John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. I rise to merely point out to the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), that he may be over-reliant on adult stem cells as a viable alternative to embryonic stem cells, and I would like to explain why. A National Institute of Health study examined the potential of adult and embryonic stem cells for curing disease, and they found that the embryonic stem cells have important advantages over adult stem cells. The embryonic stem cells can develop into many more different types of cells. They can potentially replace any cell in the human body. Adult stem cells, however, are not as flexible as embryonic ones. They cannot develop into many different types of cells. They cannot be duplicated in the same quantities in the laboratory. They are difficult and dangerous sometimes to extract from an adult patient. For instance, obtaining adult brain stem cells could require life-threatening surgery. So the NIH found in its study that therapeutic cloning would allow us to create stem cell medical treatments that would not be rejected by the patient's immune system, because they have the patient's own DNA. So for whatever it may be worth, I refer this study to my good friend, the chairman. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 25 seconds to point out to my dear friend, the chairman of the committee, that it was the University of Wisconsin where we first isolated embryonic stem cells. This bill before us would render their path-breaking research to be worthless. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutsch).

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Motion to Instruct. This will put the House on the record as supporting Senate passed provisions that are more favorable to our farmers and fishermen. We always talk about the special need to protect our farmers. They face harsh weather and are constantly being squeezed by corporate farms and hug buyers and wholesalers. The least we can do is help honest farmers and fishermen reorganize their affairs so they can stay in business. The Senate bill is preferable to the House bill in four key respects. First, it reduces from 80 percent to 50 percent the amount of total debt that must be related to farming. Many farm families are forced to seek multiple outside jobs in order to keep their farms afloat. This should not be a reason that you lose your farm in bankruptcy. Second, the Senate provision permits family farmers to file for Chapter 12 if they meet the 50 percent requirement in any of the three years prior to filing. For farm families that split their income, low prices or crop failures can dramatically reduce gross income in the year prior to filing. Allowing consideration of any of three years prior to filing will keep farm families from being unfairly denied Chapter 12 relief. Third, the Senate provision increases the jurisdictional debt limit for filing Chapter 12 from $1.5 million to $3 million. This new figure offsets the effects of inflation of the last 15 years. The $1.5 million limit was established in 1986. Finally, the Senate bill extends protections to family fishermen so they can protect their boats and fishing equipment. Like agricultural farmers, fishermen face a hostile economic environment and thousands of fishermen leave the business every year. There is no reason to discriminate between family farmers and family fishermen in providing basic key protections. These provisions will help rural and coastal communities retain their unique character and allow farmers and fishermen to keep their farms and boats. I urge a yes vote on the Motion to Instruct.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman's statement and yielding to me. Mr. Chairman, I have just lifted myself off the floor when I heard the chairman, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), say that there is no proof that public housing has more drug abuse. When the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) said there was no proof that public housing has more drug abuse than anywhere else, this has to be put in some context. I ask of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), where has the gentleman been? There is public housing, and this is not a condemnation of all public housing, but there is some public housing in which there is plenty of drug problems. I do not know what kind of proof the gentleman wants about that. Any inspection would tell the gentleman that. Ask the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), or ask any of us in any major city. For the gentleman to be the chairman of the committee that determines what kind of protection we give to the people in public housing, and over billions of dollars controlled Federally, and for the gentleman to tell us that there is no indication that some public housing has more drug abuse than anywhere else, many of the public housing is in places where everybody has a high level of drug abuse all over the place.

Mr. CONYERS. If the gentlewoman will yield further, has the gentleman not gone out to a public housing project himself?

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, could I ask the distinguished chairman a question, please, because I heard the gentleman from Massachusetts; and I thought he made good sense. And I heard the chairman, the gentleman from New York, I thought he made good sense. Is there a disconnect here that has not been made clear to me? I did not hear the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) say anything about what the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) said. I would like to yield for the gentleman to explain that.

Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, we can authorize it ourselves. Do we not have at least that much power? I thought we could do that. Who is this supreme authorizing body in Washington, D.C., that I do not know much about?

Mr. CONYERS. So that is the gentleman's only reservation? That is the complaint?

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

Mr. CONYERS. Reclaiming my time, I do too. I think the subcommittee chairman is of good heart and great cheer and wonderful spirit, and I think the Frank amendment to this, notwithstanding what the President wished and wanted earlier on, maybe if we went back to the President, he would say this is not such a bad idea either. I do not know if we have time to do that, but I think the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) has come up at least with a good idea.

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

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman. I support Alcee Hastings' amendment to the Treasury-Postal Appropriations Act. The amendment will provide an additional $600 million to the FEC budget, funds that are necessary to assist state and local governments in updating voting systems. This is an excellent first step in tackling the election reform issue. It is disappointing that President Bush's budget made no allowance for election reform. But additional funding is not enough. Just throwing money at the problem will not solve the problem. We will end up with states simply taking the money and using it in rich neighborhoods while a state could continue using most disenfranchising machinery and procedures for minority communities. Or, if we offer the money conditionally, states will simply elect to decline a federal check and opt out of any standards. We must provide minimal guarantees to every eligible voter. This is precisely what the bill I have introduced with Senator Dodd and Majority Leader Daschle, the ``Equal Protection of Voting Rights Act,'' would do. The bill has a 140 cosponsors, more than any other election reform bill. It sets comprehensive minimal standards for voting machines used in federal elections but does not tell states and localities what machine to buy--in other words, it only establishes a baseline for what the machines have to be capable of doing. The standards for machines are common sense standards that would solve problems uncovered in 2000: First, to prevent spoiled ballots, machines would have to warn voters of mistakes like overvotes and undervotes and give voters a chance to correct these mistakes; Second, machines would have to be accessible to voters with disabilities; Third, the machines would have to be accessible to language minorities; Fourth, to eliminate the use of antiquated machines, the error rate for machines would have to be as close to zero as practicable. To correct haphazard voting purges and registration mistakes by officials, the bill establishes a right for every citizen to cast a provisional ballot in a federal election if he or she believes he has been improperly excluded from the rolls. To help prevent voter error and establish minimal standards for voter education, the bill requires that every registered voter in a federal election receive a sample ballot and instructions for filling out the ballot prior to an election. To ensure that voting rights violations are reported, the bill requires that every registered voter receive a document advising them of their voting rights and who to contact if those rights have been violated. The bill is constitutional. It is limited to federal elections. Under Art I, Sec. 4, Clause 1 of the Constitution, the Congress has the authority to set standards for federal elections. It avoids creating an unfunded federal mandate by fully funding the minimal standards. It recognizes that states may incur costs for meeting these obligations in state and local elections so it reimburses states for the costs of making state and local elections conform to the standards if they choose to do so.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 11.

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

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may consume to insert into the Record a letter from a senator of the Colombian legislature, Rafael Orduz, who makes the case to the Congress to consider this problem that is being discussed and hopes that we can learn as much about it and the harms that are coming from it as we can so that we may be able to work together to make the Andean Initiative as successful as it possibly can be made. Mr. Chairman, I think this is a good time for me to indicate that under consultation with the ranking members of both sides, I am going to soon ask unanimous consent to withdraw this amendment. I think the discussion has been important and I hope it will be useful for all parties. Bogota, Colombia, July 23, 2001. Congress of the United States of America Dear Congressmen: You are debating the budget that would finance anti-narcotics strategy in the framework of Plan Colombia for fiscal year 2001-2002. As a Colombian Senator it is my duty to express the concern of millions of Colombians regarding the continuation of chemical fumigations (using Round-Up) to eradicate illegal crops in Colombia. Three arguments for suspending fumigation should be considered: 1. The strategy is not productive. Since 1992, the year in which the use of Round-Up for fumigations in Colombia was adopted, the total area has expanded by 400 percent (40,000 hectares in 1992, 160,000 hectares in 2001). You should consider the cost-benefit relationship on behalf of your electorate. American taxpayers are financing an inefficient strategy. 2. Evidence exists of environmental damage from the application of the aerial fumigation. Legal crops meant to feed families are frequently fumigated and water sources are contaminated. The physical impossibility of acting with precision has led to the fumigation of agricultural projects financed with international technical cooperation. There are serious doubts regarding the effects of additives that are being used along with RoundUp (like Cosmoflux). I believe that given the uncertainty regarding environmental effects, in a society like that of the United Sated great caution would be exercised in deciding to fumigate without having in hand studies of environmental impact. 3. The fumigations have generated the forced displacement of thousands of families toward the large cities, on the one hand, and toward areas of the Amazon where the cultivation of illegal crops is expanding due to the absence of alternative agricultural development policies. In a context of armed conflict and forced displacement in which the State must seek a monopoly on the use of force [by] combating groups outside the law, the fumigations are an attack on the civilian populations, especially indigenous, Afro-Colombian and humbles peasant communities. There exists in some sections of the Congress [of Colombia], for the reasons noted, the objective of reforming the anti-narcotics legislation. On the one hand, to de- criminalize the small producer with the objective of involving him in plans for alternative development and manual eradication of illegal crops, and on the other, to suspend the fumigations. The Governors of the south of Colombia, elected by popular vote, have serious proposals for regional alternative development and reject the fumigations. With other senators we have encouraged a public debate in Bogota for next July 31 on the inappropriateness of the fumigations. Your collaboration is very important. The tragic business of narco-trafficking involves demand and supply. You must examine the hypothesis that each dollar invested in prevention and treatment of addictions is more cost- effective. It is very importance to attack the financial aspects of the business on the supply side, while manual eradication accompanied by plans for alternative development will be more efficient for combating narco-trafficking. Cordially, Rafael Orduz, Senator. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield as much time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, has the gentleman from New York heard of Agent Orange in Vietnam and the aftereffects?

Mr. CONYERS. The gentleman from New York will endorse this brand, Roundup?