John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, the same is true on appeal. While appellate courts must review the adequacy of the evidence and the procedural regularity of the trial and sentencing, on appeal all factual determinations must be made in the light most favorable to the prosecution and appellate courts are powerless to reverse a death sentence based on questionable but legally sufficient evidence unless some harmful procedural error occurred at trial. Only by means of this amendment will trial judges, in the limited number of cases involving violations of this act, acquire the power to ensure that the death penalty will not be imposed when the evidence appears strong enough to convict but not strong enough to bet a life on it. Even those who in this Chamber do not oppose the death penalty, I do not think they can be in favor of executing innocent people; and, therefore, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, this amendment provides that in cases where a jury has imposed the death sentence or death resulting from witness intimidation, if a court has any doubt regarding the defendant's guilt, the court shall sentence the defendant to life imprisonment rather than death. This amendment is offered because of the Supreme Court's decisions regarding what has come to be known as ``actual innocence.'' Incredibly, the Supreme Court has held that actual innocence, without proof of a violation of a defendant's constitutional rights, is not enough to stop a death sentence. In the case, only a few years back, of Herrera v. Collins, the Court ruled that a death row inmate who presents belated evidence of innocence is not ordinarily entitled to a new hearing before being executed. In that case, Judge Rehnquist stated that the Federal habeas courts sit to ensure that individuals are not imprisoned in violation of the Constitution, not to correct errors of fact. According to the Supreme Court, newly discovered evidence has never been regarded as a sufficient basis for the Federal Court relief in the absence of some underlying constitutional violation. And that is notwithstanding the finality of a death penalty. If a mistake has been made, there is no way to undo it. For the last 26 years, a little over 1 percent of the nearly 7,000 Americans sentenced to death have been released from death row after new facts came to light indicating their innocence. This means that at least 700 people who were sentenced to death were not guilty. In the State of Illinois alone in the past few years no fewer than nine death row inmates have been released after their innocence was proven. While the system worked in these cases, if we ignore the fact that many of these people were imprisoned wrongfully for many years, the evidence that cleared these men turned up by accident and could well have been discovered too late to halt their executions. This means that although we do not know how many innocent people have been executed, we do know that there are such people and that their numbers are substantial. This amendment is an accommodation to the irrevocable nature of the death penalty. It provides that where doubt of guilt remains, the opportunity to reverse the conviction on the basis of new evidence must be preserved, and a death sentence obviously does not allow for this. The effect of this provision, then, would allow the trial judge to stop the imposition of the death penalty only in cases involving the death of witnesses in those cases in which experience has shown the greatest likelihood of erroneous conviction. In practice, this would mean the judges would exclude the death penalty in cases that turned on sometimes notoriously unreliable evidence of uncorroborated eye-witness identifications on the bargained-for testimony of accomplices and jailhouse informants. The court would remain free to sentence the defendant to life imprisonment without possibility of parole. Only the death penalty would be precluded and only in cases where the judge, based on his experience, could conclude that the possibility of miscarriage of justice actually existed. This amendment will not totally eliminate the possibility of error in capital cases involving witness intimidation, but it would provide a safety check, reducing the risk of sentencing innocent people to death. No such safety mechanism exists now. The trial judge can only determine whether the evidence is sufficient to convict and impose a death sentence. But as the law currently stands, a judge has no power to protect the defendant against the possibility of factual error by the jury.

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

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) for that extensive review of the witness intimidation and relocation bill. We can all support the notion that those who obstruct our system of justice must be subject to penalties, and we can support measures designed to make such conduct a Federal crime. If State lines are crossed, which is along the lines of measures proposed in the administration's juvenile justice bill, I think that this is also a good thing to do. May we also indicate our support for the need to collect information regarding what States are doing in terms of relocating witnesses and notifying other States of those relocations. We need Federal standards for such programs, and I fully support witness relocation and notification provisions contained in this bill. And if it were not for the inclusion of the death penalty, I would support this legislation. Recently, the Death Penalty Information Center issued a report entitled ``Innocence and the Death Penalty: The increasing danger of mistaken executions.'' This report described 16 instances since 1973 in which condemned prisoners had to be released from death row because mistakes had led to wrongful convictions. The figure represents more than 1 percent of the approximately 6,000 people sentenced to death in that period. And, of course, there are no measures to calculate the number of innocent people actually executed. Last year, the American Bar Association passed a resolution declaring that the system for administering the death penalty in the United States is unfair and lacks adequate safeguards. They further declared that the executions should be stopped until a greater degree of fairness and due process could be achieved. So 25 years after the Furman vs. Georgia invalidation of the death penalty in the Supreme Court, finding that the penalty was so wantonly and so freakishly imposed that those being sentenced to die received cruel and unusual punishment, I am sorry to say little has changed. The death penalty is still inflicted upon a capriciously selected, random handful. Moreover, the proliferation of new death penalty offenses only works to guarantee that its imposition will even become more hazardous and more capricious. There is compelling evidence for many jurisdictions that the race of the defendant is the primary factor governing the imposition of the death sentence. In Georgia, the district attorney in one circuit sought the death penalty in 29 cases, and in 23 of those 29 cases, the defendant was African-American, although blacks made up only 44 percent of the population. Similar evidence is emerging under the Federal death penalty for drug kingpins. Of the 37 defendants for whom the death penalty was sought between 1988 and 1994, four were white, four were Hispanic, but 29 were African-American. Death sentences are even more frequently imposed when the victim is white. Since 1977, more than 80 percent of the country's death penalty cases have involved white victims, while about half of the homicides committed each year in the United States involve black victims. A study by Professor David Baldus at the University of Iowa of over 250,000 homicide cases in Georgia, which controlled for 230 nonracial factors, found that a person accused of murdering a white was 4.3 times more likely to be sentenced to death than a person accused of murdering a black. Although fewer than 40 percent of Georgia homicide cases involved white victims, 87 percent of all the cases in which a death sentence was imposed involved white victims. We are also concerned that the imposition of the death penalty has become so routine that there is now immediate support for the addition of this penalty whenever it is suggested. A death penalty attached to a new crime is deemed unremarkable and seldom engenders serious debate or discussion, and that is why I raise it on the floor with the measure before us. Given the overwhelming concerns of fairness and accuracy with which the death penalty is imposed, combined with the lack of a proven deterrent effect, it is my strong desire and intention to modify the measure that is on the floor to contain a life sentence rather than the death penalty. Mr. Chairman, with that I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Chairman, the author of the legislation on the other side in the other body telegraphed his intention of limiting the ability of the Bureau of Land Management to protect lands from grazing damage. When that bureau recently proposed reform regulations for grazing permits, they were challenged by ranchers. After exhausting administrative remedies, the ranchers went to court. And after costly and lengthy litigation, the appellate court ruled in favor of the ranchers. However, with the nonacquiescence policy, the Bureau of Land Management could have refused to abide by this ruling each and every time the issue arises. So I urge, for these reasons, that the Nadler amendment to this bill be accepted.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam 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. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. I am delighted to participate in this debate with my friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas), who I think has worked in a very good spirit to try to deal with a set of problems that were ones that we all agreed with. I think the problem here, though, is that we have gone too far, that we move now to cover every agency, department, bureau. I think that might lead to some results that we would regret, especially without the Nadler amendment. I am prepared to say now that, if the Nadler amendment is supported, that I will support the bill. But I want to remind the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas), who is one of the more senior members of the Committee on the Judiciary, that there have been dangerous legal precedents that, had this bill been law without the Nadler amendment, and there was a determination by the United States Government and the Department of Justice to go forward on the Dredd Scott case, which denied African American slaves and former slaves constitutional rights, or the Plessy versus Ferguson case, which upheld separate but legal facilities in the United States, or the Korematsu versus United States case, which gave court approval to the Japanese American internment during World War II, the agencies or the departments that would have gone to the Department of Justice to challenge these legal precedents would have been barred under the gentleman's proposal. My view is that the gentleman did not and does not intend to do that, but the fact of the matter is this would be the result. Because of that, without Nadler, we cannot support Gekas. The Administration is opposed to it, and I think correctly so. The Department of Justice is opposed to it; I think rightly so. I recall that one of our colleagues, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson- Lee), in the committee pointed out how civil rights litigation might be impacted negatively with this kind of bar that the gentleman suggests here. How would a legislative initiative of this kind limit the ability of Federal entities to address the encroachment of the judicial branch on civil liberties? The Department of Justice, in its Civil Rights Division, the Department of Health and Human Services, those would be her primary focus in this objection to the language in the gentleman's bill and the thrust of it. The limitation of these agencies' ability to appeal seemingly unjust court decisions to the Supreme Court, in addition to their ability to create novel and ingenious ways of protecting the rights of citizens, is literally sacred. That should be regulated only with the greatest amount of reluctance and the highest level of scrutiny. And so we must do all we can to ensure the efficient and effective government, but not at the expense of civil liberties and civil rights. Now, one of our colleagues that sponsored the version of this language I do not think is motivated as the author of the bill is on the House side, because the gentleman from Colorado, Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell, made it perfectly clear one of his reasons for introducing this bill.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, it is with outrage that I rise today to strongly admonish the Attorney General Janet Reno, and the Department of Justice in its handling of discrimination complaints of Black Farmers. It has come to the attention of the members of the Congressional Black Caucus that Attorney General Janet Reno will be releasing an opinion shortly which would block many Black Farmers from receiving adequate relief in the form of compensatory damages for federal claims made prior to 1994. The fate of many, many black farmers will rest on this opinion. The situation is that the United States Department of Agriculture encouraged all farmer program participants to participate in the administrative complaint/investigation process. Subsequently, after the farmers placed their claims in good faith, the USDA in effect ``closed down'' the administrative process. This process was closed down for approximately 12 years with no notice of this ``closing down'' being given to the farmers. Finally, when the black farmers filed lawsuits because that were getting no satisfaction from the administrative process, they were told they were barred by the Statute Of Limitations. The government is complicit and has unclean hands in this matter. It is shameful that the Department of Justice has decided to raise technical defenses, primarily the Statute Of Limitations to bar claims made by the these farmers. The black farmers are granted only one avenue for monetary remedy from which the Department of Justice is allowing payment. This avenue is The Equal Credit Opportunity Act of 1972. This Act has a two year statute of limitations. Hence, all black farmers who made their claims prior to 1994 will be barred from monetary relief, even in cases where discrimination can be established. This is a crime and an atrocity. If the Attorney General goes forward with this tact, then only program type relief will be available. Program relief includes debt and loan forgiveness. Such relief would not be sufficient to right the wrongs done to America's Black Farmers. I strongly urge Attorney General Janet Reno and the Department of Justice not to issue this opinion, not add to injustices that black farmers have suffered, not to be final death knell to hope for justice and fairness to these black farmers.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank and commend the ranking member of the subcommittee, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt). I rise to express how sorry I am that the name of the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn) would be on the document that we are opposing today.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the H.R. 1428, the so-called Voter Eligibility Act. Despite its name it will do nothing to verify eligible voters. Instead this bill will undermine the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the Motor Voter Act, create a national database system and unnecessarily invade the privacy of millions of Americans. That the Republican leadership would bring such a bill that diminishes a citizen's constitutional right to vote, to the full House under suspension, circumventing three House committees that have jurisdiction, and making seven substantive changes to the bill the night before, is a disgrace. This verification scheme in this bill is simply unworkable. THe Social Security Administration (SSA) and the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) do not have the records to verify citizenship. The SSA is unable to confirm citizenship because SSA is not the official custodian of birth, naturalization, or other records that constitute evidence of citizenship. The INS database is severely flawed because is does not include any information on any native born citizens. And the INS database does not include citizens naturalized before computer records were kept or citizens who were recently naturalized. We are all against voter fraud, but H.R. 1428 is requiring a confirmation process for citizenship which is just not possible with any existing federal database. The bill would also be very costly. Since the bill was not reported from any committee the CBO did not complete a formal estimate. But, in a letter dated today the CBO states ``. . . filling the gaps in the agencies' data would required the creation of new databases, clearly an expensive undertaking, but one that would be barred by the bill.'' So the proponents of the bill can't have it both ways. But it is impossible to confirm citizenship without creating a new expensive national database. Watch out! Big brother is watching and checking your citizenship! H.R. 1428 is also a threat to privacy because voting registration records are public records. Nothing in the bill would protect or ensure the privacy of Social Security numbers. But the darkest provisions of this bill is its impact on the Voting Rights Act and the Motor Voter Act. At a time when voter turnout is dangerously low, this legislation seeks to discourage voter registration. Why should citizens have to bear the burden of proving their citizenship? How do you prove this? Should we now require everyone to carry a birth certificate or other document at all times? This is an unacceptable burden would have a disproportionate impact on low-income, language minorities and elderly who may not have access to the resources to pursue a complicated, confusing procedure for confirmation of citizenship. This effort is the equivalent of a modern day poll tax that was designed a century ago to keep African Americans from the voting booths. Motor voter has been a great success. In a Subcommittee hearing last year, the League of Women Voters testified that the Federal Election Commission reports that 1996 saw the highest percentage of the voting age population registered to vote since reliable records were available in 1960. Nearly 73 percent of eligible Americans are registered to vote. Why do we under the unsubstantiated guise of voter fraud do we need to reverse this trend? Many Americans, including many members in this House on both sides of the aisle have worked hard to eliminate barriers, test and devices which would hinder people from registering to vote. Why are we bringing legislation to floor which will turn back the clock on the efforts to preserve the constitutional right to vote for all Americans? Bringing this legislation to floor, under suspension, represents yet another sad day for this Congress. I urge the members to oppose this extreme short- sighted measure.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise on this the 11th day of Black History Month to salute African-Americans in business. In Martin Luther King's ``I have a Dream'' speech, he spoke of a promise that America made to its people: ``A promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, should be guaranteed the unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.'' Today as more and more young black women and men graduate from colleges and business schools, medical and law schools across this land, they are taking Dr. King's dream and turning it into a reality. In 1960, 141,000 African-Americans attended college, in 1988 785,000 African-Americans attended. Two decades ago, only a handful of African-Americans graduated from MBA programs whereas in 1995, 4000 African-Americans graduated. There is a strong correlation between higher education and African-American business success. By utilizing their hard won knowledge and mixing it with their strength and perseverance, African-Americans are becoming more empowered through entrepreneurship each day. According to ``Banking on Black Enterprise'' a new community of African-American businesses are emerging. From 1987 to 1992, African- American businesses grew by over 45 percent. Between the years of 1984 and 1994, African-American pilots and navigators increased 650%, dentists 311% and black engineers 173%. Other factors such as corporate procurement plans and municipal plans have led to empowerment for African-Americans. Programs of this nature such as the General Motors African-American empowerment forum for small minority-owned business and the Michigan Minority Business Development workshops and conferences have also opened doors for African-American businesses. We must fight to maintain these gains and ensure the growth of the African-American middle class into the next century. Every time that a little black boy or black girl takes their first step into a school, Dr. King's dream takes one step closer to becoming reality and every time that a new African-American business opens, Dr. King's dream takes yet another step closer to reality. Our successes in entrepreneurship are numerous, our chances for further growth, limitless.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the life of a man who was a civil rights legend, a political genius and an extraordinary human being. Coleman Alexander Young, Detroit's first African American mayor, died November 29, 1997, in the city he loved. He was 79 years old. Mr. Young, who served a record five consecutive terms before leaving office in 1994, blazed a trail of social and political equality by acting on his conviction that all people are entitled to a decent life. Born in the segregated South when white-robed Klansmen inflicted a reign of terror on African Americans, Young had an uncompromising commitment to justice, equality of opportunity, economic empowerment and dignity for all people. That commitment formed the foundation of his activism in the labor movement, the U.S. Army, the national political scene and the mayor's office. Mr. Young was, as former Michigan Governor William Milliken said at his funeral service, ``a man of glorious gifts.'' He was dazzingly brilliant, disarmingly witty and outrageously outspoken. He was quick to anger and even quicker to forgive. He was not afraid to speak the truth, no matter whom it upset, and he was utterly fearless in his defense of basic human rights for all people-- urban dwellers, common laborers, political activists, the disenchanted and those ignored or scorned by society. Coleman Young was born May 24, 1918, in Tuscaloosa, Alabama, the oldest of William and Ida Young's five children. In 1923, the Young family moved to Detroit where they settled in Black Bottom, a racially and ethnically diverse eastside Detroit neighborhood just two miles from the office he would later occupy as mayor. The pernicious effects of systemic racism would follow him through his life. But instead of weakening his resolve, these challenges strengthened his spirit. As a student, Young excelled in his classes and earned all A's, but was denied a scholarship to three parochial high schools when school officials learned he was black. After graduating second in his high school class, he was denied scholarships to the University of Michigan and what is now known as Wayne State University because of his race. Years later he said those early brushes with racial discrimination were catalysts that fueled his desire to make fundamental social changes. The following excerpts from the memorial booklet prepared for Mr. Young's funeral sum up the early years when he paid a heavy price for being a labor activist in Detroit and a civil rights activist in the segregated Army Air Corps. ``His activism was evident in 1937 when he joined the ranks of automotive workers. Young worked as an electrician's apprentice and soon became a labor organizer of the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO). He was fired because of his union activities. Taking a job at the U.S. Post Office, Young again angered supervisors by recruiting employees to band together in a labor union. Postal managers used Young's involvement in a protest against racial segregation at Sojourner Truth, as eastside public housing project, as a reason to fire him. During World War II, Young joined the U.S. Army at the age of 24. He was commissioned a Second Lieutenant in the Infantry and later transferred to the Air Corps. There he became the nation's first black bombardier. He and other blacks in the Army Air Corps became known as the Tuskegee Airmen. However, racial discrimination prevented them from fighting in the War. They fought the Army instead. Young organized a group of 100 other black officers and staged a sit- in at the ``whites only'' officers Club at Freeman Field, Indiana. They were jailed after they refused to sign documents agreeing to stay out of the club. Ironically the black officers were kept under guard while German POWs moved freely on the base. At least one high-ranking army officer wanted to court-material and shoot the black officers. The protest did end segregation at the club. Mayor Young continued his work as a union organizer after the war. Elected director of organization of the Wayne County AFL-CIO in 1948, he was the organization's first black paid staff member. In response to the blatant racism in the labor union hierarchy, he and other activists founded the National Negro Labor Council, whose goal was to win decent wages for blacks and whites. Entrenched union leaders were stunned and upset by the rapid growth of this group that dared to challenge the union establishment. NNLC membership included everyone from black factory workers in Detroit to white textile workers in the South to actors and activists on the east coast. Young and the NNLC also drew the wrath of the House Un-American Activities Committee which was investigating communism. He was summoned before the committee in 1952. Young's defiant testimony and his fearless challenge of the committee's role in spying on and terrorizing ordinary citizens made him a hero to thousands of Americans. When asked if any of his associates were Communists, Young told the committee that they had him confused with a stool pigeon. When the committee lawyer said ``Niggra'' instead of Negro, Young corrected his speech and accused him of deliberately slurring the word to insult blacks. Young did not mince words about his view of the committee. He told them, ``I consider it an un-American activity to pry into a person's private thoughts, to pry into a person's associates. I consider that an un-American activity.'' Dave Moore, a longtime associate, recalled the euphoria the testimony sparked. ``Coleman Young could have been elected king of Detroit. Blacks and whites responded to what he said.'' But that victory was short-lived. The auto plants still blacklisted him. The UAW and other unions slammed the door in his face and the FBI put him on its list of dangerous individuals. For years he survived on jobs, but never lost his thirst for equality. In the 1960's, Young focused on politics as the way to bring about necessary change. In 1964, he was elected to the State Senate. He quickly rose to leadership and became the first black member of the Democratic Natural Committee. In 1973, just six years after a searing urban rebellion that charred the heart and the landscape of Detroit, Young decided to run for Mayor. Young had little money and even less support from the establishment. But his insistent call for an end to police brutality resonated among both blacks and whites who chafed under an occupying army of hostile police. He won the race and became the first black mayor in the city's history. Young took the reins of a battered and nearly bankrupt city. The 1974 Oil Embargo nearly decimated Detroit car makers, and the city shuddered from a mass exodus of businesses and population. During his 20-year tenure, he integrated the Detroit Police Department despite strident protests from the police officer's union, established a national recognized community crime prevention program and brought the city through its financial crisis by forging alliances with political, business, union, community and religious leaders. Because of Young's success, Henry Ford II described him as ``A damn good business manager.'' Young led the effort to modernize Detroit auto plants and to keep major businesses in the city. During his tenure, the Renaissance Center opened, the city became a site on the Grand Prix circuit, Detroit saw the construction of its first-single family subdivision in decades, and the long-neglected river front began to blossom with parks and residential developments. Mayor Young gave economic opportunity to record numbers of black, Hispanic and female business owners. He brought blacks and women into government by appointing them to his staff and to head city departments. He appointed blacks and whites on a ``50-50'' basis. During his lifetime, Young was a past president of the U.S. Conference of Mayors and served on the Democratic National Committee and the National Conference of Democratic Mayors. He was the recipient of the prestigious Jefferson Award from the American Institute for Public Service and the NAACP's coveted Springarn medal for distinguished achievement. In addition the Congressional Black Caucus honored him with its Adam Clayton Powell Award for outstanding political leadership. A Congressional Black Caucus tribute to Mayor Young is included at the end of these remarks. Mayor Young decided against running for office a sixth time because of ill health. In his later years, he taught at Wayne State University which has an endowed chair in urban affairs named for him. He also concentrated his attention on a foundation he established to give college scholarships to needy youngsters. His survivors include a son, Coleman Young Jr., two sisters, Bernice Grier and Juanita Clark, and his companion, Barbara Parker. As I said during his funeral service, Coleman Young's leadership and courage informed me and every other black politician who stands for anything in Michigan. The only way to honor his memory is to keep his struggle alive.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the House passed the D.C. appropriations bill which included the Victims of Communism Relief Act, giving Nicaraguans, Cubans, and refugees immigration amnesty; and Salvadorans, Guatemalans, and certain Eastern European refugees the opportunity to apply for suspension of deportation under the standards set forth in the Immigration and Nationality Act prior to its amendment last Congress. Unfortunately, the bill did not include any relief for similarly situated Haitian refugees who fled persecution in their country and received protection in the United States. I am introducing the Haitian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act of 1997 to resolve this inequity. After a September 1991 coup toppled the democratically elected government in Haiti, the number of persons fleeing Haiti by boat for the United States rose dramatically. During the Bush administration, over 40,000 Haitians were interviewed at Guantanamo Bay and approximately 10,000 Haitians met the ``credible fear'' asylum standard and were paroled into the United States by the Attorney General. Thus, these Haitians are in the United States legally, as parolees. The parolee status of Haitian refugees has been regularly extended but ``parolee'' is considered a temporary position in immigration law. Specifically, the bill will adjust the immigration status of Guantanamo Bay Haitian parolees to legal permanent residents and permit Haitian asylees who are not otherwise covered by this act to seek equitable relief. In light of the amnesty the Nicaraguans and Cubans received, this legislation is the only solution to achieve equity and fairness for Haitian refugees. The bill is a bipartisan and bicameral effort and is strongly supported by the administration. Senators Graham, Mack, Kennedy, Abraham, Moseley-Braun, and Moynihan have introduced companion legislation. Haitian refugees who are in this country legally deserve treatment equal to the Central Americans. This bill is the just and fair solution and I urge expeditious adoption of this measure next session.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, people like the gentleman and I are not known for dictating to the States and local governments. So if we look at it together, if we find another one, maybe even just one, and then we could kind of move it along. The gentleman gets the drift. Let us keep the lights on and celebrate Boys and Girls Clubs, and if there is anybody else that deserves it. If they are undeserving, not a nickel do they get. If they do not have strict accounting procedures, ``Sorry, you don't qualify.'' But if they are really good and meet all of our criteria, we might send a few nickels out to some others. Why not? Everybody says it does many good things. It is stopping kids from going down the wrong track. There is not a man, woman or child that is against that. I too weigh in with my full, unqualified, unstinting support. I thank both of the leaders in the Committee on the Judiciary who managed this bill.

Mr. CONYERS. I feel better already. We are off to a good start. Everybody agrees Boys and Girls Clubs are great. All I want to do now is to keep us all focused in the second term of the 105th Congress and we take a little look at the police athletic leagues, at the other organizations that may be youth recreation leagues and after-school programs that might also deserve this attention for the very same reasons that the Boys and Girls Clubs are getting it. Could I ask my dear friend from Florida if he can keep his horizons open in the next year if we find other equally deserving organizations?

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

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, this is a great moment in American legislative history. The vibes are wonderful. When the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum], the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee], the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Waters], the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Buyer], the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Barrett] and the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] all get together, we know we are doing the Lord's work. Madam Speaker, I want to ask the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum], the subcommittee chairman, is it correct that the Justice bill is being held up because there are $750 million in for adult prisons, $87 million in for juvenile prisons, $250 million in for juvenile justice grant programs, 35 percent of which is to be used for juvenile prisons?

Mr. CONYERS. So I take it the answer is yes, the gentleman will be looking with me at other deserving organizations? Some may not be chartered, but that does not make them less deserving.

Mr. CONYERS

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 myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the subcommittee Chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas], and the ranking member, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler], for working on this measure that was introduced by myself, and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], on the first day of the session, and they have been at it for quite a while. The long and short of the bankruptcy laws are that there are about 29 technical corrections and about 5 substantive corrections. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas] has mentioned 4 of the 5, and I am in perfect agreement with him. We are now hopeful that the Senate will be able to meet with us as early as they can in the year and that we can work this to a favorable resolution, because there are more and more bankruptcy issues coming forward in the next year, the last term of this Congress. Now, I would like to raise to the Members' attention the fact that our colleague from Michigan [Mr. Ehlers] did us a singular honor by tracking a fifth circuit case that required amending, in which one distinguished judge was not able to distinguish that motor boats and airplanes are in the same category as automobiles, and we talk about nondischargeability, and he weighed in in a very important way to bring about the changes that the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas] has referred to. All in all, this bill clarifies many outstanding issues that those who end up in bankruptcy matters, the judges, the trustees-in- bankruptcy, and the whole bankruptcy bar has been looking to have resolved for many years. So I am pleased on behalf of the Democrats on the committee to join with the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas] in urging that this measure, H.R. 764, be reported. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Now there is no urgency on this bill. This is not an appropriation. This is not anything. It has not had a hearing, and here we are at midnight and one of the last days of the first session of the 105th Congress talking about a 1-year extension. We had plenty of time to hold all the hearings in the world in the Committee on the Judiciary, which the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith] has never held on this subject. Now the Senate has held hearings on this subject, and by the way, the other body has no inclination whatsoever, whatsoever to pass this measure. So what I am saying is that the best reason to be against this measure is that we do not understand its import and we are not in any rush. This measure does not expire until October 1998.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California [Mr. Bilbray].

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maine [Mr. Baldacci].

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Becerra]. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?