John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the Medical Malpractice Insurance and Litigation Reform Act of 2003. This legislation responds to the real problems in the medical malpractice insurance market--namely, higher prices driven by lack of competition and investment losses by insurers leading to a boom bust cycle. To respond to these problems, Title I of the bill insures that the antitrust laws apply to medical malpractice insurers, price comparisons can be easily obtained, and procedural checks are in place to insure that premium increases are warranted and can be challenged by health care providers. Above and beyond these requirements, the bill responds to concerns that medical malpractice is not available in parts of the country. As a result, Title II would create a Federal medical malpractice insurance association, housed within the Department of Health and Human Services, to provide medical malpractice insurance where it is not available at reasonable terms. In addition, the bill responds to the complaint that medical malpractice insurance premiums are being driven higher as a result of frivolous complaints. Title III of the bill provides for a series of measures designed to insure that the lawsuit itself is not frivolous and that the pleadings filed in connection with the suit are accurate and meritorious. Title III also provides for alternative dispute resolution designed to encourage resolution of medical malpractice actions outside of court. The following is a more detailed description of the legislation. Section-by-Section Analysis Medical Malpractice Insurance and Litigation Reform Act Title I--Medical Malpractice Insurance Reform This Title constitutes an effort to respond to some of the flaws apparent in the medical malpractice insurance marketplace and the regulation of that market. Among other things, the title insures that the antitrust laws apply to medical malpractice insurers, price comparisons can be easily obtained, and procedural checks are in place to insure that premium increases are warranted. Section 101. Prohibition on Anticompetitive Activities by Medical Malpractice Insurers. Repeals McCarran-Ferguson to ensure that insurers don't engage in price fixing. The Act, enacted in 1945, exempts from the Federal antitrust laws all anticompetitive insurance industry practices except boycotts. Over the years, uneven oversight of the insurance industry by the States, coupled with no possibility of Federal antitrust enforcement, has created an environment that fosters a wide range of anticompetitive practices. Section 102. Medical Malpractice Insurance Price Comparison. 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. Section 103. Procedural Requirements for Medical Malpractice Insurers' Proposed Rate Increases. Gives doctors standing in any state administrative proceeding to challenge proposed rate increases and requires insurance companies to provide justification for any rate increase prior to implementing such increase. Only a handful of states (Alabama, Arizona, Illinois, New York, Oklahoma, and possibly a few others) require that rates be filed and approved by the state insurance department before they can be used. Title II--Federal Medical Malpractice Insurance Association There have been isolated reports that physicians are unable to obtain medical malpractice insurance at any rate and this title is designed to deal with that problem by providing a federal backstop. The title also provides for disclosure of information by private insurers so that more information can be obtained on the reasons for any problems in the malpractice insurance marketplace. Section 201. Establishment; Purpose. Establishes an Association within the Department of Health and Human Services to provide medical malpractice insurance where it is not available at reasonable terms. Section 202. Board of Directors. Creates a board of directors for the Association. The board has authority to run the Association and to act like a governing body of a private insurance carrier. This section sets out specifics as to the number of appointments, eligibility, and vacancies. Section 203. Administration. An administrator is appointed to act as the Association's chief executive officer, in charge of day-to-day operations and management of the Association. The Association shall be fully operational no later than 180 days after the date of enactment of the Act. Section 204. Rates. Gives the board authority to establish rates to be charged by the Association. The board will use an actuary to recommend rates, and rates shall be set at amounts sufficient, when invested, to carry all claims to maturity, meet reasonable expenses of conducting the business of the Association and maintain reasonable surplus. The insurance program shall be neither more nor less than self-supporting. The Association is authorized to purchase reinsurance. Section 205. Investment Policy. Provides that the board of directors shall formulate and adopt an investment policy and supervise investment activities of the Association. Gives the Association the ability to retain independent investment counsel and requires the board to periodically review and appraise the investment strategy. Section 206. Medical Malpractice Risk Management Program. Requires the administrator to develop a risk management program for all policyholders and to solicit input from the National Association of Insurance Commissioners in developing the program. Insurance may be refused or terminated if any insured disregards the plan and the administrator may consider compliance with the plan in determining premiums of the insured. Section 207. Seed Money to be Funded by Treasury Department Loan. Provides for the funding of the Association by the Secretary of Treasury through one or more 5 year term loans in an amount not to exceed $100,000,000 for start-up funding. Section 208. Disclosure of Data by Medical Malpractice Insurers. This section requires each insurance provider to file a copy of its annual statement with the Chairperson of the Association. The insurer shall also provide information regarding (1) closed claims; (2) verdicts, payment, and severity of injury in connection with verdicts; (3) rate changes; (4) premiums and losses by medical speciality; (5) premiums and losses by experience of the insured; (6) performance of the investments of the insurer. Section 209. Annual Report by Chairperson. Requires the Chairperson to file an annual report with the President and Congress that includes: (1) a statement of the Association's accounts, funds, and securities; (2) copies of reports required by the National Association of Insurance Carriers; (3) any requests for additional loans; (4) an assessment of the medical malpractice insurance marketplace; (5) an assessment as to why health care providers have been unable to obtain insurance at reasonable prices; and (6) a report summarizing the information disclosed pursuant to Section 208 and attaching the disclosed information. Section 210. Financial Matters. Requires the administrator to submit to the board an estimated budget of the expenses of administering the Association. If assets exceed liabilities, necessary reserves and reasonable surplus, the Association shall declare a cash dividend or allow a credit to any health care provider that has complied with the risk management program. Section 211. Definitions. Title III--Limiting Frivolous Medical Malpractice Lawsuits The complaint is frequently heard that medical malpractice insurance premiums are being driven higher as a result of frivolous complaints. This title responds to that charge with a series of measures designed to insure that the lawsuit itself is not frivolous and the pleadings filed in connection with the suit are accurate and meritorious. The title also provides for alternative dispute resolution designed to encourage resolution of medical malpractice actions outside of court. Section 301. Health Care Specialist Affidavit. This section requires an affidavit by a qualified specialist before any medical malpractice lawsuit may be filed. ``Qualified specialist'' is defined as a health care professional with knowledge of the relevant facts of the case, expertise in the specific area of practice at issue in the case, and board certified in a speciality relating to the area of practice. Section 302. Sanctions for Frivolous Actions and Pleadings. Sets out sanctions for filing improper pleadings in medical malpractice actions violations, such as those which are designed to harass, are frivolous, or are factually inaccurate. For first time violators, the court shall require the attorney to pay costs and attorneys fees and may also strike pleadings, dismiss the lawsuit, 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. Section 303. Mandatory Mediation. This section establishes an alternative dispute resolution 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, 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 costs of litigation and having to pay large and uncertain punitive and noneconomic damages, and victims would obtain fair compensation without delay, expense and trauma of litigation. Section 304. Applicability. Specifies that the title applies to any medical malpractice liability action brought in state or federal court, except for claims arising from vaccine-related injuries. Section 305. Definitions.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I voted ``present'' on the resolution offered by the Gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor) on the Israel- Palestine controversy. Because of the extensive interest in that resolution, I would like to explain the basis of my vote. For nearly a year, I have worked more intensively on this controversy than on any of the other pressing matters before us, with the exception of the looming disaster in Iraq. My aim has been to convince my colleagues that-- despite the understandably intense feelings many have on this matter-- it is crucial that we promote and engage in honest dialogue about the terribly difficult questions posed by the Middle East crisis. That delicate dialogue must be marked by as much civility and mutual respect as we can muster, and by a relentless effort to understand viewpoints we may not share. Finger-pointing, brandishing claims and grievances may seem totally justified and important to express. The intensity of feeling is obvious and understandable. But surely the goal of halting violence and resolving the dispute is paramount. I believe its priority requires that my words and conduct in this body be consistent with advancing this dialogue. At the end of this long national debate, we must somehow achieve a national consensus. Dr. King once reminded us that countries, like people, which have been the bitterest enemies must someday realize their fate is intertwined. ``We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny'' Over the course of the last ten months, I have spoken with many colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and on both sides of the Capitol, urging that we create and continue an inclusive forum in which different views about the Mideast could be freely expressed freely and listened to carefully. With several other equally concerned colleagues, I convened a series of discussion meetings to which all Members have been invited. House Members of all faiths have attended them. They also have been attended by rabbis, ministers, priests and imams, as well as by senior officials of Arab-American and Jewish-American organizations concerned about the Middle East crisis. Other participants have included Yitzhak Rabin's son; President Carter's NSC officer for the Camp David Agreement between Israel and Egypt; one of President Clinton's negotiators in the 2000 Palestinian-Israeli peace negotiations; the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' representative on institutions in the Holy Land; the Vice-President for International Affairs of the American Jewish Committee, the President of the Arab-American Institute; a Deputy Secretary General of the National Council of Christian Churches, and two representatives--one Israeli and one Palestinian--of an association of bereaved parents of victims of the violence. While we all have been distracted by other pressing national security issues, I plan to resume these panels, as soon as possible. All the attendees agreed on the importance of maintaining genuine dialogue and of minimizing inflammatory or divisive declarations. I agree, and that conclusion guides my vote on this resolution. I fully supported the creation of the State of Israel. My continuing support of its security and viability has never wavered. And I agree that one of Israel's lasting strengths has been it's fierce commitment to democracy, implemented once again in the recent elections. At the same time, my dedication to America's pursuing a just, equitable and lasting peace for all people in the region is equally strong. I am sure that my colleagues fully share these goals, however much we sometimes may differ on the best path to reach them. I believe, nevertheless, that this resolution, though well-intentioned, would be counter-productive to progress towards those goals, especially at this perilous time when competing considerations should be carefully balanced. This resolution is partially designed to reassure Israel of our friendship. I am convinced, however, that the Israeli Government and the Israeli people know well that the United States' commitment--and the commitment of this entire body--to their safety and survival is steadfast and will remain so. Judged in the context of all these considerations, this resolution is simply too one-sided to accomplish another of its presumed purposes, namely, advancing peace in the Middle East. Alternative formulations would be better suited for that objective. I also do not think the Congress should try to involve itself in the internal politics of an allied nation. In addition, this president, like his predecessors, should be given the maximum flexibility to maintain the credibility of the United States with all parties; we should strive to preserve his ability to broker a permanent resolution. With equal conviction, I urge the president to use those capabilities to the fullest; to advance a timetable more vigorously, and to propose more detailed possible peace plans. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the frustrations and fears that have marked the past three years. And I know that Washington is now preoccupied with Iraq and with the threat of terrorism to our homeland security. But that is all the more reason that we should strive to keep this body poised to play its part in stanching violence in Israel and the West Bank, and in supporting any future peace initiatives. For me, it is difficult to see why, during these perilous times, the legislative body of the sole nation on earth which might bring this crisis to closure would do anything that could compromise that nation's ability to do so.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am proud and honored today to be joined by Ms. Baldwin, Mrs. Maloney and 80 other co-sponsors to introduce the ``Violence Against Women Civil Rights Restoration Act of 2003.'' The Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (``VAWA'') was historic legislation that contained a broad array of laws and programs to address domestic violence and sexual assault in our country. In addition to funding numerous programs such as law enforcement and prosecution grants to combat violence against women, a National Domestic Violence Hotline, and battered women's shelters and services, VAWA created both civil and criminal causes of action to target domestic violence and sexual assault. In 2000, the Supreme Court struck down a provision of VAWA, which allowed victims of gender-motivated violence to sue their attackers in Federal court. Importantly, that case, United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000) did not affect the validity of the rest of VAWA, which is clearly constitutional. But, Morrison is just the latest in a series of cases in which the Supreme Court has, in my view, improperly narrowed Congress' authority to legislate under the Commerce Clause. The Court's 5-4 majority disregarded the mountain of evidence that Congress had amassed through four years of hearings, documenting the effects of violence against women on interstate commerce. The Court's majority substituted its own judgment for that of Congress--and this from supposedly ``conservative'' Justices who purport to defer to Congressional findings. In response to the Morrison decision, I am introducing the ``Violence Against Women Civil Rights Restoration Act of 2003.'' This legislation will restore the ability of victims of gender-motivated violence to seek justice in Federal court, where there is a connection to interstate commerce. For example, a rape victim could bring a civil suit against her attacker in Federal court where the attacker crosses a state line; if he uses a facility or instrumentality of interstate commerce--such as the roads, the telephone, or the Internet; or if he uses a gun, weapon, or drug that has traveled in interstate commerce. In addition, she could bring a case where the intent of the offense is to interfere with her participation in commercial or economic activity. The bill also authorizes the Attorney General to prevent discrimination in the investigation and prosecution of gender-based crimes. This bill will ensure that all victims have fair and equal access to the courts. I want to thank the domestic violence and sexual assault communities for their support of this legislation, especially NOW Legal Defense and Education fund, who defended Christy Brzonkala before the Supreme Court, and who has been instrumental in drafting this bill. I look forward to working with the Majority, the Senate, and the White House to help pass this bill into law and restore the civil remedy for victims of gender-based violence.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this critical legislation, of which I am an original cosponsor. This bill provides the federal judiciary with a much needed cost of living adjustment (COLA) for their salary. I also would like to thank Chairman Sensenbrenner for his leadership and bipartisanship on this issue. The Constitution mandates that the pay of federal judges ``shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.'' Unfortunately, by failing to provide judges with annual COLA''s over the last decade, they have faced the equivalent of a $77,000 reduction in salary. Currently, federal district court judges earn $150,000 per year. This is much less than they could earn in private practice; in fact, it is less than an attorney right out of law school can earn in private practice. Even the judges' employees, those who work at the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts make more than their employers. In the last 30 years, while average pay has increased 12 percent for most workers, it had decreased 25 percent for federal judges. This issue can seem to be just a matter of salary, but it extends deeply into our concept of a democracy and judicial independence. The Constitution establishes a system of checks and balances, granting independent judges lifetime tenure and the right to an undiminished salary, in order to ensure the judiciary remains independent of financial, political, and social pressures. Unfortunately, many federal judges are leaving the bench for private practice, and many experienced and qualified private practitioners are deterred from serving in the judiciary. The pay disparity has diminished the independence of our third branch and made it difficult to attract and retain qualified attorneys. This is why I was surprised when the continuing resolution Congress approved last session gave a cost of living adjustment to most federal employees except judges. The bill before us remedies this oversight by authorizing a COLA for the judiciary that is retroactive to the start of the 2003 fiscal year. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this legislation.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the Civic Participation and Rehabilitation Act of 2003, along with additional cosponsors. At a time when our Nation faces record low voter participation, this legislation represents an historic means of both expanding voting rights while helping to reintegrate former felons into our democratic society. The practice of many states denying voting rights to former felons represents a vestige from a time when suffrage was denied to whole classes of our population based on race, gender, religion, national origin and property. Over the past two centuries, these restrictions, along with post-Civil War exclusions such as the poll tax and literacy requirements, have been eliminated. It is long past time that these restrictions be relegated to unenlightened history. Unfortunately, the United States continues to stand alone among the major industrialized nations in permitting an entire category of citizens, former felons, to be cut off from the democratic process. It is time that the United States restored these fundamental rights and join the community of nations in this regard. Denial of suffrage to these individuals is no small matter. A recent study by the Sentencing Project reveals that some 3.9 million Americans, or one in 50 adults have currently or permanently lost their voting rights as a result of a felony conviction. This includes an estimated 1.4 million African American men, or 13 percent of the total population of black adult men, a rate seven times the national average. Forty-eight states and the District of Columbia prohibit inmates from voting while incarcerated for a federal offense; 32 states prohibit felons from voting while they are on parole and 28 of these states exclude felony probationers as well. In fact, in six states that deny the vote to ex-offenders, one in four black men are permanently disenfranchised. Hispanic citizens are also disproportionately disenfranchised. In addition to diminishing the legitimacy of our democratic process, denying voting rights to ex-offenders is inconsistent with the goal or rehabilitation. Instead of reintegrating such individuals into society, felony voting restrictions only serve to reaffirm their feelings of alienation and isolation. As the National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals has concluded, ``if correction is to reintegrate an offender into free society, the offender must retain all attributes of citizenship.'' The purpose of correctional facilities throughout our history have been to make an offender fit to re-enter society. We should honor this conviction that once a felon has served his/her time, the he/she is ready to be a functioning member of society. Voting then must be allowed, as the most basic constitutive act of citizenship. It is even more important for this legislation to pass when we look back at the 2000 election in Florida. In that election 400,000 ex- felons were denied their right to vote. In an election where it came down to 537 voters, this is a decisive number. Instead of contracting the voting pool we should be expanding it so that our elected officials can more accurately resemble the wishes of the people. Our nation has slowly seen the enfranchisement of all of its citizens. Though it has been a slow process we have always moved forward, giving more and more citizens the right to vote. This bill is merely the next step in the expansion of the electorate. And it is a step we must take. Many states are beginning to take the lead on this issue. Maryland, Connecticut, Delaware, and New Mexico have all scaled back voting bans on ex-felons who have paid the price for their crimes and now want to participate in the democratic process as citizens. The growing roster of states which allow ex-felons to vote is encouraging. We must help along the process by enacting this bill and taking this crucial step at the Federal level. The legislation we will introduce constitutes a narrowly crafted effort to expand voting rights for ex-felons, while protecting state prerogatives to generally establish voting qualifications. The legislation would only apply to persons who have been released from prison, and it would only apply to federal elections. As such, our bill is fully consistent with constitutional requirements established by the Supreme Court in a series of decisions upholding federal voting rights laws. The legislation has been supported by a broad coalition of groups interested in voting and civil rights, including the NAACP, ACLU, the National Council of Churches (National and Washington Office), the National Urban League, the Human Rights Watch and the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights, among many others.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the ``Gun Show Background Check Act of 2003'', legislation designed to close the loophole in federal gun laws which allow criminals to buy firearms at gun shows. I am joined by Representatives Frank, Berman, Nadler, Lofgren, Meehan, Delahunt, Wexler, Ackerman, Brown of Florida, Kilpatrick, Lee, Markey, Schakowsky, Blumenauer, Cummings, Fattah, Hastings of Florida, Kennedy, Towns, Deutsch, DeGette, Payne, Stark, Davis of Florida, Clay, Norton, Holt, Gutierrez, and McDermott. As you know, under current law federal firearms licenses are required to maintain careful records of their sales, and under the Brady Act, to check the purchaser's background with the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) before transferring any firearm. However, a person does not need a federal firearms license--and the Brady Act does not apply--if the person is not ``engaged in the business'' of selling firearms pursuant to federal law. My bill corrects these deficiencies by (1) requiring background checks for all firearms sales at gun shows, (2) defining gun shows to include any event at which 50 or more firearms are offered or exhibited for sale and (3) by improving firearm tracing measures--in the event that a firearm becomes the subject of a law enforcement investigation. Thus, unlike other legislation introduced in the past which actually weakens the Brady law by shortening background checks to 24 hours and considerably limits the type of information in individual records that may be searched, my bill guarantees that over 2,200 additional felons, fugitives and stalkers will be denied the opportunity to purchase a gun. Considering the many recent tragedies and threats of violence we have had in our nation's schools and the recent reports indicating that the U.S. gun industry sold numerous guns to members of Osama bin Laden's ``Al Qaeda'' terrorist network, the importance of enacting legislation that will promote a safe and sound environment can not be overstated. It's time for smarter, better gun safety enforcement. The bill we are introducing today will move us in that direction. I am hopeful that Congress will move quickly to enact this worthwhile and timely legislation.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I have introduced today the ``Restoration of Fairness in Immigration Act of 2003.'' Since this nation's founding, more than 55 million immigrants from every continent have settled in the United States. Immigrants work hard to make ends meet and pay taxes every day. They have lived in this country for decades, married U.S. citizens, and raised their U.S.-citizen children. Laws that single these people out for no other reason than their status as immigrants violate their fundamental right to fair treatment. Yet, for too many years, Congress has witnessed a wave of anti- immigrant legislation, playing on our worst fears and prejudices. Since 1994, we have considered proposals to ban birthright citizenship, ban bilingual ballots, and slash family and employment based immigration, as well as to limit the number of asylees and refugees. In 1996 we passed laws denying legal residents the right to public benefits and denying immigrants a range of due process and fairness protections. We continue to see the tragedy of September 11th used as an excuse for even more assaults on the rights of immigrants. The Justice Department is now registering certain classes of immigrants and arresting them when law abiding immigrants arrive to register. The Department is holding deportation hearings in secret and detaining immigrants even after they are ordered released. The Attorney General is reducing both the independence and number of judges that handle the appeals of immigration cases. We are fending off legislation almost daily intended to reduce if not eliminate immigration to this country. Those who urge us to restrict the due process rights of immigrants forget the reason these rights were established in the first place. We grant due process rights to citizens and non-citizens alike; not out of some soft-hearted sentimentality, but because we believe that these rights form an important cornerstone to maintaining civilized society. The ``Restoration of Fairness in Immigration Act of 2003'' furthers this proud legacy by restoring our nation's long standing compassion for individuals seeking to build a better life and reunite with their families. The bill restores fairness to the immigration process by making sure that each person has a chance to have their case heard by a fair and impartial decision maker. No one here is looking to give immigrants a free ride, just a fair chance. Justice and fairness, as well as our own economic interests, demand no less.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to commemorate Katherine Dunham for her extraordinary contributions to dance, culture, history and the world. Ms. Dunham has been called the ``Matriarch of black dance.'' Her unprecedented blend of cultural anthropology with the artistic genre of dance in the early 1930's, produced groundbreaking forms of movement, and in the United States, established black dance as an art form in its own right. Global awareness of folk dance in Haiti can be chiefly attributed to the work of Katherine Dunham. It is important to share the history of this amazing woman. After various stays in Jamaica, Martinique, and Trinidad, Ms. Dunham arrived in Haiti in 1935. She chose to visit the Caribbean in order to study the intensity, depth and the African influence of the Caribbean dance culture. The Caribbean nations of Haiti and Jamaica provided Dunham with new insights, as the villagers began to trust her and invited her to join in some of their most sacred dance rituals. She would ultimately claim Haiti as her second home and even adopt their Vodum (or Voodoo) religion. She later chronicled much of her time spent in Haiti in a book entitled, Island Possessed. Shortly after leaving Haiti she completed a thesis on the dances of Haiti, entitled Las Danzi de Haiti. In 1983, the Center for Afro-American Studies at UCLA published a revised version, incorporating a long campaign of subsequent research. It was through her dance compositions that Ms. Dunham introduced the Haitian based vocabulary of movement to the world. This form of dance later became known as the Dunham technique. Ms. Dunham' formal career begin in 1931, when the ``First Negro Dance Recital in America'' was presented in New York. At the time she was a 21 year old University of Chicago student who also served as the group's choreographer, teacher and chief dancer. The multitude of roles that she played in this initial endeavor were indicative of her great career which would span the next 50 years. In 1935, Ms. Dunham was given the opportunity to study both academic and practical aspects of dance when she received a Rosenwald fellowship which enabled her to undertake an anthropological study of dance in the Caribbean. As a result of her research, Ms. Dunham determined that African influences dominated three aspects of Black folk dance. These include: the incorporation of African religious dance into new ritual behaviors; the secularization of the African religious dance; and the interaction of African secular dance with European secular dance. Upon returning to the United States, Ms Dunham reconstituted her dance group focusing primarily on her Caribbean experiences, particularly in Haiti. She choreographed and produced numerous production, Pins and Needles, Tropics, Le Jazz Hot--From Haiti to Harlem, Cabin in the Sky, Tropical Revue, Carib Song, Bal Begre which played in various location, including New York and Los Angeles. Ms. Dunham's company also appeared in the film Stormy Weather with Lena Horne and Bill Robinson. Specifically, the dance troupe is featured in fog-drenched ``Stormy Weather'' dream sequence. Later, Ms. Dunham returned to the international stage by opening Caribbean Rhapsody, Tropics, Son, Chorus, Nanigo, Bahian, Shango, LAg Ya', Rites of de Passage, Flaming Youth and Blues in Europe. Ms. Dunham's success in Europe led to considerable imitation of her work in European revues. Her company also toured South America, Africa and Mexico. Ms. Dunham's dance troupe was so successful that it became the most widely recognized American dance company in the world. This distinction was later inherited by the Alvin Ailey American Dance Theater in 1970's. The Dunham company made its last appearance in New York in 1962. It performed a production entitled Bamboche! which featured a contingent from the Royal Troupe of Morocco. In 1963 in Aida, Dunham continued to secure her place in artistic history by becoming the first African- American to choreograph for the Metropolitan Opera. Dunham first appeared in films in 1940 in Carnival of Rhythm. Her other film credits include Cabin in the Sky, Star Spangled Rhythm, Casbah, and Pardon My Sarong. In 1945, the Katherine Dunham School of Arts and Research opened and was comprised of a Department of Theater, Cultural Studies and the Institute for Caribbean research. It offered two, three and five year courses leading to professional, teaching and research certificates. The faculty numbered thirty, and the school's curriculum included classes such as dance notation ballet, modern and primitive techniques, psychology and philosophy. It also offered courses in acting, music, visual design, history and languages. During the 1940's and 50's, Dunham's School of Dance became the premier training facility for African American dancers by providing instruction in dance described as ``arresting,'' and ``highly theatrical.'' The student body was interracial and numbered approximately four hundred. The cost to run this school was enormous and absorbed most, if not all of profits earned by Ms. Dunham. However, during its tenure some of its more famous students included Marlon Brando, James Dean and Shelley Winters. In 1967, Miss Dunham joined the faculty of Southern Illinois University in Edwardsville, to create a performing arts training center and dance anthropology program. In 1969, Miss Dunham created the Katherine Dunham Center for the Arts and Humanities, a community-based arts education program in East St. Louis. The center provided East St. Louis residents with the opportunity to witness and participate in fine, performing, and cultural arts. Further, The Katherine Dunham Dynamic Museum is also located at Southern University in St. Louis. This landmark building appears on the Illinois Historic Register, and houses Miss Dunham's superb collection of African, West African, and South American art. It is also located in the Pennsylvania Avenue Historic District which is registered with the National Trust for Historic Preservation. The museum houses an outstanding collection of symbolic and functional art, including more than 250 African and Caribbean art objects from more than 50 countries. Tapestries, paintings, sculpture, musical instruments and ceremonial costumes from these and other areas of the world celebrate the human spirit. The museum also displays costumes, photographs, programs, letters, awards and mementos from Miss Dunham's career as a dancer, choreographer, teacher, writer and dance company owner. Additional accolades attributed to Ms. Dunham include advisor on the First World Festival of Negro Arts, which was the subject of a television special entitled, ``Divine Drumbeats: Katherine Dunham and Her People.'' In addition, she received the Kennedy Center Honors Award in 1983, and has been inducted into the Black Filmmakers Hall of Fame. Dunham has also been given a star on the St. Louis Walk of Fame for the field of Acting and Entertainment. On January 7th, when the 108th Congress convenes, I will introduce this letter into the Congressional Record, adding this commendation to the tidal wave of many others, Thank you Katherine Dunham for your wonderful and marvelous contributions to the world.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, the tone of bipartisanship the Republicans used to win control of Congress has ended. We saw a draft of this bill, which is the largest reorganization of the Federal government in decades, only late yesterday afternoon. We were not given any opportunity to make improvements, and we now find ourselves on the House floor under a rule that prohibits amendments. I have more concerns with this legislation that I can count, but I will focus on three: the anti-labor, anti-immigration, and pro-corporate irresponsibility provisions. First, this legislation guts the civil services and collective bargaining protections that currently exist for Federal employees. It makes it difficult for employees of the Homeland Security Department to collective bargain for fair compensation. The argument from the other side seems to be that employees who have rights might not be able to do their jobs effectively. But does anyone remember who the heroes of September 11 were? It was the firefighters and police officers of New York and Virginia, all of whom were members in good standing of organized labor. Can anyone suggest that their civil service and union protections did anything to weaken their resolve? Of course not. Second, this legislation moves the entire Immigration and Naturalization Service, its services and enforcement functions, into the new Department. To the contrary, in the INS reorganization bill that I supported and we passed earlier this Congress, we kept the services portion of the INS in the Justice Department and moved only the enforcement functions to the Homeland Security Department. By moving both functions of the INS to the Homeland Security Department, this legislation by implication treats all immigrants are terrorists. Finally, this bill provides civil liability protections for government contractors that provided ``anti-terrorism products.'' The new Secretary could immunize from any tort lawsuit the conduct of any company that sold defective anti-terrorism products to the government or the public. This means that a family that purchases a product to protect itself from terrorism, and finds the product to be useless, might have no cause of action against the contractor. The immunity provision also could shift the burden of identifying the wrongdoers and apportioning blame from the defendant to the victim.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), of the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims of the Committee on the Judiciary, for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, racial profiling cannot be considered irrelevant anywhere in the country, but particularly in a circumstance where we are giving additional powers to law enforcement agents on the border. For us not to include a study is sending a very dangerous signal to them, especially after this debate. I frankly do not see how a measure like this, after this kind of discussion, could possibly clear the House of Representatives in consideration of the times and the problems with law enforcement and the minority community that plague the criminal justice system and law enforcement all over the country. I plead with my colleagues to please withdraw this measure until we can work out some rapprochement. I can say that the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) has been totally willing to cooperate, and I think, up until the day of the hearing, I would have said the same thing about the subcommittee chairman; or if he is not the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake). He has been totally cooperative, as well. I know that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) and I have been working together in a very fine spirit to try to resolve this, and maybe the leadership of the House would schedule another session for suspensions, which would give us the time to at least bring this one back to the floor.

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

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman. I appreciate that procedural explanation. If the gentleman is going to risk police officers' lives in the gentleman's State based on a vote in the committee, then that, my friend, is a choice that the gentleman has who, as a Member, has as much right to cast that opinion as anybody else. I wish the gentleman good luck, frankly, because police officers' lives are at stake. Mr. Speaker, I have just approached the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), my good friend, who has informed me that unfortunately we are not able to remove this bill from the suspension calendar to have this amendment repaired because this is the last suspension day for bills under suspension that we will have in this Congress. And if he is right, that puts us in a more difficult situation. Mr. Speaker, the reason that we are in this position is that the subcommittee ranking chairperson had assumed that there had been an agreement worked out on this amendment, and it was not until we came to the full committee markup that we found that there was a serious difference still outstanding. All I stand here in the well of the House today to do is to work in every way that I can with the chairman of my committee and the chairman of the subcommittee to see that we can repair this so that we can get a bill out to protect the lives of all of our law enforcement people at the border. This is a bill that we support, a bill we support, a bill that we want to get to the Senate and enacted into law as quickly as possible. We think that it is a lifesaving measure. But because of this disagreement over the importance of a study on racial profiling, we are not able to do that. The Members of this House, before they vote on this measure tomorrow, should be fully aware of the fact that the reason we put the GAO in the amendment was that the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake), is the one that asked that it be included. The original provision of the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) referred this to the Attorney General's office, and they objected. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Members, what are we doing here? Where we are now, I say to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake), is that the American Civil Liberties Union, and this is not a funny matter, I say to the gentleman from Arizona. Please listen to me. The American Civil Liberties Union announced this morning that they are in opposition to the bill in its present form. That is not a laughing matter. The Leadership Council on Civil Rights has announced their opposition to the bill. This is not a laughing matter. The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, with a half a million members, has announced that until this bill is repaired they are against the bill. It is not a laughing matter. So if it does not matter to the Members, okay. If it is funny, okay. If they have the votes, okay. But I think they are doing a grave disservice to an excellent piece of legislation that they and the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) have crafted. If they choose to roll the dice on it in the way they apparently have, then I will have to live by that decision, because I am not in the House leadership, and I cannot assure the Members that if the bill is pulled off the floor, there will be another Suspension Calendar. The reason I will not yield is because the chairman controls all the time on the gentleman's side.

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

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Texas for her leadership as ranking member of the subcommittee, and I want to thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) for his leadership as chairman of the subcommittee. The question that the gentleman from Arizona has raised is a very disturbing one: two police officers from his State killed in connection with activity involving people driving under the influence. And that should be disturbing to everybody in Arizona as well as everybody in this Congress. Then why, I say to the gentleman from Arizona, would he jeopardize the passage of this bill over, and I will accept his description of it as an irrelevant addition to it, when the gentleman knows full well that one-third of the Members of the Congress can turn back a bill that is on suspension? This means that the gentleman is rolling the dice big time, I say to my friend. I do not want to take that chance. If the gentleman does, then we will have a vote shortly that will determine which one of us was more correct.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the manager, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), for his kind introduction, but, more importantly for what he did to help us come here today; on February 28 for his bill; on March 27 for my bill. We have been working tirelessly, and I have come to know the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ney), the chairman of the committee that had jurisdiction. I commend him. We have come a long, long way together. I am very grateful to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) for his technological contributions. To the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), who headed the Election Reform Task Force for the Democratic Caucus, I praise her, whose study was a classic, along with that of the Commission on Civil Rights, the Carter-Ford Election Reform Commission, and more than a dozen other historic studies that have gone into this measure. I am also pleased to have had and enjoy the support of the caucus of which I am a dean, the Congressional Black Caucus. I am very grateful to all of them for their work, not just in forming the legislation and contributing to the process, but going to Florida and going across the country and putting their time in. I am looking at the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown) in particular, who I appreciate; and our other sister on the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee); and the Chairperson of the caucus, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson), who was heroic in this matter. So I stand here, Mr. Speaker, commending all of our friends. I cannot omit the chairman of the committee in the Senate, Chris Dodd, who worked tirelessly for 18 months to bring us to this point, a point that was brought to us by the fact that 6 million votes were thrown out in the last Presidential election. Forty-seven percent of the disabled encountered physical barriers at the voting place, and 10 times as many African American voters in Florida were likely to have had their ballot discarded in the last Presidential election. So we have worked on a bill with major standards. What does this bill do? One, nobody can spoil a ballot anymore in America when this bill becomes law, no way. If you vote, the machine selected by the State, or another apparatus, has to make sure that the voter has not spoiled his ballot or her ballot before they walk out of that booth. Number two, there is provisional voting, so any election dispute is protected; that one is not sent to a phone number that nobody ever answers or a building where the office is closed. The vote is allowed in a separate stack, and then the determination that it be included or not is a permanent record kept to be re-examined by the voter or authorities. Three, it says that that voting site must be accessible to the disabled. Finally, we have provisions written about language requirements. Many people went to the polls and could not read the English language carefully or clearly enough. Then, of course, there is $3.9 billion of funds. The last point, this is not a perfect bill. We fought against voter ID provisions, citizen check-offs, Social Security numbers. We are going to watch it carefully in the next Congress. If it requires correcting, everybody on this side of the aisle and the chairman of the subcommittee promises that we will take whatever corrective action is necessary. I thank Congress for their efforts in this movement.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am supporting the Spratt amendment because it provides many safeguards to war--it authorizes the use of force through a new UN Security Council Resolution; however, should the UN not adopt a resolution sanctioning the use of force or not take any action at all, the amendment would allow the President, if he deemed the UN Security Council's action insufficient, to come to Congress to obtain authorization to use the United States Armed Forces against Iraq. Most importantly, the Spratt amendment allows Congress to retain its rightful role in the constitutional process as the body having the authority to declare war. The Spratt amendment is an especially important safeguard--becasue it would give the United Nations, essentially, the World, time to examine the threat that Hussein poses and then, in a sobering fashion, make a determination as to whether a new resolution regarding the elimination of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction should be adopted or whether to use of force is the appropriate response to the threat that Saddam Hussein poses. We must not move hastily to the sobering decision to use force against another country. As it was discovered yesterday, it is now known that the CIA has concluded Saddam Hussein is unlikely to initiate a chemical or biological attack against the United States. Based on this CIA assessment, an attack on Iraq could provide the very thing the President claims he is trying to forestall--the use of chemical or biological weapons by Saddam. I believe it is extremely important that exhaust all avenues of peace, make use of all safeguards prior to sending our troops into battle. We cannot be injudicious, premature or inaccurate in our decision to go to war. The Spratt amendment makes the possibility of a unilateral attack on Iraq the last option--not the first. Lets give the UN and the U.S. a greater ability work towards a peaceful resolution of our concerns with Saddam Hussein.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) for yielding me this time, and I am proud to be a part of this discussion tonight. Passage of a resolution authorizing the President to commence war at a time and place of his choosing would set a dangerous precedent and risk unnecessary death. The proposal of this resolution has already been called a grand diversion of America's political focus as elections approach. Worse, it would create a grand diversion of our already depleted resources, those that are so desperately needed for the pressing problems at home. The American people are not bloodthirsty. We never want to go to war unless we have been convinced that it is absolutely necessary. That is as true of Americans whether in Maine or West Virginia or Texas or Michigan, whether they are black, brown or white, young or old, rich or poor. The mail and phone calls I have received have been overwhelmingly opposed to a preemptive attack against Iraq. Is war necessary now? We keep coming back to one stubborn irrefutable fact: There is no imminent threat to our national security. The President has not made the case. Senators and Congressmen have emerged from countless briefings with the same question: Where is the beef? There is no compelling evidence that Iraq's capability and intentions regarding weapons of mass destruction threaten the U.S. now, nor has any member of the Bush administration, the Congress, the intelligence community shown evidence linking the al Qaeda attacks last year on New York and the Pentagon with either Saddam Hussein or Iraqi terrorists. Indeed, if President Bush had such proof of Iraq's complicity, he would need no further authorization to retaliate. That is the law. He could do so under the resolution we passed only 3 days after al Qaeda's infamous attacks. What is it we do now about Iraq? We know Saddam is a ruthless ruler who will try to maintain power at all costs and who seeks to expand his weapons of destruction. We have known that for some time. We do know that Iraq has some biological and chemical weapons, but none with a range to reach the United States. Therefore, the President paints two scenarios: The first is that Iraq would launch biological or chemical weapons against Israel, Arab allies, or our deployed forces. But during the Gulf War, Saddam did not do so. Why not? Because he knew he would be destroyed in retaliation, and we were not then threatening his destruction as President Bush is now doing. Thus, attacking Iraq will increase rather than decrease the likelihood of Saddam Hussein's launching whatever weapons he may have. Now, under the administration's second scenario, Iraq would give weapons of destruction to al Qaeda, who might bring them to our shores. But that scenario, too, is not credible. Perhaps the most significant intelligence assessment we have was revealed publicly only last night and has been raised repeatedly on the floor during this debate. The Central Intelligence Agency states that Iraq is unlikely to initiate chemical or biological attacks against the United States, and goes on to warn that ``Should Saddam conclude that a U.S.-led attack could no longer be deterred, he might decide the extreme step of assisting Islamist terrorists in conducting a weapons of mass destruction attack against the United States would be his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a number of victims with him.'' Passage of a resolution authorizing the President to commence war at a time and place of his choosing would set dangerous precedents and risk unnecessary death. The proposal of this resolution has already created a ``grand diversion'' of America's political focus as elections approach, and worse, it would create a ``grand diversion'' of our already depleted resources, so desperately needed for pressing problems at home. The American people are not bloodthirsty. We never want to go to war, unless we have been convinced that it is absolutely necessary. That is as true of Americans whether in Maine, West Virginia, Texas or Michigan--whether they are black, brown or white; young or old, rich or poor. The mail and phone calls I receive have been overwhelmingly opposed to a pre-emptive attack against Iraq. Is war necessary now? We keep coming back to one stubborn irrefutable fact: There is no imminent threat to our national security. The President has not made the case. Senators and Congressmen have emerged from countless briefing with the same question: ``Where's the beef?'' There is no compelling evidence that Iraq's capability and intentions regarding weapons of mass destruction threaten the U.S. now. Nor has any member of the Bush Administration, the Congress or the intelligence community shown evidence linking the Al Qaeda attacks last year on New York City, and the Pentagon with either Saddam Hussein or Iraqi terrorists. Indeed, if President Bush had such proof of Iraq's complicity, he would need no further authorization to retaliate. He could do so under the resolution we passed only three days after Al Qaeda's infamous attacks. What is it that we do now about Iraq? We know Saddam is a ruthless ruler who will try to maintain power at all costs and who seeks to expand his weapons of destruction. We have known that for some time. We do know that Iraq has some biological and chemical weapons, but none with range to reach the U.S. Therefore, President Bush paints two scenarios: The first is that Iraq would launch biological or chemical weapons against Israel, Arab allies or our deployed forces. But during the Gulf War, Saddam did not do so. Why not? Because he knew he would be destroyed in retaliation, and we were not then threatening his destruction, as President Bush is now doing. Thus, attacking Iraq will increase rather than decrease the likelihood of Saddam Hussein's launching whatever weapons he does have. Under the Administration's second scenario, Iraq would give weapons of destruction to Al Qaeda, who might bring them to our shores. But that scenario, too, is not credible. Perhaps the most significant intelligence assessment we have is one revealed publicly only last night. The CIA states that Iraq is unlikely to initiate chemical or biological attack against the U.S., and goes on to warn that, and I quote: Should Saddam conclude that a U.S.-led attack could no longer be deterred, [Hussein might] decide that the extreme step of assisting Islamist terrorist in conducting a [weapons of mass destruction] attack against the United States would be his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a number of victims with him. In other words, the CIA warns that an attack on Iraq could well provoke the very tragedy the President claims he is trying to forestall--Saddam's use of chemical or biological weapons. President Bush and his supporters now cite some ``evidence of contacts between Al Qaeda representatives and Baghdad.'' So what? We have had high level contracts with North Korea, Afghanistan when the Taliban ruled it, and other ruthless despots. That did not mean we were allies. The intelligence community has confirmed that Al Qaeda and Saddam's secular Baathist regime are enemies. As a religious fanatic, Bin Laden has been waging underground war against the secular governments of Iraq, Egypt, Syria and the military rulers of other Arabic countries. Saddam would be very unlikely to give such dangerous weapons to a group of radical terrorists who might see fit to turn them against Iraq. We are fairly certain that Iraq currently has no nuclear weapons. Even with the best luck in obtaining enriched uranium or plutonium, the official intelligence estimate is that Iraq will not have them for some time. If Iraq must produce its own fissile material, it would take three to five years, according to those estimates. In a futile effort to mirror the prudent approach of President Kennedy during the Cuban Missile Crisis, President Bush recently released satellite photographs of buildings, as evidence that Saddam has resumed a nuclear weapons development. This is hardly headline news. We knew that he had resumed them. Another thing we know is that: Iraq's vast oil reserves have been a major tool in the Administration's pressuring other countries to support our rush to war against their better judgment; and Those oil reserves will be controlled and allocated by the U.S. if we install or bless a new regime in Baghdad. These implications are explored in an excellent Washington Post article, which I ask unanimous consent to insert in the Record immediately following remarks. Let me read just two paragraphs here: A U.S.-led ouster of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein could open up a bonanza for American oil companies long banished from Iraq, scuttling oil deals between Baghdad and Russia, France and other countries, and reshuffling world petroleum markets, according to industry officials and leaders of the Iraqi opposition. Although senior Bush administration officials say that they have not begun to focus on the issues involving oil and Iraq, American and foreign oil companies have already begun maneuvering for a stake in the country's huge proven reserves of 112 billion barrels of crude oil, the largest in the world outside Saudi Arabia. Mr. Speaker, there has been a discernible and disconcerting rhythm to the Administration's arguments. Every time one of their claims has been rebutted, they have reverted to the mantra that, after September 11, 2001, the whole world has changed. Indeed it has. But they cannot wave that new international landscape like a magic wand in order to transform Iraq into an imminent threat to the United States when it is not. Moreover, discussing whether Iraq presents such a threat only deals with half of the equation before us. What are all the costs of war? While Iraq poses no imminent threat to us, unleashing war against Iraq would pose many terrible threats to America. It would dilute our fight against Al Qaeda terrorists. That is why families of the victims of ``9/11'' have angrily told me and some of you that they oppose a pre-emptive war precisely because it would undermine our war on terrorism. Administration assurances that war against Iraq would not dilute our war on terrorism are pleasing, but cannot change the facts. Space satellites, aircraft, ships and special forces simply cannot be in two places at the same time. America's attacking Iraq alone would ignite a firestorm of anti- American fervor in the Middle East and Muslim world and breed thousands of new potential terrorists. As we see in Afghanistan, there would be chaos and inter-ethnic conflict following Saddam's departure. A post-war agreement among them to cooperate peacefully in a new political structure would not be self- executing. Iraq would hardly become overnight a shining ``model democracy'' for the Middle East. We would need a U.S. peacekeeping force and nation-building efforts there for years. Our soldiers and aid workers could be targets for retribution and terrorism. American has never been an aggressor nation. If we violate the U.N. Charter and unilaterally assault another country when it is not yet a matter of necessary self-defense, then we will set a dangerous precedent, paving the way for any other nation that chooses to do so, too, including those with nuclear weapons such as India and Pakistan and China. We will trigger an arms-race of nations accelerating and expanding their efforts to develop weapons of destruction, so that they can deter ``pre-emptive'' hostile action by the U.S. Do we really want to open this Pandora's box? Mr. Speaker, of all the consequences I fear, perhaps the most tragic is that war, plus the need to rebuild Iraq, would cost billions of dollars badly needed at home. For millions of Americans, the biggest threat to their security is the lack of decent wage jobs, health insurance or affordable housing for their families. Senior citizens having to choose between buying enough food and buying prescription drugs is an imminent threat. Unemployment reaching 6 million people is an imminent threat to America's well-being. Forty-one million American without health insurance is an imminent threat. The huge cost of war and nation building, which will increase our deficit, along with the impact of the likely sharp rise in oil prices, will deal a double-barreled blow to our currently fragile economy. What then should we do at this time? We should face the many clear and present dangers that threaten us here at home; we should seek peaceful resolution of our differences with Iraq. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record an article from the Washington Post from Sunday, September 15, 2002. [From The Washington Post, Sept. 15, 2002] In Iraqi War Scenario, Oil Is Key Issue (By Dan Morgan and David B. Ottaway) A U.S.-led ouster of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein could open a bonanza for American oil companies long banished from Iraq, scuttling oil deals between Baghdad and Russia, France and other countries, and reshuffling world petroleum markets, according to industry officials and leaders of the Iraqi opposition. Although senior Bush administration officials say they have not begun to focus on the issues involving oil and Iraq, American and foreign oil companies have already begun maneuvering for a stake in the country's huge proven reserves of 112 billion barrels of crude oil, the largest in the world outside Saudi Arabia. The importance of Iraq's oil has made it potentially one of the administration's biggest bargaining chips in negotiations to win backing from the U.N. Security Council and Western allies for President Bush's call for tough international action against Hussein. All five permanent members of the Security Council--the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China--have international oil companies with major stakes in a change of leadership in Baghdad. ``It's pretty straighforward,'' said former CIA director R. James Woolsey, who has been one of the leading advocates of forcing Hussein from power. ``France and Russia have oil companies and interests in Iraq. They should be told that if they are of assistance in moving Iraq toward decent government, we'll do the best we can to ensure that the new government and American companies work closely with them. But he added: ``If they throw in their lot with Saddam, it will be difficult to the point of impossible to persuade the new Iraqi government to work with them.'' Indeed, the mere prospect of a new Iraqi government has fanned concerns by non-American oil companies that they will be excluded by the United States, which almost certainly would be the dominant foreign power in Iraq in the aftermath of Hussein's fall. Representatives of many foreign oil concerns have been meeting with leaders of the Iraqi opposition to make their case for a future stake and to sound them out about their intentions. Since the Persian Gulf War in 1991, companies from more than dozen nations, including France, Russia, China, India, Italy, Vietnam and Algeria, have either reached or sought to reach agreements in principle to develop Iraqi oil fields, refurbish existing facilities or explore undeveloped tracts. Most of the deals are on hold until the lifting of U.N. sanctions. But Iraqi opposition officials made clear in interviews last week that they will not be bound by any of the deals. ``We will review all these agreements, definitely,'' said Faisal Qaragholi, a petroleum engineer who directs the London office of the Iraqi National Congress (INC), an umbrella organization of opposition groups that is backed by the United States. ``Our oil policies should be decided by a government in Iraq elected by the people.'' Ahmed Chalabi, the INC leader, went even further, saying he favored the creation of a U.S.-led consortium to develop Iraq's oil fields, which have deteriorated under more than a decade of sanctions. ``American companies will have a big shot at Iraqi,'' Chalabi said. The INC, however, said it has not taken a formal position on the structure of Iraq's oil industry in event of a change of leadership. While the Bush administration's campaign against Hussein is presenting vast possibilities for multi-national oil giants, it poses major risks and uncertainties for the global oil market, according to industry analysts. Access to Iraqi oil and profits will depend on the nature and intentions of a new government. Whether Iraq remains a member of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, for example, or seeks an independent role, free of the OPEC cartel's quotas, will have an impact on oil prices and the flow of investments to competitors such as Russia, Venezuela and Angola. While Russian oil companies such as Lukoil have a major financial interest in developing Iraqi fields, the low prices that could result from a flood of Iraqi oil into world markets could set back Russian government efforts to attract foreign investment in its untapped domestic fields. That is because low world oil prices could make costly ventures to unlock Siberia's oil treasures far less appealing. Bush and Vice President Cheney have worked in the oil business and have long-standing ties to the industry. But despite the buzz about the future of Iraqi oil among oil companies, the administration, preoccupied with military planning and making the case about Hussein's potential threat, has yet to take up the issue in a substantive way, according to U.S. officials. The Future of Iraq Group, a task force set up at the State Department, does not have oil on its list of issues, a department spokesman said last week. An official with the National Security Council declined to say whether oil had been discussed during consultations on Iraq that Bush has had over the past several weeks with Russian President Vladimir Putin and Western leaders. On Friday, a State Department delegation concluded a three- day visit to Moscow in connection with Iraq. In early October, U.S. and Russian officials are to hold an energy summit in Houston, at which more than 100 Russian and American energy companies are expected. Rep. Curt Weldon (R-Pa.) said Bush is keenly aware of Russia's economic interests in Iraq, stemming from a $7 billion to $8 billion debt that Iraq ran up with Moscow before the Gulf War. Weldon, who has cultivated close ties to Putin and Russian parliamentarians, said he believed the Russian leader will support U.S. action in Iraq if he can get private assurances from Bush that Russia ``will be made whole'' financially. Officials of the Iraqi National Congress said last week that the INC's Washington director, Entifadh K. Qanbar, met with Russian Embassy officials here last month and urged Moscow to begin a dialogue with opponents of Hussein's government. But even with such groundwork, the chances of a tidy transition in the oil sector appear highly problematic. Rival ethnic groups in Iraq's north are already squabbling over the giant Kirkuk oil field, which Arabs, Kurds and minority Turkmen tribesmen are eyeing in the event of Hussein's fall. Although the volumes have dwindled in recent months, the United States was importing nearly 1 million barrels of Iraqi oil a day at the start of the year. Even so, American oil companies have been banished from direct involvement in Iraq since the late 1980s, when relations soured between Washington and Baghdad. Hussein in the 1990s turned to non-American companies to repair fields damaged in the Gulf War and Iraq's earlier war against Iran, and to tap undeveloped reserves, but U.S. government studies say the results have been disappointing. While Russia's Lukoil negotiated a $4 billion deal in 1997 to develop the 15-billion-barrel West Qurna field in southern Iraq, Lukoil had not commenced work because of U.N. sanctions. Iraq has threatened to void the agreement unless work began immediately. Last October, the Russian oil services company Slavneft reportedly signed a $52 million service contract to drill at the Tuba field, also in southern Iraq. A proposed $40 billion Iraqi-Russian economic agreement also reportedly includes opportunities for Russian companies to explore for oil in Iraq's western desert. The French company Total Fina Elf has negotiated for rights to develop the huge Majnoon field, near the Iranian border, which may contain up to 30 billion barrels of oil. But in July 2001, Iraq announced it would no longer give French firms priority in the award of such contracts because of its decision to abide by the sanctions. Officials of several major firms said they were taking care to avoiding playing any role in the debate in Washington over how to proceed on Iraq. ``There's no real upside for American oil companies to take a very aggressive stance at this stage. There'll be plenty of time in the future,'' said James Lucier, an oil analyst with Prudential Securities. But with the end of sanctions that likely would come with Hussein's ouster, companies such as ExxonMobil and ChevronTexaco would almost assuredly play a role, industry officials said. ``There's not an oil company out there that wouldn't be interested in Iraq,'' one analyst said.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the manager's amendment to H.R. 5469. This legislation reflects a compromise between vocalists, recording artists, background musicians, record labels, and small webcasters. This bill has several provisions that will make it easier for music to be performed online and for the creators to be compensated. First, it incorporates an agreement that was reached between the content owners and the small webcasters on royalty rates for Internet broadcasts from 1998 through 2004. I am especially pleased that the final legislation includes a statutory direct payment provision. This provision ensures the musicians, vocalists, and artists receive their royalties from digital music directly from the collection agent instead of through other intermediaries.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. CONYERS. Let me ask the gentleman, why are they supporting the bill?

Mr. CONYERS. Reclaiming my time, this bill exempts any lawful transaction with a business licensed or authorized by the State, including lotteries. The gentleman must know that is a State business.

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

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, this is a bill that had joint jurisdiction at one time. The Committee on Financial Services and the Committee on the Judiciary were working on it together. It is interesting that the Committee on the Judiciary came forward with a bill that affirmed that all Internet wagers were illegal. But what happened? On page 6 of the bill that is before us, we find that all Internet gambling transactions are illegal, except ``any transaction authorized under State law with a business licensed or authorized by a State.'' Mr. Speaker, I refer Members to this crucial phrase, a legal phrase. Contrary to the Wire Act of 1949, which has already made any interstate gambling by wire illegal, we have created this wonderful little exception. I wonder what it means. And I wonder why the credit card companies are for this bill if they are prohibited from the bill. And would somebody in the course of this brief discourse before us on this suspension explain to me how the Christian Right, a great group of American patriots in this country, have been persuaded that this bill bans gambling on the Internet; but yet two other industries, the horse racing industry, is supporting this bill because they are persuaded it does not, and State lotteries are found to be supporting the bill because they feel that they will be exempted under this beautiful little provision, section (ix) on page 6, which says any lawful transaction with a business licensed or authorized by the State is exempt from this bill. We cannot have it both ways. So we are doing nothing here but making some wonderfully effective speeches about what we are stopping from happening on the Internet, but somebody besides the Committee on the Judiciary must be aware that this is not the case.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, we all know by now that this is an historic moment--Congress has not reauthorized the Department of Justice in over 20 years; instead, we have left the responsibility to the appropriators to decide which Department programs should be authorized and their maximum funding level. This conference report, arrived at after months of bipartisan, bicameral negotiations, expresses the views of the authorizing committees about how these programs should operate. I'd like to thank Conference and Senate Judiciary Chairman Leah, House Judiciary Chairman Sensenbrenner, and Senate Judiciary Ranking Member Hatch for working with us on this legislation. Aside from the authorizing language and technical corrections to the antitrust, criminal, and intellectual property laws, important compromises were reached between the House and Senate on other non- controversial provisions so they could be included in this report. Included are: A provisions supported by Representative Mary Bono and myself to ensure that parties to motor vehicle franchise contracts cannot be subject to mandatory arbitration without their consent; A provision supported by Representative Tammy Baldwin, Representative Louise Slaughter, and myself to establish an independent Violence Against Women Office within the Department of Justice. This provision raises the profile of the Office by having its Director report directly to the Attorney General instead of through other subordinates. This demonstrates our commitment to rooting out, deterring, and preventing violence against women; A provision that expands vocational and remedial opportunities to smooth the reentry of inmates post-incarceration; A provision offered by Representative Barney Frank that allows grandparents to apply for citizenship for a child in the event that the parents are deceased; A provision offered by Representative Adam Schiff to create a fund that disburses Federal grants for states and localities to construct memorials to officers killed or disabled while protecting the public; A provision drafted by Representative Lamar Smith and Representative Bobby Scott that authorizes grants for states and local governments to improve their juvenile justice programs; and The Madrid Protocol Implementation Act, which will allow one-stop shopping for international trademark registration. This bill has passed the House on several occasions and finally will be enacted into law. At the same time, the Republicans were not able to accept a permanent extension of chapter 12 (family farmer bankruptcy) or higher compensation for workers who are laid-off as a result of a corporate bankruptcy. I hope we can address these issues before adjourning this session. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this conference report.

Mr. CONYERS

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.