John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask that the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) join me in the motion to recommit, and I offer this motion on behalf of myself and him. As currently drafted, this bill guts HMO reform laws that States have already passed because it creates broad new caps on damages when HMOs deny coverage to patients, and so what we do is to add a safe harbor provision to specify that these State patient's bills of rights laws are not preempted by this bill. Nothing more. It goes without saying that these limits are far less friendly to consumers injured by HMOs than the patient protection laws already enacted by the States, and I would love to refer to the former Governor of Texas George W. Bush, who had a similar view in mind. They enacted an HMO law in Texas, and that law, still on the books, has a higher cap on punitive damages than this bill and no caps on noneconomic damages for suits against HMOs. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am.

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

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) to concluded the debate on our side of the aisle.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, to my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), I say, please check the punitive damages that the Dalkon shield Cooper 7 IUD, the hundreds of millions that they would have not had to pay had this bill been in effect. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend, the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sandlin).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), one of our ranking members of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee). (Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am sorry I corrected the other side in connection with their understanding of their bill which may have brought about an overreaction about what Democrats do not want to happen to the health system in America. I apologize for that. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to our very distinguished colleague, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt), on the Committee on the Judiciary.

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

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, before I yield to my friend from Massachusetts, I think we ought to make sure we are all talking about the same bill. On page 5 of this bill we eliminate the doctrine of joint and several liability, meaning that if one person does not have enough money, then nobody else is responsible for them paying for the damages. Number two, the statute of limitations is reduced to 3 years, and that is on page 3. What that means then is if a person with AIDS discovers it in 6 years, they just missed out, because the statute of limitations would now be 3 years. For my friend from Pennsylvania's information, this bill does cap noneconomic and punitive damages. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), from the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I begin by commending the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) for conducting a very important and substantive debate on the rule governing this measure that is before us. Now, let us begin with the fact that this medical malpractice reform bill, except for the fact that there are no caps on attorneys, is the same bill, amendment, brought forward by the gentleman from California (Chairman Thomas) to the Patients' Bill of Rights last July, and it was turned down, for good reason. The next thing I should point out is that there is a serious constitutional problem that the American Bar Association has written to me and members of the committee about, a letter that I have for those who still have that reverence for that document, that I am sure we all do. Now, there has been constant reference to the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act of 1975 in California. May I point out to all of those who assume that it has been enormously successful that the Consumers Federation of America in their report, which reinforces another California report, makes two points: That the per capita health expenditures in California have exceeded the national average every year between 1975 and 1993 by an average of at least 9 percent per year; and that the California health care costs have continued to skyrocket at a rate faster than inflation since the passing of the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act. Inflation, as measured by the Consumer Price Index, rose 186 percent between 1975 and 1993, yet California's health care costs grew by 343 percent during the same period. Moreover, California's health care costs have grown at almost twice the rate of inflation since 1985. Now, the problem with this bill is that rather than help doctors and victims, this bill really does a great favor to insurance companies, HMOs and the manufacturers of defective medical products and the pharmaceuticals, as usual. In addition, it also is clear that a legislative solution focused on limiting victims' rights available under our State tort system will do little other than increase the incidence of medical malpractice, already the third leading cause of preventible deaths in the United States of America. Finally, you should be aware that the drug companies have somehow gotten into this, as well as the producers of the infamous Dalcon Shield, the Cooper 7 IUD, high absorbancy Tampons, linked to toxic shock syndrome, and silicon gel implants, all of whom would have completely avoided billions of dollars that they have paid out in damages had this bill been law. So, Mr. Speaker, I refer you finally to the Consumers Union Report, which points out in detail all of the basic things that have been reviewed here. Please let us stick to our guns. This is too important a thing to let something as blatantly political go through in the name of helping the victims of medical malpractice in this country. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, Members of Congress face few decisions as important for their constituents as the issue of war or peace—sending young men and women into combat. And now, protecting Americans from terror attacks in the U.S. is equally vital. These crucial questions truly call for us to put aside political calculation and do what is right and best for America. These issues also call for us to resist a rush to judgment. We must take time to ensure that they are carefully weighed and throughly aired. I oppose the resolution requested by President Bush that would give him a blank check to start a war against Iraq at any time and in any manner that he chooses. This clearly is too broad. It authorizes the President to act unilaterally no matter what the U.N. decides or does. That would abdicate congressional responsibility and is reminiscent of the equally open-ended Tonkin Gulf Resolution in 1964. It also fails to limit his authority to working within the U.N. framework on peaceful measures to enforce U.N. sanctions. Finally, the President's proposal embodies his alarming new doctrine of pre-emptive U.S. attacks on other nations even when they pose no imminent threat to the U.S. Instead, I join with many of my colleagues who support a more sensible, more justified and far less dangerous position: we advocate that the U.S. pursue inspections through the U.N., while continuing to deter Saddam Hussein, as we have been able to do for the past decade. To implement this view, we have introduced an alternative resolution endorsing President Bush's request for U.N. inspections. The Administration simply has not made the case that Iraq threatens the United States with weapons of mass destruction, and that we are in such imminent danger of attack that U.S. military action is either the prudent or the justified course. Everyone agrees that Saddam Hussein is a very brutal dictator. He has: ruthlessly repressed his own people; committed aggression in the past; violated U.N. sanctions; sought to develop weapons of mass destruction; and remained hostile to the United States. But that does not end the matter, for two reasons. First, the same could be said for any number of other countries, such a North Korea, China, and Iran. Will the U.S. attack each of them, and others, because some day they might be able to threaten us with weapons of mass destruction? Second, even if a “regime change” in Iraq is desirable, that does not justify taking military action when it would risk so many dangers to America. Attacking Iraq will increase rather than decrease the likelihood of Saddam Hussein's launching whatever weapons he does have against Israel, against our other allies, or against U.S. forces stationed in that region—a risk that even Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld acknowledged in recent congressional testimony. At present, Hussein is deterred by our threat of retaliatory destruction. He knows that, if he were to use weapons of mass destruction against us, then we would retaliate and destroy him. There is no evidence that Hussein seeks to commit suicide. But if we attack first, after announcing an intent to wipe him out, then what reason would he have to hold back? A U.S. attack poses other severe dangers: American military commanders fear it would dilute our fight against al Qaida. We have not yet captured those who killed thousands of Americans, and who, we know, are still trying to kill more. That is job number one. 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. Despite rosy predictions that the Iraqi people would welcome our soldiers and aid workers with open arms, they would be arriving after years of U.S.-led economic sanctions, followed by violent U.S. bombing and combat. They will be the constant target of local hostility and terrorist attacks. 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? The war, plus the need to rebuild Iraq and create a united, peaceful country, would cost billions of dollars badly needed at home. For millions of Americans, the biggest threat to their security in the lack of decent wage jobs, health insurance or affordable housing for their families. For senior citizens, it is their need to choose between buying enough food and buying prescription drugs. Indeed, most Americans are more frightened about security at our airports than about some strutting dictator thousands of miles away. Yet the Bush Administration's deficit budget won't even permit meeting the year-end deadline for installing new baggage and passenger screening systems to protect us against an immediate threat here at home. The huge costs 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. If it were plausible that we had to attack Iraq now, in order to head off strategic threats to the United States in the near future—and if alternatives had been exhausted, then that overriding concern might justify the risk of all these harmful consequences that are certain to follow U.S. military action. But the Bush Administration has not presented persuasive evidence that Saddam will soon be able to threaten America with weapons of mass destruction, or that he is likely to use them against us. Until then, a U.S. pre-emptive attack makes no sense, in light of the risks it would create and the clear harm it would cause to our national interests. In fact, it is precisely because they lack such evidence that the President, Secretary Rumsfeld and Vice President Cheney have increasingly downplayed claims of an impending nuclear threat from Iraq and have switched to elaborating on what a bad person Saddam has been. But such a departure from the principles of our tradition—an unprovoked attack initiated by the U.S.—cannot be justified merely because we would prefer another regime in Baghdad, or because someday Saddam Hussein might present an actual strategic threat to U.S. security. In addition, Americans should ask the White House and the Congress about the timing of the vote on any IRAQ resolution. What's the rush? According to press reports, our military leaders have made clear they will not be ready to launch an attack for months, and would prefer to do so in January or February. Why, then, do we need to decide such a complex and consequential issue in a few days? Why cut short the national debate to which the American people are entitled? Is it because the Administration is aware that a growing number of Americans are troubled by all of the unanswered questions? Americans are puzzled why Iraq has suddenly become such a threat that the White House is prepared to go to war and shed the blood of American men and women, not to mention great numbers of innocent Iraqi civilians. They are right to ask. What has changed in the last six months or year that suddenly makes an attack on Iraq the leading item on the Administration's agenda? All of the reasons now being cited by the White House—Hussein's bad character, his past behavior, the outstanding unfulfilled U.N. resolutions and his continued pursuit of strategic weaponry—were equally true back then. I would hope that this headlong rush to judgment does not have anything to do with the November elections. I expect the Bush Administration to present very soon some conveniently last-minute “new evidence” in order to support its promised new National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) assessing Iraq's capabilities. It is very odd that, as of last week—so many months after Iraq had become the leading headline issue—the Administration had still not completed an all-source, inter-agency assessment of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and future capacity: Is this because the White House knew it would be unhappy with the result? Is it because the Administration was unable to pressure all of the intelligence agencies to reach the “right” conclusions? Is it because the White House has been pressing the Intelligence Community to find some new “evidence” that could be artfully interpreted to support Administration policy? Mr. Speaker, It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that one or more of these considerations played a role in the otherwise inexplicable delay. Therefore, I have asked the Chairman and Ranking Member of the House Committee on Intelligence to vigorously investigate what dissents any of the intelligence agencies may have registered from the NIE's overall conclusions, from its component findings and from its assumption—either in the final document, or in earlier comments on discussion drafts. This summer, several major newspapers reported that senior officers at the Pentagon, including members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff did not believe that Iraq posed a sufficient threat to the U.S. to warrant the risks and the costs of a war. Now they apparently have been brought on board a White House war train that is about to leave the station. Why have they suddenly reversed their position? I trust their initial professional judgment. In these tense times, we should keep in mind the recent warning from another military leader, General Anthony Zinni, who was Marine Commandant and also has headed our Armed Forces Central Command, which guards our interests in the Middle East. He currently is a key advisor on that region to the Administration. General Zinni reminded us that military commanders, who know the full horrors of war are hesitant to plunge ahead unless the national interest is clearly at stake, while those who have never worn a uniform or seen combat often are the ones who most easily and enthusiastically beat the drums of war.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, as the Dean of the Congressional Black Caucus, and chairman of its annual Jazz Issue Forum and Concert, I rise to call to this body's attention the achievements of a distinguished musician, Mr. Arturo Sandoval. At the age of 52, he continues a career that has brought him international acclaim as a musician, composer, and bandleader. I am extremely honored that he will be my guest here in Washington, DC, on Thursday, September 12, 2002, during the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation's Annual Legislative Conference. That evening, my colleagues and I will have the opportunity to thank him for the great pleasure that his life's work has brought to its, and to millions across this nation and around the world. The Congressional Black Caucus is not alone this year in recognizing the magnificence of what Arturo Sandoval has accomplished. Sandoval, a founding member of the Grammy-winning group, Irakere, has been honored by the Recording Academy with twelve nominations and four Grammy Awards. Sandoval received Cuba's Best Instrumentalist of the Year Award from 1982 through 1990. In 2001, he was awarded the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers Founder's Award for his accomplishments as trumpeter, composer and arranger. He is currently the Professor of Trumpet at the Florida International University School of Music. However, Mr. Sandoval's accomplishments are hardly limited to the trumpet, he is an accomplished pianist in both classical and jazz styles. Born November 6, 1949, in Artemisa, a small province of Havana, Cuba, Arturo Sandoval has for 40 years been a musical prodigy. He began his musical career in his village band at the age of 13. In 1964, he began three years of classical trumpet study at the Cuban National School of Arts. At 16, he earned a place in Cuba's national all star band. Drafted in to the military in 1971, Sandoval was able to play with the Orquestra Cubana de Musica Modema and continued his daily practice regimine. Sandoval's talent has led him to associations with many of the great jazz musicians, but his most important association was his friendship with the legendary Dizzy Gillespie. In 1977 Gillespie was visiting Cuba, when Sandoval decided to seek his counsel. Sandoval and Gillespie quickly became friends and Gillespie invited Sandoval to perform and tour with Gillespie's United Nations Orchestra. Arturo looked to Gillespie ``as a spiritual father'' and their collaboration led to further innovations in Afro-Cuban music and jazz. Their collaboration is featured on the 1992 Grammy winning recording Live at Festival Hall. After his discharge from the military he co-founded Irakere, which became Cuba's most important jazz ensemble, with saxophonist Paquito D'Rivera and pianist Chucho Valdes. Their performance together at the 1978 Newport Jazz Festival in New York introduced Arturo to American audiences and led to a recordirg contract with Columbia Records. Their collaborations culminated in 1979 when Irakere won the Grammy for Best Latin Recording. In 1981, Arturo left Irakere to pursue new musical possibilities, continuing to tour worldwide with his own band and as a classical trumpeter. In 1990, in the midst of a European concert tour, he defected at the American Embassy in Rome. In 1994, he received a Grammy for Best Latin Jazz Album for his recording Danzon. He received that prestigious award again in 1998 for his work, Hot House. In 1998, with President Clinton as a cosponsor, he became an American citizen. His most recent work My Passion for the Piano, released in 2002, is a remarkable recording inspired by following one's musical passions. He has long been known for his proficiency on the trumpet, but his mastery of the piano is a marvel to which he credits his friend Dizzy Gillespie. ``My inspiration to play came from Dizzy Gillespie. I remember reading in a jazz history book about Miles Davis when he was young asking Dizzy for some lessons. Dizzy told him `Sure, let's go hit the piano and do some work,` to which Miles replied he didn't play piano. Dizzy's answer? `You'd better learn how.` Well I took his advice and it's paid off. ``I'm a better trumpeter as a result. The piano is the best teaching tool for composing, arranging and orchestrating. I wrote my first classical concerto for trumpet on the piano.'' Sandoval is also a tireless music educator, both as a tenured Professor at Florida International University and as a visiting guest lecturer. Three scholarships are associated with him: the University of Idaho's Arturo Sandoval's Dizzy Gillespie Trumpet Scholarship Award, Central Oklahoma University's Sandoval Trumpet Scholarship, and FIU's Sandoval Trumpet Scholarship, Arturo has lectured at the Conservatoire de Paris, the Tchaikovsky Conservatory in the Soviet Union, the University of California in Santa Barbara, the University of Miami, the University of Wisconsin, Perdue University, and at many other institutions throughout the United States, Europe and Latin America. Sandoval has performed as a classical trumpter with the National Symphony, Los Angeles Philharmonic, Toledo Symphony, Detroit Symphony, Indianapolis Symphony, Oklahoma Symphony, and Atlanta Symphony, among others. Mr. Speaker, Arturo Sandoval has established himself one of our nation's greatest cultural heroes and ambassadors. Therefore, I urge all Members to join me in paying him this well deserved tribute.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, Virgin Mary ``Jefferson'' Paige was born on August 10, 1926 in Washington DC. She attended Armstrong Senior High (Duke Ellington's high school) and was the Dean of students for the Cortez Peters Secretarial School. As a civic and cultural activist, she served with such distinguished organizations as the Restoration of the Howard Theater Project, Lettumplay, DC Commission on the Arts and Humanities, and the Ad Hoc Committee for the Arts for the New Convention Center. Mary began her professional singing career at age fourteen. Her first job was at the Elks Club at 15th & Q St; NW. Her mentors were Duke Ellington, Big Maybelle and was taught tap dancing by band leader Lionel Hampton. She danced in the chorus line in the Caverns, performed in jig shows and did interpretive dancing to such tunes as ``Smoke Rings''. She also performed in such clubs as Melody Inn, Turner's Arena, Boots and Saddle, Off Beat and the Republic Gardens. Virgin Mary ``Jefferson'' Paige graced the stages on the local club scene for 60 years. As an actress she performed in film, television, commercials and won an Emmy for the documentary ``7th and T.'' Mary traveled with a group of Washington DC jazz and blues singers to perform at the San Remo Blues Festival in Italy. She was aptly called the ``Queen of DC Blues''. Her loyal fans and admirers mourned the loss of this great artist on August 10, 2002. Her contribution to the development of the Washington jazz and blues scene will not be forgotten.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to celebrate the life of Lionel Hampton, one of the greatest jazz musicians ever and a personal friend. Hamp, also known as the ``Vibes President of the United States,'' passed away on Saturday, August 31, but he lives on because of his many accomplishments. I could, of course, try to list all of Hamp's awards, but there are too many; instead, I'd like to share some personal memories I have of Hamp. I was able to see him this past April 17, when I hosted a luncheon for him here on Capitol Hill, he was surrounded by many friends and supporters on the occasion of his 94th birthday. Just this past April 15, the Senate passed Senate Concurrent Resolution 101, which extended best wishes to Hamp for his birthday, and the very next day, the House passed the same resolution. Of course, few birthdays could top Hamp's 90th in 1998, when he played at the White House for President Clinton. He proved to all of us that he hadn't slowed down a bit. But playing for Presidents was old hat for Hamp. Throughout his career, he also played for Presidents Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush. He also displayed his commitment to higher learning by having no fewer than 18 leading institutions award him honorary degrees and by having the University of Idaho name its school of music in his honor in 1987. That was the first time any school of music had been named in honor of a jazz musician. In fact, I have had the pleasure of serving as an honorary co-chair with President George H.W. Bush of the University of Idaho's Lionel Hampton School of Music. To make sure his cultural legacy would be preserved, I had the honor of helping him donate that vibraphone to the jazz collection at the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of American History on January 30, 2001. His donation will help inspire thousands of budding musicians to follow their dreams just as Hamp did. If that wasn't enough, Hamp used his mastery of music to cross color barriers and set an example for others. He was one of the first black musicians to perform in previously white-only venues and events, including with the Benny Goodman Quartet from 1936-1940, and as the first black musician to perform at a presidential inauguration (President Truman's in 1949). It isn't possible for me to list all of Hamp's awards, accomplishments, and performances, but rest assured, he will live on.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I am impressed that this measure is coming up at this point in time. Is there some reason that we keep going over this? Has this subject been before the House of Representatives before?

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

Mr. CONYERS. I want to thank the gentleman for his comments. I want you to know that I think there will be more people here thinking about the wisdom of H.R. 5203 when it comes up for a vote today.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, this legislation represents one of the finest examples of how the tragedy of September 11th is being used to abuse process and rationalize offenses against the Constitution. Sections 341 and 344 of this bill needlessly expands the scope of Federal authority and threatens the protection of civil rights by granting broad search immunity to customs agents and allowing warrantless searches of outgoing international U.S. mail. Although I strongly believe that the Federal Government should aggressively investigate and prevent future terrorist attacks, increased security should not come at the cost of our constitutional rights. Section 341 of the bill provides immunity to a Customs officer conducting a search of a person or property provided he or she was acting in ``good faith.'' Presumably an officer could engage in blatantly discriminatory conduct, but if he in ``good faith'' believed that he was justified in doing so, he could not be held liable. This provision would, in effect, expand immunity so that a person would not be entitled to relief from an unconstitutional search unless the officer acted in ``bad faith''--a nearly impossible standard to meet. Even though this provision would dramatically change immunity law, it was attached to a Customs Authorization Bill and never considered by the Judiciary Committee. Current law already provides qualified immunity to Customs agents. Qualified immunity is based on an assessment of what a reasonable officer should have done in any given situation. Under current law if a law enforcement officer conducts an unconstitutional search based upon a reasonable but mistaken conclusion that reasonable suspicion exists, the officer is entitled to immunity from suit. This standard provides Customs agents protection against unreasonable lawsuits but also protects individuals from unconstitutional searches. When an official seeks qualified immunity, a court is obligated to make a ruling on that issue early in the proceedings so that, if immunity is warranted, the costs of trial are avoided. The Customs Service has not offered a reasonable justification as to why the qualified immunity standard should be changed. Moreover, Customs has offered no examples of cases where the existing qualified immunity doctrine has failed to protect an agent acting within the scope of their authority. Section 341 would accord Customs officers a legal shield unavailable to any other law enforcement officer in the country. This provision would have the direct effect of weakening protections against racial profiling and other illegal and unconstitutional searches by the Customs Service that have been highlighted in recent GAO studies. Out of all the possible Federal law enforcement agencies, the Customs Service should not be provided with additional immunity. The racial profiling problems of the Customs Service are not imaginary and have been subject to documentation and litigation. The GAO found that passengers of particular races and genders were more likely than others to be subjected to intrusive strip and x-ray searches after frisks or patdowns, even though the results of such searches found that they were less likely to be in possession of contraband. The GAO concluded that the Customs Service's pattern of selecting passengers for intrusive searches (their profile) was inconsistent with rates of finding contraband and recommended the implementation of policies that target passengers more consistently with their search-hit rate and other more accurate indicators of criminal conduct. The most extreme examples of racial profiling by the Customs Service were directed against African-American women, who were nine times more likely than white women to be the victim of an intrusive search (including strip search and body cavity searches), even though they were only half as likely as white women to be found carrying contraband. Many major civil rights organizations opposed this provision in the House bill including: the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the National Council of La Raza, the Mexican American Legal Defense Fund, the Counsel on American Islamic Relations and the American Arab Anti- Discrimination Committee. The civil rights community believes that passage of this provision would be a major set-back in the fight to end racial profiling. This legislation compounds the erosion of civil rights protections by weakening the legal standard for the searching of U.S. mail. Under current law, the Customs Service is empowered to search, without a warrant, inbound mail handled by the United States Postal Service and packages and letters handled by private carriers such as Federal Express and the United Parcel Service. The Customs Service's interest in confiscating illegal weapons' shipments, drugs or other contraband inbound or outbound is adequately protected by its ability to secure a search warrant when it has probable cause. Short of an emergency, postal officials can always hold a package while they wait for a court to issue a warrant. There is simply no legitimate justification for this expansion of search authority, unless of course you exclude the need to circumvent the Constitution. Recently, the U.S. Postal Service wrote a letter to the Chairman of the Financial Services Committee on the issue of searching outbound mail without a warrant: The Postal Service has taken the position that, ``There is no evidence that eroding these long established privacy protections will bring any significant law enforcement improvements over what is achieved using existing, statutorily approved law enforcement techniques.'' In short, experts from the Postal Service have determined that this provision is unnecessary. As we search for increased national security, we must be mindful of the fact that our civil liberties are a precious resource and ensure that freedom is not a casualty of vigilance. Given that Congress has recently expanded the police powers of government officials, now is not the time to cut back on the mechanisms in existing law that are designed to ensure police powers are not abused. Without arguable justification, these provisions trample the ability of individuals to address the overzealous activities of the Customs Service and undermine the expectation of privacy in the U.S. mail. I urge you to join me in opposing this legislation. The Subjective-Intent Qualified Immunity Proposal for Customs Officials problems with the house proposal This issue involves the Constitution--not slip-and-fall cases, or security fraud cases. This proposal would affect cases involving alleged violations of individuals' constitutional rights, and we should be very careful before we tamper with the rules. The doctrine of qualified immunity has been established and refined by the Supreme Court over four decades. Congress has never enacted a statute that would change the standard for officials' qualified immunity in constitutional tort cases. This would be the first time. Current law protects against frivolous lawsuits. The Supreme Court has instructed lower courts to resolve qualified immunity issues at the earliest opportunity. Even if government officials fail to win qualified immunity at the dismissal or summary judgment stage, they still have the option of appealing those judgments to a higher court immediately. This proposal would hurt real people. It would increase the likelihood of meritorious claims being thrown out. Parties would end up fighting at length over whether an official did or did not subjectively believe his conduct to be lawful-- even if existing law clearly established that it wasn't. Resolving such complicated disputes would expend valuable judicial resources and often lead to inaccurate results. And officials who violated clearly established constitutional rights might not be held accountable. Why treat customs officials better than the F.B.I. or local cops? Customs officials serve a very important role. However, there is simply no reason to treat them differently from other government officials--such as border patrol agents, state and local police officers who work near the border, or prison guards. All of these officials are entitled to the same, strong shield to liability. There is no need to change the rules for customs officials. current law Under current law, every government official--federal, state, and local--is protected by the doctrine of qualified immunity. This is a very broad shield from liability. In the words of the Supreme Court, it protects ``all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.'' Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 341 (1986). Officials are shielded from liability ``as long as their actions could reasonably have been thought consistent with the rights they are alleged to have violated.'' Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 638 (1987). When an official seeks qualified immunity, a court is obligated to make a ruling on that issue early in the proceedings so that, if immunity is warranted, the costs of trial are avoided. Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 200 (2001). The Supreme Court has repeatedly ``stressed the importance of resolving immunity questions at the earliest possible stage in litigation.'' Hunter v. Bryant, 502 U.S. 224, 227 (1991). Before 1982, the test for qualified immunity had both an objective and a subjective component. First, an official had to prove that he did not violate ``clearly established'' law. Second, he had to show that he acted in ``subjective good faith'': i.e., that he believed that he was not violating the plaintiff's constitutional rights and was not acting with a ``malicious intention.'' In 1982, the Supreme Court eliminated the subjective component. It emphasized that consideration of an official's subjective motivations often involved ``broad-ranging discovery and the deposing of numerous persons, including an official's professional colleagues. Inquiries of this kind can be peculiarly disruptive of effective government.'' Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 817 (1982). In other words, the subjective test made this issue less--not more-- likely to be resolved in summary judgment proceedings. Id. at 816. See also Anderson, 483 U.S. at 641 (``Anderson's subjective beliefs about the search are irrelevant.''). How the Customs Service Has Fared in Three Recent Cases 1. Saffell v. Crews, 183 F.3d 655 (7th Cir. 1999) Facts: Airline passenger was subjected to a strip search following her return from a trip to Jamaica. Customs inspector conducted a pat-down search, then a partial strip search. No drugs found. Outcome: Inspector is entitled to qualify immunity: ``Crews, an experienced Customs inspector, was neither incompetent, nor did the district court find that she intentionally violated the law.'' 2. Bradley v. United States, 164 F.Supp.2d 437 (D.N.J. 2001) Facts: Passenger who was subjected to a strip search claimed racial discrimination and invasion of her privacy. Outcome: Even assuming that customs agents violated the passenger's rights, they were entitled to qualified immunity: ``Qualified immunity is afforded to federal employees to protect them from reasonable mistakes or poor judgment calls.'' 3. Brent v. Ashley, 247 F.3d 1294 (11th Cir. 2001) Facts: Only African American passengers on plane from Italy were detained, isolated, strip searched, and then x-rayed. No contraband was found. Outcome: Inspectors' decision to conduct strip search and x-ray examination based merely on ``general profile of arrival from a source country'' and ``nervousness'' violated the Fourth Amendment. Because these grounds had been ``explicitly rejected'' by both the supreme Court and Eleventh Circuit, the inspectors were not entitled to qualified immunity. However, the subordinates who assisted in the searches were entitled to qualified immunity.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to express my sympathies for my distinguished friend, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), whose amendment this was when we were in committee and in rules. Now all of a sudden, something happened on the way to the floor. I just express to the gentleman, maybe I can find out in the cloakroom what happened that caused this sudden change of heart and the support of the Turner amendment. Here we go again. We have unprecedented corporate immunity in subtitle F of the homeland security bill. I am going to tell the other side of the aisle they were going to lose votes on final passage by continuing to immunize these corporations against liability. First it was the airport security group, and some of the lousiest contractors in the business are now going to get immunized. Here we are going to give companies corporate immunity that will not be able to be penalized by injuries. Mr. Chairman, what is this? This is not a tort liability bill. This is a homeland security department that we are trying to create. All of this foolishness is not doing the other side of the aisle any good. Extending this product liability immunity to anti-terrorist products is a bad idea, and I hope that we will reject this amendment; and, if necessary, reject the whole bill.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, we have got a bit of a dilemma here. According to the General Services Administration, excluded parties listing system, page 5, Argenbright Security, Incorporated. They will be excluded. Term date, 14 October 2002. So I say to the distinguished majority leader, if that is what you call debarment, that is what I call somebody getting rolled in the House this afternoon. They are debarred for exactly 2 months, and they are back in business. So I rise in support of the gentlewoman's objection to this en bloc manager's amendment, because notwithstanding all of the concern about corporate accountability that has been raised to the roof here on both sides of the Capitol, the last thing we need to do is to pass a special interest law which protects negligent airport screening companies at the expense of victims of the September 11 tragedy. Do we know what we are doing here? Two of these screening companies have been criminally convicted for falsely certifying that they made criminal background checks of their employees when they did not. Two of these companies have been convicted for knowingly hiring convicted felons, and last November when we passed the Aviation Security Act, we expressly decided that private screening companies should not be relieved of liability. That is because we evaluated airline security in the wake of September 11, and it was obvious on both sides of the aisle that the private companies conducting airline screening, in general, had done a woefully inadequate job. So now, I should be shocked that the Republican leadership would use an en bloc manager's amendment to the homeland security bill as a vehicle to further harm the victims of the September 11 terrorist attack. Yet, that is precisely what this amendment does. It not only protects Argenbright, but it protects their parent company as well, totally shielding them from liability for letting terrorist and terrorist weapons through checkpoints on September 11. So those responsible for providing staff at, for example, Logan Airport in Boston, would receive liability protection. Even the notorious screening company that I have already named, which provided security at Dulles and Newark Airports and has been cited for more security violations than any other company, would benefit from the Army language. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to reject this en bloc manager's amendment that is before us now. Excluded Parties Listing System

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, we rise to honor Timothy White, a man of integrity, passion, and music. Tim, the late editor of Billboard Magazine, died on June 27, 2002, at the age of 50. Many of you may not have known Tim White, but his influence was felt not just in the music industry, but here in Washington. While Tim's passion for music and artists made him a champion and a challenger of the music industry, he played an important role in the fight for reform here. From his office in New York, he increased Billboard's coverage of Capitol Hill and shared with Bill Holland, the Washington correspondent, the prestigious ASCAP-Deems Taylor Award for investigative stories on musical copyright and the ownership of sound recordings. Tim also was a writer, and a superb one. He wrote about what he loved most, music. He saw in our culture an emptiness, with little to replace it. Entertainment, he wrote, ``is heartening because it celebrates the human scale . . .; there is extra-industry fascination with the record charts because they are the one mirror in which we can still glimpse our collective will, lending an air of control and logic to a landscape that sometimes appears on the brink of chaos. At its high end, rock'n'roll can periodically fill in the hollows of this faithless era--especially when the music espouses values that carry a ring of emotional candor.'' Being a writer, Tim was an outspoken defender of free speech and spurred others to new levels of creativity, both in word and in song. Tim didn't just write about music, though; he lived it. His life is an example of how one man can and did make a difference. He had a passion for what's right and was not afraid to pursue that goal, whether it was to force a change in the music business or through the hearing rooms in Congress. He also never missed an opportunity to champion a forgotten or still undiscovered artist. As Don Henley, a close friend of Tim, said, ``What comes mostly to mind when I think of him is integrity. In an age when looking the other way and moral compromise have become our common cultural traits, Timothy White would have no part of it. He was not for sale.'' It is Tim's emotional candor that will be missed and we mourn his loss. As we honor Tim's memory, we should aspire to hold to the same ideals that Tim exhibited throughout his life: integrity, commitment and compassion.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that the conferees have reached an agreement on accounting reform, and I want to congratulate Chairman Sarbanes and Chairman Oxley for their work on this issue. I also want to thank Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member LaFalce for their stellar leadership in the area of corporate fraud. The proposed agreement includes nearly all of the important safeguards from the legislation Senator Leahy introduced in the Senate and that I introduced in the House in April. Among other things, the agreement includes language lengthening the statue of limitations for securities fraud, mandating document retention for auditors, civil whistle blower protection, and sentencing enhancements for document shredding. Some made no secret of the fact that they would have preferred to gut these safeguards. But in the end, Senate Democrats stood their ground, and this legislation represents a major win for the American public. I wish House Republicans would have been able to agree to these critical reforms earlier, but in the end I believe we have strong legislation that will provide defrauded investors with a greater ability to recoup lost assets, afford prosecutors with increased tools to pursue corporate wrongdoers and impose harsher penalties for those accused of committing securities fraud. As good as this bill is, it's important to note that the agreement is just a first step toward protecting American investors and workers. We still need to fix the many, many giveaways enacted by Congress in the 1995 Securities Litigation bill. For example, we need to restore civil liability against those that aid and abet securities fraud violators, and make sure that civil RICO applies in full to securities fraud. Measures such as this will make it abundantly clear that we will not tolerate future Enron or Worldcom situations. With nearly 80 million citizens either directly or indirectly invested in the stock market, it's incumbent upon us, as Members of Congress, to provide hardworking Americans with the necessary protections to safeguard the money they'll depend on in their retirement. Hopefully, the actions taken today will be the first step, of many, toward achieving this goal.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. That is an inadequate response.