John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. About what time was that yesterday that the bill was introduced?

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his response. Can he explain to me if this bill has been referred to the Committee on the Judiciary?

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

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I greet the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), my chairman. Before I begin my comments, could I ask my friend and chairman of the committee, why is this bill coming up under suspension?

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, last week in Barcelona, Spain, 15,000 people came together for the 14th International AIDS Conference for ``Knowledge and Commitment for Action.'' We know that in 2001, there were 5 million new AIDS infections across the globe. Today there are 40 million people living with AIDS worldwide, and there are 14 million AIDS orphans. Currently, in Africa more than 28 million people are living with HIV/AIDS, however, only 30,000 are in treatment. In comparison, in the United States, nearly 100 percent of the people who need treatment receive it. 99 percent of the African people living with AIDS do not have access to Antiretroviral drugs because they are simply too poor to purchase them. In Barcelona, thousands came together to call for treatment now, and presented the ``Barcelona Declaration,'' which was also read during the opening session of the Conference. Nelson Mendela and former President Clinton have pledged their assistance to help raise awareness and funding for the UN Global AIDS Trust Fund. This declaration called for securing donations of $10 billion dollars per year for global AIDS; Antiretroviral (ARV) treatment for at least two million people with HIV/AIDS in the developing world by 2004; lower, affordable ARV drug prices and universal access to generics in the developing world; and a new global partnership between government and NGOs. I am urging that Congress and the President in a bi-partisan spirit, bolster UN efforts to combat the AIDS pandemic, provide 2 billion dollars to the United Nations Global Aids Fund, to help pay for the costs of HIV/AIDS treatment and prevention programs. This Administration has allocated $200 million dollars to fight global AIDS. I wholeheartedly agree with the activists in Barcelona that $200 million is not enough to combat ``the Plague'' of the 21st century. The United States must put at least $2 billion into the Global Trust Fund. Dr. Peter Piot, the Director of UNAIDS said that a $ 10 billion effort will only begin to make a dent in the crisis. It is a falsehood to say that spending money on AIDS in Africa would simply be a waste of money. Critics of the fund incorrectly say that corrupt dictators will take the money and use it to enrich themselves. In Uganda, Thailand and Senegal, for example, strong national leadership partnered with a community-wide response are reducing new HIV infections and AIDS diagnoses and focusing on treatment measures for their people. There are hundreds of AIDS organizations and government officials around the world that are monitoring the progress of the Fund. Please . . . let's give it a chance to work. I am urging today that my colleagues in Congress, the Bush Administration, the private sector, and the celebrity community begin lobbying the more affluent nations of the European Community and Asia to provide the remaining 8 billion necessary to combat the AIDS pandemic. France, Germany, Japan, Taiwan, and the oil rich Countries of the Middle East are not providing enough funding to the UN Global AIDS Trust. I have often heard the argument that we can not afford to treat and prevent HIV/AIDS patients around the world who have AIDS, or will contract it in the future. Nobody on the planet can persuade me that America, and the industrialized countries of the East and West, nations with trillion dollar economies, do not have the resources to combat the AlDS pandemic. But the truth of the matter, and I have seen this for decades, is that the international community will follow our lead if we provide the moral and financial leadership on HIV/AIDS. Again, this has not been the case. I am also urging my colleagues to call a meeting with the pharmaceutical companies, and begin the much needed discussion on how to bring the price of HIV/AIDS prescription drugs down so that the poorer nations, in particularly those in Africa, can afford to buy them or generic drugs. In times of international health disasters, we must put the lives of people first; and profits second. Sadly, this has not been the case. In the United States, 950,000 people have been diagnosed with AIDS. African Americans make up only 13 percent of the total U.S. population but 54 percent of new infections. 82 percent of women who are newly infected with HIV are African-American and Latino. In Michigan, AIDS patients who are dependent on federal programs to help cover the costs of HIV/AIDS drugs are now saying that due to budget cuts, they are having difficulty affording HIV/AIDS drugs. We can not allow this to happen. It is imperative that we as a nation provide the requisite funds necessary to provide adequate treatment and prevention for HIV/AIDS both at home and abroad.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, last week, on July 11, 2002, several of my colleagues, Ms. Baldwin, Ms. Lee, Mr. McDermott, and Ms. Carson, declared that it was time for this Congress to place universal health care at the top of the nation's political agenda. This declaration, I believe, was a defining moment for the universal health care movement in America. Not since 1994 have we seen such a visible and strong nationwide movement for universal health care. Two years ago, in an attempt to create momentum and a unified strategy to achieve universal health care in Congress, I founded, along with Members of the Congressional Black Caucus, the Progressive Caucus, the Hispanic Caucus, and the Asian Pacific American Caucus, the ``Congressional Universal Health Care Task Force,'' which now has 44 Members. For over two years we have sponsored briefings on Capital Hill, attended town meetings on universal health care in cities across the country, and learned from health care experts about different ways to achieve universal health care. Mr. Speaker, I introduced House Concurrent Resolution 99 with several of my colleagues from the ``Congressional Universal Health Care Task Force,'' in order to build the momentum for passage of universal health care legislation by 2004. We currently have 86 co-sponsors for this bill. There are over 325 national, state, and local organizations who support it as well. House Concurrent Resolution 99 does not specify how to pay for universal health care, nor does it spell out how a health care for all system would be administered. Instead, the resolution explicitly states what universal health care should be--affordable, comprehensive, and accessible for all Americans. America is on the road to universal health care. How can we as members of Congress justify the fact that we have one of the best health insurance plans available, yet we allow 40 million Americans to have no health insurance coverage at all? Mr. Speaker, we cannot defend something that is clearly indefensible. In the world's wealthiest country, my colleagues somehow can sleep at night knowing that right now in America, there are millions of patients, many of the children and families, that are having serious heart problems, lung problems, headaches, dental problems, mental illness, or other maladies, but are delaying treatment, not because they do not care about their health, but because the system does not care about them. We now know empirically, based on the recent Institute of Medicine's 2002 report on the uninsured, that 18,000 Americans die each year because they were uninsured. If we truly care about the health and well being of working families, and those with serious illnesses who are too sick to work, we would ensure that all Americans would have peace of mind, as they do in Europe and Canada, to accessible, affordable, high quality, and comprehensive health care for all guaranteed by law. In Michigan, thousands of uninsured HIV/AIDS patients can not afford the necessary cocktail of life sustaining drugs due to budget cut backs of government subsidized HIV/AIDS prescription drug programs. Can we continue to allow the uninsured chronically ill, those who have serious physical or mental health problems to go without needed health care for long periods of time, jeopardizing their lives, and needlessly suffering due to having untreated illnesses? For Congress to ignore these health care injustices and continue to ``wish our health crisis away'' is both immoral and cold hearted. Plain and simple, if you do not have health insurance, you will receive ``second class medicine,'' as Consumer Reports magazine highlighted in an in depth story published last year. This is particularly true if you are African American or Hispanic. Might I remind you that the first question a nurse or hospital intake administrator asks the patient is not, ``May I help you,'' but rather, ``Do you have health insurance?'' Health care in America for the most part is a business, and therefore, health care providers and physicians that are making money do not have an incentive to provide charity care. The Kaiser Family Foundation recently reported that the majority of the uninsured do not receive comprehensive charity care in hospital emergency rooms or community clinics. Because there is no such thing as ``universal charity care'' in this country, we need universal health care and we need it now. Most uninsured patients with serious illnesses need long term health care treatment, prescription drugs, or medical equipment. Currently, millions of uninsured chronically ill patients must suffer the indignities of spending days and weeks searching for charity care. They often borrow money from relatives or friends just to purchase prescription drugs or to see a doctor. This is wrong and we all know it. For the past two years, the ``Congressional Universal Health Care Task Force'' has sponsored several briefings with my colleagues from the Congressional Black Caucus, Progressive Caucus, Hispanic Caucuses, and the Asian Pacific American Caucus on the uninsured crisis in America. We have heard story after story of untold suffering by uninsured or under-insured Americans. We have also heard from numerous physicians who saw patients after their illness were full blown, many of them who died, because they delayed treatment only because they were uninsured. I urge Members of Congress to read ``As Sick As it Gets,'' by Rudolph Mueller, M.D., a ground breaking book about the shocking reality of America's healthcare system. The book documents case after case of Dr. Mueller's patients who tragically became chronically ill, or died, as a result of delaying health care only because they were uninsured. The Task Force has heard from numerous Americans whose credit was ruined for life, and went into bankruptcy due to thousands of dollars of unpaid medical bills. There are approximately 200,000 bankruptcies in America each year due to unpaid medical bills. Individuals and families should not have to experience the pain and humiliation of declaring bankruptcy just because they got sick. I heard testimony last year from two Washington D.C. residents, a husband and wife with cancer, both high school teachers, who declared bankruptcy due to the high costs of chemotherapy. They were both insured at the time, but had to rely on their credit cards to cover the costs of treatment, due to inadequate private health insurance coverage. Their daughter, who has Hepatitis C, called dozens of doctors but was denied access because she was uninsured. She is having a difficult time returning to work, because she needs long term therapy and treatment in order to be productive again. This is a national disgrace. Mr. Speaker, I do not believe, unlike many of my colleagues, that universal health care means the federal government provides vouchers so Americans can purchase costly and inferior or private health insurance, that in most cases, will not adequately cover one's health care needs, especially if an individual or family has a chronic illness. Universal health care is not a system where health decisions are made by HMO bureaucrats instead of physicians. Furthermore, it is not a system where the patient receives some kind of health insurance coverage through an HMO or a private health insurance plan, but does not have the freedom to choose their physician. It is my hope that we will achieve universal health care one day by extending, strengthening, and expanding Medicare to all Americans. Medicare has a 2-3 percent administrative over-head, versus the 20-30 percent administrative overhead costs of an HMO or private health insurance plan. The CBO in 1991 reported that we would save $ 100 billion dollars a year if we established a public health insurance program for all Americans. Many health care economists contend that a tax payer financed national health insurance program would cost the average family of three a total of $739 dollars a year for all of their health care costs, as opposed to the thousands of dollars needlessly wasted on premiums, co-pays, and high deductibles of a private health insurance plan. If we continue to support the idea that health care must be run like a business, and we continue to worship at the alter of private health insurance, it will be difficult if not impossible to cover the skyrocketing costs of primary care, prescription drugs, mental health services, and long term care through a private health insurance dominated system. National health insurance would save billions of dollars through reduced emergency room visits, reduced chronic illnesses, and a dramatic reduction in uncompensated care for public hospitals which treat the uninsured after they have developed full blown chronic illnesses. Prevention is the key here. All Americans would have access to affordable primary care, and therefore, illnesses such as hypertension, cancer, heart conditions, pre-natal health conditions, respiratory, or kidney problems would be dramatically reduced due to having access to regularly scheduled checkups. Mr. Speaker, every sector of the American public is calling for health care coverage for all. Citizens, business, labor, the faith community, civil rights organizations, community clinics, public hospitals, the media, physicians, state and local officials; all are calling for health care for all. The time has come for Congress to act on the crisis of the uninsured. Let's join the rest of the industrialized West, and ensure that all Americans receive high quality and affordable health care. I urge my colleagues to co-sponsor House Concurrent Resolution 99. Let's show the American people that we truly care about their health. We can not allow another 18,000 Americans to die next year because they are uninsured.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. So the gentlewoman is saying that regardless of what the political position is, people should not starve or become destitute, subject to the ravages of extreme poverty, merely because there is a political dispute between the parties.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, it is now with great pleasure that I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), whose concern with Haiti I think has preceded her coming to the Congress. She has worked diligently on the subject.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, this particular special order is brought about because of the circumstances in Haiti, which a number of us have been working on in this body for many years, both Democrats and Republicans. We have followed with great interest the attempts to get the democratic, both political and economic, bases in place in Haiti, so we want to discuss this program and these efforts with the membership today. First of all, there has been what we call a political stalemate that arises from alleged irregularities in an election held in May 2000. As a result, there has been a freezing of needed financial aid that we think maybe there is a new effort coming forward to unblock. So we have new hope that the political part of this problem will be resolved and that Haiti will begin to receive funds from international organizations, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the Inter-American Bank and others that are anxious to help Haiti, which is in a very serious economic crisis. Mr. Speaker, I will put my statement in the record and also background information on Haiti. In addition, I will include a letter to the distinguished Attorney General, John Ashcroft, which expresses the strong dissatisfaction toward the Haitian asylum seekers who are singled out and returned without any interviews or determination of whether they are at risk in going back to their country. Today I rise to support Haiti in their ongoing efforts to end the political stalemate and move past the political crisis. Haiti's political stalemate stems from alleged irregularities in the May 2000 legislative elections. Efforts to reach an accord have been hampered by waves of violence which culminated with the December 17, 2000 attack at the National Palace. The continuing dispute has kept Haiti isolated on the international front freezing badly needed financial aid from abroad. According to the U.S. the OAS and many foreign governments, the Provisional Electoral Council unfairly tabulated results from Senate districts, which resulted in ten contested seats. It is the Congressional Black Caucus' position that the issue of electoral crisis should not be tied to these humanitarian funds. The political haggling between the U.S. and Haiti is killing the people of Haiti. We must be encouraged with the movement on the political front, even though it may not be as much as we would like. For the first time in two years the President and the Opposition party met though they were unable to come to an agreement. However, OAS Assistant Secretary General Luigi Ennui met with President Aristide on Monday and insisted that ``The government is assuming its responsibilities.'' This is especially positive in that it is an indication by the representative of the U.S. that the Government of Haiti is responding appropriately. This acknowledgment overcomes a great hurdle for the Government of Haiti and indicates significant progress. It is reported that Aristide has proposed elections for all 83 House of Assembly seats and two- thirds of the 27-seat Senate in November. Local elections would be held next year. We must encourage all parties to continue to come to the table to work out agreement for the good of all Haitians. Also, we must end the unfair treatment of Haitians. Under the current policy in Miami, most people who arrive in the U.S. seeking asylum remained free after showing credible fear of persecution until their requests are decided. Before December, the INS routinely released refugees who passed credible-fear interviews--unless they were deemed special security risks connected to September 11. That is still the case for asylum seekers from Colombia, Venezuela, Central America and almost any place else--for everyone except Haitians. Unlike others, Haitians seeking a chance to prove that they deserve asylum status are immediately imprisoned even if they, like others are able to demonstrate initial grounds of credible fear for an asylum claim. [Memo from Cynthia Martin, Legislative Director and Counsel, Cong. John Conyers, Jr., to CBC AAs/COS; CBC Contacts; CBC LDs; CBC Press Scys; CBC Schedulers, July 10, 2002] Haiti Special Order Please join us for the special order on Haiti. We have the second Democratic hour--it should begin at approximately 7:30. Let's support Haiti in to efforts to move past the current political crisis. a. background Haiti's political stalemate stems from alleged irregularities in the May 2000 legislative elections. Efforts to reach an accord have been hampered by wave of violence which culminated with the Dec. 17, 2000 attack at the National Palace. The continuing dispute has kept Haiti isolated on the international front freezing badly needed financial aid from abroad. According to the U.S., the OAS and many foreign governments, the Provisional Electoral Council unfairly tabulated results from Senate districts, which resulted in ten contested seats. It is the Congressional Black Caucus' position that the issue of electoral crisis should not be tied to these humanitarian funds. The political haggling between the U.S. and Haiti is killing the people of Haiti. The U.S. Congress suspended aid with the following language which was a part of the Legislative Affairs Appropriation bill in July of 2000. In July of 2000, Mr. Conyers attempted to thwart efforts to have direct aid to Haiti suspended by introducing a motion to strike the language which precludes assistance to the government of Haiti unless it met the two following preconditions: (1) The Secretary of State reports to the Committee on Appropriations that Haiti has held free and fair elections to seat a new parliament; and (2) The Director of the Office of National Drug Policy Control reports to the Committees on Appropriations that the Government of Haiti is fully cooperating with the United States efforts to interdict drug traffic through Haiti to the United States. Mr. Conyers stated, ``This language limited assistance to the Government of Haiti and continues to represent a double standard. In effect, we are holding Haiti to a higher standard than we are holding other nations including ourselves. Lest we forget, it was only a few years ago that we had to send in federal re-enforcement to allow people to vote in my own backyard of Flint, Michigan and we, the great democratic country of the world had to enact not one but two voting rights acts to give blacks and other minority's unfettered access to the polls. And even today, this access continues to be undermined by court determinations of gerrymandering. But for those of us who are uncomfortable examining our own struggle with democracy as we are the beacon of democratic values, let us examine how we have dealt with other countries in similar straits, such the country of Peru.'' The Inter-Development Bank also weighed in to preclude the distribution of aid when Executive Director of the United States, Larry Harriman, sent a letter to the President Igglesias of the Inter-American Bank requesting the Bank not to authorize disbursement of the 145.9 million in loans which has been approved prior to this legislation. This was an unprecedented step--never taken at this stage before by the Bank. These loans are designated for the social sector: Rural roads and rehabilitation program, $50 million; reorganization of the health sector, $22.5 million; potable water and sanitation, $54 million; and basic education program, $19.4 million. b. encouraging signs (a) IDB has agreed to send mission to Haiti to investigate the re-institution of extending loans to Haiti. (b) Political crisis end in sight--For the first time in two years President and the Opposition party met though they unable to come to an agreement. However, OAS Assistant Secretary General Luigi Ennui met with President Aristide on Monday and insisted that ``The government is assuming its responsibilities.'' This is especially positive in that it is an indication by the representative of the U.S. that the Government of Haiti is responding appropriately. This acknowledgement overcomes a great hurdle for the Government of Haiti and indicates significant progress. It is reported that Aristide has proposed elections for all 83 House of Assembly seats and two-thirds of the 27 Senate seats in November. Local elections would be held next year. We must encourage all parties to continue to come to the table to work our agreement for the good of all Haitians. (c) Haiti Gains full integration into Carioca. c. immigration Under the current policy in Miami, most people who arrive in the U.S. seeking asylum remain free after showing credible fear of persecution until their requests are decided. Before December, the INS routinely released refugees who passed credible-fear interviews--unless they were deemed special security risks connected to Sept. 11. That is still the case for asylum seekers from Colombia, Venezuela, Central America and almost any place else--for everyone except Haitians. Unlike others, Haitians seeking a chance to prove that they deserve asylum status are immediately imprisoned even if they, like others are able to demonstrate initial grounds of credible fear for an asylum claim.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman for her excellent exposition of the circumstances there. Am I correct in thinking that there is a ray of hope, that it looks like the political differences are being resolved to the satisfaction of the World Bank authorities and that we may be moving toward a resolution of the problem?

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, more than 200 black farmers in Tennessee stormed the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and occupied the agency's offices last week for six long days to protest the mistreatment they've suffered at the hands of USDA county officials. Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman has reportedly agreed to meet with the farmers this Friday, July 12th, to address their grievances. In my opinion, something had better come out of this meeting to address the wrongs these farmers have suffered for so long. We thought we had settled this problem in 1999 when the black farmers signed a race discrimination settlement with the Department of Agriculture. That law suit, Pigford v. Glickman, charged that the Department had wrongly denied black farmers loans, crop subsidies and other farm program benefits because of discrimination. The Department was so indifferent to its responsibility to guard against discrimination that it had no procedural mechanism in place to deal with discrimination complaints; indeed, it had disbanded its Office of Civil Rights years earlier, in 1983. The settlement was supposed to address a variety of past racial injustices. It was supposed to pay $50,000 each to any black farmer who had suffered discrimination. It was also supposed to forgive those debts the Department of Agriculture had unfairly assessed against black farmers from 1983 to 1999. Incidentally, the sum of $50,000 payments and forgiven debt was estimated to be about $2.2 Billion. This agreement was supposed to assure black farmers discrimination-free access to USDA programs in the future. It was supposed to guarantee an expedited procedure designed to resolve quickly those claims that black farmers had pending with USDA for years. The settlement might have been heralded today as a terrific agreement except for the fact that the Department's performance, meaning its execution of the agreement, did not live up to its promise. Past wrongs were not redressed fully and timely. Black farmers continued to get significantly lower program yields than their white counterparts in the same counties. Without attributing blame here, there was some question of whether the filing deadlines were well publicized, and, when the deadlines were extended, it still reportedly remained difficult to know when or how to get or file the appropriate application. As a result, the Department has only paid out about $650 million of the $2.2 Billion in damages estimated at the time of the settlement. At the very least, the Secretary has to put in place immediately a moratorium on foreclosing black farmers. Justice requires a waiver for those farmers who lost their farms or who could not repay their loans because they suffered discrimination or natural disaster. The Secretary has to institute policies that assure us that career employees at the USDA are taking seriously the promises USDA made to the farmers, namely, that USDA intended to remedy decades of discrimination. Among those policies, the Secretary must track the extent to which black farmers are participating in these programs. She must ensure that black farmers are being treated fairly and respectfully at the County level. She must therefore assure us that the county committee elections are democratic--and that means fair and open elections. She must appoint minority voting members if minorities are not otherwise represented. Finally, it is high time that we have an Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights at the Department of Agriculture. It was wrong that that office was disbanded in 1983. It is a shame and a disgrace that nothing has been done to remedy that omission after the signing of this so- called settlement. If the Secretary does these things that I've respectfully suggested are the bare minimum, and addressed the remaining demands of the black farmers, then the protest last week in Tennessee will not have been in vain and the meeting this Friday will not be the empty gesture the black farmers have grown accustomed to expect from the USDA.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I will insert some materials in the Record about the plight of the African American farmers in this country who, having won a wonderful court decision that resulted in a consent decree, are still faced with discrimination, delayed payments and all other kinds of problems which were really the basis of them bringing the suit in 1999. So I will insert in the Record the Federation of Southern Cooperatives' statement, the statement of our colleague the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton) and my own statement. Black farmers demands: 1. To Meet with Secretary of Agriculture Ann M. Veneman before July 16, 2002 We want confirmation of her agreement to meet by 3:30 pm today, EST. 2. An immediate moratorium on all farm foreclosures by Secretary Veneman. 3. The immediate termination of all USDA officers who have been found guilty of discrimination. 4. The Federal Court halt of all proceedings in the Pigford Consent Decree until the mess can be straightened out. 5. That the USDA ceases and desists on intercepting the federal farm program payments to farmers in the Pigford v. Glickman Class Action. 6. That the USDA cease and desist on claiming tax return payments to farmers who are part of the Pigford v. Glickman Class Action. 7. That USDA tells us the loan status of Tennessee farmer James Hood, Gerald Pettaway, Coach Perkins, Barton Nelson, Ernest Camel and Robert Young. 8. The immediate firing by Judge Paul Friedman of Al Pires and Phil Frans as lead counsel in the Pigford v. Glickman Class Action. 9. Settle the Matthew Grant (deceased), Richard Grant, Dexter Davis and Howard Coates (deceased) administrative cases by August 1, 2002 in a fair and equitable manner. Federation/LAF Supports Black Farmer Protest Against USDA in Tennessee Demands Meaningful Across the Board Response From USDA and Congress Atlanta, GA.--This week Black farmers occupied the US Department off Agriculture's Haywood County Agricultural Extension Agency in west Tennessee. They decried the fact that even in spite of the recent law suit against the USDA, grievous violations against Black farmers continue. As the primary organization working in support of Black farmers across the south for 35 years, the Federation of Southern Cooperatives/Land Assistance Fund (Federation/LAF) supports the efforts of the ``Black Farmers and Agriculturalist Association'' as it's members occupy the USDA offices. ``We support this effort because it highlights the appalling lack of justice to Black farmers over the past century and clearly demonstrates the need for immediate and corrective steps by Mr. Bush's Agriculture Secretary, Ann Veneman'' said Ralph Paige, Executive Director of the Federation/LAF. In 1999, Black farmers settled their suit against the USDA after years of struggle to receive information, technical assistance and loans from this agency that was touted as being the lending institution of last resort. The irony is that the USDA policies invariably are in place to support huge corporate farms at the expense of family farmers everywhere, and, in particular, Black family farmers who now struggle to hold on to their dwindling land base. In fact, in 1982 the US Commission on Civil Rights reported that the primary reason Blacks have lost land is because of the USDA itself. These facts were supported by the USDA in it's Civil Rights Action Team report in the late 1990's. When Black farmers sued the USDA, 22,692 farmers filed claims. To date more than $615 million has been dispersed to class members. Currently only 60% of those who filed claims have received payment along with injunctive relief and thousands who were denied class status are appealing to the Monitor in the case for reconsideration. An additional 68,000 farmers filed late claims. The Federation/LAF has assisted the farmers as they struggled with the severe complications and delays in the law suit settlement process. To date, thousands of farmers who have filed late claims have yet to be processed and many of the initial claimants are still suffering from bureaucratic entanglements as they await their payment or other compensation. Perhaps one of the most disturbing aftermaths of the law suit settlement is the assumption that things would change at USDA. This was not to be. While there is a Monitor in place to assist class members should they suffer discrimination in USDA offices, the same USDA staff that over the years has wreaked havoc on Black farmers still sit in USDA offices across the South. They have not been reprimanded or made accountable in any way for their discriminatory practices. These are the same staff who farmers face daily in USDA offices as they seek services and loans. All this is further compounded by a USDA and Congress that continue to support corporate farmers rather than family farmers that have always been the backbone of American agriculture. The recently passed Farm Bill is a prime example of these policies, which provides for huge subsidies to benefit the largest corporate farmers in America. There is little in the 2002 Farm Bill that will assist small farmers. For example, after the 1982 US Commission on Civil Rights cited the USDA violations against Black farmers, the Federal/ LAF formed a coalition to address this issue. The Federation/ LAF wrote the Minority Farmers Rights Act which, thanks to the Federation/LAF and coalition support, was incorporated into the 1990 Farm Bill. It is now known as the ``Outreach and Technical Assistance Program'' (Section 2501). This marked the first time that federal monies were to be devoted to provide technical assistance to minority farmers. Initially Congress authorized $10 million annually for the program, and in the 2002 Farm Bill Congress raised the authorized to $25 million. Yet the Congressional appropriations committee has never even come close to appropriating the authorized amount for this important program, which serves thousands of black and other minority farmers. Out of the huge federal budget, not more than $3.2 million has ever been appropriated for Section 2501, which must be distributed among numerous community based organizations and land grant colleges. Once again, this year Congress appears to be denying the needed funding for this program, suggesting an appallingly low $3.4 million appropriation. This will yet again severely dilute the resources and technical assistance that could be provided to farmers. Many view funding for this program as a hand-out to African American community based organizations and historically Black land grant colleges, while at the same time Congress distributes billions of tax payers dollars into the coffers of corporate agriculture. ``The $3.4 million appropriation for thousands of minority farmers is too limited in comparison to the millions given to the top five corporate farmers in America'' said John Zippert, Director of Programs for the Federation/LAF. ``Where, we ask, is the justice and democracy in a system that builds the wealth of the top 5 farmers in a country of 270 million people? A program, such as 2501, however, serves thousands of farmers and insures pluralism and equity for all farmers and not just a few.'' The success of the Minority Farm Outreach and Technical Assistance Program cannot be overestimated. In virtually every area where the program has been implemented on a sustained basis there has been an increase in the number of Black farmers as well as farmer sustainability and profits. Additionally, there needs to be a speedy implementation of other sections of the 2002 Farm Bill that deal with equity for minority farmers which include: the appointment of a new USDA Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights; sections of the bill that address a more equitable selection of the County Committees that govern agriculture policy at the local level; making more USDA direct and guaranteed loans available to family farmers; insuring that injunctive relief available through the Black farmer law suit is effectively disbursed which is, for one, priority consideration for USDA loans. Even in spite of the law suit and now the on-going complaints by Black farmers due to the egregious treatment they continue to receive from USDA, Congress does not seem to open its eyes to programs already in place that could alleviate many of the problems experienced by minority farmers. Clearly, Congress needs to support programs that have a proven track record and the USDA needs to address the problems of its staff and the continuation of their discriminatory practices. Finally, notwithstanding the huge number of farmers who have not been processed in the case as mentioned above, there are thousands of Black farmers across the country who learned about the suit too late to participate. It is also clear that the Black farmer settlement should have been stronger in addressing the systematic discrimination in the implementation of USDA programs. We urge U.S. District Court Judge Paul Friedman to seriously consider all of these issues as he reviews the problems in the law suit settlement and ways in which the case could still be used to improve the USDA's performance and services to minority farmers. ``Organizations that support Black farmers are often accused of playing the race card, but we have to play the card that we are dealt. It seems clear that race and size of farm operation are the reasons for the lack of support and assistance from Congress and the USDA and we demand a change in these policies toward an equitable and just agriculture system in America'' said Jerry Pennick, director of the Federation's Land Assistance Fund.

Mr. CONYERS

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

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by commending the chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), and the manager of this measure, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), for the excellent way that they have conducted it. It has been a fair and, I think, revealing discussion that is so important. I cannot help but also note that the former chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), has considered this an issue of great importance, as has our colleague, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt), and the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). This is important. This radical secularist decision was rendered by Judge Alfred T. Goodwin, appointed by past President, Richard Milhouse Nixon. And so for all of you who are leading the attack on the left, I do not know this judge and I do not know what his position was, but he passed muster in the Senate, he was reviewed and favorably considered by a sitting Republican President, and I think that it is very important that no one question the right of the Members of the House of Representatives to express their opinion on this decision or any other decision. What I fear is that it may be intended by some for political gain. But that is not a new feature in the course of our discourse in the House of Representatives. Or some who may be trying to discredit the judiciary in general for the work of two people on the Ninth Circuit. Certainly, the three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals appears to have presented a ruling that runs counter to the existing precedent regarding the establishment clause, and as someone with great respect for our Pledge of Allegiance, I do not believe its recitation substantively infringes on freedom of religion. Now, interestingly enough, just hours ago the United States Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that taxpayer funds can be used in voucher programs to support parochial schools. This ruling has been regarded generally as the worst church-state ruling in the last 50 years. Do we have any resolution on that one? The Supreme Court today upheld the random drug testing of high school children, even those not suspected of wrongdoing. It is hard to imagine an opinion more objectionable from a privacy standpoint, but do we have anyone calling for a resolution of a program on that? And then I have colleagues who come to the floor claiming that this is a shocking sign of some fundamental defect in the judiciary. Now, unlike Bush v. Gore, this decision can be appealed, and where there is a strong probability that it will be overturned. This has been observed as just the first step in a judicial process that usually and ultimately gets it right. From Plessy v. Ferguson to Brown v. the Board of Education, to the issue of executing mentally impaired prisoners, the courts who may have originally lost their way ultimately find it again. But lost in today's debate and in the resolution before us is the value of our judicial system, the crown jewel of our democracy. Our Founders, in their wisdom, created a system of checks and balances. Independent judges with lifetime tenure were given the tremendous responsibility of interpreting the Constitution. So it is no surprise over the years that the judiciary has ultimately been the greatest protector of our rights and our liberties. The fact that one panel of the Ninth Circuit that has rendered this opinion should do nothing, I hope, to diminish from Members our general, overarching respect for the judiciary. All of this might be justified if there was any real question as to the constitutionality of the 1954 law that added God to the pledge. But while the Supreme Court has never specifically considered the question, the justices have left little doubt how they would do so. Even former Justice William Brennan--a fierce high-waller--once wrote ``I would suggest that such practices as the designation of `In God We Trust' as our national motto, or the references to God contained in the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag can best be understood . . . as a form a `ceremonial deism' protected from Establishment Clause scrutiny chiefly because they have lost through rote repetition any significant religious content.'' Other justices have likewise presumed the answer to the question and no court of appeals should blithely generate a political firestorm--one that was already beginning yesterday--just to find out whether they meant what they said. Half a century ago, at the height of anti-Communist fervor, Congress added the words ``under God'' to the Pledge of Allegiance. It was a petty attempt to link patriotism with religious piety, to distinguish us from the godless Soviets. But after millions of repetitions over the years, the phrase has become part of the backdrop of American life, just like the words ``In God We Trust'' on our coins and ``God Bless America'' uttered by Presidents at the end of important speeches.

Mr. CONYERS

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

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to speak in support of this legislation which would provide for information sharing between federal and state and local authorities. I believe that providing state and local officials with this type of information ultimately will help them detect and prevent future acts of terrorism. State and local personnel are the most likely individuals to interdict terrorists--as demonstrated by the detainment of Ahmed Ressam on the Canadian border and the routine traffic stopping of one of the 9/11 terrorists by a Maryland state trooper. As we have learned in the last several weeks, if we had shared more information before the attacks, we may have been able to more aggressively intervene against the terrorist plot. The legislation will also help state and local officials prepare an appropriate response to future attacks. Every act of terrorism is local--occurring in a neighborhood, city or state near you or someone you know. Often times, officials at the state and local level are first-line responders to these attacks. The bill is not perfect. The more broadly information is shared, the greater the danger it will be improperly disclosed. I think we all agree that the last thing we would want is for the newly shared information to be used to harm an innocent person's reputation. As we move forward, we should take a close look at whether sufficient safeguards are in place that will prevent improper disclosure from happening. The bill, in its current form, offers us a good starting point to improve our nation's defenses against terrorism. It is critical that our law enforcement agencies talk with one another so that the right hand knows what the left hand is doing. I strongly urge its prompt passage.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the eloquent gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), a valued member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise on behalf of the Committee on the Judiciary to claim the time for the minority.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to point out that the gentlewoman from Texas is the first to identify the importance of the whistleblower function in our system. I think it is going to be considered more carefully now that the gentlewoman has brought this to light. I thank the gentlewoman for it, and I hope it will gain wide acceptance.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, while Western nations mark and celebrate International Refugee Day today, the 3.3 million people who make up Africa's refugee population probably do not know that this day is for them. They are too busy eking out a living, a bare existence, in refugee camps and villages where they have found temporary safety. Despite being the world leader in refugee resettlement, the U.S. has barely opened the door to African refugees. Helping Africans resettle here has not been a priority of U.S. policy since the end of the slave trade. In 1988, the Reagan Administration capped African admissions at just 3000, and fewer than 1600 Africans were actually admitted that year. From 1995 to 2000, 28% of the world's refugees were African, but only 11% of all the refugees resettled to the U.S. were Africans. One policy of refugee resettlement was being applied to the world, while another policy with fewer admissions was being applied to Africa. I and my fellow members of the Congressional Black Caucus pressured the Clinton Administration to increase the admissions allocation for Africa, to rectify this imbalance, and to address the dire needs of people fleeing political persecution and violence in Africa. By the end of the Clinton Administration in 2000, African admissions had climbed to 20,000 per year, largely due to the CBC's efforts. Our doors were opened to admit 22,000 African refugees this year. Despite this important victory--we are unlikely to see the fruits of our labor. Nowhere near 22,000 refugees will arrive from Africa this year, due to policy changes in the refugee program implemented after the September 11th attacks. African admissions are down for several reasons. The Bush Administration imposed additional security checks--known as Special Advisory Opinions--on all men between the ages of 15 and 55 from certain Arab and Muslim countries, including some North and East African nations. They will not publicize this list so it is impossible to tell whether any male African refugees are exempt from this review, but processing has been very slow. INS personnel stopped conducting circuit rides through Africa to conduct interviews of refugee applicants due to security concerns. Interviews were also stopped at processing locations in Kenya and Ghana for almost 6 months for security reasons. The INS is also cracking down on ``major inconsistencies'' in the petitions of relatives seeking to join asylees already resettled in the U.S. In the worse cases, these differences include applications for parents who the resettled refugee originally claimed were murdered for political reasons, and applications for children who the refugee did not identify when they first applied for their refugee status. The rates of these inconsistencies are undeniably troubling. For some nationalities, more than 50% of family relative applications are inconsistent with the original applications filed by the resettled asylee. Yet American and international voluntary organizations that assist in identifying refugees for resettlement tell us that in some places refugees are bribed by middlemen who hold up their paperwork if they indicate that they have living relatives who can assist them. The fact that the vast majority of African applicants seek entry as relatives suggests that other categories of entry may not be effective ways of entry for Africans. A myriad of processing and filing errors, or fraud on the part of the anchor relative or a third party, may be to blame. Rather than seeking explanations and contacting the applicants, the INS assumes that one such inconsistency means that any other claims of persecution, no matter how brutal, are untrustworthy lies. For all of these reasons, many of the most vulnerable populations children, amputees, widowed women, and those who languish in refugee camps--are not getting admission to a program that exists to protect them. I remain deeply concerned that huge refugee camps still exist in Africa where thousands of people await a chance at a decent life for as many as 10 to 15 years. In that time children are raising themselves, and each other, to adulthood while living in the camps. Eighty percent of refugees in these camps are women and children--both vulnerable groups who are in need of protection and durable solutions. Families are under dire strain, reunification is difficult and resuming a normal productive life is impossible. The United States must do more to address these tragedies that are plaguing refugees in Africa. It is also time for us to turn around the horribly unjust policy that the INS recently instituted to keep Haitian asylum seekers locked up like, and sometimes with, violent criminals. For years, the INS Miami office has paroled asylum seekers into the community, once they show credible fear of persecution, while they await the adjudication of their claims. That policy still applies to people from any nation in the world--except Haiti. The INS has decided to discriminate against Haitians, holding them for months without access to translators and lawyers, while they await a decision. The INS has said that the purpose of this policy is to deter Haitians from risking their lives to flee Haiti by boat. If that were the case, the policy would have been applied to Cubans, and any other people that come to the U.S. by boat, at the time it was instituted. And what evidence exists to show that locking people up will keep those risking their lives and fleeing persecution from coming? The real goal appears to be to keep Haitians out of the United States and once again I must question whether race is a factor in this discriminatory policy. About 250 refugees are now being held in Miami. Men are separated and put in the grossly overcrowded facilities at Krome Detention Center. Women are placed in a maximum security county jail with violent criminals. And children are being detained with one parent in a facility where they receive no education, no play time or trips outside, no special programs geared towards their needs. It is bad enough that there are millions of refugees around the world who come to us for refuge from persecution. It is even worse that we are then persecuting some of these refugees when they arrive by placing them in these inhumane conditions. There is no political, strategic, security or moral justification for this policy. I call on the Attorney General to immediately parole Haitians--just like all other asylum seekers.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from New York for yielding me the time. It is bad enough we did not have hearings in committee. It is bad enough the bill is brought on the floor at this late hour, and now nobody wants to debate it. It has never passed. We have never had it in the Senate. This bill has never come up in the Senate, and now we want to rush to a vote. This is, I think, a serious disregard of a constitutional amendment. Why did we bring it up? Is there somebody in the country, somebody's constituents that are urging that we have a constitutional amendment in which the majority rule would be taken away? I have not heard it. It has never passed the House ever, and yet it is being brought up now. I think it is a little bit inappropriate, and I think our leadership should take a little bit more care about keeping Members late and then wondering why we should not even have a full debate on the matter. I feel very strongly that there should be a majority rule in terms of these kinds of questions. The supermajority should be rarely used, and it is my hope that as we have gradually begun to accumulate negative votes on this proposal, that we will get even more people voting against it tonight. For a number of reasons, in addition to the ones that have already been discussed, I think that making it difficult to close loopholes is not a good way to proceed. This could create a lot of problems for us in a number of ways, and I am disappointed that we are proceeding in a very rushed manner. We voted on this bill in April of 1996. We voted on this bill in April of 1997. We voted on this bill in April of 1998. We voted on this bill in April of 1999. We voted on this bill in April of 2000. We voted on this bill in 2001. Now we have it again with us today. What is the point? I think that this is a procedure that I have to have made very clear, that this is not the way that we should proceed on constitutional amendments. I thank the gentleman from New York for allowing me this amount of time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member of the subcommittee, and I am interested that everybody is now ready to turn this debate in and just have a vote; but yet it was scheduled late in the hour of today, and now we are anxious to get out of here. Let us leave. Well, I just left the White House where there was a meeting with Members of both bodies about a homeland defense department. We have not figured out what the budget is going to be or where the money is coming from, and I am glad to note that our chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), was at that meeting. And we are going to have to produce a lot of money from somewhere. It is not in the budget right now. Could I ask, if we have this law in effect, if this constitutional amendment was prevailing, would we be able to raise that additional money? I think not. And so I would just like to remind us that we are in a serious, different situation. When the previous President, Bill Clinton, left the White House, we had a $280 billion surplus. We now have a deficit of how much? $100 billion roughly. And now we are arguing the same kind of arguments. Let us make it bad. My dear friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), says we need to reduce taxes. Taxes are too high. Well, I have got an idea. Why do you not introduce some legislation to lower taxes? Why do you need a constitutional amendment to restrain yourself? I remind you that since our former colleague Newt Gingrich's activities of 1994 have taken over, the Republican Party has controlled the House, and most times, the Senate. So what is wrong with passing bills to reduce taxes? Now, I would like to turn to the other concern that in we are in a deficit situation. If Social Security is being jeopardized, do we really want to make it harder to account for how we are going to make up for these funds? I am not so sure if you really do. And if everybody keeps that in mind, we will be a lot better off in terms of how this budget thing is going to play out. We have got big bills coming along, and we are going to need money. And so to argue the same arguments that were heard in other Congresses when this same constitutional amendment was brought forward may not be consistent with what we are faced with at the present time. Now, there is another reason that we may want to be careful about giving a minority one-third the right to determine the tax structure for an overwhelming majority, two-thirds. That would be that there are a number of corporate tax provisions that are in the tax laws that would not be able to come up. My colleagues would not want that to happen, would they? We want to be able to go in and take out, for example, the tax benefits that come from setting up a company offshore and then reaping the benefit of little or no taxes and other corporate tax provisions that are being re-examined as we speak in the Congress now. In fact, under this amendment, were it to pass, it would take more votes to close a tax loophole that might have been engineered by a powerful interest group than it would to cut Social Security, Medicare and education programs. So I think this is not good economic policy, and for those reasons and some more that I would like to go into at a later point, I would urge everyone consider this measure very carefully as we move toward a vote tonight, and I thank my colleague from New York for yielding me the time.