serious. Everybody I work with knows who I am and what I have done, whether I attach my resume to the paperwork or not. Those who serve without any compensation on these boards do so as a civic responsibility. We give time and expertise and we accept the terms of membership, including rules concerning conflicts of interest, willingly. But few of us could do so if we were prevented from working in the areas about which we are consulted, and the value of our advice would be sharply diminished if we left our professional pursuits. Somewhere there is probably a board that advises some agency of government on fashion trends. I suppose I could join it without fear that the New York Times or Seymour Hersh would accuse me of a conflict of interest. My wife would be appalled. [From the Wall Street Journal] Center for Public Ignorance Richard Perle explains the attack on his tenure at the Defense Policy Board nearby. Our own view is that Mr. Perle should have understood that Global Crossing was politically toxic. But you can tell something else is going on here because the ethics attack is now extending to the rest of the Board. An outfit called the Center for Public Integrity--moral modesty is not part of its charter--has issued a report warning that ``at least'' nine of the 30 Board members have some sort of ties to defense contractors. Keep in mind that the Defense Board is purely advisory, its members work without pay and they abide by disclosure rules even though they have zero decision-making power. They serve only because the Secretary of Defense thinks their counsel might occasionally be worth listening to. The suggestion nonetheless is that former CIA Director Jim Woolsey, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and retired Admiral William Owens, among others, shouldn't be able to serve on the advisory panel. How about taking a phone call from Donald Rumsfeld? Is that also too ``incestuous?'' We have reached the state of ethics in Washington in which Madonna could presumably serve as a Pentagon adviser but people who actually know something about national security cannot. The objection is so transparently silly that one can only conclude that the real motivation here is political. The opponents of war with Iraq and change in the Middle East are trying to drive from public influence the folks who speak on behalf of those Bush Administration policies. ``Integrity'' is simply a smokescreen.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the ``Democracy Day Act of 2003,'' legislation that would provide a day off of work so that more of our citizens can vote. I am joined by Representatives Cummings, Rodriguez, Wu, Rangel, McGovern, Frost, Kilpatrick, Woolsey, Kaptur, Carson (IN), and Davis (IL). The United States is the greatest democratic republic in the history of civilization, and at the foundation of our democracy is the right to vote. This right was not simply handed to Americans; rather, it was hard won by many of our Nation's citizens. Today, active citizenship demands that Americans cast a vote to have their ``say'' in the political arena. Despite this privilege, voter turnout has been declining since the 1960s in both Presidential and mid-term elections. Less than half of the voting age population (49.5 percent) voted in the 1996 Presidential election, and only 51.2 percent voted in the 2000 presidential election. The 1998 midterm elections saw the lowest voter turnout since 1942 at 36.1 percent. Of the 163 democracies worldwide, the United States ranks 139th in voter participation. Among several factors causing this decline in voter turnout is the fact that many people do not have time to vote on election day. In fact, according to a recent Census Bureau study, nearly 25 percent of eligible voters cited time constraints or busy work or school schedules as the primary reason for failing to vote in the 2000 Presidential election. The Democracy Day Act of 2003 addresses this problem by providing many hardworking Americans with the necessary time off from work so they can vote. In addition, the bill would have the added benefit of increasing the number of available election day judges, poll workers and suitable polling places. It would also serve to decrease long lines and the overcrowding that occurs during peak times on election day, as well as reinforcing the notion that voting is an important civic duty. The movement to ensure that citizens have time to exercise their democratic right to vote has gained significant momentum in various states. According to the Federal Election Commission, 12 states designate election day as a state holiday, some of which close the schools in addition to excusing employees from work. In addition, 20 states provide state employees time off to vote, and in 26 states, private sector employees may take time off to vote. It is time the Federal Government acts to solidify and coordinate this very important movement. The night to vote is at the foundation of our democracy, and we must do everything we can to ensure that every eligible American has equal access to the polling booths. I am hopeful that Congress can move quickly to enact this worthwhile and timely legislation.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I tonight rise in ardent support of our troops fighting in Iraq. As a veteran of the Korean War, I fully understand the sober task which our soldiers have undertaken. We must remember that these troops are on the front line doing their duty, saluting and following orders. They are great Americans. I want them to know, along with their families, that they have my unwavering support. It is well known that I strongly disagree with the policies that have led us to war in Iraq. It is my opinion on many, many levels that the U.S. should not be at war in Iraq. However, my support of U.S. troops is resolute. I think it is important that support be more than just lip service. Last week I voted against the Bush Administration's budget which would have drastically reduced veteran's health care and benefit programs. Even though the President is waging this preventive doctrine war, he presented a budget to Congress that would have cut Mandatory Veterans Programs benefits by billions of dollars. Mandatory veteran's programs include disability compensation, pensions, vocational rehabilitation, and survivors' benefits. The Bush administration's budget slashes compensation for service connected disabilities and education benefits by $15 billion and cuts veteran's health care funding by another $15 billion over the next ten years. The Disabled American Veterans, the Paralyzed Veterans and the American Legion have all issued statements opposing the Bush Administration's budget. In fact, the Michigan Chapter of Paralyzed Veterans wrote to me, stating, ``the proposal, if implemented, would have a shocking effect on VA health care services and be an affront to millions of veterans. The proposal, approximately 1.3 billion above the FY 2003 appropriation, would not even cover inflationary impact and anticipated salary increases for VA health care workers.'' Furthermore, ``budget resolutions set spending priorities. We find it hard to fathom that veterans would not be priority to the Budget Committee, or the leadership of the House of Representatives.'' I submit to you that budget cuts such as these do not bode well for strengthening the solidarity of our troops to our country. I'd like to close with a quote from George Washington, ``The willingness with which our young people are likely to serve in any war, no matter how justified, shall be justified, shall be directly propositional as to how they perceive the veterans of wars were treated and appreciated by the Nation.''