John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. My colleagues, we want to keep this in order and proportional. This is not a referendum on Kenneth Starr or the investigation he is conducting or the leaks, real or alleged, that are being investigated. This is an amendment that makes it clear to all to whom it had not previously been clear that all independent counsel, whatever their names, are employees of the Department of Justice. No more, no less. Does not implicate Kenneth Starr as a malefactor. It does not praise him. It does not say anything about where we come down on the investigation. We can be for or against the President or anything in between. All we are making clear to everybody that has brought this measure, and it would be nice for some of the sponsors of this amendment, well, some of them already have agreed with this amendment, but we cannot have an amendment that covers the Department of Justice U.S. attorneys and leave out the independent counsel, who is a U.S. attorney. All the laws that govern the U.S. prosecutors apply to the independent counsel. It should be obvious without the amendment that he is included. But since a few do not have this clear, I introduced the perfecting amendment. That is all this is about. Mr. Chairman, I thank my distinguished colleague from Massachusetts, who serves with me on the Committee on the Judiciary, for allowing me this time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman I yield such time as she may consume to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi). (Ms. PELOSI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman), a distinguished member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) is a great member of the Committee on the Judiciary and he is a great lawyer and was a good prosecutor, a good defense man, but what he needs to understand is that we are not revising or dealing with the independent counsel statute. That comes up next year, and, brother, we have plenty to say about that. All we are doing now is making the very elementary, simple, nonlegal assertion that the independent counsel is an employee of the U.S. Department of Justice and is subject to the same rules, 6(e) and everything else, that U.S. Attorneys are. That. Nothing more.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey). Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank all the Members on both sides of the aisle for a very constructive debate. I think this is very important, and I appreciate the fair discussion under which this amendment has been considered. I would point out to the last speaker, an able member on the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Bryant), that he is arguing the underlying bill, but the vote that is now coming up is merely whether or not independent counsel are included in the provisions that apply to U.S. attorneys. If we do not do that we have made an incredibly large error, and I think it was inadvertent when this bill was drafted sometime ago. I am pleased that many of the authors of the bill are supporting this amendment. I urge its support, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I believe my amendment was pending at the desk and was preferential, and with the cooperation of my colleague on the Committee on the Judiciary I ask that it be called up. parliamentary inquiry

Mr. CONYERS. No, it is not both ways. This is the rules of the House, and I ask the Chair to give me a little assistance here. I was on my feet, and we have not approved of the right of my dear friend from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) to go forward. I reserve the right to object, and it looks like I am not going to have much alternative.

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

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I hope the sponsors of this amendment will not object to this provision. Point of Order

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

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I just want to respond to my dear friend, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum). My amendment is not about Kenneth Starr and his investigations. It is about whether or not the office of special prosecutor, who is employed by the Department of Justice, is considered to be an employee. The answer is perfectly obvious. I can only gather that it may have been a mistake that it was not included in here. Starr is going to be investigated. There is plenty of time for him. But this is to include this in the provision of the McDade measure. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, the Nursing Relief Act addresses the pressing need for nurses at low-income, inner-city hospitals and moves firmly in the direction of developing a new, more permanent solution to this problem that will utilize nurses from the American workforce instead of continuing to rely on foreign labor. The Nursing Relief Act would allow up to 500 fully qualified foreign nurses to enter the United States each fiscal year to work for three- year periods. This, however, would not be an ongoing program. The act would sunset in four years. H.R. 2759 also provides that the Attorney General determine whether hospitals are taking reasonable steps to recruit and retain nurses from within the American worforce. In addition, the Department of Labor and the Department of Health and Human Services would be required to conduct a study to establish ways for these hospitals to fulfill their staffing needs from within the American workforce. More specific information about the bill may be found in a summary attached to this statement. The bill also includes a provision that would create an abbreviated certification process for nurses who meet specific qualifications standards. Without certification, nurses are denied admission to the United States as uncertified foreign health-care workers under section 212(a)(5)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. I urge the Members to join me in voting for this balanced, common sense bill. Health Professional Shortage Area Nursing Relief Act of 1998, H.R. 2759. bill summary 1. Purpose. To create a new nonimmigrant visa for qualified foreign nurses who are coming to the United States to work at a hospital in a health professional shortage area. 2. Eligibility requirements. a. Must be coming temporarily to perform services as a registered nurse. b. Must have either a U.S. nursing education or a license to practice professional nursing in the foreign country where the nurse obtained his or her nursing education. c. Must have passed an appropriate examination or have a license to practice in the State of intended employment. d. Must be qualified to practice nursing in the State of intended employment immediately upon admission to the U.S.. 3. Hospitals seeking to employ such nurses must file an attestation which includes the following assurances: a. 1. As of March 31, 1997, it was located in a health professional shortage area. 2. It has at least 190 acute care beds. 3. The number of inpatient days for its Social Security Act report period beginning during fiscal year 1994 was made up of patients not less than 35% of whom were entitled to SSA benefits under part A of the Act. 4. The number of inpatient days for such period was made up of patients not less than 28% of whom were eligible for medical assistance under a State plan approved by SSA. b. The employment of the alien will not adversely affect the wages or working conditions of registered nurses similarly employed by the hospital. c. The alien will be paid the wage rate for registered nurses similarly employed by the hospital. d. The hospital has taken and is taking timely and significant steps to recruit and retain sufficient nurses from the American work force. e. There is not a strike or lockout in the course of a labor dispute, nurses have not been laid off within the previous year, and the employment of aliens is not intended or designed to influence an election for a bargaining representative for the American nurses at the hospital. f. The hospital will not use foreign nurses for more than 33% of its nursing staff. 4. The following are considered significant steps reasonably designed to recruit and retain registered nurses: a. Operating a training program for nurses at the hospital or financing or participating in a training program for nurses elsewhere. b. Providing career development programs to make it easier for health care workers to become nurses. c. Paying nurses wages at a rate higher than currently being paid for nurses similarly employed in the geographic area. d. Providing adequate support services to free nurses from non-nursing duties. e. Providing reasonable opportunities for salary advancement by nurses. The hospital only has to take one of these steps if it can establish that taking a second step is not reasonable. 5. Failure to meet the conditions of an attestation or misrepresentation of a material fact in an attestation. a. If the Secretary of Labor determines that it is warranted, a hearing will be scheduled. b. Fines of up to $1,000 per nurse per violation may be imposed, but the total penalty cannot exceed $10,000 per violation. Also, the Attorney General will not approve nurse petitions filed by the hospital for at least one year. c. When wage rate violations occur, a hospital may be ordered to provide back pay. 6. An attestation filing fee of up to $250 may be imposed. These fees may be made available by an appropriations bill to cover the costs of this program. 7. The admission period for these nurses shall be 3 years. 8. Limited number of visas. a. The total number of visas issued under this Act shall not exceed 500 in any fiscal year. b. States with populations of less than 10,000,000, are limited to 25 petitions. c. States with populations of 10,000,000 or more, are limited to 50 petitions. 9. Additional requirements for the hospitals. a. Must provide foreign nurses with a wage rate and working conditions commensurate with those of nurses similarly employed by the hospital. b. Must require the foreign nurses to work hours commensurate with those of nurses similarly employed by the hospital. c. Must not interfere with the right of the foreign nurses to join or organize a union. 10. Implementing regulations must be promulgated not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act. 11. Act sunsets in 4 years. 12. Alternative remedy for nursing shortage. Secretary of Health and Human Services and Secretary of Labor shall jointly recommend to Congress (1) a program to eliminate the dependence of hospitals on foreign nurses by providing for a permanent solution to the shortage of nurses from the American work force, and (2) a more effective method of enforcing the requirements imposed on hospitals participating in these programs. 13. Certification for certain alien nurses. a. The existing INA exclusion ground for uncertified health care workers will not apply to foreign nurses who are certified under this new provision. b. The Commission on Graduates of Foreign Nursing Schools (``CGFNS'') has certified that a nurse admitted to the United States under this program has met the following requirements: 1. Nurse has a valid and unrestricted license in the State of intended employment and such State verified that he or she has a foreign license which is authentic and unencumbered. 2. Nurse has passed the National Council Licensure Examination (NCLEX). 3. Nurse is a graduate of a nursing program in which (i) the language of instruction was English; and (ii) the program was located in a country designated unanimously by CGFNS and any other authorized credentialing organizations based on a determination that the quality of nursing education in that country, and the English language proficiency of those who complete such programs in that country, justify the country's designation. 4. CGFNS will make the initial designations during the 30- day period following passage of the Act. c. These provisions will take effect on the date of the enactment of the Act without regard to whether or not final regulations have been promulgated to carry them out.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, after unprecedented requests for testimony from Secret Service agents and lawyers and mothers, we recently had another request for testimony from Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr, this time of the President himself. There were several reasons why the President would have been justified in viewing this request as another unfair abuse of Mr. Starr's powers. It is highly unusual for the target of a grand jury investigation to be subpoenaed to appear before a grand jury. It almost never happens and Department of Justice guidelines strongly discourage such a practice. Never in the history of presidential investigations, from Teapot Dome to Watergate to Iran-Contra, has a prosecutor gone to such lengths to secure testimony from every conceivable quarter on a matter which appears to take on less and less significance as we learn more and more about it. In addition, Mr. Starr, who is still under investigation for possible grand jury leaks by Judge Johnson, the D.C. Bar Association and, potentially, the Department of Justice, is seeking President Clinton's testimony even before other investigations have reached their conclusion. Notwithstanding grave doubts about the fairness of Mr. Starr's investigation, the President has agreed to appear for questioning on August 17, 1998. Apparently, Mr. Starr has offered some guarantee that the questioning will not become an unlimited `fishing expedition,'' as some of Mr. Starr's other activities have been previously described by a federal judge. It was very important that Mr. Starr offer some assurance that he was engaged in legitimate fact-finding and not a partisan attempt to embarrass this President. After all, this is the same independent counsel who forced First Lady Clinton to personally appear before a D.C. grand jury in the federal courthouse here over two years ago to testify about her work as an attorney while still in private practice in Arkansas. That was also unprecedented and apparently designed to embarrass the Clintons. Since then, of course, nothing appears to have come of the whole Whitewater investigation. Mr. Starr's recent agreement to limit conditions of the President's testimony was entirely appropriate because to do otherwise would have been a transparent attempt to embarrass the President. If these negotiations had broken down in a legal dispute over the power of this particular independent counsel to call a President before a grand jury under conditions dictated by the independent counsel, then Mr. Starr would have been responsible for creating a wholly unnecessary constitutional crisis. I commend the Independent Counsel for the flexibility he displayed in reaching an agreement with the President's counsel. We will also be watching closely to ensure that details about the President's deposition are not mysteriously leaked to the news media.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, Ken Starr's four year, $40 million investigation of the President repeatedly has been plagued by leaks, some of which have been patently untrue. The leaking has become so intolerable that it now threatens the very integrity of the Independent Counsel's work. For this, Mr. Starr has no one to blame but himself. From the very beginning of his investigation, it is now known, the Independent Counsel and his staff have actively courted the media. They have admitted talking to reporters on an off-the-record basis about matters that would be coming before the grand jury, and they discussed how to provide substantive information to at least one journalist, who actually tape recorded that conversation. Meanwhile, as all of this was going on in the Independent Counsel's office, Mr. Starr was publicly and vigorously denying any such leaks. In fact, he said that leaks were a reason to fire people from their jobs in his office. Leaking is not an inconsequential matter. It creates harm to the reputation of the individual who is the subject of the leak, and also to the Independent Counsel's ability to do his work. Mr. Starr is bound by law and ethical rules not to release grand jury information. That is because even the media focus that results from these leaks is enough to harm innocent people. In January of this year, it was commonly assumed by the media and the general public that someone in the White House, almost certainly Deputy White House Counsel Bruce Lindsey, had participated in drafting the talking points supposedly given to Linda Tripp by Monica Lewinsky. These talking points were reputed to be the centerpiece of an obstruction of justice case that was being put together by the Independent Counsel. Speculation was rampant that Mr. Lindsey was headed toward a criminal indictment. But this speculation, fueled by off-the record comments, has finally been laid to rest. We have now learned that Ms. Lewinsky apparently wrote the talking points herself without any participation by anyone in the White House. In the instance of attorney Vernon Jordan, there were numerous leaks implying that he was at the center of a conspiracy to find Ms. Lewinsky a job in New York. He was repeatedly called before the grand jury, but now it is being reported that Mr. Jordan is not a target of the Independent Counsel's investigation. While the charges made about him have finally melted away, what about the damage to his reputation, which previously was based on his distinguished record of service to the Bar? There are other examples, but hopefully we have seen the last of these improper leaks from the Independent Counsel's office.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, media reports this week suggest that Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr may be close to wrapping up his four year, forty million dollar investigation of the President. If that is true, I can only say that it's about time. Even my Republican colleagues in the Senate, Mr. Orrin Hatch and Mr. Arlen Specter, said this week that it is time for this investigation to come to a close. While we have no way of knowing what action, if any, the Independent Counsel will take after he closes-up shop, one thing is for certain: if he intends to send any type of report to Congress, he should not do so before the mid-term elections. Each day, countless talking heads spend hours on end speculating about who's up and who's down in this investigation of the President. But almost no time is spent on issues that really matter in this election, like health care reform, tobacco legislation, and campaign finance reform. While the talking heads base their opinions on gossip and supposed leaks, the issues that matter in people's lives get overlooked. We have very few days left in this legislative session to get the people's work done, certainly not enough to consider or respond to anything that comes from the independent Counsel's office. If we were to receive a report before the upcoming elections, it could only be seen as an effort to influence the outcome of those contests. Mr. Starr is supposed to be an independent prosecutor, but all too often since he took office in 1994, he has seemed to wear his politics on his sleeve. Mr. Starr has chosen to continue representing clients, including tobacco companies, whose interests are adverse to those of President Clinton. Many in the Republican party would like nothing better than to play politics with a report from the Independent Counsel. That is especially true because we need only eleven seats to take back the House of Representatives this fall. Not only would it be wrong for the Independent Counsel to provide fuel for that fire, it would undermine whatever integrity his investigation may retain. If the Independent Counsel intends to send us a report, the right thing for him to do is to wait until the new Congress begins its work. Mr. Starr, for the good of our country, don't play politics with the timing of your investigation of the President. No October surprise, please.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose the Republican attack on the health care of millions of Americans. The Republican bill, which had no public hearings, no committee markup, and no CBO estimate of its costs is a slapdash, thrown together, cynical attempt to satisfy the American people's hunger for real managed care reform. This Republican bill is a lie. It is titled the Patient Protection Act, but it has nothing to do with patient protection. This bill is all about protecting insurance companies from angry and injured patients who have been denied care because, in the view of their insurance company, their treatment was not ``medically necessary.'' Why are the Republicans trying to keep insurance companies from being held accountable for their mistakes? No other industry has the right to the same immunity from suit that insurance companies have, and no other industry should have that immunity. The thousands of men, women, and children across this country who have been hurt by an insurance company decision are crying out for justice, and we as their representatives should provide them with a way to achieve that justice. The Dingell bill provides them with this justice. This bill will ensure that the next time an insurance bureaucrat has to decide whether a child he has never seen needs life saving treatment, he will think twice, instead of denying the treatment out of hand. We need to reform the insurance industry, and make insurance companies care about the health of the patients that they cover. Our bill does this. Don't vote for the Republican's cynical lie. I urge my colleagues to support the Dingell bill, and provide Americans with the health justice they need and deserve.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, by my count, Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr is now the subject of four separate investigations into whether he and his staff improperly leaked confidential information to the media. The first is being conducted by Chief Judge Norma Holloway Johnson of the federal court in the District of Columbia. The second involves Attorney General Janet Reno's referral of the issue to the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility. The third is being conducted by Mr. Starr himself in response to complaints lodged by the President's lawyers. And the fourth, as reported in the media today, is in the hands of the District of Columbia Bar Counsel. Back in early February, the President's lawyer, Mr. Kendall, wrote the Independent Counsel that the ``leaking by your office has reached an intolerable point.'' In response to that letter, the Independent Counsel struck an indignant tone. He called the letter from the President's lawyer ``strange and inappropriate,'' and accused Mr. Kendall of elevating ``mere suspicion to specific accusation without any facts other than the press's often-misleading attributions of sources.'' The Independent Counsel's response to Mr. Kendall added that: ``[i]n light of the unclear press attributions in some examples cited in your letter, I have undertaken an investigation to determine whether, despite my persistent admonitions, someone in this Office may be culpable. I have no factual basis--as you likewise do not have--even to suspect anyone at this juncture. I am undertaking this investigation with deep regret, because I know how demoralizing it is to a staff of highly professional and experienced federal prosecutors. You do an extreme disservice to these men and women--and to the legal profession and the public--by your unsupported charges.'' Mr. Starr has never reported the results of his ``investigation.'' But in light of his later admissions that he and his deputy, Mr. Bennett, routinely talk to the press on an off-the-record basis, I assume he did not have to look far to find the source of these leaks. Judge Johnson, the Attorney General, and now the District of Columbia Bar Counsel, have all treated this issue far more seriously than the Independent Counsel. In fact, media reports say that Judge Johnson has ordered Mr. Starr to show cause why he should not be held in contempt for his inappropriate release of information. The Independent Counsel's indifference to this issue is very troubling. To date, Mr. Starr has defended his actions with the technical claim that rules regarding grand jury secrecy apply only after information is presented to a grand jury. I do not agree with that claim, and I do not believe that D.C. Circuit law allows the kind of off-the-record conversations that happened here. We will see whether Mr. Starr can survive the scrutiny of these outside investigators. Exchange of Special Order Time

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, yesterday evening I was at the White House and missed three Roll Call votes. On rollcall vote No. 330, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no,'' and I ask unanimous consent that this statement be placed in the appropriate portion of the Record. On rollcall vote No. 333, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``present,'' and I ask unanimous consent that this statement be placed in the appropriate portion of the Record. On rollcall vote No. 334, I was unavoidable detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr is now the subject of multiple investigations of whether he and his staff illegally leaked confidential information to the media. Those investigations include a contempt hearing to be held by Chief Judge Norma Holloway Johnson of the federal court in Washington, and inquiries by the Office of Professional Responsibility of the Justice Department, and the D.C. Bar Counsel. In addition, the Independent Counsel is supposed to be investigating himself. Mr. Starr has already admitted that he and his chief deputy, Mr. Jackie Bennett, routinely talk to the media on an off-the-record basis regarding their investigation of the President. The Independent Counsel claims, however, that his discussions were legal because the rule of grand jury secrecy does not reach information until it is presented to a grand jury. That argument, in my view, is incorrect. An important question in these leak investigations will be exactly what was said during meetings between the prosecutors and reporters. In order to have a full and complete record of what went on during those sessions, the Independent Counsel should publicly release the reporters from their vows of silence. After all, is it fair for the Independent Counsel to share confidential information with reporters, and then force them to cover-up possible misdeeds? I fully respect a reporter's First Amendment right not to reveal a source. But the Independent Counsel can relieve the reporters from having to make a difficult decision to stand mute. Given the significance of issues involving the investigation of the President, Mr. Starr should allow the court and public to know what his media contacts have to say on this subject. On more than one occasion, the Independent Counsel has called on the President to urge others to waive privileges and testify. The first was when he wrote to the White House Counsel, Mr. Ruff, asking that the President tell Susan McDougal to waive her Fifth Amendment rights and testify before the White water grand jury. Mr. Starr did that even though Ms. McDougal had her own lawyer to advise her, and publicly said that she would not listen to what the President said. In addition, the spokesman for the Independent Counsel, Mr. Bakaly, criticized the President for refusing to urge Ms. McDougal to give up her rights. A second instance involved the Secret Service. In April of this year, after the Secret Service argued that its agents could not be compelled to testify about the President, Mr. Starr requested that the President waive any Secret Service privilege and order the agents to appear before the grand jury. Mr. Starr made that request even though the privilege was asserted by the Secret Service and not the President, and the Secret Service's director, Mr. Merletti, considered the matter to be one of great national significance. The President was right when he refused the Independent Counsel's ill-considered requests. But I cannot see any public interest in Mr. Starr's refusal to waive the privilege that requires his media contacts to remain silent in the face of these leak investigations. The Independent Counsel has made clear that he views the invocation of privileges as a roadblock to the truth. How, in good conscience, can he take a different position simply because he has now become the focus of the investigation?

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I may have the distinction of knowing Lou Stokes longer than any other Member of the Congress, one that I am proud of. I am closely connected to his family, and he mine. Detroit and Cleveland have always had a great interrelationship. So, I have had the privilege of knowing the family. Jay and his late brother Carl, and his two daughters, a judge and a TV anchor. He is now a grandfather, of course. And then, of course, his son, Chuck Stokes and Trudy are telecommunications and media people in Detroit. One of my worst recurring nightmares is that his son might choose to run for Congress in Detroit instead of Cleveland, where he ought to have run. I should not say that I have stopped having them, because he still there and I am still there. Lou, this is a moment of joy and sadness for all of us. I remember the first day Lou got to the House and he made me feel real good. Not because I campaigned for him, which was not necessary at all, but because he told me the first bill he introduced was the Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday bill. Then he said, ``Do you think it has a chance of really passing?'' And 15 years later we found out that it did. Lou, I thank you for your steadfastness across the years. It has been a very pleasant friendship. We have worked together on any number of activities. But to me, the issues that you have raised in connection with health, with the minority health issues, have always stuck with me more than any of the outstanding things that have you done. You have pioneered the whole notion of us understanding that there was a different dimension of health needs for those who were not affluent or able to buy insurance. The work that you did with the African-American medical universities should be lauded for many minutes more than I am just briefly referring to them. They all know what you have done. On those medical campuses, you were able to see they got the much-needed financing and support and resources and also building activity as well, so that they could continue to put African-American medical graduates into the general population. Then let us not forget the work you did on the committees that investigated the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King and John F. Kennedy. That was incredibly sensitive, controversial work and your role there as the only African-American on those committees was very, very important to me. Mr. Chairman, it should also be mentioned that Lou Stokes chaired the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct for a number of years, and did a great job. He was also Chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. And so I have been pleased to enjoy this close relationship with you and Jay, the family. I hope and know that it will continue. Finally, if nobody has said it, Attorney Lou Stokes is one of the few Members that have argued before the United States Supreme Court in the very landmark civil liberties case of Terry and Ohio. So, Mr. Chairman, we are losing a gifted, talented Member, a brother, and a person who understands government. And I am sure from whatever position he chooses to move to, he will continue to send forth the lessons that he has learned, the principles that he has believed, fought for, and worked so hard over a period of 30 years throughout the land. Lou, we love you and we will miss you.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. I am talking about you.

Mr. CONYERS. What about all the other procedures that you allow that we are not doing this that we are doing to partial-birth? What about them?