John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues and I need to do everything within our power to find the responsible persons and parties that have caused this attack on the United States and to bring them to justice and to end the blight of terrorism everywhere around the world. But at the same time we must all remember that just as this horrendous act could destroy us from without, it can also destroy us from within. Historically it has been at times of inflamed passion and national anger that our civil liberties have proven to be at greatest risk. The unpopular group of the moment happens to be subject to prejudice and deprivation of liberties. Alien and Sedition Acts in 1798 made it a Federal crime to criticize the government. At the beginning of the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln, no less, suspended the writ of habeas corpus citing the need to repress an insurrection against the laws of the United States. Ulysses Grant sought to expel Jews from the Southern States of this Nation. World War II brought about the shameful internment of Japanese Americans which even the Supreme Court failed to overturn. And what about the McCarthy era of the 1950's? Guilt by association. So we face a situation now that requires care. Well, certainly we must update our counterterrorism laws so they reflect the 21st century realities. But new expansion of government authorities should be limited to properly defined terrorist activity or threats of terrorism. And with increased Federal power, we must ensure accountability and oversight. We also need to drastically improve airport security by increasing training and compensation for those that are at such an important point in our national transportation system. But by forcing us to take up a bill in this manner, the administration unfortunately has chosen to fire the first shots of partisanship after September 11. One week ago, the Committee on the Judiciary passed a bill 36 to 0, every member of every persuasion supported the bill that was worked on by the chairman, myself, and all the members. There was good process. There was ample debate. No one was cut off. No amendments were prevented. And in that environment, we agreed to sunset the expansion in government surveillance power that are in this bill to 2 years. It would have given the administration not only the emergency powers it requested on an expedited basis, but at the same time allow us in Congress to revisit the issue after 2 years. What is wrong with that? We sunset civil rights laws. We sunset environmental laws. We sunset labor laws. Well, I can only tell my colleagues that until last night we had a bill that, had we brought it to the floor, would have literally passed almost unanimously in this Congress. I do not think anyone disputes that. But now what we have nobody knows. So it seems to me that we have to move very, very carefully. We have a problem. There is no provision protecting our own citizens from CIA wiretaps under the FISA court. There is no provision ensuring the government does not introduce information in a court obtained from illegal e-mail wiretaps. There is no provision limiting the sharing of sensitive law enforcement information to inappropriate personnel. Guess what? There are 35,000 law enforcement jurisdictions in the United States of America. There is no provision protecting immigrants from being deported for donating money to humanitarian groups that they did not know might be financing terrorists. Most importantly of all, we have lost the 2-year sunset. What are we left with? A measure that is in no way limited to terrorism. It is a bill that provides broad new wire tap authorities that might be used to minor drug offenses, to firearm violations to anti-trust crimes, to tax violations, to environmental problems, literally to every single criminal offense in the United States code. So for all of us that know our history, we have been down this road before. All I am saying to you is that I am going to do the best that I can no matter what happens here today to make sure, with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner), that we convince our own administration and, yes, our own House leadership to realize that this is not a time to compromise the Constitution. There is no reason for us to sacrifice civil rights to increase security. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), a thoughtful member of our committee that has worked on many of the important ideas that have helped shape our legislative product.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. I thank the gentlewoman from New York for yielding time. Mr. Speaker, let me ask my colleague with whom I have labored for weeks now on this bill. We have reported by a unanimous vote on the Committee on the Judiciary, something that I cannot ever remember happening before, but it is my understanding that this bill, whatever the product is, and the Senate bill voted out last night will go to conference. Is that the understanding of my colleague and friend, the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary?

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

Mr. CONYERS. I am happy about this great coordination between staffs, but I want a conference, and staffs do not control conferences. Let us look at where we find ourselves.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am very glad to hear that. As the gentleman knows, there are a number of organizations that are working with us on this because we have these elections procedures that also are part of the review that we would like the Committee on Agriculture to make. So with those understandings I would be happy to yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina if she wanted to add something, or she can secure time on her own.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to replace the amendment with a conforming amendment.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to thank the gentleman for his statement and for his understanding that we have a serious problem here with the minority farmers in America, the black farmers in particular. We have got a problem here with the participation rates, with the Farm Service Agency, county committee elections and a number of other very genuine concerns. What I thought might be appropriate and part of our agreement, Mr. Chairman, is that we proceed at some expedient time to have hearings in the committee on these aggregate issues that are before us. Is that part of the Chairman's understanding?

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

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, the gentlewoman has stated it perfectly.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, since the New Deal, the federal government has fostered the equitable development of rural areas with farm credit and other programs that are the foundation of the small farm sector that is struggling to hold on today. Direct farm operating and ownership loans are an integral part of the historic and ongoing mission of the USDA and much needed resource for all producers, not just minority, socially disadvantaged, and beginning farmers. The viability of America's small farms rests heavily on these loans, and the ability of the federal government to assist them in times of crisis. Our agreement with the majority preserves this traditional role of the USDA as the lender of last resort, keeping open entry to agriculture for a new generation of farmers by restoring the direct lending role that would otherwise be ended in 5 years, while maintaining our support of current farmers and the tough economic situation they are continually faced with. We have also agreed with the majority to address our concerns with loan participation data collection and our concerns with the transparency and accountability in Farm Service Agency County Committee elections. Target Participation Rates for USDA loans would help to determine the rates of participation for women and minority farmers in relation to participation of other farmers in the same county. This information would then be made available to the public via the USDA web site. These Target Participation Rates, which the majority has so generously agreed to hold a Full Agriculture Committee hearing on, are needed as minority farmers have shown that they have repeatedly been discriminated against by the USDA and by Farm Service Agency County Committee members. The Congressional Research Service reports ``the largest USDA loans (top 1 percent) went to corporations (65 percent) and white male farmers (25 percent) loans to black males averaged $4,000 (or 25 percent) less than those loans given to white males; 97 percent of disaster payments went to white farmers; less than 1 percent went to black farmers.'' The majority has also agreed that in our Full Agriculture Committee hearing we will discuss the election procedures for Farm Service Agency County Committees. These committees have been the source for much of the discrimination that minority farmers have suffered. These committee elections are not by secret ballot, ballots are opened and tabulated as they come in. The lack of a secret ballot has affected minority representation on these committees, which in turn has affected how minority farmers have received loans. To ensure that these County Committees operate equitably everywhere, we need the majority to understand the benefit of fair elections, of opening and tabulating the results of these elections in a public forum, and that the information on election participation data be made available to the farmers and the public. Hopefully in our hearing we will be able to convince them of the pressing need for change in these areas. I want to commend the majority for our bi-partisan approach to this issue and want to thank the chairman for the time. I also want to thank the over 70 organizations that were pushing for passage of this Farm bill, especially our friends at the Rural Coalition and the National Farmers Union, and want to encourage them to keep up their hard work.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, as the Dean of the Congressional Black Caucus, and chairman of its annual Jazz Issue Forum and Concert, I rise to call to this body's attention the achievements of a distinguished American, Mr. Lionel Hampton. At the age of 92, he continues a career that has brought him international acclaim as a musician, composer, and bandleader. I am extremely honored that he will be my guest here in Washington, DC, on Thursday, September 27, 2001, during the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation's Annual Legislative Conference. That evening, my colleagues and I will have the opportunity to thank him for the great pleasure that his life's work has brought to us, and to millions across this nation and around the world. The Congressional Black Caucus is not alone this year in recognizing the magnificence of what Lionel Hampton has accomplished. On January 31, 2001, the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of American History added ``Hamp's'' vibraphone to its collection of ``national treasures.'' In addition, on February 22, 2001, the University of Idaho dedicated the Lionel Hampton Center for the Study and Performance of Jazz. The University, however, did not just discover and acknowledge Lionel Hampton's genius, it did so many years ago by launching the Lionel Hampton Jazz Festival in 1984, It reaffirmed its reverence of Hampton in 1987 by establishing the Lionel Hampton School of Music; the first music school named in honor of a jazz musician. Born April 12, 1909, in Louisville Kentucky, Lionel Hampton has for 70 years been a giant in the field of jazz. Many highlights of his career are noted in the following excerpts from a biography prepared by the University of Idaho: Lionel Hampton began his phenomenal musical career at an early age when a student at the Holy Rosary Academy in Kenosha, Wisconsin, where he studied under the strict supervision of the Dominican Sisters. His first instrument was a set of drums and his idol during these early years was drummer Jimmy Bertrand whose records he treasured. Louis Armstrong soon became a major influence in Hamp's young years. It was in 1930 that Armstrong hired him to appear, on the drums, at a Los Angeles nightclub engagement. Louis was so impressed with Hampton's talents he invited him to join his big band for a recording session. During the session break, Armstrong led young Hampton to a set of vibes and asked if he knew how to play them. Lionel, who was well schooled in his keyboard studies, picked up the mallets and played. The first tune cut that day, ``Memories of You,'' (with Lionel on vibes) became a tremendous hit and has remained a classic throughout the years. In 1936, Benny Goodman asked Lionel to join his small group, featuring Goodman, Teddy Wilson on piano, and Gene Krupa on drums. They immediately became the legendary Benny Goodman Quartet. Musical history was being made, both for the The Lionel Hampton Orchestra had a phenomenal array of sidemen. Among those who got their start with Hamp were: Quincy Jones, Wes Montgomery, Clark Terry, Cat Anderson, Ernie Royal, Joe Newman and Fats Navarro. Among Lionel's proteges were singers Dinah Washington, Joe Williams, Betty Carter and Aretha Franklin. Over the years, jazz giant Hampton has received innumerable prestigious awards, which keep coming to the distinguished musical master. Among them: The title, American Goodwill Ambassador, bestowed by Presidents Eisenhower and Nixon, The Papal Medal from Pope Paul I, Sixteen Honorary Doctorates, and in 1992 the highly esteemed Kennedy Center Honors Award, in which he shared the musical distinction with Mstislav Rostropovich, Also a celebrated composer, Hamp's original ballad, ``Midnight Sun'' (with Johnny Mercer and Sonny Burke) has become a beloved classic in American Jazz and popular music. His talent in the symphonic field is highly respected. Two major symphonic works, ``King David Suite'' and ``Blues Suite'' have been performed often by leading orchestras throughout the world. Despite the rigors of his hectic calendar, Hampton continues to amaze those in the music business with the care and time he devotes to many public service projects. A ``dream'' of his would be to aid in the creation of a university in Uptown New York ``. . . where young Black kids can learn to be Doctors, Lawyers, IBM technicians, and, maybe even musicians.'' Mr. Speaker, Lionel Hampton has established himself one of our nation's greatest cultural heroes and ambassadors. Therefore, I urge all Members to join me in paying him this well deserved tribute.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I have a number of procedural and substantive concerns regarding the legislation before us. In short, there has been almost no semblance of fair or deliberate procedure on the legislation. We had no committee markup. We had no committee hearings on the bill. The bill itself was drafted in the dead of night, and has not been available to most members until a few hours before the vote. This is not the way we should legislate on a minor piece of legislation, let alone a major bill that impacts our entire airline industry. If this issue is so important, why are we voting so late this Friday evening, without time to review or consider these serious measures? Why not take the time to read this legislation carefully? In our desperation to help our fellow citizens, I fear we are pushing to judgment without recognizing the complexity or importance of these issues. In terms of substance, I also have grave concerns about the dollar amount we are giving to airline carriers, $15 billion--$5 billion in direct aid and $10 billion in loan guarantees. First, we have no idea how the Members reached this dollar amount. Second, we all know that the industry has and will face massive layoffs. More than 100,000 will be laid off in the industry, and Northwest announced 10,000 today. Yet the bill does not guarantee that a single employee will be rehired or will not be laid off. Third, the bill does nothing to rehire the workers from the ancillary impacted industries--the airport workers, the hotel workers and the like. And what about the skycaps who work at substandard wages? The new security requirements mean they are totally out of the jobs. What does this bill do for them? Nothing. I support the airline industry--but its needs must be balanced against all of our other priorities. Certainly, the air carriers need assistance but do they need it at the cost of medicare and social security? As much as we think this legislation is needed, we must balance it will all of our priorities, and not sacrifice all of our priorities for the sake of one. Finally, I would like to speak to the liability provisions of the bill. As Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee, I was intimately involved in the crafting of Title IV, and I am happy to report that I can support this aspect of the legislation. The key provision creates a victim compensation plan, which provides individuals, present during the September 11, 2001 terrorist-related aircraft crashes at the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, or site of the aircraft crash in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, or the passengers and crews of aircrafts involved in terrorist-related aircraft crashes, with due compensation. The legislation would provide compensation to any individual who was physically injured or killed as a result of the terrorist-related aircraft crashes of September 11, 2001. Specifically, the legislation authorizes a Special Master, appointed by the Attorney General, to review claims, within 120 days, submitted by claimants. These claims would include notice of the death of the deceased or the harms suffered by the claimant, where the claim is filed on the behalf of a decedent, information of the claimants possible economic and noneconomic loss, and information regarding collateral sources of compensation the claimant has received or could receive. The submission of this claim would allow the claimants and relatives of the deceased to be compensated. By submitting a claim, the claimant waives the right to file or be a party to a civil action for damages as a result of the events on September 11, 2001. If an individual is a party to or has filed a civil action, that action must be withdrawn 90 days after the regulations regarding this Title are promulgated. 90 days after the date of enactment, the Attorney General, in consultation with the Special Master, will promulgate regulations to carry out this compensation plan. The Special Master may not include amounts for punitive damages in any compensation packages. In addition, the Special Master will not consider negligence or any other theory of liability. Only one claim may be filed and no claim may be filed two years after the date of enactment. Twenty days after the Special Master makes a determination of the amount of compensation due, the payment is authorized. Finally, Section 409(b) of the legislation creates a Federal cause of action for damages arising out of the hijacking and subsequent crashes of September 11, 2001. Thus, individuals who elect not to be part of the victim compensation plan under this legislation have recourse of this Federal cause of action to claim damages. Of course, the availability of this new Federal action. This in no way supersedes recourse to the victim compensation fund, if the claimant so elects. To help in the effort of aiding victims in receiving compensation, the Association of Trial Lawyers of America, has volunteered to provide legal services of its members, free of charge, under this program. I am attaching a copy of the letter to my statement. I commend the association for their extraordinary response to this extraordinary situation.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to show my support for our colleague, Congresswoman Barbara Lee. I am concerned about recent reports that violent threats have been directed at Ms. Lee following her vote against H.J. Res 64, which authorized the use of military force in response to the attacks of September 11. While many of us may not agree with Congresswoman Lee's decision to vote against the authorization of the use of force, we must stand united to defend her right to vote her conscience as a Member of the United States House of Representatives. A Member's duty is to vote on behalf of their constituents and to vote with their conscience. We must rise in support of this intrinsic component of our democracy. Just as the acts of September 11th can destroy us from without, they can also destroy us from within. As Members of Congress we must call on America to check our inflamed passions and national anger so as not to risk destroying our national unity. In recent days we have seen a spate of hate crimes against Muslims, Arab Americans and South Asian Americans. Such hate and intolerance threatens to slowly destroy the foundation of our democracy. During this very difficult time in American history, we must demonstrate to the American people that we are strong and united beyond party lines and ideologies. Today, I ask my colleagues to join me in deploring these acts against Congresswoman Lee and supporting our democratic process.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to commend Dr. Frederick G. Sampson II, pastor of Tabernacle Missionary Baptist Church, as he marks two very important milestones in his illustrious career. In addition to celebrating his 50th year as a minister, Dr. Sampson reaches his 30th anniversary as pastor of Tabernacle Missionary Baptist Church. Dr. Sampson has an extensive educational background, holding degrees in both Behavioral Science and the Theological Sciences. Dr. Sampson, an avid lecturer at colleges and universities throughout our country, is also the annual keynote speaker for various Congresses, Fellowships, Conventions, Councils, Coalitions, Advisory Boards, and Community Outreach Programs all over this country. During his career, Dr. Sampson has pastored various congregations all over the country, and has served on commissions and boards with the aim of fighting crime, improving education, and bringing a higher level of consciousness to our community. Dr. Sampson's many endeavors to enrich life at all levels of society have also led him to teaching, preaching, and studying mission all over the world. Dr. Sampson deserves praise for his rich, multi-national service record, including his leadership and participation in the Human Rights struggle. Once again, I urge my colleagues to join me in commending Dr. Sampson on his outstanding achievements.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, this week, thousands of people in New York and Washington lost their lives in a brutal assault on our Nation that was a calculated strike at the heart of our freedom and national unity. Millions of Arab Americans, South Asian Americans and American Muslims around the country have shared our sorrow and outrage at Tuesday's terrorist attacks. They have donated their blood, their money, their food and their time to the rescue and recovery efforts at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Now these same individuals who have mourned and prayed with us have come under suspicion by their neighbors and the threat of additional violence in the form of hate crimes at their homes, schools, community centers and mosques. As a part of our effort to protect America from violence, we must unequivocally condemn the attacks against these groups and pledge to protect their civil rights and civil liberties. My district is home to one of the largest Arab and Muslim communities in the country. It is vital that we distinguish the beliefs of these Americans from the perpetrators of Tuesday's violence, and recognize that American Muslims share our values and contribute significantly to our communities. If we fail to do so, then we will have seriously undermined freedom--the same principle we find ourselves vigorously defending in the wake of Tuesday's attacks. All Members should stand to condemn any acts of bigotry, violence or discrimination against Arab Americans, South Asians and American Muslims and call upon Americans of every faith and heritage to stand together in this time of national crisis. We must pledge that in our pursuit of national security government agencies will work to avoid activities that encroach upon the civil rights and civil liberties of citizens or legal residents of the United States. As we should have learned from the shameful history of internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II, the civil rights and civil liberties of discrete groups of minorities should be specially considered during times of domestic and international turmoil. Our sense of community with fellow Americans of Arab and South Asian descent and those of the Muslim faith should not be counted as another casualty of Tuesday's senseless violence.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I want to start by expressing my sorrow and outrage at Tuesday's cowardly attack. Tuesday's savagery tore our national fabric, but the tragedy also united the Nation. Our immediate priorities are treating survivors, supporting victims' families, restoring essential services, protecting our civil liberties, healing the national psyche and finding and judging anyone who participated in the horrendous act. We all share these imperatives and will do all that we can to help. We all support the President in these endeavors. This is the indomitable strength of our country. But our eyes also turn to the future with three critical questions, each of which calls for thorough congressional hearings. First, how should we punish those guilty of these dastardly crimes, once we determine who were involved? Second, how can we make sure this nightmare never occurs again? How can we better collect intelligence, tighten security and insist that other Nations do their share to prevent terrorism? Third, how can we pursue both of these goals without abandoning America's hallmark commitment to civil liberties or forgetting the necessity to constantly battle ethnic, religious and racial prejudice. Punishing the Perpetrators This week, a United Airlines flight attendant expressed the thoughts of many Americans when she told the press ``As horrible as it is to say, I want revenge.'' Clearly the United States will not stand for such a brutal assault on our citizens and our country. The perpetrators must be punished. But if we unleash the full fury of America's military might and we kill innocent people in the process, we will be no better than the terrorists who unleashed their fury on America's civilian population. These acts of hijacking, murder, and terrorism are crimes for which there are laws and punishments under Federal law. These atrocities are not known to have been committed by nation-states but rather by cowardly individuals who we should arrest and try as our justice system demands. We must react with righteousness and justice and not allow ourselves to succumb to the momentary seduction of emotional revenge. And if we do retaliate, we must exercise our best efforts, as we have always done, to minimize collateral damage against innocent civilians. To disregard that concern because feelings are running so high is to take a path to mayhem that we will live to regret. preventing recurrence Some voices have described Tuesday's attack as a ``massive intelligence and security failure.'' That path could easily lead to frenzied finger-pointing that would distract us from necessary improvements. Of course, we must upgrade air travel safety through a greater government role in airport security, rather than airline hired- security employees. Some airline pilots and other observers have deemed current security at some U.S. airports as a ``farce.'' We now know the terrible price paid for our neglect. Similarly, intelligence collection about potential threats must be improved. We should not underestimate U.S. technical and human intelligence capabilities and past FBI and CIA successes in detecting and disrupting terrorists' plans. Nevertheless, Tuesday's disaster demands improved analysis of information that pours in daily. If that is now hindered by ``information overload'', we must deal with that. But in intelligence, as in athletics, the best defense is a good offense. The best way to defend against terrorism is to penetrate terrorist groups in order to preempt their plots before they begin. We have probably neglected this aspect of intelligence gathering, preferring instead to rely on the latest technology. This must change. But as we take bold steps to ensure our security, we must be equally vigilant to protect our liberties. On Tuesday, one TV network commentator, during an interview, flatly asked what civil liberties should be cut back for certain groups in this country. There is always tension between public safety and liberty, a tension that we have tested each time we faced a new threat. Americans are proud of our commitment to protecting citizens from foreign and domestic threats without abandoning the Constitution's guarantee of civil liberties. There has been backsliding, to be sure, such as the relocation of innocent Japanese-American families in the post-Pearl Harbor panic. While the Supreme Court later upheld the constitutionality of that action in the Korematsu case, most scholars now regard that as one of the modern Court's most shameful decisions. Eventually, the U.S. Government apologized to the surviving victims and provided compensation. Thus, history demonstrates that we must periodically review the delicate balance between national security and civil liberty, and that when the balance is readjusted it should be done cautiously, with great care and with an eye beyond today's headlines. Just as terrorism can destroy lives and property, so can it destroy us from within, causing us to turn our back on our most treasured freedoms. preventing scapegoating Times of great stress also spawn scapegoating. These are very stressful times for America, and signs of scapegoating have already surfaced. The twentieth century has taught us the terrible consequences of directing hostility toward an entire group of people. America has a long, difficult history of struggling to overcome discrimination simply on the basis of religion ethnicity and race. Now, we must guard against turning diffuse feelings of anger against a whole group of Americans such as Muslims or Arabs, if a handful of their members are accused of Tuesday's murders. Already, shops and businesses owned by Americans of Arab descent--and I emphasize ``Americans''--have been trashed and in some cases burned. Individuals have been attacked. These hate crimes must be stopped immediately. Federal, state and local officials should use their powers of persuasion and publicity to stop it and, if necessary, vigorously enforce every applicable law. I will ask the appropriate authorities in Detroit to convene a city-wide conference to address this danger and to exercise the necessary leadership. I have also introduced a sense of the Congress resolution condemning these hate crimes. preventing gouging There is one point that I should not have to make. Regrettably it appears that I do. If there ever were a time when all Americans should show a spirit of cooperation, collaboration, and mutual concern surely this tragedy is it. Yet there are credible reports of price gouging, profiteering, and other despicable efforts to exploit the situation fuel prices have soared in parts of the Midwest have jumped alarmingly. The mayor of New York has had to warn grocers and other merchants against raising prices as customers seek to stock up in the face of uncertainty. This selfish behavior is intolerable. I am calling on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the Federal Trade Commission to immediately establish a joint task force to police and pursue any abrupt price hikes in energy fuels. I also commend my state's Attorney General, Jennifer Granholm, for taking legal action against nine Michigan gas stations accused of price gouging. In notice of intended action served yesterday and today, Granholm accuses each station of charging prices for gas that are ``grossly in excess'' of the market-based price at which gasoline would normally be sold. The Michigan Consumer Protection Act expressly prohibits such sales practices as unfair and unconscionable under the law. Next, I will turn to the specific language of this resolution. the resolution In terms of the specifics of the resolution, as ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, I believe it is important that the Record reflect what the resolution does and does not do. By not declaring war, the resolution preserves our precious civil liberties. This is important because declarations of war trigger broad statutes that not only criminalize interference with troops and recruitment but also authorize the President to apprehend ``alien enemies.'' Having said that, the President has declared that we are in a national emergency. Such an emergency triggers other, less severe statutes, including criminal prohibitions on the destruction of war materials. Second, this resolution does not give the President perpetual authority to use military force. Not only does Congress have the constitutional duty to oversee the President's use of our men and women in uniform, if has every expectation of revisiting the President's need of the Armed Forces during his pursuit of the terrorists. Should Congress later determine that the President needs more or less authority than he has been given, we will act accordingly. Finally, this resolution implicitly requires that the President comply with section 4(a) of the War Powers Resolution. That section requires the President to report to Congress whenever U.S. Armed Forces are introduced into hostilities, into foreign territories while equipped for combat, or into foreign territories to substantially enlarge an existing force. These reports will allow Congress to ensure that the needs of the President and the Armed Forces are being met during this on-going crisis. Mr. Speaker, let us grieve for the victims. Let us restore the destruction. But let us also rededicate ourselves to preserving those very principles that have been the ultimate source of America's strength.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I support passage of this legislation, which was sponsored by Chairman Gekas, Ranking Member Jackson-Lee, and Congresswoman Lofgren. Even though current law permits spouses of E visa holders to come to the United States, those same spouses are not allowed to work here. The effect is to limit a household to one income for no apparent reason. H.R. 2277 reverses that by simply allowing the spouses to work in the United States. Not only is this good for immigrant families, which now would be able to rely on two incomes, but it also will increase the labor pool and increase tax revenues. For these reasons, the bill passed both the Immigration Subcommittee and the full Judiciary Committee by voice votes.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I support passage of this bill and would like to commend Chairman Coble and Ranking Member Berman for acting on this issue because our patent system is in need of repair. Specifically, the reexamination process--which lets parties bring challenges to patents that have been issued--may not be functioning as planned because of the substantive and procedural limits involved. As a result, applications that should not receive patents not only receive them, but keep them after a review process. One reason for this is that the Federal Circuit ruled in a 1997 case called In re Portola Packaging that the PTO could not, in reexamination, revisit patents and publications it had before it during the initial examination process. This ruling basically nullified the reexamination process and has prevented examiners from reviewing patents carefully. It is understandable why, at a recent hearing on this topic, the opinion of our witnesses on the need to reverse this ruling was unanimous. Fortunately, the Chairman and Ranking Member were able to work with numerous patent experts on how to resolve this issue. At the same time, I hope we can still resolve other outstanding issues in the reexamination process, such as what kinds of materials--or prior art-- PTO examiners can consult.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I support passage of this bill and would like to commend Chairman Coble and Ranking Member Berman for addressing this issue. The patent reexamination process, which lets parties challenge patents that the PTO already has issued, is subject to numerous procedural and arbitrary limits that inhibit its effectiveness. For example, section 315 of the patent law says third parties who file for a reexamination and then lose can file an administrative appeal but then cannot appeal that decision to the Federal Circuit. The law gives only a patent owner the right to appeal to the Federal courts. That provision contradicts the very purpose of reexamination-- if someone feels the PTO incorrectly rules on an issue of patentability, that party should have the right to an appeal. Fortunately, the legislation before us resolves this problem. It amends the law so that any party in reexamination--the patent owner or the third party--can appeal a decision of the PTO to the Federal Circuit. This legislation will go a long way to shoring up our patent system and has the support of numerous patent experts.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I support passage of this bill and would like to commend Chairman Coble and Ranking Member Berman for bringing it to the full House. The State Justice Institute was established as a non-profit corporation in 1984 to award grants to improve the quality of justice in State courts and develop new and efficient solutions to problems faced by all courts. Unfortunately, Congress has not conducted oversight over the Institute in approximately 15 years, so we have no information about how it is functioning. This bill solves that problem by requiring the Attorney General to submit a report to Congress on how the Institute is functioning and how successful its grants have been in improving the quality of judicial education. Once that report is received, Congress can better oversee the Institute and determine what resources it needs.