John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the McGovern-Skelton amendment and I want to particularly salute the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the ranking member of the Committee on Armed Forces. Let me begin by saying I believe that every Member here cares about Colombia and wants to see peace for our South American neighbor. There is this disagreement which leads to a discussion about how to get there. I argue for not rushing to a change of policy. That is all this amendment does. Because if we do, it will be hard to undo. Because in such a short time, Colombia will have a new president and congress. And so, my friends, the prudent and commonsense course of action would be to wait until after the Colombian presidential elections and the new administration is installed in August. Can we not wait until August to find out who is going to be running the country? Of course we can. At that time it would be perfectly appropriate to discuss strategy and commitments that the new government is willing to make regarding human rights, judicial reform, alternative development and peace efforts. Then let the Congress consider it fully after, and not before, we know who will make up the Colombian government, because we have got some problems there. We have got paramilitary getting elected to this democratic form of government. There is an unknown aspect of this conflict about Afro-Colombians that I would like to raise, not well known. Afro-Colombians, my friends, make up 26 percent of Colombia's 40 million people. There are few in the Congress who are aware that Afro-Colombians have constitutionally protected cultural and territorial rights. Their Federal Law 70 of 1993 sets out a land titling process by which Afro- Colombian communities may be granted collective title to lands that they have traditionally lived on. Yet they suffer immensely and are often neglected. They make up a disproportionate number of displaced persons in Colombia. Some say they make up half of the two million to three million internally displaced persons in that country. They have been forced to flee, mostly by the paramilitaries, sometimes in collaboration with the Colombian military, and sometimes by apparent neglect by the Colombian military. Some question why these Afro- Colombians are being pushed off the land, which brings me to the May 2 church massacre already referred to by the gentleman from New York, the church massacre in Bellavista, Choco, the Colombian province with the greatest percentage of African-descended Colombians. At least 119 people died. A third were children, 95 wounded, 40 missing, and now thousands displaced. All of the victims were of African descent. The bomb that burned the church was thrown by the FARC guerillas in a battle with the AUC paramilitaries. I deplore the actions of both of these illegal and armed groups. But what is disturbing and more alarming was the inaction of the Colombian government. Despite repeated warnings of imminent violence issued by the Colombian Human Rights Ombudsman's office beginning in July 2001 and up until a week in advance of the massacre, the Colombian armed forces did nothing. The warnings were echoed by the United Nations High Commission for Human Rights in Colombia. Yet the Colombian armed forces did not even arrive until three days after the massacre. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the McGovern-Skelton amendment. Let me begin by saying that I believe that every member cares about Colombia and wants to see peace for our South American neighbor. There is disagreement on how to get there. First, we should not rush into a change of policy that will later be hard to undo. Why? Because in such a short time, Colombia will have a new president and congress. The prudent and common sense course of action would be to wait until after the Colombian presidential elections and the new administration is installed this August. At that time, it would be appropriate to discuss strategy and the commitments the new government is willing to make regarding human rights, judicial reform, alternative development, and peace efforts. Then let Congress consider it fully, after, not before, we know who will make up the next Colombian government. Second, the situation of Afro-Colombians is not a well-known aspect of the Colombian conflict. Afro-Colombians make up 26% of Colombia's 40 million people. There are few in the Congress who are aware that Afro- Colombians have constitutionally protected cultural and territorial rights. And, Law 70 of 1993 sets out a land titling process by which Afro-Colombian communities may be granted collective title to lands they have lived on traditionally. Yet, Afro-Colombians suffer immensely and are often neglected. They make up a disproportionate number the displaced persons in Colombia. Some say they make up more that half of the 2-3 million internally displaced persons in Colombia. Once displaced, many Afro-Colombians face the double discrimination of being black and displaced. They have been forced to flee mostly by paramilitaries, sometimes in collaboration with the Colombian military, and sometimes by apparent neglect by the Colombian military. Some question why the Afro- Colombians are being pushed off their land. Which brings me to the May 2, church massacre in Bellavista, Choco, the Colombian province with the greatest percentage of African- descendants. At least 119 people died, a third were children, 95 wounded, approximately 40 are missing, and now thousands are displaced. All of the victims were African descendants. Yes, the bomb that burned the church was thrown by the FARC guerillas in a battle with the AUC paramilitaries. I deplore the actions of both of these illegal armed groups. But what was perhaps more alarming was the inaction of the Colombian government. Despite repeated warnings of imminent violence issued by the Colombian Human Rights Ombudsman's office beginning in July 2001, and up until one week in advance of the massacre, the Colombian Armed Forces did nothing. The warnings were echoed by the United Nations High Commission for Human Rights' office in Colombia. Yet, the Colombian Armed Forces did not arrive in the area until after May 5th according to a report in El Tiempo, Colombia's largest daily newspaper. In fact, 24 members of Congress and I signed a letter to President Pastrana asking him what happened. We give Colombia money to develop an early warning system to prevent such atrocities. But early warning does not work if it is not followed by early action by the Colombian government. Ambassador Anne Patterson called my office immediately upon receiving the letter. We have yet to hear from the Colombian government. This is not an encouraging example of Colombia's commitment to protect its own citizenry. To top it off, there were reports of paramilitary and Colombian military collusion. The Colombian government invited the UN to investigate this tragedy. Then according to El Tiempo, high officials in the Colombian government criticized the UN Commissioner for Human Rights in Colombia, Mr. Anders Kompass, when he mentioned reports of the collusion between the Colombian military and the AUC paramilitaries, who are a US-designated foreign terrorist organization. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mary Robinson defended the work of the Commission in Colombia and said it was lamentable that the Colombian government questioned their work. The UN Commission just completed its report and found the FARC and the AUC responsible for the massacre because of their fighting near civilians. The Commission also found the Colombian government responsible due to its inaction and what looks like collusion with the paramilitaries. The paramilitaries traveled by air and boat in the area and were not stopped by government forces. Again, the situation of Afro-Colombians is not well known. Some question why the Afro-Colombians are being pushed off their lands. Afro-Colombian territories are strategically located and rich in resources. Law 70 requires that Afro-Colombian communities be consulted regarding projects that may impact their lands. This is not happening, if people have had to flee. Also, a number of displacements and massacres occurred shortly after collective titles were granted. This land-terror aspect of the Colombian conflict needs to be investigated. So, before we change our policy in Colombia, I would like to know what commitments the next government will make to protect its citizens, in particular Afro-Colombians. I would like to know how their territorial rights are being protected and if the government has a plan to ensure people's safety so that they can return to their lands. We all know the Colombian government does not have a perfect human rights record. Given the past, there are many important questions to ask of the next administration. In addition, President Pastrana wrote an op-ed that was published in the Herald on May 1, 2002, the day before the Bellavista massacre. In it he wrote that ``for the first time, the Colombian military is capable of defeating the terrorists on the battlefield,'' and that his administration is spending more money on defense. If that is the case, where is the emergency? And, where was this capable army after the early warnings in Bellavista? This is a nearly 40 year-old civil conflict. In 1967, 35 years ago, Dr. Martin Luther King spoke of the use of American helicopters against rebels in Colombia in his anti-Vietnam War speech, exactly one year before he died. And this war is still going on. Where is evidence that Colombia has a winning solution now? The House Defense Authorization bill grants Secretary Rumsfeld a waiver allowing him to lift the 500- person cap on US military personnel in Colombia in the name of national security. He then only has to inform Congress within 15 days after the fact. Colombia begins to look like more like Vietnam every day. There are no Al Qaeda cells in Colombia. But, the State Department admits that the Colombian Armed Forces still collaborate with the AUC paramilitaries, a US-designated foreign terrorist organization. Why would we give lethal aid to a government that works with one terrorist group to fight another? Where is the consistency in our policy? The military leader of the AUC paramilitaries, Salvatore Mancuso, recently claimed that their candidates received more than 35% of the seats in Colombia's March legislative elections. If Mullah Omar claimed that Taliban candidates received more than 35% of the legislative elections in Afghanistan, you can bet that would be investigated. Also, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mary Robinson has expressed concern about this claim. She also is concerned that the leading candidate has spoken of arming one million civilians and warned that the civilian population should not be dragged into the conflict. We are told peace is our goal in Colombia, yet the House has not even had one hearing on the Colombian peace process. Why are we seeking a military solution in such haste? What is the hurry in going down what appears to be a slippery slope? And what ever happened to our own homeland security in the War on Drugs? Why is there no money in this bill to fund substance abuse? The administration and some members of congress are obsessed with taking drug money away from guerillas, but don't share the same obsession when it comes to helping the American people who need drug treatment. The Office of National Drug Control Policy spends millions of dollars on television ads trying to persuade our citizenry that those who do drugs in the United States are supporting terrorism. So, in this ``Global War on Terrorism'', should it not be a priority to help our own people overcome their addictions? To change our policy before knowing who the next government will be would be premature, imprudent, and naive. The common sense course of action is to wait until we know who we are dealing with and what commitments they are prepared to make. Vote yes on McGovern-Skelton. Note--Even though the authority granted in this bill would run out September 30, 2002, that still would give an unknown government 54 days to wage war. A lot can happen in 54 days.

Mr. CONYERS. I want to thank the gentlewoman from Texas very much for yielding. To my dear disingenuous friend from Florida who wants to know why the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky) was complaining about the procedure, it is not that we are debating it now. Is there a Member here that does not know that at midnight you are going to run a rule through us and keep us up until 3 or 4 in the morning? Oh. Oh. To my dear friend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) who said, ``Colombia is a democracy. It is a friend and an ally. What are we doing questioning this?'' The answer is that they only spend 1.9 percent of their GDP for defense. That is why.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) for yielding me the time, and I compliment her on her statement. When H.R. 3129 came to the floor on suspension last December and here again today, we argued that the legislation introduced needlessly expanded the scope of Federal authority and threatened the protection of civil rights by granting search immunity to Customs agents so broad and by allowing warrantless searches of outgoing international U.S. mail, that the measure was unacceptable. In defeating the legislation, we reiterated our commitment to aggressively investigating and preventing future terrorist attacks and agreed to work with the majority to improve the legislation, but, unfortunately, the majority has not been open to discussion and compromise on the critical issues of racial profiling and privacy that are raised by this legislation. Why? Although the Rangel substitute addresses those civil liberty questions and retains the portion of the bill that reasonably and fairly addresses the issues of border security. Meetings between staff and the Customs Service have clarified the Customs immunity question and proven that the section 141 immunity provision is unnecessary. Although Customs failed to document the specific cases, they disclosed, and we are unaware of any case where a Customs agent, acting within the scope of his authority, has been subject to prejudgment attachment of their personal assets in any kind of a trial that followed. When H.R. 3129 came to the floor on suspension last December and again here today, we have argued that the legislation as introduced needlessly expanded the scope of federal authority and threatened the protection of civil rights by granting broad search immunity to customs agents and by allowing warrantless searches of outgoing international U.S. mail. In defeating the legislation, we reiterated our commitment aggressively investigating and preventing future terrorist attacks and agreed to work with the majority to improve the legislation. It is truly unfortunate that the majority has not been open to discussion and compromise on the critical issues of racial profiling and privacy that are raised by this legislation. We believe that the Rangel substitute addresses those civil liberty questions and retains the portion of the bill that fairly addresses issues of border security. Meetings between staff and the Customs Service have clarified the customs immunity question and proven the fact that the Section 141 immunity provision is unnecessary. Although Customs failed to document the specific cases, they disclosed and we are unaware of any case where a Customs agent, acting within the scope of their authority, has been subject to a pre-judgement attachment of their personal assets or judgement of any kind following a trial. As we have consistently stated, the existing doctrine of qualified immunity shields public officials performing discretionary functions from civil damages if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person should have known. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the reasonableness of an officer's behavior, not the subjective ``good faith'' standard used in this legislation, is the proper test for liability. What the Custom's Service has complained about is the pace of trial through the federal courts. Bluntly stated, they want the cases against their agents disposed of faster, like every other civil litigant in the country. This bill's response in Section 141 is the creation of a broad category of immunity, unavailable to any other law enforcement officer. That provision is both unnecessary and dangerous to the rights of the public, who deserve their day in court to protect against racial profiling and other illegal and unconstitutional searches by the Customs Service that have been highlighted in recent GAO studies. It is important to note that the Custom's Service has argued that Section 141 of this legislation would apply retroactively and result in the dismissal of a host of lawsuits, many of which were brought by African-American women who are contesting the legality of disparate intrusive searches documented by the GAO. When viewed in that light, this provision looks less like a tool to address terrorism than a broom to sweep away troublesome cases that raise issues of questionable conduct and policy. The substitute replaces Section 141's grant of immunity with an exclusive remedy against the government for the actions of Customs agents who act within the scope of their authority. This compromise fairly balances the interests of Customs agents, who follow policy, with the interests of those aggrieved persons who have been the victim of questionable searches. With respect to privacy interests, the authors of this bill have completely failed to make a case for weakening the legal standard for the search 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. The U.S. Postal Service has even 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 remain mindful of the fact that our civil liberties are a precious resource and ensure that freedom is not a casualty of vigilance. We believe that the Rangel substitute strikes the appropriate balance between civil liberties and security by correcting deficiencies in H.R. 3129 as introduced. Because increased security should not come at the cost of our constitutional rights, I urge you to join me in supporting the substitute.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), for yielding me this time, and I am delighted to join both the chairman and the ranking member in thanking both of them for this process. My colleagues, we have come a long way. It has been a long road, many issues, many hearings, many ideas, lots of witnesses, and 17 months have gone by. But the Congress has worked its will in a very important and remarkable way, and I am honored to be named a conferee. I wish to thank the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), who was working on this with me all the way, and the committee that did so much, under the leadership of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), to not only deal with standards and equipment and technical issues, but to determine that we needed resources and standards as well to go into this. So what we are doing now is adding to the confidence that the American people, I think, were lacking in terms of the electoral process. It is important that we realize that a lot of people were disappointed and disgruntled, and that what we are doing now is adding to the constitutional basis for this very most singular voting right that a citizen has. We are also filling in the Voter Rights Act of 1965 and a number of statutes that all complement it. What we have done is taken a problem and improved the process, and to that extent I am in complete agreement with Chairman Ney, who observed that the tone and objectives of the conferees make us all confident that we will be able to work this out and get it back to both bodies as soon as possible.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the Republican Welfare Bill, H.R. 4737. This welfare bill, of such far-reaching importance, does nothing to help move families out of poverty. In fact, this bill would mean that welfare families would be placed in an impossible situation. The Republican bill requires a 40 hour work week for mothers with children under six. That is twice the current work hour requirement, yet there is an allotment of only $1 billion additional dollars for child care. Can someone please tell me how a working mother of children under the age of six is supposed to work a minimum 40 hour week without a way to fund the care of her children? And too add insult to injury, this bill doesn't even ensure that she will be compensated with minimum wage for her forty hours of work. A paltry child care allotment of $1 billion dollars over the next 5 years is unconscionable. It does not even keep pace with the current rate of inflation, and there are already 15 million American children eligible for child care who are not receiving it due to inadequate funding. This increase does not address the current need, and will certainly not address the need that will grow exponentially if the 40 hour requirement is imposed. Also, this bill removes education from the current law-list of work related activities. This measure strips needy families of their ability to participate in GED and English literacy programs. With a mandate which strips the ability to obtain a GED and learn English, the playing field can never be level and the condition of needy Americans will continue to deteriorate. I cannot leave this debate without also addressing the renewed omission of immigrant families from the welfare bill. For the second time, my Republican colleagues intend to deny immigrant families the tools they require to capture the American dream that brought them here. It is hypocritical to celebrate the tradition of America's melting pot while denying the people who make our rich diversity possible. All of this has been done in the interest of lowering welfare roles. But, inhumanely forcing people off of welfare rolls by requiring them to adhere to conditions that are both fiscally and practically impossible does not constitute progress. Our constituents want the freedom to work while trusting their children to competent and affordable child care providers. Working families in America deserve better than what this Republican inadequacy has to offer. It is for this reason that I urge my Democratic colleagues to vote yes for the Democratic substitute. It provides a realistic increase of $11 billion dollars in mandatory child care funding, and increases the role of training and education in improving the condition of our neediest citizens. In addition it includes provisions for our neighbors who have immigrated to this country. Vote ``yes'' on the Democratic substitute. It is a true step toward ensuring that no child or family is left behind.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, the advent of the Internet has created an entirely new market for the distribution of creative content, such as music, movies, news articles, and photographs. The desire for instant information has made it more important than ever to get that work out to millions of people quickly and to have the rights to the distribution of articles and graphics cleared immediately. As we saw from last year's New York Times v. Tasini case, however, the creators of information--freelance writers, illustrators, cartoonists, graphic designers, and photographers--often have not shared in the benefits of this new market. In some cases, large media conglomerates often force creators to sign away the rights to their works through ``take it or leave it''--or adhesion--contracts if they wish to have them published and distributed. Individual writers and artists don't stand a chance of negotiating favorable terms and fees when they must go up against media giants. And because many creators are not ``employees'' of the publishers, the antitrust laws forbid them from bargaining as a unit or even sharing information about the pricing of their work. Each freelancer must, therefore, go it alone and negotiate individually with the publishers who control the media outlets. I believe that copyright protection should benefit individual creators--not only media corporations. To remedy the imbalances between the media giants and freelance creators, Congressman Cannon and I are introducing the ``Freelance Writers and Artists Protection Act of 2002.'' First, this legislation gives freelance writers and artists an antitrust exemption so they can present a united front against the big media companies who have been forcing them to sign nonnegotiable contracts that surrender all their rights. In doing so, the bill makes it easier for freelancers to bargain fairly for their rights as a collective. In addition, because of the speed and nature of the publishing industry, these same freelance writers and artists often do not have time to have their works protected under the copyright laws before the publications they go into are printed. As a result, the creators may not receive relief under the copyright laws if their works are stolen. The bill remedies this by automatically protecting the individual works when the publication receives copyright protection. Finally, this bill addresses the problem of the theft of creative works that have not been released. There are creators who decide not to release an article, book, movie, or song, but others steal them and infringe on the creators' rights. The criminal copyright law penalizes those who infringe works having a retail value of $1,000 or more, but works that have not been released are not protected because they have no retail value. They are, however, valuable to their creators, and we need to close the loophole in the law that allows the theft of these unreleased or unpublished works. For that reason, the bill amends the law to say that the theft of unpublished works also can be a criminal offense. I hope this bill can be the start of productive discussions in the House and particularly in the Judiciary Committee about how we can enhance the power of freelance writers and artists and how we can protect their work.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate those who have taken part in this debate. Except for a few shrill voices, there has been an honest exchange of views by all the Members here. And although that does not correct a faulty proceeding that brought this measure to the floor without a single hearing, can you imagine a motion of this moment, a resolution of this gravity, to never land down in the Committee on International Relations? I would say to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), you are a political genius. What you know about foreign affairs, we will determine in the months to come. But what is most needed in Washington is an inclusive, open and respectful dialogue. And guess who has got to lead it? Us. There is nobody else in the United States. The Congress has to lead the dialogue. In the world, the United States has to lead the dialogue. Is there anyone that has a reservation about that point? I would yield to them immediately. Because we know that if peace is to come to the troubled Holy Land, it will come with the United States of America playing the major role as mediator, facilitator, and monitor. So our credibility must be as impeccable as we can possibly make it. The Secretary of State has told us very clearly that certain resolutions hinder our ability to play a constructive role. The Secretary of State says we must be very careful about the messages we send. The President of the United States begged the gentleman from Texas not to send anything to the floor only recently. So what I am saying is that we must realize that our role is not merely taking sides, but is acting as the world leader. It is in our hands, it is only in our hands, and I urge you to conduct yourselves accordingly.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, as my ranking member and friend knows, we are trying to construct an environment that we can talk about this matter among ourselves and that there needs to be a national dialogue around the country. I have talked with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) about it, to which he has agreed. I have talked with the senior Senators from Delaware, North Dakota, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey). Here is what Martin Luther King said, ``We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny.''

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

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, is there anyone in this body or Nation that does not know that the U.S. government is friendly with Israel and supports their cause? Now, I would ask the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the chairman, why were there no hearings? I would ask the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the ranking member, why were there no hearings?

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, there is not enough time for all Members to speak, but I include my remarks for the Record. And I would just add, there have been no hearings on the underlying resolution. Mr. Speaker, for over a month I have worked more intensively on this controversy than on any of the other pressing matters before us. My effort has been to convince my colleagues that--despite the very strong feelings many of them have on this matter--it is crucial that we promote and engage in honest dialogue. That dialogue must be marked by as much mutual respect as we can muster, and by a continuing effort to understand viewpoints we may not share. Finger-pointing, reciting historical claims and hurtling charges may seem totally justified and important to express. But surely the goals of halting violence to achieve a resolution of the disputes requires that my words spoken here and my conduct are consistent with the necessity of having a dialogue in the Congress and in the Nation, as well. Over the course of the last 5 weeks, I have spoken with many colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and on both sides of the capitol, urging that we create an inclusive forum in which different views could be freely expressed. On this controversial issue, it can truly be said, as Dr. King once reminded us, that: ``We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny.'' My conversations have included the senior Senators from Delaware and South Dakota; the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde); the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), and the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall.) With the gentlelady from California (Ms. Woolsey) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), I have been convening a series of weekly meetings with colleagues, to which all members have been invited, and also attended by representatives of Jewish, Muslim, Protestant and Catholic religious institutions and organization deeply concerned about the Middle East crisis. All attendees at those meetings have agreed on the importance of maintaining real dialogue and minimizing emotional exchanges that are inflammatory or divisive. I supported the creation of the State of Israel. My continuing support of its security, safety and viability has never wavered. At the same time, my dedication to America's playing its proper role in the pursuit of a just, equitable and lasting peace for all people in the region is equally well known. I am sure that my colleagues share these goals but at this delicate time, I have concluded that this resolution, however well-intentioned, would be counterproductive to achieving them. I also am convinced that the Israeli Government and people know that the United States' commitment to their security and survival is steadfast and will remain so. I agree, that this President, like his predecessors, should be given the maximum flexibility--to maintain the credibility of the United States with all parties and to preserve the ability to broker a permanent resolution, with equal conviction, I urge the President to use those capabilities to the fullest. Mr. Speaker, it simply defies belief that, during these perilous times, the legislative bodies of the single nation on earth that can bring this crisis to closure would compromise that nation's ability to do so.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), for coming here to make I think important improvements and to make recommendations that I think we will take to heart in considering where we go in terms of family abuse, violence against women, which has been gaining increasing bipartisan support in both bodies. I am very pleased with the work of the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette), who brings this motion to instruct before us. Mr. Speaker, remember that it was the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) who has tried to give statutory foundation to the Violence Against Women Office, and it was our colleague, the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin), on the Committee on the Judiciary whose amendment was accepted and is now a subject of us instructing our conferees how to move. It is clear from this discussion that there is bipartisan support. We still have a long way to go. But in Michigan, in Detroit, we are getting ready for our second metropolitan area town hall meeting which will be at Greater Grace Church at the end of this month. The first one held over a year ago brought together for the first time police, prosecutors, social workers, victims, family, clergy, lawyers and community people who were really inspired by the Federal involvement in this. What we are simply doing here today is letting our conferees know that this office should be as strong and as independent as they can make it because they have been working with the U.S. Attorneys, they have been training the judges and the prosecutors and the members of the private bar, they have been working with Immigration and Naturalization Service. So this is a huge step forward. I am very pleased to be associated with it. Obviously, the only direction we can go now, and we are deciding this, I think, as we gain more experience with the office itself, what we are trying to make sure is that we do not have an office that is just a grant agency. We want to be able to distribute grants where they are appropriate, but also it has to be a policy mechanism that advises the administration and the Congress alike. I thank all the Members on the floor that have spoken in support of this.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, from 559,000 to 314,000, and that is just one of the automobile corporations; they are all contracting. And most of the Fortune 500 companies are contracting their workforce. So how do we end up thinking that this is very important because this does not protect American workers? Why are we here?

Mr. CONYERS. Yes, Mr. Speaker. Roughly 200,000.

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

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I just heard this last colloquy with the gentleman from New York. If he still has faith in the Committee on Rules around here, that we are going to get a rule that will allow us to offer our amendments, I am going to pray tonight, I will burn a candle, I will do everything necessary, but let us see what happens about that tonight. Now, the Export-Import Bank, I do not get this around here. $673 million in loans and loan guarantees for projects related to the Enron Corporation. Has that corporation been lifted up into this debate? Does anybody want to defend that? I will yield to them right now. $673 million in loans, leaving the taxpayers exposed to $514 million in loans. Then they approved a $300 million loan for an Enron-related project in India, even though the World Bank, for whom I have not always praise, has refused to finance the very same project because it was not economically viable. So what goes on here? This was created in the Depression to create jobs, and now they are operating in a totally reverse strategy. Is this new information to the committee? And they are providing the money to the Fortune 500 corporations, which are nice people and I like them a lot, but they are the ones that are contracting the labor force into United States as we meet. So I come to this debate a little bit confused.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to criticize the wholly inadequate auditing reforms passed today by the House. We in the Congress must stand up to big business and protect working Americans and their retirement savings. HR 3763 will not make the wholesale changes necessary to restore investor confidence. This legislation will not hold corporate Chief Executive Officers accountable for fraudulent actions. It will not hold CEO's responsible for the accuracy of their companies financial statements. This legislation allows CEO's like Enron's Ken Lay to keep inflated salaries and bonuses while robbing innocent employees and investors. This legislation actually encourages the deceptive behavior that allows executives to pocket millions of dollars while their employees lose their health care benefits, retirement savings, and their confidence in the corporate elite. Everyone is being affected by the failure of major corporations. Earlier this year DCT Inc., a metro Detroit corporation, went bankrupt and gave employees an hour's notice of lay-offs instead of the sixty days required by federal law. DCT employees were left without health care, back vacation pay, and matching 401K retirement funds. Their final paychecks bounced and, adding insult to injury, banks still charged the laid off workers $25 for the bounced paychecks. Obviously no company is immune from financial difficulties, but it is hard to accept when the corporate elite are insulated from financial failures at the expense of the average worker. Kmart, for example, recently entered bankruptcy. Kmart retirement stock options that were worth $35,000 last August are now worth less than $1,800. Nonetheless, a judge recently approved a $1.5 million salary for Kmart's new CEO, a signing bonus of $2.5 million, and incentives worth another $1.875 million dollars. A bankrupt company is paying its new and unproven CEO upwards of $4 million dollars, while the average store worker faces an uncertain future. HR 3673 does nothing to prevent abuses to the common worker. HR 3763 was intended to eliminate conflicts of interest between corporations and their auditors. However, much to this House's discredit, HR 3763 is a facade for regulation of ethical conduct that doesn't even prevent auditors from holding stock in the companies they audit. The legislation asks the SEC to ``study'' industry disclosure practices but does nothing to guarantee accuracy and transparency in existing disclosures. The American worker needs strong reform, both by corporations and by the SEC, in order to ensure that audits are accurate and reflect the true earnings of corporations and to eliminate conflicts of interest between corporations and their auditors. My colleague, Congressman Dennis Kucinich, offered a substitute to the Republican bill that would have created a Bureau of Audits within the Securities and Exchange Commission. This Bureau would have generated unbiased audits, by removing auditing itself from the private sector. This proposal would have removed the auditor from the pay of the audited. Federal auditors would create an environment of neutrality, thereby fostering accurate and fair audits. The Democratic substitute offered by Congressman John LaFalce, Ranking Member on the Financial Services Committee, would have mandated corporate responsibility and executive accountability by subjecting executives to criminal penalties for knowingly misleading investors, employees, and the financial community. Executives should be criminally liable for false representations regarding corporate assets that they are supposed to protect. Ken Lay and other members of the Enron executive board, their friends and families, which include members of the Bush Administration, profited from the losses of investors and employees. Tougher penalties would make it far less likely that future Enron's would occur. Enron isn't an isolated case, white collar fraud cases like it are popping up all over the place against companies such as Global Crossing, Qwest Communications and others. Their accountants, investment bankers and lawyers are now being investigated for possible collusion by regulatory agencies in Washington and by Congress itself. Today, my colleagues turned a deaf ear to the voice of thousands that were affected by corporate fraud and deception. Instead the House has winked at the financial elite that have forsaken their fiduciary duty for personal gain. Hopefully, our colleagues in the Senate will improve on this fig leaf of reform and enact legislation that will truly strengthen the hand of the SEC and ensure the quality and independence of corporate auditors.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green), who has worked on this matter with us.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes), the Chair of the Hispanic Caucus, who himself has worked in this area, has introduced legislation, worked with the Judiciary Committee many times.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), who has worked hard on this matter. (Ms. LOFGREN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for yielding me the time. I have figured this out now. This has been confusing me, why this is a high-tech boondoggle. That is what this is. Waive the rules so the high-tech people can run wild. The gentleman from Utah is exempt from this. They do not have many high-tech people or many minorities. So he does not know that much about minority procurement rules, but the rest of my colleagues here do. Tell me what I tell the African American people, business persons, that have been trying to get in the door for 20 years?

Mr. CONYERS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I am so relieved, I cannot tell the gentleman how much better I feel now that he has told me.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for yielding me the time. Everyone knows my respect for the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), but I hope that she will have a better answer than I do for the minority contractors in my district and hers, who are catching it right now with procurement rules, tossing them out. I just want to find out what we tell them if her amendment prevails.