John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to give the control of the time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of my time. Mr. Chairman, this amendment effectively prevents negotiations over the quality of health care. It would prohibit negotiations regarding fees, payments or reimbursements, and therefore undercuts the whole bill. We do not want a bill or an amendment that forces physicians to provide, quote, ``the least costly,'' unquote, care, or a bill that denies payments to health professionals for care already provided. Mr. Chairman, I am strongly opposed to this amendment, which would require pre-approval from the FTC or the Department of Justice to health care groups which comprise 20 percent or more of a given specialty area for a particular market area before they can engage in collective negotiations. This amendment would gut the bill and decimate the beneficial aspects of the legislation. We have never required a labor union to obtain antitrust pre-approval to have the right to collectively bargain, and there is no reason to require it in the context of health care negotiations. As a matter of fact, such a requirement would be in many respects even more onerous than current law for health care professionals. Unlike Hart-Scott- Rodino, the bill has no time frames or deadlines, so the approval process could go on indefinitely. Delays would be compounded by the provisions allowing for public comment on each application. The amendment could also necessitate large filing fees, which would in essence serve as a tax on health care. The limitation raises several very serious concerns. First, there is no guidance as to the meaning of what a particular specialty or subspecialty is or how the market is to be determined. Is gynecology different than fertility? Are these the same field or two separate fields? And how would the bill apply if two separate subgroups of health care providers sought to form a collective bargaining group? Would you add up the numbers for each specialty or would this create a whole new field? Second, under the amendment, it is up to the group of health care providers to determine if the 20 percent threshold applies. How is the group supposed to have any idea what the relevant market is or what their market share is? Only the government is in a position to make these types of complex market share determinations. By placing the burden on the group of health care providers, this amendment will force every collective bargaining unit to file with the government, subjecting them all to long and expensive delays. Third, even if these issues could be worked out--and that could take years of litigation--the bill's percentage limitation cannot be justified. Why is 20 percent the threshold? Supreme Court legal precedent says that a company or group of companies does not have market power unless they have 70 percent or more of the market. Determining market power is very much facts and circumstances based, which is why the antitrust laws have intentionally avoided arbitrary cutoffs. This bill creates an artificially low threshold, and threatens to undercut more than a century of settled antitrust law. I would remind the proponents of this amendment that the bill provides for a three year sunset with a report by the GAO. In my opinion this negates the need for any further oversight amendment because it would be foolish for health care professionals to engage in anti-consumer conduct given that it could cause them to lose their rights under this legislation. I urge the Members to oppose this dangerous amendment.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. It is so instructive that the previous speaker is from California and is talking about preventing negotiations over the quality of health care. In California, pediatricians receive as little as $10 per month for each patient, while the average monthly cost to care for a child in the State is $24. Now, how can a physician provide quality care for a child when he or she cannot afford to keep their practice open and then we would add this debilitating amendment? Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, the amendment of the gentleman simply very effectively prevents negotiations over the quality of healthcare, which is what we are all about here tonight. Among other things, it would prohibit negotiations between doctors and health plans regarding fees, payments, or reimbursement. Why? It is not always possible to separate costs from quality. And so, by forcing physicians to refrain from negotiating fees, payments, and reimbursements, this amendment cleverly forces physicians to provide less quality health care and, thus, potentially harms patients. The result is more health plan profits and more unfair tactics. Mr. Chairman, I hope the amendment will be rejected. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute and 15 seconds to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews). (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, this Quality Health Care Coalition Act is an important antitrust exemption for doctors. I want to begin my closing remarks in general debate by merely commending the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) for all the work that he has done on this measure and for allowing me to work with him. Mr. Chairman, we would not be here today if we were not concerned about the doctor-patient relationship which is in crisis. We are giving an exemption that the labor movement already has. This is not ground- breaking legislation. It sunsets in 3 years. The original costs were based on a 10-year basis; and of course, it is only going to run for 3 years. The managed care market has consolidated. Some of my colleagues may know that some doctors are in very dire circumstances. Private practices are in decline. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the antitrust exemption for doctors.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I will not offer a motion to recommit. As the lead cosponsor of the bill, I wish that the Coburn amendment had been defeated but notwithstanding its adoption I am asking everyone to vote aye on final passage. This vote is not being scored by the pro choice community.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), a distinguished member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior).

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support S. 1515, ``The Radiation Exposure Compensation Act Amendments of 2000,'' which updates the 1990 law that currently compensates individuals exposed to radiation by either being downwind of a nuclear test blast or by being involved in the mining of uranium ore during the Cold War. Uranium is used by our Government in the production of nuclear weapons. This legislation increases the number of radiogenic and chronic diseases compensable under the Act. The bill also increases the number of individual and states eligible for compensation based on scientific and medical information gathered over the past decade. I would like to address the issue of attorneys' fees in the bill. The original version of the bill reduces the 10% limitation on attorneys' fees to 2%. While I generally do not support limitations on attorneys' fees, I will not oppose the compromise language in the manager's amendment that was reached between Representatives Frank, Smith, and Hyde. The compromise language reduces the 10% limitation on attorneys' fees in the bill to 2%, but retains the 10% limitation in existing cases and in cases where there is a resubmission of a denied claim.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Texas for raising this very important point, and we in the Committee on the Judiciary have worked hard to correct it. I cannot understand why it has only 5 minutes on each side. But we are trying to make an improvement on the registry by which the government recognizes that it makes sense to allow a long-time resident, deeply rooted immigrant who is here contributing to our economy to remain here permanently. So we have this correction for people that have come to the country, made well, raised families, have created no problem, are otherwise good citizens and we are modifying a rule that INS is not able to do without this legislation. I think this is an excellent amendment, and I hope that all the members in the Committee will agree to it.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. My colleagues, I would like to join the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), to make a couple of points. The Patent and Trademark Office is one of the most efficient government agencies we have, and as a fully fee-funded organization, it takes no money from the Government and has come to be treated as a cash cow. This is incredible. Here is a successful organization that is having so far about $500 million diverted from it, and all we are trying to do is restore $134 million of it because it is hurting the ability of the Patent and Trademark Office to service the creators and the inventors who are responsible for the current technology boom. The combination of an increase in the number of patent applications and a reduction in resources has caused the time period for filing a patent and a final decision on it to grow from 19 months to 24 months in just a few years. And one reason for this is because many of the PTO examiners are leaving their government positions for more lucrative ones. The end result of this is that we could be losing our technological dominance in all of these important markets. So if the PTO retained its fees, it could hire more examiners, shorten the period of scrutiny, and maintain our dominance. So the question is, how do we accomplish it? The answer is that, although we tried a lot of different ways of doing it, we think that this Robin Hood-type method ought to be changed. So with this in mind, I support an amendment that returns $134 million in user fees to the PTO. It is a very modest sum, considering that otherwise this important office would lose over $200 million of its funds. So let us support the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. (Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS

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

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), the ranking subcommittee member, for his leadership in this measure. The vote on this amendment, my colleagues, will define the agenda of the majority party. Is it to ensure that all Americans have an equal opportunity in this country, or is it to prevent that from happening? The Justice Department's Civil Rights Division is the most important weapon we have to fight for equal opportunity through its investigation and prosecution of criminal civil violations, violations of the fair housing and lending laws, employment discrimination, and other civil rights abuses. Unfortunately, the majority has consistently underfunded this office. Why? This year the administration has asked for $97.9 million and is getting only $86 million from this bill, and this is in the midst of a $200 billion budget surplus. That is the wrong message to send to the American people about the importance of civil rights. This amendment can fix this by fully funding the Division with an additional $11.8 million. Now, in the past few years, the Civil Rights Division has been more important than ever in pursuing criminal civil rights abuses. The Nation has experienced the horrors of the torture and deaths of Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, and the murder of a reproductive health care provider, Dr. Bernard Slepian. More recently, four New York City police officers killed Amadou Diallo, an unarmed immigrant, in the lobby of an apartment building; and another four officers brutally assaulted Abner Louima. These are just a few of the cases that the Division is reviewing. The Federal Bureau of Investigation stated that there are 10,461 law enforcement agencies across the United States reporting a staggering total of 8,049 hate crimes in 1998 alone. These are conservative numbers, though because the truth is many hate crimes go unreported because the victims fear retaliation and many police departments just do not collect such data. Now, while law enforcement offices and agencies pursue the bulk of the offenders, the Justice Department must train those agencies and prosecute those offenders. The local officials cannot. With added funding, the Civil Rights Division can hire five, just five, more lawyers and assure that many of these perpetrators are brought to justice. Three prominent civil rights groups, the NAACP, the ACLU, and the National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium, have pointed out in a letter to the House that one of the most pressing issues for many Americans is that of police misconduct. The Department has investigated the police departments of Washington D.C., New York City, New Orleans, and Los Angeles, and many others for numerous offenses, including excessive force. Prior investigations have led to consent decrees with local police departments, including Steubenville, Ohio, and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, for using excessive force and improper searches. In December 1988, the Justice Department was conducting six public investigations with eight attorneys throughout the country. And in December 1999, the Department was investigating at least 12 police departments with just the same number of attorneys as the previous year. We cannot expect the Department to increase its workload in this manner without adding additional resources. And so, this amendment would permit the Division to hire three much-needed attorneys to prosecute police misconduct. And so, my colleagues, I urge my colleagues to support the Serrano- Conyers amendment. It adds modest funding to the Civil Rights Division. Mr. Chairman, all to often the majority gives our Nation's civil rights laws mere lip service--offering us civil rights on the cheap. The budget before us today confirms my worst fears. If you look at the actual evidence in critical areas such as hate crimes, police misconduct, employment, and housing you will see that there is overwhelming evidence of ongoing discrimination in our society. Yet the budget actually under funds the critical civil rights division to the tune of $11 million. Consider the problem in hate crimes. Our Nation has only recently began the healing process in the aftermath of the tortures and deaths of James Byrd, Jr., and Matthew Shepard in Laramie, Wyoming. In the years 1991 through 1997 there were more than 50,000 hate crimes reported. This is why the Conyers-Serrano amendment would allow the Division to hire five new attorneys to help prosecute hate crimes and other civil rights crimes. The incidence of police misconduct toward minorities is also growing dramatically. In Pittsburgh, a police officer shot to death a black motorist who had slowed down and peered through his side window while observing a drug arrest. In Riverside, California, a 19-year-old black woman was shot to death by a policeman in her car at a gas station. And we all know that Amadou Diallo, a West African immigrant, was shot 41 times in the vestibule of his Bronx apartment by four police officers. At a time when the Civil Rights Division is on the verge of being totally overwhelmed, our amendment would also allow the Division to retain three additional attorneys to fight against police ``pattern and practice'' misconduct. The problem with regard to employment and housing discrimination is no better. The number of employment discrimination cases in Federal courts has almost tripled between 1990 and 1998 from 8,413 complaints to 23,735. The bipartisan Glass Ceiling Commission recently found that 95 percent of top corporate jobs in America are held by white males, with African-Americans holding less than 1 percent of top management jobs, and women holding 3-5 percent of senior level positions. Just recently we learned of outrageous discriminatory conduct at Texaco Corp., including tapes of top management officials referring to African-American workers as ``black jelly beans.'' In terms of housing, tester programs by the Urban Institute and others confirm that whites are far more likely to be shown apartment and other rental units than similarly situated minorities. And it was only a few years ago that an elderly African-American man was literally chased out of his apartment in Vidor, Texas, after he had moved there pursuant to a Federal court order requiring that the all-white housing complex in that city be desegregated. This is why our amendment provides the funds to hire 13 additional civil rights attorneys. I believe this is the most important amendment we will vote on today. The Serrano-Conyers amendment has the support of the NAACP, the ACLU, and every major ciivl rights group in the country. We have a choice--we can claim to be opposed to discrimination, or we can put our money where our mouth is, and fund the fight against discrimination. I urge a yes vote. I submit the following letter for the Record. American Civil Liberties Union, National Association of Pacific American Legal Consortium, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People June 22, 2000. Members, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representative: During consideration of the fiscal year 2001 Commerce-Justice-State appropriations bill, Congressmen Jose Serrano (D-NY) and John Conyers (D-MI) will offer an amendment to strengthen the Department of Justice's Civil Rights enforcement abilities. This will be achieved by increasing the Department's Civil Rights Division's funding by $11.8 million, thus bringing it in line with the President's budget request. We, the undersigned national civil rights organizations, strongly support the Serrano/ Conyers Civil Rights Enforcement amendment and urge to you to vote for it when it comes before you on the floor of the House. One of the most pressing issues for many Americans, especially those of us of color, is that of police misconduct. Throughout history, Americans of color have been disproportionately subjected to abuse and misconduct by law enforcement officers at all levels of government. Because the problems of abuse and racial bias still exist today, we strongly support this effort by Congressmen Serrano and Conyers to provide additional funding to the U.S. Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division so that it may continue to try to address some of the more serious problems facing our nation today. Specifically, the Serrano/Conyers amendment would allow the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division to hire 3 more attorneys to fight police ``pattern and practice'' misconduct. In recent years, this division has been successful in fighting wide-spread police misconduct in Steubenville, Ohio and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Current investigations are on-going in New York, Los Angeles, and Washington, D.C., to name a few. Given the national epidemic of police misconduct, and the fact that more and more citizens are coming forward, the additional slots appropriated by the Serrano/Conyers amendment are clearly and sorely needed. The Serrano/Conyers amendment would also allow the Civil Rights Division to hire 5 new attorneys to prosecute criminal violations of existing civil rights laws, including hate crimes, color of law violations and violence directed toward health care providers. In addition to the several well publicized cases of hate crimes against people because of their race or sexual orientation in recent years, the FBI has stated that there were over 8,000 reported hate crimes in the United States in 1998; the actual number may well be double or triple that amount. With the additional funding sought in this amendment, the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division can play a more aggressive role in assuring that the perpetrators of these heinous crimes are brought to justice. Finally, the Serrano/Conyers amendment also provides money for 12 new attorneys to enforce the Americans with Disabilities Act, 5 new attorneys to enforce the Voting Rights Act, 2 new positions to fight abuse and neglect in institutions, and 13 new attorney positions to enhance the Justice Department's fight against discrimination in mortgage lending, in-school segregation and employment. As numerous studies, including one by the Eisenhower Foundation, have shown, these slots are very much needed as discriminatin is alive and well in all of these areas. The number of employment discrimination cases in Federal courts has almost tripled between 1990 and 1998; and the United States has had the most rapid growth in wage inequality in the Western world, with racial minorities suffering disproportionately In short, we strongly support the Serrano/Conyers amendment as it addresses many of the issues of discrimination and abuse that hold this nation back from realizing its full potential. We hope that you will support Congressmen Serrano and Conyers in their effort and vote in favor of their amendment. Sincerely, Laura Murphy, Director, Washington Office, American Civil Liberties Union. Karen Narasaki, Director, National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium. Hilary O. Shelton, Director, Washington Bureau, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. Mr. Chairman, I also wish to bring our attention to a great injustice that we are about to commit. It would be a grave oversight if the Member's of this House forgot those who have been the most neglected. Our obligations to the Native American people of this country are ignored in the Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations Bill. The President has requested $173.3 million to provide for the Deptartment of Justice's portion of the Indian Country Law Enforcement Initiative. The House has seen fit to provide H.R. 4690 with no money for Tribal Courts, no money for COPS grants for tribes, no money for any new or existing programs, no money for tribal law enforcement programs. Native Americans and Native American programs have suffered at our hands for many years. This year nearly $200 million of vital funds have been slashed from Indian Health Services. Native Americans, the poorest of the poor, suffer disproportionate rates of poverty and poverty related illnesses such as diabetes, and we have seen fit to cut funding for services to those who so desperately need them, the chronically ill. Now we in the House have provided no funding for vital law enforcement programs, programs which we ensure are funded fully for our own communities. Once again we are turning our back on the indigenous people's of the United States. People whom we have given our word to, by treaty, to be provided for and protected by our Federal Government. And yet we, in the great Federal Government and our infinite wisdom, have turned our backs on them, yet again. Mr. Chairman, crimes rates in Indian Country have not dropped as they have in the rest of the country. Yet we have not provided any assistance to Native Americans to help them, help themselves, to make their homes and communities safer places to live. By relying on our friends in the Senate to give what we have not seen fit to give, we shirk our own responsibility to a great people and to the great nation in which they live.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I commend the ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations for his very persuasive comments, and I support his amendment to provide full funding to the Antitrust Division and the Federal Trade Commission. These agencies have the responsibility to enforce our Nation's antitrust laws and keep the economy competitive. Through their vigorous efforts to protect competition, these agencies save the American people not just hundreds of millions, but probably billions of dollars annually. Unlike most other programs we fund, both these agencies bring in revenue through the Hart-Scott-Rodino filing fees, that far exceed their annual budget; and the Antitrust Division alone has brought in about $1.4 billion in criminal fines in the past 3 years. No one in this House needs to be an antitrust expert to realize that our robust economy has placed unprecedented demands on those agencies charged with protecting competition in America. Look at the front page of the newspapers today. You see stories about the proposed mega- mergers, such as AOL-Time Warner, Sprint-MCI, Pfizer-Warner-Lambert, and Exxon-Mobile, to name a few. Look at the hearing schedule on the Hill in recent years. There have been hearings in both Chambers on the Microsoft case, the rise in gas prices, and the United-U.S. Air merger, to name a few. So, now, more than ever, antitrust enforcement is vital to our Nation's economic health, and that is why both agencies need additional resources to do their jobs. The huge swell in mergers in recent years, rapidly changing technology, and the existence of international criminal cartels have placed a severe strain on the agency's resources. In the last 3 years the filings have increased by 51 percent, and so far this year they are up over 20 percent from last year. With the additional resources that the Obey amendment will provide to agencies, they can do a better job in these several ways: first, by investigating the increasing number of large and complex mergers; secondly, by pursuing major civil cases in industries that include telecommunications, airlines and health care, to name a few; and, third, intervening to protect consumers from international cartels, like the vitamin cartel. This amendment should be a no-brainer because the two agencies are funded using the Hart-Scott-Rodino filing fees they take in. Therefore, by raising the amount of resources, fully funding these two agencies will not place any additional burdens on the American taxpayer. They will not take any money away from any other program. But even if we did not fund these agencies through filing fees, my support of the Obey amendment would be just as strong. Mr. Chairman, please let us move this amendment to a successful conclusion for the antitrust division and the Federal Trade Commission. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Obey amendment to provide full funding to the Antitrust Division and the Federal Trade Commission. These agencies have the responsibility to enforce our nation's antitrust laws and keep our economy competitive. Through their vigorous efforts to protect competition, these agencies save the American people hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars annually. Unlike most other programs that we fund, these two agencies bring in revenue through Hart-Scott-Rodino filing fees that far exceed their annual budget. And the Antitrust Division alone has brought in about $1.4 million in criminal fines in the past three years. You don't need to be an antitrust expert to realize that our robust economy has placed unprecedented demands on those agencies charged with protecting competition in America. Just look at the front page of the newspaper today, and you see stories about proposed mega-mergers such as AOL-Time Warner, Sprint- MCI, Pfizer-Warner-Lambert, and Exxon-Mobil, to name just a few. Or look at the hearing schedule on the Hill in recent weeks. There have been hearings in both chambers on the Microsoft case, the rise in gas prices, and the United-US Air merger, to name a few. Now, more than ever, antitrust enforcement is vital to our nation's economic health. That is why both agencies need additional resources to do their jobs. The huge swell in mergers in recent years, rapidly changing technology, and the existence of international criminal cartels have placed a severe strain on the agencies resources. In the last three years, Hart-Scott-Rodino filings have increased by 51 percent, and so far this year, they are up 20 percent over last year. With the additional resources that the Obey amendment will provide, the two agencies can do a better job: (1) investigating the increasing number of large and complex mergers; (2) pursuing major civil cases in industries that include telecommunications, airlines, and health care, to name a few; and (3) intervening to protect consumers from international cartels like the vitamin cartel. This amendment should be a no-brainer, because the two agencies are funded using the Hart-Scott-Rodino filing fees they take in. Therefore, by raising the amount of resources fully funding these two agencies won't place any additional burdens on the American taxpayer, and they won't take any money away from any other program. But even if we didn't fund these agencies through filing fees, my support of the Obey amendment would be just as strong.

Mr. CONYERS. I want to say to the distinguished Member in the well that he is raising an issue about Native American people that we cannot ignore anymore. I commend him for his comments. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to bring our attention to a great injustice that we are about to commit. It would be a grave oversight if the Member's of this House forgot those who have been the most neglected. Our obligations to the Native American people of this country are ignored in the Commerce Justice State Appropriations Bill. The President has requested $173.3 million dollars to provide for the Dept. of Justice's portion of the Indian Country Law Enforcement Initiative. The House has seen fit to provide H.R. 4690 with no money for Tribal Courts, no money for COPS grants for tribes, no money for any new or existing programs, no money for tribal law enforcement programs. Native Americans and Native American programs have suffered at our hands for many years. This year nearly $200 million dollars of vital funds have been slashed from Indian Health Services. Native Americans, the poorest of the poor, suffer disproportionate rates of poverty and poverty related illnesses such as diabetes, and we have seen fit to cut funding for services to those who so desperately need them, the chronically ill. Now we in the House has provided no funding for vital law enforcement programs, programs which we ensure are funded fully for our own communities. Once again we are turning our back on the indigenous people's of the United States. People whom we have given our word to, by treaty, to be provided for and protected by our federal government. And yet we, in the great federal government and our infinite wisdom, have turned our backs on them, yet again. Mr. Chairman, crime rates in Indian Country have not dropped as they have in the rest of the country. Yet we have not provided any assistance to Native Americans to help them, help themselves, to make their homes and communities safer places to live. By relying on our friends in the Senate to give what we have not seen fit to give, we shirk our own responsibility to a great people and to the great nation in which they live.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, our system of judicial review and due process is not a luxury or a gift to be awarded to a chosen few for political advantage. It is the very foundation of our system of government and justice. The use of secret evidence in INS detention proceedings makes a mockery of this basic principle of our legal system. I support the Campbell-Bonior Amendment that would eliminate funding for detaining defendants based upon secret evidence. The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 eliminated court appeal rights relative to judicial review of asylum determinations, decisions on apprehension and detention of aliens, document fraud waivers, orders issued in a absentia and denial of request for voluntary departure. The statute also broadened the range of proceedings where secret evidence can be used against an immigrant. The result has been manifest injustice. No person should be held in solitary confinement for nearly three years while trying to defend against unknown charges. But that was the experience of Nasser Ahmed, a 38-year-old Egyptian. He was denied bond and asylum based on secret evidence. When his case was finally heard, an immigration judge rejected the secret evidence against him as double and triple hearsay. If Mr. Ahmed had been allowed to see and respond to the secret evidence that the government was using to block his asylum application in a timely manner, he could have won his case sooner and been spared years of unjust incarceration. The experience of Mr. Ahmed is not as isolated incident. Another case involves 19-year old Mazen Al-Najjar, a stateless Palestininan in Tampa, Florida. He is about the mark his 1,000th day of detention based on secret evidence. The D.C. Circuit has aptly equated the INS's use of secret evidence with the situation of the accused--Joseph K.--from Kafka's book, The Trial. Like that character, Mazen Al-Najjar could not only prevail by rebuting evidence that he was not permitted to see. The D.C. Circuit observed that, ``It would be difficult to imagine how even someone innocent of all wrongdoing could meet such a burden.'' Due process is not just a tool of fairness and equity, it also is an efficiency tool that makes national uniformity possible and is an essential component of our constitutional system of government. As a Congress, we have both a moral and constitutional duty to correct the abuses around the use of secret evidence and to ensure that our fundamental values of due process are applied fully and without favor. The Campbell-Bonior Amendment is a good first step in that direction.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, this bill's treatment of the Copyright Office is just another example of voodoo economics. Time and time again, the majority signals that it just does not care about the creative community. The majority continually tries to shut down the National Endowment for the Arts in its quest to eradicate free expression, and now this. The majority is taking five million dollars from the Copyright Office--and for no good reason other than perhaps to eliminate the copyright protection for that free expression. In the Information Age, copyrights have become the most important protections that creators can have for their work. In fact, piracy on the Internet is the number one fear that artists have, and the Copyright Office is the best shield against those pirates. Unfortunately, while recent congressional mandates--such as the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act--have imposed dramatic new responsibilities on the Copyright Office in the form of new studies and reports, the majority failed to provide additional funds so it could carry out those duties without somehow interfering with its responsibilities to copyright holders. Clearly, this is an impossible task for any agency. This bill just adds fuel to the fire. By cutting its funding, the Majority expects the Copyright Office to make up the difference by keeping more of the royalties it collects. That's just passing the buck. Those royalties are for the people who create the music, movies, books, and art that drive our culture--not for government salaries. And this is in the midst of a $200 billion budget surplus. I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, on Friday, June 9, I was unable to vote due to a family emergency, and on Rollcall Vote 251, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted yea. On Rollcall Vote Number 252, had I been present, I would have voted yea. I make the same requests on Rollcall Vote Number 253, I would have voted aye. I make the same requests on Rollcall Vote Number 254, I would have voted no.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, the Internet has the potential to be the most pro-consumer development in recent history. It can empower consumers to obtain more useful information about products--such as price comparisons, safety information, and features--and to help consumers make more educated purchases. But the Internet will never reach its full potential if consumers do not feel secure in the electronic marketplace. If we allow the Internet to become a lawless ``Wild Wild West'' and a safe-haven for fraudulent businesses, people will simply refuse to engage in on-line commerce. Ultimately, this is a bad result both for the Internet and for consumers. The electronic signature legislation that the House passed last fall was deeply flawed. It set up a false choice between consumer protection and electronic commerce. In fact, the two can--and should--go hand in hand. While I supported legislation that validated electronic signatures and contracts, I opposed H.R. 1714 because it left consumers vulnerable to fraud, and it undermined numerous federal and state consumer protection laws. H.R. 1714 also weakened the ability of federal and state regulators to enforce important safety regulations and monitor industries such as the financial services industry, and the insurance industry. As a result of the hard work of House and Senate Democrats and the Administration, the Conference Report that is before us today is a great improvement over the House-passed bill. The Conference Report contains several new provisions to protect consumers. Unlike the House bill, the Conference Report requires that consumers receive a notice of their rights before they consent to receive documents electronically. Now, there will truly be ``informed consent'' by the consumer. Equally important, under the Conference Report, the consumer's consent must be in the electronic form that will be used to provide the information. This is a vast improvement over the original bill because it ensures that a consumer can actually receive and open the electronic notices that are provided to him or her. The Conference Report also creates a framework so that federal regulatory agencies can use their rulemaking authority to create guidelines for how to properly deliver and manage electronic records. This way, the government has the flexibility and authority to prevent abuses and fraud. Some Senate Republicans oppose this Conference Report. They say it gives consumers too many rights and does not do enough to grease the wheels for the financial services industry. I could not disagree more. The Conference Report demonstrates that Congress can facilitate electronic commerce at the same time that we protect consumers. I am confident that this is what is best for the Internet in the long run.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am the author of the Hate Crimes Prevention Act. We have 191 cosponsors. Today is the day that marks the senseless death, lynching of James Byrd, Jr. in Jasper, Texas, when he was dragged for miles over a country road, chained by the ankles to a pickup truck. His body was shredded and ripped in the 2-hour ordeal. Since the 2 years of his murder, the House has done nothing to address the nationwide outburst of hate violence. So my bill really should be taken up by the Committee on the Judiciary. We should stop the stalling. We know that the year of 1999 was called the summer of hate. Events of violence have occurred throughout the country. So we cannot, as a body, dismiss these atrocities as anonymous agents of lunatics. We need a hate crimes prevention law.