John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, we gather here for a well-deserved tribute to our troops in the Middle East. Yet just before this, we were debating the President's budget which cruelly cut $25 billion of veterans benefits, including disabled veterans. Is this how Republicans would honor those who have made great sacrifices in defense of our country? Is that how they would boost the morale of our current troops? Every major veterans organization has denounced these cuts as unconscionable, but now the pending business before us is a little bit different. So I rise to reject these efforts to piggyback support for President Bush's dangerous policies on to a simple, but deserved, resolution supporting our troops. I trust the American people to see through this attempt to coerce endorsement of his ``preventive war'' doctrine. I fully support our troops and offer my prayers for their safe return. I am an Army veteran myself; I care deeply about their well- being. And precisely for that reason, I cannot in good conscience vote for tonight's resolution, a carefully crafted document to force endorsement of President Bush's doctrine of preventive war, allowing him to attack countries whenever or wherever he chooses. I will not provide support for such a dangerous doctrine. For years to come, it will unnecessarily put current and future members of our Armed Forces in harm's way, even when our national security is not really threatened. Mr. Speaker, President Bush is about to unleash the dogs of war. He has set the clock ticking toward an unprecedented barrage of destruction dropped on a city of 6 million human beings. The barrage is oddly named the days of ``shock and awe.'' All Americans who hold human life precious should watch the clock run down, not with ``awe'' but with fear and trembling. The sad truth is that we are lurching towards an unnecessary war that President Bush seems determined to launch. Apparently, therefore, the brave young men and women of our Armed Forces are about to head into harm's way. We all offer them our support as they try to do their duty, and we send our prayers for their safe return. But we must also be faithful to our duty, a duty entrusted exclusively to the Congress by our Founding Fathers. That is the solemn duty to decide whether the United States should go to war. The Constitution's framers emphatically entrusted that decision to the Congress alone. They were adamant that the Executive not play a role--although once war began the Executive is the Commander-in-Chief to implement that decision. The Framers were so intent on excluding the President that they rejected an offer to share the power to declare war between the Congress and the Executive. I know that President Bush, and many of my colleagues believe that the Congress properly authorized war against Iraq last Fall, pursuant to Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. I respectfully disagree. We have not performed our duty yet. Last fall Congress enacted a resolution that generally authorized the president to fight terrorism and to seek enforcement of previous U.N. Resolutions on Iraq. But in reality, that resolution bucked the duty constitutionally conferred on Congress to the President. It let the President decide to choose when and where and against whom to start a war. In short, it dodged the decision and sought to delegate an authority that may not be delegated. The administration's supporters argue that legal precedents allow the Congress to provide an authorization of war that is functionally equivalent to the now rarely-used formal Declaration of War. That entirely misses the point. It is not the format which is at issue; it is ``who decides?'' It was clear, at that time, from the congressional debate, from Executive Branch statements, and from the resolution itself that the diplomatic route would be pursued first, by going through the U.N. Subsequently, in response to a broad national consensus, the U.S. spearheaded U.N. Security Council passage of Resolution 1441 that imposed a new inspection regime. In other words, it was clear last fall that the decision of whether to declare war was being put off for a later date. In the months since then, it has become increasingly clear that the decision on going to war would turn on two crucial assessments. The first would be an assessment of the results of that inspection program. The second assessment, and the ultimate judgment, would require weighing the implications of the inspection results and other information about what threat Iraq poses to the U.S. against the full costs--fiscal, diplomatic, casualties and increased terrorism--of going to war. Clearly these are not military judgments for a Commander-in- Chief. They are precisely the kind of complex national policy judgments that the Founding Fathers conferred on the Congress in matters of war and peace. Yet in the present circumstances, the Congress has abdicated any role in that fateful decision. The entire world has been riveted on whether the American President would decide to declare war against Iraq. President Bush has brazenly told journalists and Members of Congress alike that it is his decision, and his decision alone. This is a perversion of the Constitution. Even if one argues that Congress properly exercised its constitutional duties, and that the President thereby has all necessary authority to start a war the fundamental questions remain. ``Why war?'' ``Why now?'' And most importantly, ``Will waging war in Iraq make us more secure or less secure?'' Bush's war would have disastrous consequences for every American. War is about devastation, destruction and death. The American people are not bloodthirsty. We want war only if our country is in imminent danger. Otherwise, a war's human and economic costs are too great. The human devastation of death, injury and destruction is obvious. In addition, it will rob us of resources urgently needed by America's working families and less fortunate. Even in terms of national security, an all-out war will rob Americans of hundreds of billions of dollars needed for the first line of defense in homeland security, on which we have made far too little progress since the tragedy of 9/11. As the President repeats his unverified mantra of ``threats to national security,'' cities across this land are laying off police, firemen, and emergency medical services teams--the so-call ``first responders'' to any new terrorist attack. They must do so because this Administration's ``first response'' to empty city treasuries across America has been one word: ``Tough.'' This is not merely a partisan spat, nor a Washington insiders' policy dispute. The citizens' crusade to stop an immoral war in Iraq has been nothing less than a noble struggle for our Nation's soul. Thus far, that struggle has not succeeded. But we will not give up. We must commit ourselves to stopping hostilities and re-weaving the torn fabric of international organizations with the same dedication and urgency with which we strove to stop segregation and the Vietnam war, and finally brought our Government to its senses. President Bush repeatedly insists that for him ``war is a last resort.'' But his actions reveal that war was really his first choice, all along. His attempts to make it politically palatable by badgering, bullying and bribing countries into a counterfeit coalition have been a mere fig leaf transparent to the entire world. President Bush has failed to present compelling evidence that Iraq currently is a threat to our national security. One rationale after another has been disproved. The President, Vice President and Secretary of Defense have presented a kaleidoscope of ever-changing rationale as they tried to stay one jump ahead of ``truth squads'' exposing their disinformation--at the U.N., among skeptical Members of Congress and the media, and even in their own intelligence agencies. Americans have readily borne the burden of war when attacked or actually threatened. But America cannot, in good conscience, start a war so costly in blood and treasure simply on the basis of circumstantial evidence and speculation that, sometime in the unspecified future, Iraq may present an actual threat to the U.S. Bush's war against Iraq is: A war that will devastate a country of 26 million and cause damage that will take years to undo; A war that will see many American casualties, and that could fracture our fragile economy; A war that will destabilize the Middle East; A war that will swell the ranks of terrorist recruits; A war that will weaken our fight against terrorism, at home and abroad, and that will cost billions of dollars desperately needed for programs in Detroit and other cities; A war that will set a terrible precedent, in a world of growing numbers of nuclear states, for any country to launch a preventive war against opponents deemed a possible future threat; and A war not really wanted by the American people, our military commanders or our allies. Worst of all, it is a war that, as the CIA admits, will only make it more likely that Saddam would unleash whatever unconventional weapons he does have against our troops, Israel and our other allies. There is no evidence Saddam seeks to commit suicide. We deterred him from using weapons of mass destruction during Desert Storm. If he faces destruction, however, Saddam may well seek to play Sampson and pull down the Temple for lethal revenge. Last weekend, several of the Nation's leading newspapers seemed to suddenly discover all of these grave costs of war in Iraq. Article after article reported with an air of sudden discovery that: The war would drastically increase the likelihood of Saddam's using weapons of mass destruction; That it would almost certainly escalate dramatically terrorist attacks against Americans; That many U.S. military commanders feared it would undermine the real war against terrorism; That their could be extensive casualties among innocent Iraqi civilians; and That, even following a quick ``military victory'' against Saddam, we could be mired in an Iraqi quicksand of tribal feuds and guerrilla warfare for years. I took cold comfort from the irony of the media's belated ``discoveries.'' It would have been far more useful to their readers if the media had discovered this costly side of the war ledger months earlier. Instead, like the Administration, most media coverage focused only on whether, absent other concerns, it was desirable to prevent Saddam's pursuit of armaments and remove his regime--as if there were no competing costs on the other side of the ledger to be carefully weighed in deciding whether war would be a net plus for America. There is still time for President Bush to avoid starting the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time. There is still time--but precious little time--for the American people to speak out against a war that few of them support. If the war commences, there is time for it to be brought to a rapid end and areversion to diplomatic efforts and enhanced inspections. We should remember the warning of General Anthony Zinni. A distinguished Marine Commandant and head of U.S. Central Command, which guards the Middle East, Zinni reminded us that military commanders know the full horrors of war and hesitate to plunge ahead unless the national interest is clearly at stake. On the other hand, Zinni warned, those who have never worn a uniform or seen combat often are the quickest to beat the drums of war. Those are harsh words. The administration will condemn whoever utters them as partisan and unpatriotic--just as the Johnson White House condemned King's questioning of Vietnam. The Bush team has already spread that slander, in order to stop erosion of support for the war as the public learns the truth. Are the military veterans and retired generals opposed to this war unpatriotic? Are families of those who were killed on 9/11 and who oppose this war partisan? That is outrageous. I know many of my colleagues have in good faith been convinced that Iraq is a threat to us now. But they have been the target of a Niagara of propaganda, especially the Vice President's early insistence that Saddam was involved in 9/11 and that Saddam had nuclear weapons now-- both of which claims have long been disavowed by our intelligence community. Many other assertions and premises used by the administration to ``market their product,'' in the revealing phrase of the White House Chief of staff, have crumbled under close scrutiny. I would ask my colleagues who support the war to reconsider their view in light of these facts: Almost the entire world is strongly against this war; this includes the majority of the citizens of even those countries formally part of the ``coalition''; Every major city in America has gone on record against this war; The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, almost every major Protestant denomination, the American Labor movement and the NAACP are against this war; Leading retired U.S. military commanders such as General Zinni, and General Schwarzkopf--in his original unvarnished views--have voiced opposition to this war; Numerous active duty generals have told reporters off the record of their concerns about a war against Iraq; and General Scowcroft, who was also President George Herbert Walker Bush's National Security Advisory is against this war. And all of this opposition has arisen even before the war has started--an unprecedented phenomenon in human history. In view of these facts, I ask whether it is just possible that there is something amiss with the President's premises with his logic, and with his rejection of further effort to resolve the issues peacefully. I urge my colleague to reflect on these powerful facts and join me in pressing President Bush to find another way--to follow the path of peace. As the Bible teaches, ``Blessed are the Peacemakers.''

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague on the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson- Lee), for her critical analysis of what we can do other than what we are about to do: that this person, Saddam Hussein, should be tried for crimes against humanity in the Hague court, the international criminal court, as Milosevic was and others; and that we could repair even at this late hour from a course that we think is disastrous. I thank the gentlewoman for joining me tonight.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens) for his powerful, intellectual, and passionate discourse. It has helped this discussion immeasurably. I am pleased to yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson- Lee), my colleague on the Committee on the Judiciary in the House of Representatives. From the time she entered the Congress, the gentlewoman from Houston, Texas, has worked at my side on numerous issues and causes, a dear friend of mine.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his thoughtfulness, and I am deeply grateful for him joining me tonight. It is a pleasure to recognize the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens), who has worked in civil rights activity, and is a man of great thoughtfulness and perseverance.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to come to the floor this evening to continue a very important discussion that deals with our duties and responsibilities in connection with the circumstances surrounding Iraq. I begin with a review of the duties that we have. First I pray for our soldiers whose roles are pretty well defined, and I would like to point out that we in the Congress have a duty as well, a constitutional duty, that requires under the Constitution that we alone can decide war. And why is that? Because of Article I, section 8. It is important for us to note that this duty is nondelegable. We cannot pass it off. We cannot turn it back. It can only be done by us. So the question of who decides becomes very important. On this past Monday, the President of the United States said he has decided that he will begin this war, and that this is a matter that did not require him to consult with Congress, that there was no debate in the Congress, that it was a matter that he has been telling us in innumerable ways on innumerable occasions precisely what he was going to do, and that Saddam Hussein's time has run out, and there are no more options, and that negotiations are futile, and that the United Nations can do what they want, that everybody has to decide in the family of nations, that they are either with us or against us, and that it does not matter whether the inspection regime required by the United Nations has been concluded or not. It does not matter whether the United Nations approves or disapproves. He has decided what he will do, and he is going to do it. Why war? And why now? A war could be justified only if our national security is threatened. There has not been the case made that that is the present circumstance, and it of course has to be weighed very carefully against the death and the destruction not only that we put in our own military's path but also the innocent people in another country who will likely be killed in the course of this activity. And of course none of this has been debated by the Congress. But what about the tactics of the 43rd President of the United States? He has repeated on more than one occasion that war is the last resort. ``My last resort,'' when everyone knows that it is his first objective. How can he be declaring that war is the last resort, that he has exhausted negotiation when actually he is short-circuiting the whole process? And then we have the coalition, the fig leaf coalition of the willing, which bears not that much analysis. Who they are and why they are there speaks generally for itself. And then of course we have the central issue here that there is no compelling evidence that Iraq is a current threat to our national security. None. We waited for the grainy photos of the Secretary of State when he was supposed to have conclusively made the case. We have waited for the Secretary of Defense when he was supposed to have conclusively made the case. We waited for the President and the Vice President when they were supposed to have made the case. It was the Vice President who first announced early on that Iraq had nuclear weapons. That turned out to be incorrect; and we have heard little of it, nothing of it since. Then we had the assertion again by the Vice President of the United States that Iraq was linked to the tragedy of the attack on the United States on September 11. That has never been proven, and little has been made of that so far. Then of course it was asserted that our intelligence linked Iraq to al Qaeda. Not so. That has not happened either. So what we have here is a sorry compendium of misunderstandings, inaccuracies, and public relations gambits that do not do the most democratic government and the most powerful Nation on the planet any credit. So the President has determined to unleash the dogs of war. He has set the clock ticking toward an unprecedented barrage of destruction that will be dropped upon a nation of 20 million people, a city of 6 million people within that country; and all of us who hold human life precious should watch this clock run down as we lurch toward an unnecessary war that the President seems determined to start. So for the brave young men and women of our armed services who will be headed into harm's way, we offer them our support and our prayers for their safe return. But we also must be faithful to our duty, a duty entrusted exclusively to the Congress by our Founding Fathers, and that is the solemn duty to decide after thorough consideration amongst us whether or not this great Nation should go to war. So the Constitution's framers emphatically entrusted the decision to the Congress alone. This is not some recently determined statement of constitutional theory. Our Founding Fathers, as we review the debates that they had in writing the Constitution, were adamant that the executive not play a role, although once war began, the executive is the Commander in Chief to implement that decision. And those men who came together over 215 years ago were so intent on excluding the President that they rejected an offer to share the power to declare war between the Congress and the executive. This was debated centuries ago. I know that some believe that the Congress properly authorized a war against Iraq and a resolution in October, but that is not the case. We have not yet performed our duty. We did enact a resolution that generally authorized the President to fight terrorism and to seek enforcement of previous United Nations resolutions on Iraq, but in reality that resolution bucked the constitutionality conferred on the Congress to the President. It let the President decide to choose when and where and against whom to start a war. It dodged the decision and sought to delegate an authority that is exclusively our own, an authority that cannot be delegated. The administration argues that legal precedence allowed the Congress to provide an authorization of war that is functionally equivalent to the now rarely used formal declaration of war, which entirely misses the point. It is not the format which is at issue. It is who really decides, and it was clear at that time in the beginning from the congressional debate, from the executive branch statements and from the resolution itself that the diplomatic route would be pursued first by going through the U.N., subsequently in response to a broad national consensus the United States spearheaded with the passage of resolution 1441 that imposed a new inspection regime. The United Nations Security Council went along with the United States, and it was clear last fall that the decision of whether to declare war was being put off at that time unmistakably, and in the months since then it has become increasingly clear that the decision to go to war would turn on two crucial assessments. First, there would be an assessment of the results of the inspection team that was there checking to find out if there were weapons that could be destructive weapons or chemical or biological materials that would be in violation of the terms that had been imposed upon Iraq. But the second assessment and the ultimate judgment would require weighing the implications of the inspection results and other information about what threat Iraq poses to the United States against the full costs of casualties, of the economic costs, the diplomatic fallout, and the increased terrorism in this country that could result from going to war. Clearly these are not exclusive military judgments reserved for a Commander in Chief. They are precisely the kind of complex national policy judgments that the Founding Fathers conferred very deliberately on the Congress in matters of war and peace. Yet in the present circumstances, the Congress has abdicated any role in that all-important decision. Rather, the entire world has been riveted on whether the American President would decide to declare war. The President has boldly told journalists and Members of Congress alike that it is his decision and his decision alone. This is a perversion of the Constitution of the United States. Even if one argues that the Congress properly exercises constitutional duties and that the President thereby has all the necessary authority to start a war, a fundamental question yet remains: Why war now? The Bush war would have disastrous far-ranging consequences for many years for every American citizen. War is about devastation, destruction, and death. The American people are not blood thirsty. We want war only if our country is in imminent danger. Otherwise, a war is human and economic costs and moral costs are too great. It robs us of resources urgently needed by America's working families and those less fortunate. Even in terms of national security, an all out war would rob Americans of hundreds of billions of dollars needed for the first line of defense, which is homeland security on which we have made far too little progress since the tragedy of September 11. As the President repeats his unverified mantra of threats to national security, cities across this land are laying off police officers, firemen, emergency medical service teams, and the so-called first responders to any new terrorist because this administration's ``first response'' to empty city treasuries have been, briefly, too bad, tough. This is not a partisan spat nor a Washington insiders policy dispute. The citizens' crusade to stop an immoral war in Iraq has been nothing less than a noble struggle for our Nation's soul, and that struggle has not been particularly successful nor has it been a failure, because all across the Nation, there have been demonstrations, marches, protests, rallies; and I can tell you in the great State of Michigan there have only in the last few days been demonstrations in Detroit and Lansing and Grand Rapids and Traverse City and many other places throughout our state. So we must commit ourselves to this cause with the same dedication and urgency in which many of us, most of us, strove to stop segregation and to end the Vietnam War, another conflict which finally brought our government to its senses. For the President to repeatedly insist that for him war is a last resort is contradicted by his actions which reveal that war is really his first choice and has been all along. His attempts to make it palatable by badgering, bullying, coercing, bribing countries into a so-called coalition of the willing has been a mere fig leaf transparent to the entire world. The President has failed to present compelling evidence that Iraq currently is a threat to our national security. One rationale after another has been disproved. The President, the Vice President, the Secretary of Defense have presented a kaleidoscope of ever-changing rationale as they tried to nimbly stay one jump ahead of various truth squads at the United Nations, among skeptical Members of Congress, and among the media and even of its own intelligence agencies, particularly the Central Intelligence Agency. Americans have borne the burden of war when attacked or actually threatened with great resilience, but America cannot in good conscience start a war so costly in blood and life and treasure on the basis of circumstantial evidence and speculation that sometime in the unspecified future, Iraq may present an actual threat to the United States, because this war against Iraq is a war that will devastate a country of 20 million or 26 million and cause damages that will take decades to undo; a war that will see many American casualties and that could fracture our fragile economy; a war that will destabilize the Middle East and likely beyond; a war that will swell the ranks of terrorist recruits all over the world; a war that will weaken our fight against terrorism at home and abroad, and that will cost hundreds of billions of dollars desperately needed for programs in all of our cities; a war that will set a terrible precedent in a world of growing numbers of nuclear states, where atomic energy supplies can be bought at bazaars, on street corners, in a number of places in the world already, in a world where nations are anxious to get their hands on these ingredients and will do anything to get them, and some, I regret to report, are succeeding. For any country to launch a preventive war against opponents that are deemed a possible future threat is an improper exercise of the power of war in this country, a war not really wanted by the American people and not desired by many of our military commanders on a personal level, and certainly not among our allies. Worst of all, it is a war that, as the Central Intelligence Agency admits, will only make it more likely that Saddam Hussein will unleash whatever unconventional weapons he does have against our troops, against Israel and our other allies. There is no evidence that Saddam seeks to commit suicide. We deterred him from using weapons of mass destruction during Desert Storm. If he faces destruction, however, he may well seek to play the role of Sampson. Last weekend, several of the Nation's leading papers seemed to suddenly discover all of these grave costs of war in Iraq, in which article after article noted with an air of sudden reportorial discovery that the war would drastically increase the likelihood of Saddam Hussein's use of weapons of mass destruction, and that it would almost certainly escalate dramatically the number of terrorist attacks that could happen in the United States; that many U.S. military commanders fear that it would undermine the real war against terrorism; that there could be extensive casualties among innocent Iraqi civilians who have a great deal of reason to be opposed to Saddam Hussein; and that even following a quick military victory against Saddam Hussein, if there is to be one, we would be mired in an Iraqi quicksand of tribal feuds and guerrilla warfare for decades. It would have been far more useful to their readers if the media had discovered the costly side of this war ledger months earlier. Instead, like the administration, most of the media focused overwhelmingly over the question of whether it would be preferable to prevent Saddam's use of armaments and remove his regime, as if there were no competing costs on the other side of this ledger that had to be carefully balanced and weighed in deciding whether this would be an action that would result in a net plus for America. Now, there may be still time for the President to avoid starting the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time. There is still time, admittedly precious little, for the American people to speak out against the war that so few of them seem to support. We should remember the warning of General Anthony Zinni, the Marine Commandant and head of the U.S. Central Command which guards the Middle East, who reminded us that military commanders know the full horrors of war and hesitate to plunge ahead until the national interest is clearly at stake. On the other hand, the Marine Commandant warned, those who have never worn a uniform or have never seen combat are often the quickest to beat the drums of war. So the administration will condemn whoever utters them as unpatriotic and partisan, just as the Johnson White House condemned Martin Luther King, Jr.'s questioning of Vietnam. The Bush team has already spread that slander in order to stop the erosion of support for the war as the public learns the truth. Are the military veterans and retired generals opposed to this war unpatriotic? Are the families of those who were killed on September 11 in New York and Pennsylvania who oppose this war partisan? That is outrageous. I know many of my colleagues in good faith have been convinced that Iraq is a threat to us now, and they are entitled to their opinion, but they have been the target of a Niagara of propaganda, especially with the Vice President of the United States' early insistence that Saddam was involved in the September 11 attacks on the United States, and that he had nuclear weapons, both of these assertions which have long been disavowed by our Intelligence Community, our spy organizations. There have been many other assertions and premises used by the administration to market their product, in the revealing phrase of the White House Chief of Staff, which have crumbled under close scrutiny in the White House Chief of Staff's revealing terms. So, I would ask this administration to reconsider their view and to ask themselves, almost the entire world is against this war. Every major city in the United States has gone on record in opposition to this war. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Pope, almost every major Protestant denomination, the American labor movement, the AFL-CIO, 13 million people, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People have all gone on record against this war. Leading retired U.S. military commanders, such as General Zinni, General Schwarzkopf in his original views, have voiced opposition to this war. Numerous Active Duty generals have told reporters off the record of their serious concerns about a war at this time against Iraq. General Scowcroft, an adviser to President George Herbert Walker Bush's administration, is against the war. And all of this opposition has arisen before the war has started, before a war has started, an unprecedented phenomenon in our history. In view of these facts then, it is perhaps just possible that there is something amiss with the President's premises, something unconnected in his logic and his rejection of further efforts to resolve these issues peacefully. I urge my colleagues to reflect upon these circumstances and join me in continuing to press and urge and pray for our President to find another way to follow the path of peace, for blessed are the peacemakers. I now yield to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), my friend and colleague for many years, even before he became a Member of Congress.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Democratic substitute. This amendment retains the vast majority of the provisions in the underlying bill, while responding to the most egregious and one- sided provisions in the legislation. There are a number of significant differences between our substitute and the underlying bill: 1. Means Test: First and foremost, we fix the rigid one-size-fits-all means test used to determine an individual's eligibility for bankruptcy proceedings. Rather than relying on the debtor's actual cost of living, the bill relies upon IRS collection standards which lay out no specific standards for the deduction of living expenses. By contrast, the Democratic substitute would modify the means test and require the court to take into account the debtor's actual income and expenses and income. This is based on the same language that passed the Senate overwhelmingly in the 105th Congress. 2. Alimony and Child Support: As the bill presently stands, it is a disaster for single mothers and their children and it will have a particularly harsh impact on the payment of alimony and child support. The basic problem arises from the fact that bankruptcy and insolvency are by definition a zero-sum game. By design, the bill will increase the amount of funds being paid to unsecured creditors, and it therefore should come as no surprise that such payments will often come at the expense of other, less-aggressive creditors, such as women and children owed alimony and child support. This problem is by no means insignificant given that an estimated 300,000 bankruptcy cases per year involve child support and alimony orders. The Democratic substitute mitigates this problem by eliminating provisions in the bill concerning luxury good purchases, cash advances, and credit card debt used to pay taxes which place credit card companies on equal footing with alimony and child support payments. 3. Small Business: The Republican bill also imposes a whole host of arbitrary deadlines in small business cases designed to speed up the bankruptcy process. The effect of these changes would be to make it much harder for small businesses to reorganize and stay afloat. That is the last thing our economy needs. These provisions have drawn the strong opposition of organized labor. For example, the AFL-CIO has earned that the small business provisions will ``threaten jobs by placing substantial procedural and substantive barriers in the way of small businesses' access to the protections of Chapter 11 . . . threaten[ing] their overall ability to successfully reorganize.'' The substitute allows for the extension of the arbitrary deadlines where it can be shown that the reason for the delay is due to circumstances beyond the control of the small business. Thus, if the reason a deadline cannot be met is because a regulatory process--such as a hearing on an environmental claim--must take place before a plan can be developed, we would give the court discretion to waive the deadline. 4. Credit Card Abuse: Perhaps the bill's most glaring omission is its failure to address the problem of abusive lending practices. At the same time the legislation responds to every conceivable debtor excess--whether real or imagined--it gives a pass to the transgressions of the credit industry. This despite the fact that we now have 3.5 billion credit card solicitations per year and $1.3 trillion in consumer debt now outstanding. Our substitute cracks down on the very worst of these abuses, such as soliciting minors who have little ability to pay their debts and failing to disclose clearly on their account statements the total amount and total time it would take to pay off balances if only the minimum amount due was paid each month. 5. Protecting Employee Wages and Benefits in Bankruptcy: The Democratic substitute makes several significant changes to protect employee wages and other benefits in bankruptcy. First, it increases the dollar amount of employee wages and other benefits to $13,500 from $4,650 to take full account of inflation over the last 30 years. Second, it increases the period of time a court may avoid fraudulent transfers to corporate insiders from 1 to 4 years. Given the complexity of these transfers, this is needed to help us protect against future Enron situations. The Democratic substitute also requires that before business assets are sold in bankruptcy, we learn about the potential adverse impact on employees and retirees health care and pension benefits. All too often corporate bankruptcies become an excuse to void promises of pension and health care benefits, and the Democratic substitute responds to that problem. 6. Use of Bankruptcy to Evade Lawful Debts for Civil Rights Violations: Finally, the Democratic substitute prevents debtors from using the bankruptcy court to evade lawful debts for civil rights violations, including discrimination against members of the Armed Forces, discrimination to deprive a person of a federally protected right, threats to religious institutions, or individuals on the basis of religion, or using force or threats to deprive a woman of a right to see a doctor. Of particular note is the fact that this year's bill drops a provision from the conference report dealing with a very serious problem facing woman as a result of the Bankruptcy Code--the fear that violent and reckless individuals will be able to terrorize and blockade abortion clinics and eliminate their liability from that violence through the bankruptcy process. The Democratic substitute closes that loophole. For those of the Members who want to support real and balanced bankruptcy reform--without unnecessarily piling on the middle class, single mothers and their children, harming employees, and without giving the credit card industry a complete pass--I urge a ``yes'' vote on the Democratic substitute.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, this country is a much different place than when omnibus bankruptcy reform was first introduced 6 years ago. Today, we face the longest continuous stretch of job declines in more than 50 years; the economy has lost more than 2.5 million jobs in the last 2 years; the stock market is reeling; and we have more than 40 million individuals with no health insurance. And yet, we are once again considering this special interest bill that massively tilts the playing field in the favor of creditors and against the interests of ordinary consumers and workers who are struggling to overcome financial misfortune. No one should be surprised when I say that the bill is dangerously and fatally flawed. To those who argue the bill only punishes wealthy debtors, I tell them to read how the bill gives creditors massive new rights to bring threatening motions against low income debtors. Read how the bill permits credit card companies to reclaim common household goods which are of little value to them, but very important to the debtor's family. Read how the bill makes it next to impossible for people below the poverty line to keep their house or their car in bankruptcy. To those who claim the bill protects alimony and child support, I would ask them if they are aware that the bill creates major new categories of nondischargeable debt that complete directly against the collection of child support and alimony payments. Whether they are aware the bill allows landlords to evict battered women without bankruptcy court approval, even if the eviction poses a threat to the woman's physical well being. To those who assert the bill cracks down on credit card abuse, I would ask if they realize the bill does absolutely nothing to discourage abusive underage lending, nothing to discourage reckless lending to the developmentally disabled, and nothing to regulate the practice of so-called ``subprime'' leading to persons with no means or little ability to repay their debts. To those who suggest the bill fixes the problem of homestead exemption abuse, I would suggest that rather than repeal or even cap the homestead exemption, the bill places only weak obstacles in its place. The bill does nothing to prevent the very worst abuses in the bankruptcy code, such as bilking seniors out of billions of dollars of their life savings. Last year 1.4 million middle-class individuals filed for bankruptcy. Their average income was less than $25,000, and the principal causes for their filings were layoffs, health problems and divorce. In my judgment, it would be a grave mistake to punish these individuals at a time of such great economic uncertainty and reward credit card companies and business lobbyists when corporate greed has already destroyed the lives of millions of American workers. I urge every member of this body to vote against this special interest bonanza and vote in favor of the interests of ordinary, hard working Americans.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, we yield back any time that may be remaining.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, this is the Conyers-Dingell motion to recommit. It started out originally as the Conyers-Dingell substitute motion which, in the wisdom of the Committee on Rules and the chair of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, was determined not to be necessary. We did not need to waste this much time worrying or going over the same matter twice. So let us just have a 5-minute discussion on each side about a multibillion-dollar measure that affects every man, woman, and child in the United States of America. So I will take a couple of minutes and ask the dean of the House to spend the rest of the time making sure that we all understand what it does. First of all, we do something about the problem that has been complained of grievously by every Member that has taken to the floor today. We do something about it. That is, we limit frivolous lawsuits by requiring that there is mandatory mediation for every malpractice lawsuit filed in the United States of America and that we require that attorneys' certificates of merit and mandatory sanctions occur. We require that affidavits of merit be provided from qualified medical specialists. We attempt to, in short, weed out frivolous lawsuits that will not restrict the rights of those with legitimate claims. Of course, finally, it is very important to realize that we reexamine the antitrust exemption that has been enjoyed by the insurance industry all of these years. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted now to yield the balance of the time to the dean of the House, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell). (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. I am, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, if may I kindly and politely reclaim my time, and I would ask the gentleman to seek his own time from this point on. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), who has really worked hard on two committees and covered a lot of territory as a Member of Congress.

Mr. CONYERS. If the gentleman will just answer yes or no.

Mr. CONYERS. In other words, the gentleman is sticking to his statement that this takes away nobody's economic rights, is that correct?

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, what about the States that have no caps?

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

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, only for the benefit of the gentleman from Georgia, who asserts that this bill does not take away anybody's rights, the gentleman must be aware, sir, as a Member of Congress and a doctor, that there is a $250,000 cap on noneconomic damages, unless he thinks that is not taking away anybody's rights.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds for the benefit of my distinguished colleague, the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania, on the Committee on the Judiciary. She does not know, as she leaves the floor, that a census conducted by the Pennsylvania Medical Professional Liability Catastrophe Loss Fund found that between 1990 and 2000, the number of doctors in Pennsylvania increased by 13.5 percent, while the population increased by only 3.4 percent. Mr. Speaker, I include the following citation for the Record: In Pennsylvania a census conducted by the Pennsylvania Medical Professional Liability Catastrophe Loss Fund found that between 1990 and 2000, the number of doctors increased by 13.5 percent, while the population increased by only 3.4 percent. Not only is Pennsylvania not losing doctors, it had more doctors in 2001 than it did in the preceding five to ten years. Furthermore, the Philadelphia Inquirer notes that in 2000, ``Pennsylvania ranked ninth-highest nationally for physician concentration, a top-10 position it has held since 1992. There were 318 doctors for every 100,000 residents in 2000, according to the American Medical Association. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Wexler), a distinguished member on the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner), a distinguished member of the committee.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to start the debate off on our side by yielding 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law, where this bill would have gone had there been subcommittee hearings.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, there is one word that best describes this closed rule: cowardly. This is a Republican leadership that fears a real debate on this cold hearted proposal that would rob victims of medical malpractice. They fear that too many of their own Members would vote for a democratic bill because it makes sense and would address the problem. They have decided to dodge a clean vote on a real bill and bury real debate in procedural doubletalk. They have decided to let their Members hide behind parliamentary tricks. The Republican leadership has shredded any semblance of fairness or open debate. Just last year, for the first time since 1910, this Republican leadership denied the Minority party a motion to recommit. Today, the two most senior members of the House of Representatives, who are also the two Ranking Democrats on the Committees of jurisdiction, are being denied the opportunity to offer the amendment of their choosing. The Republican leadership's bill doesn't solve the problem of medical malpractice insurance rates skyrocketing. It has no insurance reform at all. Doctors who are being price gouged by insurance companies will not see one cent of savings from this bill. The simple fact is that draconian caps on damages do not reduce insurance premiums. In a comparison of states that enacted severe tort restrictions in the mid-1980s and those that resisted enacting any tort reform, no correlation was found between tort reform and insurance rates. Our bill takes away the antitrust exemption for medical malpractice insurance providers that has allowed those providers to collude to jack up rates for doctors. The Republican leadership's bill does nothing about the deadly problem of medical malpractice that costs victims literally their life and limb. Between 44,000 and 98,000 people die each year because of medical negligence in hospitals and the Republican answer is to take away the rights of surviving family members and accountability for bad apple health care providers. H.R. 5 does nothing about the fact that 5% of all doctors are responsible for 54% of malpractice claims paid. H.R. 5 does nothing to solve the problem that medical malpractice is the fifth leading cause of death in the country. Our bill preserves accountability in the health care system. The Republican leadership's bill does nothing about frivolous lawsuits, only hurts victims. All this bill does is take away compensation from the most seriously injured plaintiffs. These are the victims who have a case that has so much merit that a jury of their peers decides they deserve more than $250,000 in non-economic damages. Our bill requires an attorney to file a certificate of merit that an action is not frivolous and, if that certificate is false, that attorney can be disbarred. The Republican bill takes a chain saw to the health care system instead of a scalpel. It is no wonder they fear a fair and honest debate and a clean vote. I urge Members to: (1) Vote ``no'' on the Previous Question so that we can make in order a vote on Conyers-Dingell and other worthy Democratic amendments. (2) If we are not successful in defeating the previous question, vote ``no'' on this one sided, anti-democratic rule. The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as follows: Previous Question for H. Res. 139--Medical Malpractice: H.R. 5--Help Efficient Accessible, Low-Cost, Timely Healthcare (HEALTH) Act of 2003 In the resolution strike ``and (2)'' and insert the following: ``(2) an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of H.R. 1219 if offered by Representative Conyers or a designee, which shall be in order without intervention of any point of order, shall be considered as read, and shall be separately debatable for 60 minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and (3)'' Conyers/Dingell Democratic Substitute--H.R. 1219, ``The Medical Malpractice and Insurance Reform Act of 2003'' section-by-section analysis Scope. The legislation narrowly defines ``medical malpractice action'' to cover ``licensed physicians and health professionals'' for only cases involving medical malpractice. These definitions are intended to include doctors, hospitals, nurses, and other health professionals who pay medical malpractice insurance premiums. See, sec. 107(8). Title I--Reducing frivolous lawsuits Sec. 101.--Statute of Limitations. This section limits the amount of time during which a patient can file a medical malpractice action to the later of three years from the date of injury or three years from the date the patient discovers (or through the use of reasonable diligence should have discovered) the injury. Children under the age of 18 have the later of three years from their eighteenth birthday or three years from the date the patient discovers (or through the use of reasonable diligence should have discovered) the injury. Sec. 102.--Health Care Specialist Affidavit. This section requires an affidavit by a qualified specialist before any medical malpractice action may be filed. A ``Qualified Specialist'' is a health care professional with knowledge of the relevant facts of the case, expertise in the specific area of practice, and board certification in a specialty relating to the area of practice. Sec. 103.--Mandatory Sanctions for Frivolous Actions and Pleadings. This section requires all plaintiff attorneys who file a medical malpractice action to certify that the case is meritorious. Attorneys who erroneously file such a certificate are subject to strict civil penalties. For first time violators, the court shall require the attorney to pay costs and attorneys fees or administer other appropriate sanctions. For second time violators, the court shall also require the attorney to pay a monetary fine. For third time violators, the court shall also refer the attorney to the appropriate State bar association for disciplinary proceedings. Sec. 104.--Mandatory Mediation. This section establishes an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) system for medical malpractice cases. Participation in mediation shall be in lieu of any other ADR method required by law or by contractual arrangements by the parties. A similar approach is recommended by the Committee for Economic Development (CED), which suggests that defendants make and victims accept ``early offers.'' The effect of the ``early offer'' program, according to the CED, is that defendants will reduce the likelihood of incurring litigation costs, and victims would obtain fair compensation without the delay, expense or trauma of litigation. Sec. 105.--Punitive Damages. This section limits the circumstances under which a claimant can seek punitive damages in a medical malpractice action. It also allocates 50 percent of any punitive damages that are awarded to a Patient Safety Fund managed by HHS. HHS will administer the Patient Safety Fund through the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. The Secretary will promulgate regulations that will establish programs and procedures to carry out this objective. See also, Sec. 221-223. Sec. 106.--Reduction in Premiums. This section requires medical malpractice insurance companies to annually project the savings that will result from Title II of the bill. Insurance companies must then develop and implement a plan to annually dedicate at least 50 percent of those savings to reduce the insurance premiums that medical professionals pay. Insurance companies must report these activities to HHS annually. The section provides for civil penalties for the non-compliance of insurance companies. Title II--Medical malpractice insurance reform Sec. 201.--Prohibition on Anti-competitive Activities by Medical Malpractice Insurers. This section would repeal McCarran-Ferguson Act to ensure that insurers do not engage in price fixing. The Act, enacted in 1945, exempts all anti- competitive insurance industry practices, except boycotts, from the Federal antitrust laws. Over the years, uneven oversight of the insurance industry by the States, coupled with no possibility of Federal antitrust enforcement, have created an environment that fosters a wide range of anti- competitive practices. Sec. 202.--Medical Malpractice Insurance Price Comparison. This section creates an internet site at which health care providers could obtain the price charged for the type of coverage the provider seeks from any malpractice insurer licensed in the doctor's state. This section specifies the availability of online forms and that all information will remain confidential. Title III--Enhancing patient access to care through direct assistance Sec. 301.--Grants and Contracts Regarding Health Provider Shortages. This section authorizes the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to award grants or contracts through the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) to geographic areas that have a shortage of one or more types of health care providers as a result of dramatic increases in malpractice insurance premiums. Sec. 302.--Health Professional Assignments to Trauma Centers. This section amends the Public Health Service Act to authorize the Secretary to send physicians from the National Health Service Corps to trauma centers that are in danger of closing (or losing their trauma center status) due to dramatic increases in malpractice premiums. Title IV--Independent advisory commission on medical malpractice insurance Sec. 401-402.--Independent Advisory Commission on Medical Malpractice Insurance. This section establishes the national Independent Advisory Commission on Medical Malpractice Insurance. The Commission must evaluate the causes and scope of the recent and dramatic increases in medical malpractice insurance premiums, formulate additional proposals to reduce those premiums, and make recommendations to avoid any such increases in the future. In formulating its proposals, the Commission must, at a minimum, consider a variety of enumerated factors. Sec. 403.--Report. This section requires the Commission to file an initial report with Congress within 180 days of enactment and to file annual reports until the Commission terminates. Sec. 404.--Membership. This section specifically establishes the number and type of commissioners that the Comptroller General of the United States must appoint to the Commission. Generally, the membership of the Commission will include individuals with national recognition for their expertise in health finance and economics, actuarial science, medical malpractice insurance, insurance regulation, health care law, health care policy, health care access, allopathic and osteopathic physicians, other providers of health care services, patient advocacy, and other related fields, who provide a mix of different professionals, broad geographic representations, and a balance between urban and rural representatives. Sec. 407.--Authorization of Appropriations. This section authorizes that such sums be appropriated to the Commission for five fiscal years. (Prepared by the Democratic staffs of the Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on Energy and Commerce.)

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, you might remember a failed experiment the U.S. government tried in the 1920s called Prohibition. Back then, the government tried to prevent people from drinking alcohol by making it illegal. We know what happened--speakeasies flourished, alcohol consumption spiraled, and organized crime infiltrated and profited from the provision of alcoholic beverages. Today, Congress is rushing to pass a similar type of ill-conceived prohibition: the prohibition of Internet gambling. Gaming prohibitionists believe they can somehow stop the millions of Americans who gamble online from visiting Internet gaming sites by passing legislation to prevent the use of credit cards and other bank instruments to gamble on the Internet. Just as outlawing alcohol did not work in the 1920s, the current attempts to prohibit online gaming will not work, either. Instead of imposing an Internet gambling prohibition that will drive gambling underground and into the hands of unscrupulous merchants, 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 provides a potential tax revenue source for financially-strapped States. That is why I am introducing legislation to 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, to provide badly needed tax revenue, and to prevent criminal elements from penetrating this industry. Rather than passing ineffective prohibition legislation in the vain hope that the problems related to Internet gambling will simply go away, the Commission will confront the issues head-on and formulate realistic, workable solutions. Today in our country, gambling is a highly regulated, $26 billion dollar industry that creates substantial tax revenue for the States and provides a safe environment for the 52 million people who gamble in U.S. facilities. The Commission will explore whether the same conditions that afford safety and fair play in land-based casinos can and should exist for Internet-based casinos. 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. First, some claim that Internet gambling sites are being used to launder money for terrorists or other criminal organizations. Although there is no evidence that Internet gambling is any more susceptible to money laundering than other types of e-commerce, it is still a significant law enforcement concern. In this regard, it is useful to compare a system where Internet gambling is legal and regulated to another legislative proposal that would prohibit the use of credit cards and other financial instruments for online gambling. What that other bill essentially says to gamblers is this: use cash and offshore bank accounts if you want to bet online. This is nonsensical on its face. If you truly want to prevent money laundering, the last thing you would do is eliminate the financial controls and recordkeeping that credit cards and U.S. bank accounts provide. To the contrary, a regime where there is strict oversight by the States and transparent recordkeeping is far more likely to prevent money laundering and give law enforcement the tools it needs to effectively prosecute criminals and terrorists. Second, the problem of underage gambling should not be discounted. Children can be kept off of gambling websites, however, by requiring the use of a credit card, PIN numbers, and other screening devices. In fact, Congress recognized the usefulness of credit cards as a tool to protect minors on the Internet when it passed the Children's Online Protection Act. Since Internet gambling prohibitions will not eliminate online gambling--just drive it underground--children will be better protected by a gaming industry that is held accountable to strict standards established by the States. Finally, we must also consider the needs of problem gamblers and gambling addicts. Certainly, online gambling sites present difficulties for these individuals, just as land-based casinos do. Although unlicensed, unregulated gaming sites may have no incentive to prevent problem gambling, it is possible to establish a regulatory framework that can set financial limits on an individual's gambling, through the use of shared electronic recordkeeping. Technologies can even be employed to identify problem gamblers and put them in touch with organizations where they can get help. For this reason, the Internet affords the potential for greater protection for problem gamblers than land-based casinos. Until now, Republicans and Democrats have stood together against those who wanted to cut off access to 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. If we do, we'll be joining countries like Iraq, China, and other totalitarian regimes who limit their citizens' access to the Internet. 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 underground, 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.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce, along with Congressman BACHUS, the Health Care Improvement Act of 2003. This is the successor legislation to the Campbell/Conyers bill from 107th, which passed the House by an overwhelming 276-136 vote. The legislation responds to two alarming anti-consumer trends--the ever increasing level of concentration among health insurers and exclusionary contracting practices by health insurance companies. The last five years have seen a massive consolidation in the health insurance and managed care market as more than a dozen health insurance competitors have been eliminated through mergers and acquisitions. The dangers posed by this ever increasing market concentration are exacerbated by the practice of health insurers engaging in heavy-handed negotiating tactics and requiring exclusionary contractual commitments from health care providers. Such restrictive contractual terms are frequently proffered on a ``take it or leave it'' basis to health care providers, under the threat of the loss of the provider's patients or exclusion from their access to other patients. Our legislation responds to the problem by allowing physicians or other health care professional to collectively negotiate with a health plan over contractual terms or plan policies. Presently, joint negotiations with a health plan by physicians or other health care professionals who are not financially integrated are illegal per se under the federal antitrust laws if they involve fees or prices. Under this legislation, such activities would be subject to review based on a more liberal ``rule of reason'' analysis, which could take quality of health care into account. I have taken a particular interest in this legislation because of the unfairness of the current market situation on African American doctors. I am aware of a number of incidents in Detroit and around the country of minority physicians being threatened that they will lose all of their business unless they enter into one-sided service contracts. This bill gives physicians the ability to respond to these abuses on a collective basis. The legislation is strongly supported by a wide array of health care professional and trade organizations.