John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes and 5 seconds to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent for each side to have 10 additional minutes, having consulted with my leader on the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to offer for the Record an op-ed piece written by Ms. Arianna Huffington that appeared in the Los Angeles Times on Tuesday, July 17, 2001. This article regards our country's involvement in Plan Colombia. Before we begin debate on the Foreign Operations Appropriations bill, I think it is important that the Congress and the people of the United States reconsider our current policy toward our southern neighbor and third most populous country in South America. Dogs of War Bare Their Teeth Over Colombia For more than a year, critics of our government's drug-war aid package to Colombia (now hovering at $2 billion) have been warning of the mission creep that threatens to embed us ever deeper in that country's 4-decades-old civil war. Well, the slippery slope just got greased. The House of Representatives is about to vote on the $15.2- billion foreign operations spending bill. Buried amid the appropriations for many worthwhile projects such as the Peace Corps and international HIV/AIDS relief is a legislative land mine. It comes in the form of a couple of innocuous-sounding lines that could lead to a massive escalation of U.S. involvement in Colombia's unwinnable war. Contained in the section of the bill earmarking $676 million for ``counterdrug activities'' in the region are the following eye-glazing provisions: ``These fund are in addition to amounts otherwise available for such purposes and are available without regard to section 3204(b)(1)(B) of Public Law 106-246. Provided further, that section 482(b) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 shall not apply to funds appropriated under this heading.'' Got that? I didn't think so. Legislative gobbledygook does not get any gookier. but once the meaningless numbers and letters are decoded, and the statutory dots connected, the ominous significance of those provisions becomes all too clear. If approved, they make possible the unlimited buildup of ``mercenaries'' and the removal of any constraints on the kinds of weapons they can use. Under current law, the number of U.S. military personnel that can be deployed in Colombia is limited to 500, and they are prohibited from engaging in combat. But as politicians discovered long ago, there are two parts to every law: the spirit of the law and the letter of the law. As regard Columbia, our government chose the latter, carrying out a classic end-run around the prohibition by funding a war conducted by mercenaries--hundreds of U.S. citizens working for private military contractors like DynCorp, Airscan and Military Professional Resources Inc. At the moment, the number of these mercenaries is capped at 300. But the first new provision, if it becomes law, does away with this restriction. The other provision removes language that says ``weapons or ammunition'' while engaged in narcotics-related activities. It's a deadly cocktail: unlimited private forces armed with unlimited weapons. Congress has always zealously guarded its rights under the War Powers Act. But unless its members catch on, they could approve a privatized Gulf of Tonkin resolution without even realizing it's hidden in the bill. And once the dogs of war are unleashed, they're awfully hard to round up again--just ask Bob McNamara. This ongoing and furtive escalation directly contradicts the government's assurances that, as Assistant Secretary of State Rand Beers put it last week, ``Plan Columbia is a plan for peace.'' ``From the beginning,'' he wrote in an op-ed, ``we have stated that there is no military solution to Columbia's problems.'' Then why, pray, the need for offensive weaponry and unrestricted number of mercenaries? To make matters worse, a new investigation by the Center for Public Integrity found that U.S. anti-drug money spent on Latin America is being ``funneled through corrupt military paramilitary and intelligence organizations and ends up violating basic human rights.'' Those who scoff at the idea that our drug-fighting efforts in Colombia could lead to the U.S. becoming embroiled in a massive counter-insurgency war should take a look at a new study by the Rand Corp. commissioned by the U.S. Air Force. The study calls on the United States to drop the phony ``counter-narcotics only'' pretense and directly assist the Colombian government in its battle against leftist rebels: ``The United States is the only realistic source of military assistance on the scale needed to redress the currently unfavorable balance of power.'' There is still the chance that Congress will refuse to go along with this statutory trickery. Reps. John Conyers (D- Mich.) and Janice D. Schakowsky (D-Ill.) are considering an amendment to eliminate the new provisions. Turning an army of heavily armed mercenaries loose in the middle of a bloody civil war is more than a misguided policy--its utter insanity. It's imperative that our lawmakers defuse these provisions in the bill before they blow up in our faces, and the cliche of ``another Vietnam'' becomes a sorry Colombian reality.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Waters- Kucinich amendment to the Commerce-Justice-State Appropriations for fiscal year 2002. The Waters-Kucinich amendment would restore the ability of developing countries to pass laws for the purpose of making HIV/AIDS drugs available to their citizens. The Waters-Kucinich amendment would prohibit future WTO complaints, thereby giving developing countries the flexibility to provide cost effective treatment for people with HIV/AIDS. In the 35 years that I have worked in this wonderful House, I must say this is one of the most important amendments ever offered on the floor of this House! Mr. Chairman, Dr. Peter Piot, Director of UNAIDS, has stated time and time again than 95% of the African people who are infected with HIV/ AIDS can not afford AIDS anti-retroviral drugs. This means that if current WTO policies are not changed, then the 25 million people in Africa who are now infected with HIV/AIDS will receive an ``unnecessary death sentence'' due to the sole fact that African countries simply cannot afford the price of anti-retroviral drugs. Death by AIDS is not, and should not be a partisan issue; this is about something much deeper, more profound, and more spiritual than the current debate we are having tonight. This is about whether or not there will be 40 million orphans in Africa in the year 2015 because the African people can not afford the obscene prices of pharmaceutical AIDS drugs. African countries should be allowed to take care of their own health problems. In Brazil, government labs have manufactured five generic AIDS medications since the mid 1990's under the national emergency provisions of the compulsory licensing system of the WTO. They distribute these medicines without charge. Should not Africa also be able to create their own generic AIDS drugs? 6,000 people die in sub-Sahran Africa each day of HIV/AIDS. How many more African children, mothers, and fathers must die from this deadly disease before we open up our eyes and our hearts to the pain and suffering of our brothers and sisters in Africa. I believe, as do my colleagues who support this amendment, that intellectual property rights can not, and must not, be placed above the right for all human beings, to live a full and productive life. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the Waters-Kucinich Amendment.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Clement).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, if one does not have much to do today, this is a great way to spend the afternoon, discussing for the fifth time whether the Congress should amend the Constitution with reference to flag desecration. Now, the answer has been ``no'' all of these other times. So I ask the House rhetorically, why does not the other body take this measure up first, for once, instead of us? Is there some protocol not known to the ranking member of the committee? There are many other things that could be done in the interest of furthering the democratic spirit of the United States. Now, on behalf of everybody in the House, I would like to be the first to assert the boilerplate language so that my colleagues will not all have to repeat it again. I deplore desecration of the flag in any form, but I am strongly opposed to this resolution because it goes against the ideals and elevates a symbol of freedom over freedom itself. I would like unanimous consent to say that for everybody that is going to want to say that, to make sure that everybody understands that those who oppose this measure are patriotic and are not by implication, direct or otherwise, supporting any kind of desecration of the flag. We do not do that. That is not what we are here for. So that leaves two other points to be made, the same ones made before. The first is Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes. This is 1929: ``The Constitution protects not only freedom for the thought and expression we agree with, but freedom for the thought we hate.'' Okay, got that? All right. That is five times in my career that we go through this. Then the final point that should be made is that, in 1989, the Supreme Court said that all the State laws in the country banning flag- burning and making it illegal are themselves illegal. Then the Congress tried to do it. And the Supreme Court, not the most progressive part of the Federal system, said, no, you cannot do it, Congress. And now, for the fifth time, we do not even agree on it ourselves. We do not want to do it. Basically, the legislative body of the United States of America does not want to make an amendment to our Constitution appropriate to accomplish what State laws tried and what Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes talked about, and many others. In effect, what we are trying to do is not to punish those who feel differently about these matters. The better course is to persuade them that they are wrong. We can imagine no more appropriate response to burning a flag than waving our own flag; no way to counter a flag- burner's message than by saluting the flag. We do not consecrate the flag by punishing its desecration because, in doing so, we dilute the freedom that this cherished emblem represents. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Indiana (Ms. Carson) who, previous to her congressional experience, worked in the field of labor with my late father.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul). (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman). (Mr. ACKERMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), the ranking member on the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), a senior member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I hope that my distinguished friend from California, I hope that his moving plea is taken over to the other body, which every year turns back this work. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), the distinguished ranking member of the subcommittee.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), an able member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

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

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 additional minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Clement).

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the substitute offered by Mr. Watt. This substitute goes to the heart of what we're debating. If the sponsors of H.J. Res. 36 really believe that the proposed amendments does not supersede the First Amendment, they ought to have no problem supporting this substitute. And if H.J. Res. 36 does supersede the First Amendment, then the sponsors should have the courage to admit it--so the American people can make an informed decision about this issue. In my view it is clear that H.J. Res. 36 directly alters the free speech protections of the First Amendment. There can be no doubt that ``symbolic speech'' relating to the flag falls squarely within the ambit of traditionally protected speech. Our nation was born in the dramatic symbolic speech of the Boston Tea Party, and our courts have long recognized that expressive speech associated with the flag is protected under the First Amendment. Also, as H.J. Res. 36 is currently drafted, it will allow Congress to outlay activities that go well beyond free speech. The amendment gives us no guidance whatsoever as to what if any provisions of the First Amendment, the Bill of Rights, or the Constitution in general that it is designed to overrule. Some have suggested that the amendment goes so far as to allow the criminalization of wearing clothing with the flag on it. This goes well beyond overturning the Johnson case and indicates that the flag desecration amendment could permit prosecution under statutes that were otherwise unconstitutionally void of vagueness. For example, the Supreme Court in 1974 declared unconstitutionally vague a statute that criminalized treating the flag contemptuously and did not uphold the conviction of an individual wearing a flag patch on his pants. So unless we clarify H.J. Res. 36, the legislation would allow such a prosecution despite that statute's vagueness. Finally, it is insufficient to respond to these concerns by asserting that the courts can easily work out the meaning of the terms in the same way that they have given meaning to other terms in the Bill of Rights such as ``due process.'' Unlike the other provisions of the Bill of Rights, H.J. Res. 36 represents an open- ended and unchartered invasion of our rights and liberties, rather than a back-up mechanism to prevent the government from usurping our rights. I urge the Members to support the substitute and oppose altering the Bill of Rights.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I submit that the following article from the Entertainment Law Review, by Pamela Conley Ulich and Lance Simmons, be placed in the Congressional Record. Motion Picture Production: To Run or Stay Made in the U.S.A. (Pamela Conley Ulich and Lance Simmens) ``Bye, Bye Miss American pie, drove in my Daimler to the movies to see a foreign-made flic; And good old actors were drinking whiskey and beer, singing this is the day, we're unemployed here, this will be the day we're unemployed here.'' I. Introduction Globalization profoundly impacts traditional ways of conducting business, and the entertainment industry is not immune from the new economics drastically changing the world. Could Hollywood become ``Hollyhasbeen''? Will television and theatrical motion pictures shot in the United States go the way of the American car and American-made clothing? Runaway production has caused serious labor issues, including the dislocation of thousands of workers and jobs. In 1998, twenty-seven percent of films released in the United States were produced abroad, and an estimated 20,000 jobs were lost to foreign countries. Lower exchange rates, direct government subsidies and lower labor wages enticed American production companies to film in foreign locales. In 1998, the direct economic loss of runaway production was $2.8 billion. When coupled with the loss of ancillary business, the losses likely totaled $10.3 billion for 1998 alone. These loses juxtapose with the issues of free trade versus fair trade in an uneasy balance. This Article considers why many television and theatrical motion pictures targeted primarily at U.S. audiences are not made in America. It also examines the economic impact resulting from the flight of such productions. Finally, it considers possible solutions in an effort to reverse the trend. II. The History of ``Runaway Production'' Runaway production is not a new phenomenon, In December 1957, the Hollywood American Federation of Labor (``AFL'') Film Council, an organization of twenty-eight AFL-CIO unions, prepared a report entitled On December 1, 1961, H. O'Neil Shanks, John Lehners and Robert Gilbert of the Hollywood AFL Film Council testified regarding runaway productions before the Education and Labor Subcommittee on the Impact of Imports and Exports on American Employment. Shanks explained to the subcommittee: ``Apart from the fact that thousands of job opportunities for motion picture technicians, musicians, and players are being `exported' to other countries at the expense of American citizens residing in the State of California, the State of New York, and in other States because of runaway production this unfortunate trend . . . threatens to destroy a valuable national asset in the field of world-wide mass communications, which is vital to our national interest and security. If Hollywood is thus permitted to become `obsolete as a production center' and the United States voluntarily surrenders its position of world leadership in the field of theatrical motion pictures, the chance to present a more favorable American image on the movie screens of non- Communist countries in reply to the cold war attacks of our Soviet adversaries will be lost forever.`` John ``Jack'' L. Dales, Executive Secretary of the Screen Actors Guild (``SAG''), and actor Charlton Heston also testified before this subcommittee. Dales stated: ``We examined and laid out, without evasion, all the causes [of runaway production] we knew. Included as impelling foreign production were foreign financial subsidies, tax avoidance, lower production costs, popularity of authentic locale, frozen funds--all complex reasons. We urged Congressional action in two primary areas: (1) fight subsidy with subsidy. Use the present 10 percent admissions tax to create a domestic subsidy; (2) taxes. . . . [W]e proposed consideration of a spread of five or seven years over which tax would be paid on the average, not on the highest, income for those years.'' Despite these impassioned pleas, runaway production has continued to grow in importance, scope and visibility. Today it ranks among the most critical issues confronting the entertainment industry. The issue received increased attention in June 1999, when SAG and the Directors Guild of America (``DGA'') commissioned a Monitor Company report, ``The Economic Impact of U.S. Film and Television Runaway Production'' (``Monitor Report''), that analyzed the quantity of motion pictures shot abroad and resulting losses to the American economy. In January 2001, concerns over runaway production were addressed in a report prepared by the United States Department of Commerce. The eighty-eight page document (``Department of Commerce Report'') was produced at the request of a bipartisan congressional group. Like the Monitor Report, the Department of Commerce Report acknowledged the ``flight of U.S. Additionally, the media is bringing the issue of runaway production to the attention of the general public. Numerous newspaper articles have focused on the concerns cited in the Monitor Report. For example, in The Washington Post, Lorenzo di Bonaventura, Warner Bros. president of production, explained the runaway production issue as follows: ``For studios, the economics of moving production overseas are tempting. The `Matrix' cost us 30 percent less than it would have if we shot in the United States. . . . The rate of exchange is 62 cents on the dollar. Labor costs, construction materials are all lower. And they want us more. They are very embracing when we come to them.'' Di Bonaventura indicated Warner Bros. received $12 million in tax incentives for filming ``The Matrix'' in Australia. This is a significant savings for a film that cost approximately $62 million to produce. III. Causes of Runaway Production In the Department of Commerce Report, the government delineated factors leading to runaway film and television production. These factors have contributed to the ``substantial transformation of what used to be a traditional and quintessentially American industry into an increasingly dispersed global industry.'' A. Vertical Integration: Globalization Vertical integration is defined by the International Monetary Fund as ``the increasing integration of economies around the world, particularly through trade and financial flows.'' The term may also refer to ``the movement of people (labor) and knowledge (technology) across international borders.'' Consequently, companies must now be productive and international in order to profit. Because companies are generally more interested in profits than in people, companies are often not loyal to communities in which they have flourished. Instead, they solely consider the bottom line in the process of making business decisions. Columbia is an excellent example of the conversion from a traditional U.S.-based company to a global enterprise. Columbia began in 1918 when independent producer Harry Cohn, his brother Jack and their associate Joe Brandt, started the company with a $100,000 loan. In 1926, Columbia purchased a small lot on Gower Street in Hollywood, California, with just two sound stages and a small office building. In 1929, Columbia's success began when it produced its first ``talkie'' feature, ``The Donovan Affair,'' directed by Frank Capra, who would become an important asset to Columbia. Capra went on to produce other box office successes for Columbia such as ``You Can't Take It With You'' and ``Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.'' In 1966, Columbia faced a takeover attempt by the Banque de Paris et Pays-Bas, owner of twenty percent of Columbia, and Maurice Clairmont, a well-known corporate raider. The Communications Act of 1934 prohibited foreign ownership of more than one-fifth of an American company with broadcast holdings. The Banque de Paris could not legally take over Columbia because one of Columbia's subsidiaries, Screen Gems, held a number of television stations. In 1982, the Coca-Cola Company purchased Columbia. In 1988, Columbia's share of domestic box office receipts fell to 3.5 percent and Columbia registered a $104 million loss. In late 1989, Following in Columbia's footsteps, other studios have globalized through foreign ownership. Universal Studios, Inc. (``Universal''), previously the Music Corporation of America, was acquired by the additional Japanese electronics company Matsushita in 1991, and four years later was purchased by Seagram, a Canadian company headquartered in Montreal. In 1985, Australian media mogul Rupert Murdoch acquired a controlling interest in Fox, and Time, Inc., a publishing and cable television giant, acquired Warner Bros. in 1989. As studios become multinational, their loyalty to the community or country in which they were born wanes. The international corporations are no longer concerned with the ramifications of moving production outside uses for of their community or country; they are instead concerned only with bottom-line profits. Columbia exemplifies, globalization. Columbia no longer owns a studio lot, let alone its humble beginnings on Gower Street. The Studio simply rents office space in a building in Culver City, California. Not surprisingly, global corporations think globally, not locally. Shooting abroad is not only acceptable, but preferable to companies who are not loyal to any one country. B. Rising Production and Distribution Costs and Decreasing Profits By the end of the 1990s, studio executives began to alter their business methods. Despite aggressive cost-cutting, layoffs, strategic joint ventures and movement of production to foreign shores, rising production and distribution costs have consumed profits over the last decade. Production costs rose from an average of $26.8 million to $51.5 million. Distribution costs for new feature films more than doubled. In 1990, the average motion picture cost $11.97 million to distribute, and by 1999, the costs rose to $24.53 million. At the same time, profit margins dropped. For example, Disney Studio's profits decreased from 25 percent in 1987 to 19 percent in 1997, and Viacom's profits dropped from 13 percent in 1987 to less than 6.5 percent in 1997. Additionally, both Time Warner and News Corporation, parent of Fox, showed declining profits as well. C. Technological Advances According to the Department of Commerce Report, ``[N]ew technologies and tools may well be contributing to the increase in the amount of foreign production of U.S. entertainment programming.'' Ten years ago, even if a foreign country had lower labor costs, it would have been prohibitively expensive to transport equipment and qualified technicians to produce a quality picture abroad. However, new technology is defeating that obstacle. Scenes shot on film must be transferred or scanned into a videotape format; this process creates what is referred to as dailies. However, many foreign production centers are unable to instantaneously produce dailies from film. Nevertheless, technological advancement has led to the creation of high definition video, which, like dailies, offers immediate viewing capabilities approximating D. Government Sweeteners Canada is extremely aggressive in its application of both Federal and provincial subsidies to entice production north of the border: ``At the federal level, the Canadian government offers tax credits to compensate for salary and wages, provides funding for equity investment, and provides working capital loans. At the provincial level, similar tax credits are offered, as well as incentives through the waiving of fees for parking, permits, location, and other local Costs.'' These enticements equal a sizable economic benefit. According to the Monitor Report, ``U.S.-developed productions located in Canada have been able to realize total savings, including incentives and other cost reducing characteristics of producing in Canada, of up to twenty-six percent.'' The Department of Commerce Report carefully delineates a plethora of incentives employed by a host of countries. It concludes the undeniable impact of these programs is to weaken the market position of the U.S. film-making industry and those who depend on the industry for employment. E. Exchange Rates Because the U.S. dollar is stronger than Canadian, Australian and U.K. currencies, American producers have more purchase power when they opt to film abroad. As a result, producers are tempted to locate where the dollar has the most value. The Canadian, Australian and U.K. currencies have all declined by fifteen to twenty-three percent, relative to the U.S. dollar, since 1990. IV. The Impact of Runaway Production A. The Economic Impact In total, U.S. workers and the government lost $10.3 billion to economic runaways in 1998. According to the Monitor Report, ``$2.8 billion in direct expenditures were lost to the United States in 1998 from both theatrical films and television economic runaways.'' For example, if a theatrical picture is shot in New York, then carpenters are employed to make the set, caterers are employed to prepare and serve food, and costume designers are hired to provide wardrobe. As the Department of Commerce Report explains, ``[B]ehind the polished, finished film product there are tens of thousands of technicians, less well-known actors, assistant directors and unit production managers, artists, specialists, post-production workers, set movers, extras, construction workers, and other workers in fields too numerous to mention.'' This fiscal loss ripples through the economy affecting peripheral industries. In addition to the direct economic loss discussed above, the Monitor Report calculated an additional $5.6 billion lost in indirect expenditures. Indirect expenditures include real estate, restaurants, clothing and hotel revenues, which are not realized. In addition to these private industry losses, the government lost $1.9 billion in taxes to runaway production. As opposed to the $10.3 billion lost in 1998, the study estimated those figures will be between $13 and $15 billion in 2001. B. The U.S. Production Drought The Monitor Report stated that between 1990 and 1998, U.S. film production growth fell sharply behind the growth occurring in the top U.S. runaway production locations of Canada, Australia and the U.K. It stated that Australia ``is growing 26.4 percent annually in production of United C. Job Loss Runaway production also impacts the U.S. labor market. It is estimated there are 270,000 jobs directly tied to film production. It is further estimated that 20,000 jobs were lost in 1998 alone due to runaway production. However, these statistics do not fully reflect the impact of economic runaway production on employment. They fail to account for spin-off employment that accompanies film production. It is estimated by the Commerce Department that the ripple effect of secondary and tertiary jobs associated with the industry might easily double or triple the number of jobs dependent upon the industry. Regardless of the understated nature of the economic impact, the Commerce Department acknowledges that at least $18 billion in direct and indirect export revenues and $20 billion in economic activity are generated by the industry annually. D. Loss of Pension and Health Benefits Performers and others who work on foreign productions may lose valuable pension and health benefits. As provided in the SAG collective bargaining agreements, performers are entitled to receive pension and health contributions made to the plans on behalf of performers when they work on productions. Although SAG does allow for some pension and health reciprocity with the Canadian performers union, performers must negotiate this term into their contracts. More often than not, performers are unable to negotiate this benefit for work performed in Canada. E. Cultural Identity In 1961, Congress was warned that the trend of runaway production threatened to destroy a valuable ``national asset'' in the field of worldwide mass communications. As H. O'Neil Shanks, John Lehners and Robert Gilbert of the Hollywood AFL Film Council testified in 1961, if Hollywood became ``obsolete as a production center'' and the United States voluntarily surrendered its position of leadership in the field of theatrical motion pictures, the chance to present a more favorable American image on the movie screen would be forever lost. Although the Cold War is no longer a reason to protect cultural identity, today U.S.-produced pictures are still a conduit through which our values, such as democracy and freedom, are promoted. V. Solutions A. The Film California First Program California remains a leading force in the industry, and last year took a legislative step to remedy the problem of runaway production. The state passed a three-year, $45 million program aimed at reimbursing film costs incurred on public property. The Film California First (``FCF'') program is specifically geared toward increasing the state's competitive edge in attracting and retaining film projects. To accomplish this goal, the legislation provides various subsidies to production companies for filming in California, including offering property leases at below-market rates. This legislation should serve as a model for other states, as they too struggle with an issue of increasing economic importance. B. Wage-Based Tax Credit A possible solution could be patterned after a legislative proposal offered, but never advanced, in the 106th Congress. Specifically, this proposal called for a wage-based tax credit for targeted productions and C. Future Solutions To rectify the problems of runaway productions, legislation at the local, state and federal levels is paramount. Over the past thirty years, the film industry has expanded beyond California to become a major engine of economic growth in states such as New York, Texas, Florida, Illinois and North Carolina. To achieve effective legislative remedies, it is critical to examine the successful programs implemented by other nations. Maybe it is the inexorable result of a changing world. Regardless, the proliferation of foreign subsidies for U.S. film production, which is occurring at an increasing rate worldwide, raises troubling questions of fairness and equity. From a competitive standpoint, it appears as though the deck is stacked against a class of workers who seek to derive their livelihood from this industry but find their jobs have moved overseas. It is understandable that producers will take the opportunity to film abroad when the reduction in costs is as much as twenty-five percent. Consequently, the only remedy for America's workforce is to pass legislation that provides commensurate benefits in the United States. It is apparent that a laissez-faire, market-oriented approach has failed the American worker. Unemployment is extraordinarily high within the creative community, leading to seventy percent of SAG'S 100,000 plus members earning less than $7,500 annually. This economic hardship is exacerbated by runaway production. Thus, it is abundantly clear that legislative remedies attempting to more adequately level the playing field must be pursued. Amid encouraging signs that a tax bill of significant consequence is likely to pass Congress in the coming months, it is imperative that the creative community take a proactive position to ensure that the tax bill provides incentives for domestic film production. It must While it seems unlikely that there is the political will or desire to match the incentives offered by many of our competitors, it is conceivable to the authors that an effective approach can be designed to substantially close the gap on cost savings without eliminating them. Thus, the approach advocated involves identifying the level where cost savings of filming abroad are minimized so as not to be the determinative location factor. An appropriate level may be in the range of ten percent cost savings versus the twenty-six percent cost savings now common in some Canadian locations. It is important to note the strategy used to fashion a remedy is just as important as the relief sought. The industry should be willing to approach the tax-writing committee staff with the afore-mentioned concept and work closely with them in designing a legislative remedy. This strategy represents a holistic approach to a global problem. It is important to remember the United States risks losing its economic advantage in a vital industry which carries with it enormous economic consequences. As noted in the Department of Commerce Report: ``If the most rapid growth in the most dynamic area of film production is occurring outside the United States, then employment, infrastructure, and technical skills will also grow more rapidly outside the United States, and the country could lose its competitive edge in important segments of the film industry.''

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the End Racial Profiling Act of 2001, along with additional bipartisan cosponsors. Both the President and the Attorney General have said that we need federal legislation and that the practice of racial profiling should be prohibited. This bill accomplishes both these goals and we're anxious to work with the administration to pass legislation during this Congress. Racial profiling not only undermines constitutional rights, but also undermines the trust on which law enforcement depends. Since I first introduced racial profiling legislation in the 105th Congress, the pervasive nature of racial profiling has gone from anecdote and theory to well-documented fact. Data collected from New Jersey, Maryland, Texas, Pennsylvania, Florida, Illinois, Ohio, New York, and Massachusetts show beyond a shadow of a doubt that African-Americans and Latinos are being stopped for routine traffic violations far in excess of their share of the population or even the rate at which such populations are accused of criminal conduct. A recent Justice Department report found that although African-Americans and Hispanics are more likely to be stopped and searched by law enforcement, they are much less likely to be found in possession of contraband. Racial profiling is a doulbe-barreled assault on our social fabric. Nearly every young African-American male has been subjected to racial profiling or has a family member or close friend who has been a victim of this injustice. Racial profiling sends the message to young African- Americans and others that the criminal justice system, and therefore the system at large, belittles their worth, that message and its impact sticks. Second, and relatedly, it causes a breakdown of trust on which community policing depends. And unless that trust is built, deep seated, nurtured, then the police can't do the job of protecting our communities, a job we all want the police to do. Our legislation is designed to eliminate racial profiling by addressing the policies and procedures underlying the practice. First the bill provides a prohibition on racial profiling, enforceable by injunctive relief. Second, we condition federal law enforcement and other monies that go to state and local governments on their adoption of policies that prohibit racial profiling and which are enforceable. Third, we provide the state and local police with the grant money they have told us that they need to train and modernize the police. Finally, we provide for periodic reports by the Attorney General to assess the nature of any ongoing racial profiling. Both the President and Attorney General have called for a ban on the practice of racial profiling. There is near unanimous agreement on all sides of the political spectrum that it should be ended. The time has come to pass this legislation.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, tap dancing is widely recognized as America's only original form of dance, yet for years it has been in danger of becoming a lost art. I introduced a resolution that established each May 25, as National Tap Day on September 15, 1988. As a result, people have been coming together to celebrate tap through both performance and study and examine the incredible contributions made by legendary dancers such as Howard ``Sandman'' Sims, the Nicholas Brothers and contemporary dancers such as Gregory Hines. I chose May 25, as National Tap Dance Day because it is was the birthday of Bill ``Bojangles'' Robinson. Mr. Robinson is credited with bringing this unique art form to perfection. Moreover, he was genuinely talented and well known worldwide for his work in movies and contributions to the art of tap dancing on both stage and film. Tap dancing has had an influence on other types of American art, including music, vaudeville, Broadway musical theater, and film as well as other dance forms. Presently, Savion Glover is the new young star of the tap dancing profession. He is the youngest man ever to be nominated for a Tony award for his performance. Savion has appeared with Gregory Hines and Tommy Tune on television in, Dance in America: Tap! He was also served as an inspiration for other young tap artist like the actor Dule Hill. However, if tap is not encouraged, it runs the risk of losing its popular support. Unless we continue our efforts to preserve tap, we are in danger of losing an art form that is an uniquely American creation. By passing the resolution designating May 25 as National Tap Dance Day, we in Congress have focused national attention on this great art form. Moreover, people around the country have come to better appreciate tap as an important part of our cultural heritage. I am pleased to know that the enactment of National Tap Dance Day and its annual celebration has served to increase public recognition, and support not only in this country but internationally as well.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentlewoman from Detroit (Ms. Kilpatrick), for bringing this special resolution to the attention of the House of Representatives. Mr. Speaker, I would like to just talk about the great events that occurred as I was watching the civil rights movement develop; that is, with the coming of Dr. Martin Luther King, Detroit became a base for civil rights activity, and frequently there were fundraisers and church events that were attended by Dr. King, Reverend Andrew Young, Reverend Ralph Abernathy, and many others. Detroit became, along with New York and Los Angeles, a great center for support for Dr. King, which led to his civil rights march in Detroit down our main street, Woodward Avenue, in 1963, which had been the largest freedom march that had been held up until the March on Washington. There, we were treated in Detroit to hearing Dr. Martin Luther King's ``I have a dream'' speech, which was in its formative stages there, but one cannot fail to pick that up. I was pleased to have been there. My interest in the civil rights movement, as one who went South, was emphasized by the coming on later of a young lady from Montgomery, Alabama, named Rosa Parks, who came forward and chose, for reasons I cannot explain, Detroit as her home after she led the bus march, the bus protests, in Alabama which had called Dr. King to its leadership and thrust him into prominence in the civil rights movement. Mr. Speaker, the civil rights activity was very, very important. The other thing that seems to me to be important is not only the development of the automobile industry in Detroit, where all the then three largest manufacturers had their headquarters, but was the development of the collective bargaining movement in which the United Automobile Workers organized members. It was after Flint General Motors was organized they immediately came to Detroit, where the Chrysler plant on Jefferson Avenue was organized. My father was then a strong supporter of the labor movement and worked in that plant, and there was great excitement and a great amount of tension, and there was a great struggle. Finally, after GM was organized in Flint, Chrysler was organized in Detroit, and then they went out to the workers in the plants, continued to go to Ford, Ford Motor Company in Dearborn, Michigan, where they had the great battle of the overpass in which it was a very bloody confrontation. There is still pictures of Walter Ruther and others, R.J. Thomas perhaps and Addis and Frankenstein to earlier people that worked with Walter Ruther, walking towards all these people. The company had a practice of hiring people who were known for their proclivities towards violence. There was violence. There were injuries. Police were called in, but it was finally organized, and the UAW went on to become one of the largest unions in the AFL-CIO. So there was this tremendous excitement that has always characterized Detroit. We unfortunately had race riots in 1943 and 1967. I remember then-President Lyndon Johnson called me at my home to tell me who he was sending in as a special emissary. We worked with them in terms of bringing order back into Detroit. Mr. Speaker, at the same time that was coming up was the election of people of color, and one person in particular that has to be mentioned in this tricentennial observation who was the first African American mayor, Mayor Coleman Alexander Young, who was himself a labor organizer, he came back and became a constitutional convention member in Michigan in 1958. Then he went on to become a State senator himself, and then helping me in my attempts to come to the Congress. Shortly thereafter, ran for mayor of the City of Detroit himself, where he was the Mayor for probably more than 15 years, many terms in which we saw the blooming of many people who went on to other prominent positions who worked for the city, including Conrad Mallett who became not only a justice of the supreme court of Michigan but the chief justice of the supreme court. Then we had earlier, at an earlier period another attorney that worked with Mayor Young who was a lawyer working with him, he became a member of the supreme court; that was Dennis Archer, who then later became the mayor who ultimately replaced Mayor Young. He is currently the Mayor of the City of Detroit. I close with a comment and observation in remembrance about our cultural contributions, because there were two cultural forces operating, one was the traditional rhythm and blues sound that was developed by Barry Gordy and his sister Esther Gordy. As a matter of fact, the whole Gordy family, some of whom are still members of the district of the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick), they created the unique Motown sound of Stevie Wonder, the Supremes, the Temptations, the Everythings. The music became a national trend, Philadelphia picked it up, and developed it in another direction. The other current that was going on was the contribution of progressive jazz called be-bop, which Charlie Parker, Dizzy Gillespie, and it just so happened that there was one drummer there named J. C. Heard, who with Norman Grand started jazz at the Philharmonic, and artists poured in, Dizzy Gillespie, all the great artists came through Detroit. It became a jazz mecca and then produced its own generation, the next generation of jazz artists, Milt Jackson, Donald Byrd, Yusef Lateef, Barry Harris. It goes on and on. It became a great center and still is where now we have artists like Donald Walden, a great tenor saxophone player who is a resident professor in jazz at the University of Michigan. Jon Hendricks of the Lampert, Hendricks and Ross trio is a professor of jazz at the University of Toledo. Wayne State University has an accredited jazz center. Of course, that piqued my interests, because it was jazz musicians that urged me to go to law school, because I tried to play. So we have all had wonderful continuing relationships with the musical artists of both genres from one end of the country to the other. It is out of this struggle in civil rights, the struggle in collective bargaining, the development of our culture that we have enjoyed such wonderful experiences from a great and diverse population that makes this remembrance and recollection that other Members will contribute to one of great personal privileges for me to participate. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick) for bringing this to our congressional and national attention. Mr. Speaker, Detroit was founded in 1701 by French settlers, and named their new home Fort Panchutrain de De Troit, meaning ``at the straights.'' This frontier outpost in the wilderness was and remained ``the frontier'' for the next hundred years. The site was a natural selection, located along the banks of what is now the Detroit River, a narrow straight separating what is now the United States and Canada, and connecting Lakes Erie, St. Clair, and Lake Huron. The river provided a source of food and an easy means of transporting goods, an activity that remains a vital piece of the Mid-West's economic health. As a frontier settlement, Detroit passed from the control of the French to the British and finally to American hands in 1760. Detroit was incorporated as a city in 1802, and named capital of Michigan Territory in 1805. In the summer of 1805 Detroit burned to the ground, but the site was not abandoned. The British recaptured Detroit in the War of 1812, but was recovered by Gen. William Henry Harrison in 1813. As the United States expanded westward, Detroit began its change from frontier outpost to regional center. The completion of the Erie Canal transformed the Great Lakes into the largest inland waterway, one of the single greatest influences on Detroit and Michigan's development. The Detroit River and the proximity to Canada made Detroit a major stop on the Underground Railroad to freedom for many escaped slaves. Many recently freed slaves migrated north to Detroit in search of better living conditions and job opportunity. An early carriage industry created the economic opportunity that soon became synonymous with Detroit. In 1897, Ransom Old opened the first automobile factory, followed closely by Henry Ford. Ford's introduction of the Model T, and the production techniques of mass production, created the perfect blend of affordable transportation and economic opportunity, that has continued to supply Michigan's and the nations economy for much of the last century. In 1913 Henry Ford created the $5 dollar day. This policy doubled the average daily wage while cutting working hours down to an eight hour day. Between 1910 and 1930 Detroit's population ballooned to 4th-largest in the United States. The rising population and stark economic reality of the Great Depression contributed to the atmosphere in the city that culminated in 1936 and 1937 ``Sit Down'' strikes and the growth of the labor movement. The United Auto Workers now represent over 700,000 auto workers and have improved the lives and working conditions of millions of Americans. World War II brought renewed prosperity to Detroit, ``the arsenal of democracy'', as Detroit's factories produced tanks, jeeps, bombers, and liberty ships. The round-the-clock production also helped to speed women's transition into the work force. The increasing numbers of women in both offices and labor positions helped to spawn a new sense of equality throughout the United States. Detroiter's have long called for greater equality, both among the sexes, but also among the races. In 1963, the largest civil right's event to that time took place on June 23, the Great March to Freedom, where 125,000 people marched down Woodward Avenue singing ``We Shall Overcome''. We marched to Cabo Hall where the Reverend Martin Luther King introduced his ``I Have a Dream'' speech. Detroit elected Coleman Young its first African-American mayor in 1973. Coleman Young served for twenty years fully integrating the city police and fire departments, as well as other city departments and agencies, opening doors for both African-Americans and women. Detroit is a frontier outpost turned industrial city, but the people of Detroit have created a cultural center equal of any in the world. Detroit's orchestra is world class. We have more theater seats than every other American city except for New York. We have the Detroit Institute for Arts, the Charles H. Wright Museum of African-American History, and the Detroit Science Center. We have major universities and research centers. Detroit has also spawned its own music style, forever leaving its mark on pop culture and on Detroit. Berry, Gwen, and Esther Gordy founded Motown Records in 1957, creating the Motown sound and giving Detroit a new name. Artists such as Temptations, the Supremes, Stevie Wonder, Marvin Gaye, Smoky Robinson and the Miracles, Gladys Knight and the Pips, The Four Tops, The Commodores, Rick James, Martha Reeves and the Vandellas, and the Jackson Five emerged from Motown's music scene. Detroit's influence was not limited to pop music however. Jazz musicians such as Milt Jackson, Donald Byrd, Tommy Flanagan, Hank, Alvin and Thad Jones, Yusef Lateef, Kenny Burrell, and Berry Harris began their illustrious careers in Detroit's jazz clubs such as the Flame Show Bar and the Greystone Ballroom. And Detroit has most recently helped spawn the distinctive techno sound. Techno and electronica's popularity has spread worldwide, with electronic music festivals being held annually in Berlin, London, and Detroit. Detroit has three hundred years of culture and history to look back on and be proud of. But Detroit's greatest asset, the one that will guarantee Detroit's success, is the people of Detroit. The people of Detroit have struggled with nature, with race and class, with economic hardship, and the people of Detroit will continue to struggle, to bring the best and brightest possible future to Detroit over the next three hundred years.

Mr. CONYERS

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

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I come to the floor to congratulate all the parties that have worked on the extension of 245(i) because underlying that there is the understanding that we realize this is a subject matter that needs the kind of bipartisan support for those folks that are trying, working so hard as good citizens to get their green card and apply for citizenship. The President of the United States has indicated that this measure is insufficient. There was hope up until 3 minutes ago that this measure might be removed from the floor because there is still so much negotiation swirling around it. Why? Because even though we are in recognition of a difficult problem that there is bicameral and bipartisan support for relief for going beyond April 30, we simply do not have enough time within the 4-month period that is provided to take care of this complex filing and requirements that are needed. Number one, the immigration lawyers have already advised myself and the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), the ranking member of this Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims of the Committee on the Judiciary, that frequently one has to go back to the country of origin to get birth certificates, records. Sometimes they are there. Sometimes they are not. It is not a simple matter. Number two, the Immigration and Naturalization Service itself needs a lot more time. They would be inundated under this. Of course, the irony of ironies is that the regulations themselves would require, and we have been advised this by the reg writers, would require 3 months. So compassion may be the order of the day here, Madam Speaker. What we need to do is, now that we recognize a problem, now that we are resolved to solving it, what we really need to do is step back and look at the amount of time that is involved. That is why I appeal to the distinguished chairman of the committee and the ranking member to understand the detail that we are dealing with. We are having people from four different countries, four different languages. It is something like buying a movie ticket to go to the premier of the show; and by the time one gets up to the door to go in, they close the doors. Please. Let us see if there is something more we can do to perfect the good intentions of all the parties, the White House, the Congress, the Senate, to make this measure something that we can all be proud of. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.