John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. If I could continue my dialog with my friend from Ohio, Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Committee on the Judiciary might be of some assistance because I think it may be important based on the discussions going on here tonight; I mean, if INS is not doing the right thing, that is a matter that we who have oversight jurisdiction over them ought to be put on notice. If, on the other hand, the INS is ineffective because of the fact that they are overwhelmed by the nature of the task and they are short of personnel, then that, as the gentleman can appreciate, is another matter. So I would ask him to indulge me in trying to provide some assistance for him on that matter.

Mr. CONYERS. That being the case, could I be of some assistance as a humble member of the Committee on the Judiciary to provide the gentleman with some insight as to their effectiveness or whether we can get additional personnel?

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, could my friend from Ohio [Mr. Traficant] tell me if he has requested additional personnel for INS, or is it that he feels that the INS is incapable of discharging its duty?

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

Mr. CONYERS. Would the gentleman yield for an additional question?

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

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, just three days before the scheduled Sunday, June 15, Haitian run-off election, officials announced that the second round vote would be called off once again. Haiti's electorate was prepared to vote for seven of the twenty-seven Senate seats and one Deputy seat. The outcome of these elections would play an important role in determining the country's future political and economic direction and could have been detrimental to the U.S.-backed austerity program on which President Rene Preval and former Prime Minister Rosny Smarth have staked their reputations. The following research memorandum, authored by Karen L. Bucknell, Research Associate for the Council on Hemispheric Affairs, addresses the economic and political problems that persist in Haiti and demonstrates the need for leaders to take the country off the proverbial Capital Hill back burner and place it on the forefront of foreign policy makers' agendas: Persisting Political Problems Aristide's incredible popularity among his countrymen makes any election inevitably one-sided in favor of his new political vehicle, the Famni Lavalas movement. There were accusations by the opposition that the results of the April 6 elections had been manipulated by the alleged pro-Aristide Provisional Electoral Council (CEP). The elections were further tarnished by a turnout of only 5% of the eligible voters, a huge defeat for the island's democratization prospects. The tension created by such insinuations of tampering delegitimized the approaching vote to the point that its cancellation was imminent. The White House and the international community have since warned that they would have difficulty acknowledging the results of any Haitian elections until Aristide's old mass base, the Lavalas Political Organization (OPL) which now backs President Preval, agrees not to boycott the election. Compounding political problems, on June 9 Rosny Smarth resigned from his post as prime minister. Now the president and parliamentary leaders in the upper and lower houses must agree on a candidate who can fill the vacant office. A new election date will not be set until the OPL agrees to enter the race and the government chooses its nominee. Although Smarth abdicated all authority upon his resignation, he has agreed to remain at his post until a new prime minister is appointed. His presence at the June 18 meeting on social and economic issues, including Preval, departmental delegates and mayors of towns, was a positive sign of his commitment to play a constructive role. Some observers fell that by merely remaining as a holdover in his position, he is reducing the built-in tension created by the canceled vote. Preval, Stuck Between a Rock and a Hard Spot Postponing the run-off was also a blow to Preval, who had little to gain and much to lose from this development, as well as from the resignation of Smarth. Preval's increasingly deep rivalry with his old mentor Aristide (concerning the modernization plans) was inevitable, given the latter's direct hold on the population. Preval lacks a personal following and, together with his willingness to adopt hugely unpopular neo-liberal reforms at the behest of Washington and the lending agencies, could fatally jeopardize his ability to lead the country through the difficulties of modernization. By giving in to international business interests, Preval risks giving the appearance that things are beyond his control. The State Department issued a statement shortly after Smarth resigned which was meant to absolve Preval of some of the blame for the problems he has encountered while governing. It said, ``We think President Preval ought to be given the opportunity and the political space to govern. It is very difficult to succeed someone as popular as Aristide.'' There are groups in Haiti that have accused UN and U.S. personnel and organizations still in the country of fomenting the political rifts that have arisen. Jodel Chablain, a top leader for the Front for the Advancement and Progress for Haiti (FRAPH), a notorious organization once led by the ill- reputed Emmanuel Constant, explained to Radio Metropole, ``Foreign management . . . is what is causing division in the country.'' Questionable Practices in Controversial April 6 Elections Haiti is experiencing a dramatic reversal of citizen involvement in its public life, in contrast to the overwhelming 1990 turnout at the polls when Aristide won two- thirds of the vote. A disenchanted electorate no longer believes that elections or candidates can meaningfully improve their lives. As has been noted, only 5 percent of eligible citizens cast their ballots on April 6. Former Senator Jean-Robert Martinez claimed that this low showing indicated that the people ``blame their misery on the vote . . . and that's extremely dangerous for democracy.'' With 70% unemployment, Haiti is the poorest country in the Western hemisphere, with upwards of 65% of its urban population and 80% of its rural population living in absolute poverty. If only for symbolic reasons, the vast majority of the country's population strongly opposes the Preval government's privatization plan, which is aggressively being pushed by Washington as a precondition for economic assistance. This has become the dividing issue between the president and Aristide which led the latter to launch his new anti-government faction, the Famni Lavalas Party. ``It is impossible to support a program that does not correspond with the people's needs,'' said Deputy Joseph Jasmine, alluding to the widely held belief that the industries scheduled to be privatized are part of the nation's patrimony. If put on the block, it is feared that these properties--looted over the years by a string of dictators ending with military junta leader General Raul Cedras--will be pounced upon by the nation's tiny and self-absorbed economic elite which already dominate the country's finances and commerce. Preval's austerity program involves the partial privatization of nine major state sectors, the lowering of import tariffs and the shrinking of the public sector work force. It was implemented on the condition that the major multilateral agencies and foreign donors would continue to provide international development funds for Haiti. According to the World Bank, since the U.S. ouster of the military junta in 1994, the island state has been allocated more than $2 billion in loans from such sources as the IDB, USAID and the EU. An update issued by the Washington Office on Haiti explained that Smarth recently indicated that the international community finances nearly 100 percent of Haiti's development budget. The Aborted June 15 Run-off Elections The cancellation of the June 15 run-offs came as a complete surprise to most international monitoring groups. The general integrity of the April balloting was upheld even though there were some infractions; however, these were neither systemic nor sufficient to invalidate the vote. There were even some guardedly optimistic predictions that the voter turnout on June 15 would increase significantly from the earlier shockingly low showing, if due to nothing else than Smarth's resignation and the belief that the government would now be more responsive to the people's sentiments. Given Aristide's overwhelming backing by the populace, the opposition has been using the threat of a boycott since 1995 as one of the few arrows in its quiver for extracting political concessions from the governing process. Yet all the political players are well aware that a boycott could do great damage to Haiti's image abroad, particularly among international donors who fund the island's recovery. Given his grip over the masses, if Aristide's Famni Lavalas Party gains control of the Senate, his prospects of winning the presidential election in 2000 are all but certain. Hope continues to stir among impoverished Haitians for Aristide's return to office, despite the economic stagnation which characterized his previous term. Hesitant that Aristide's 1990 platform was too radical and unstable, the Clinton Administration insisted that he be little more than a figurehead president. His opposition to the Preval/ Smarth-supported austerity programs gives the public optimism for the future. But a legislature controlled by Aristide's party will likely have a negative impact on foreign investment and donations. In a country like Haiti, which lacks the basic infrastructure and natural resources needed to build upon, a drop in investment could have a devastating effect on the future of its economy. Self-Determination Over Modernization? The postponed legislative elections are a crucial element in helping to determine the country's future. Right now Congress is split between supporters of Preval's modernization plan and those who rally behind Aristide and his anti-austerity campaign. The pro-Preval OPL currently controls the Senate. By a narrow vote it succeeded in obtaining that body's approval to begin privatizing many of the state-run industries. There are nine of these privatization programs underway, including the electric and telephone companies. In the first round of elections, voters demonstrated their abiding trust in former President Aristide. Aside from being huge, it is impossible to know exactly what percentage of the population rallies behind him today, due to the minute voter showing at the polls and the accusations of fraud. With the seven seats in the Senate, Aristide's Famni Lavalas, party almost certainly would have won most of the positions being contested, drowning the OPL. This scenario does not seem all that unlikely given the fact that Preval and other OPL leaders have had enormous difficulties gathering significant domestic support for their internationally- backed austerity plans. According to a speech Aristide gave shortly after Smarth's resignation, ``It is a game of organizing their own business rules which are good for those that have more and bad for those who have less.'' Such sentiments are widely held by the Haitian population. What makes for this extreme variation of opinion on the island? Once again it goes back to the haves and have-nots. The initial stages of the reforms inevitably will bring job cuts as private management seeks to achieve efficiency through heightened productivity. Most of these state-run industries are notorious for their inefficiency. But in a country experiencing astronomically high unemployment, such job cuts will eliminate the sole source of income for many families. It affords scarce solace to individuals who must live their lives worrying about their short-run needs (such as how they are going to get their next meal) to endure crushing hardships for the distant possibility of long-run benefits. They ask, what good are such prospects if people cannot survive the suffering that they are forced to presently endure? If indeed Aristide does gain a majority in any future election he may contest--namely the presidential race of 2000--it is assumed that he will respond to mass public opinion by putting an end to or reform at least some of the privatization programs. However, the United States and other international donors have threatened to pull the plug on development funding if the austerity plan is abandoned, and without such funds Haiti is doomed to sink down to an even starker level of poverty. U.S. Role in Haiti The majority of development funds received by Haiti come from the U.S. In practice, this should endow the U.S. government with a significant influence over Haitian economic and political developments. The basic inconsistency of the Clinton Administration's policy towards Haiti lies in the fact that global democratization is a putative priority for the United States, yet leaders continue to press the island to structure its economy in accordance with Washington's neo- liberal prescriptions, thereby denying the Haitian public (when it comes to privatization) the right to self- determination, the most fundamental component of a fully functioning democracy. Although Washington was the driving force behind Aristide's brief return to the presidency in 1994, his empowerment was not permitted. Due to U.S. involvement, what was happening in Port-au-Prince did little more then legitimize a process that would depoliticize the island, transforming it into a paragon of the market reforms Washington insists should guild that nation's economic development.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to comment on the recent tragedy in Emporia, VA, on July 29, 1997. A bus carrying students and chaperones with the Pathways to Freedom program crashed, leaving one person dead and two seriously injured. Pathways to Freedom is a program started through the Rosa and Raymond Parks Institute for Self Development which helps young people learn the values of those who risked their lives for freedom during the Underground Railroad and civil rights movements. The students and chaperones came from all over the United States and the Bahamas to learn where we have been in order to know where we are going. In the words of Lila Cabbil, past president for Institute, those on the bus were not on a field trip, but on one leg of a lifelong journey. Adisa Foluke, 25, was the sole life lost in this tragic accident. He was extremely dedicated to the Pathways to Freedom program. In the words of Adisa's mother, ``He embodied the spirit of the movement. He connected with the children in an exceptional way, and was committed to carrying on Mrs. Parks' legacy.'' On a personal note, Adisa regularly stopped by my office, during which time we had many conversations concerning the program and other civic projects in the Detroit area. It was an inspiration to me to see the next generation taking a leadership role in educating others on the importance of remembering the struggle for civil rights. Pathways to Freedom has made a special effort to ensure that the program will continue its outstanding work of educating young people on American civil rights history. The children want to continue, as they have been inspired by Mrs. Parks, from whom they learn to live their lives differently because of struggle, instead of stopping their lives in the face of adversity.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, earlier this week the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Duncan], a good friend and distinguished Member of the Congress, on the floor of this body, charged that the ongoing Federal grand jury investigation of the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton], chairman of the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, was a political prosecution and was brought because the chairman was trying to do his job. My colleague from Tennessee further accused the Attorney General of politicizing our system of justice. I would like to examine those remarks for a few minutes to determine whether there is any foundation in these remarks. As the senior member of the Committee on the Judiciary, I have tried to follow the activities of the Department of Justice as carefully as I can, and I am trying to find where the Justice Department is politicized or whether it prefers, as has been alleged, to investigate and prosecute Republicans or in particular the chairman of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, the gentleman from Indiana Mr. Burton. The first thing I would bring to the attention of Members of the House of Representatives is that this Justice Department has prosecuted numerous Democratic Members, including Messrs. Rostenkowski, Reynolds, Bustamante, and Fauntroy. And so, I am not sure whether it is fair or not to characterize the Department of Justice's conduct as politicized in the sense that the administration has acted in disregard of its legal obligation when the record to date is that the Attorney General has repeatedly exercised her discretion with very due diligence and has appointed repeatedly independent counsels to investigate prima facie allegations against this administration, its Cabinet officials, and others. Now what kind of job the chairman of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight is doing is not in my province this evening. But we are well aware of the objections that the campaign finances and investigation, that the chairman of that committee is conducting has had some problems. I refer particularly to the fact that the general counsel of the committee, who submitted his resignation earlier this month, has indicated that his resignation was based on the fact that he was unable to implement the standards of professional conduct he was accustomed to at the U.S. attorney's office. In any case, it is not important how well or poorly the chairman may be doing his job. Right now I am concerned about the allegations being raised in his defense, which challenge the integrity of the Department of Justice in this instance. And I would suggest that it is a leap of faith to believe that the coincidence of the chairman's investigation followed by a subpoena of his records mean that the subpoena is a consequence of his investigation. I do not know the scope of the grand jury that it is alleged concerns itself with his conduct, nor may I be privileged to know the scope. And I would refer the gentleman from Indiana and the gentleman from Tennessee to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, rule 6(e), which quite carefully says no attorney for the Government can disclose what the grand jury is doing. It is at page 36 of the 1997 edition of the Federal criminal code and rules. For the same reason, I do not know what evidence, if any, prompted any subpoena the grand jury may issue of the grand jury matters are secret in order to protect the person under investigation. For that reason, the Department of Justice may not comment on the scope of its investigation, nor may it publicly justify the legitimacy of the subpoena or its scope. But the chairman has a remedy, or his counsel. They may challenge the scope and appropriateness of the subpoena. I would close by pointing out that the gentleman can file a motion to quash or modify the subpoena and indeed he can challenge the entire grand jury proceeding in the Federal district court in which these grand jury proceedings is brought.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to an ``Editorial Notebook'' commentary by Brent Staples in the July 21 issue of the New York Times. In 1989 I first proposed that a commission be created to study the institution of slavery in this country from 1619 to 1865, and subsequent de jure and de facto racial and economic discrimination against African-Americans, as well as the impact of these forces on living African-Americans, and to make recommendations to the Congress on appropriate remedies. One of the remedies in this Congress is H.R. 40, with the number of the resolution selected for the ``Forty Acres and a Mule'' rallying cry of 1865 when Civil War Gen. Tecumseh Sherman issued Special Field Order 15, declaring the Georgia Sea Islands and a strip of South Carolina rice country as black settlements. Each family of freed slaves was to be given 40 acres and the loan of an Army mule to work the land. Mr. Staples' article describes that historical fact from the personal viewpoint of his own family's experience. I commend him for his contribution to the dialog on race in America. The article and the bill with its 21 cosponsors follow. [From the New York Times, July 21, 1997] Forty Acres and a Mule (By Brent Staples) Bill Clinton has earned a boat-load of scorn since suggesting that he might apologize for slavery, as some in Congress have suggested. Critics from both left and right argue that such an apology would be trivializing, empty, arrogant and racially divisive. The dominant view, typified by the columnist Charles Krauthammer, is that there is essentially nothing to discuss, since the Civil War closed the issue and the slavers and the enslaved are long since dead. But all the noise suggests the issue is very much alive. The terms of Emancipation are nearly as explosive today as during the 1860's, when they dominated public consciousness and nearly tore the Government apart. The facts of the period have been papered over in myth. These days, every school child thinks that Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves at one fell swoop--and for moral reasons. In fact, the Emancipation Proclamation freed only the slaves in rebellious states. Lincoln himself called it a military tactic, acknowledging that moral issues were in no way involved. The slavers and the enslaved are certainly gone from the scene. But African-American families that have shown even a casual interest in history can give chapter and verse on relatives who were born in slavery or just afterward and the costs they paid. In the Staples family, for example, mine is the first generation to come of age without a flesh and blood former slave somewhere at the extended family table. That people in their 40's have this experience makes the issue a current one indeed. My maternal great-grandmother, Luella Holmes Patterson, was born of a former slave and her master--and shipped off the plantation when the wife got wind of her. As a grade schooler, I visited Luella often in Hollins, Va. A few towns away lay the farm of my paternal great-grandfather, John Wesley Staples, who was conceived in slavery as well and born July 4, 1865, at the dawn of Emancipation. He died 10 years before my birth but was remembered to me in stories and pictures. As recently as 10 years ago, he and his wife, Eliza, were the subject of a pamphlet, written for a family reunion. John Wesley met Emancipation with his whole life still in front of him. But among his neighbors and in-laws were ex- slaves who came to freedom landless and old or simply broken by the experience. My uncle Mack, who will be 80 in December, remembers them well. When I asked him about the apology brewing in Congress, Uncle Mack could barely contain himself: ``They can keep the apology. What good is it? They promised us 40 acres and the mule. None of our people ever got that.'' ``Forty acres and a mule,'' of course, is a rallying cry from 1865. It originated during Sherman's March to the Sea. Overwhelmed by black families that abandoned the plantations to follow him, Sherman issued Special Field Order 15, declaring the Georgia Sea Islands and a strip of South Carolina rice country as black settlements. Each family was to get 40 acres and the loan of an Army mule to work it. Other generals and Federal officials followed Sherman's lead, realizing that land was the only hedge against starvation and renewed bondage. The confiscations were in accordance with Federal law. If sustained and accelerated, the land grants would have created black capital and independence almost immediately and precluded much of the corrosive poverty that still grips the black South. President Andrew Johnson was nearly impeached, in part for obstructing Congress on Reconstruction. Meanwhile, he canceled Special Field Order 15, returning land to white owners and condemning blacks to de facto slavery. In many places, the eviction process was long and bloody. As the ex-slave Sarah Debro said of the period: ``Slavery was a bad thing, and freedom, of the kind we got with nothing to live on, was bad. Two snakes full of poison. One lying with his head pointed north, the other with his head pointing south. . . . Both bit the nigger and they was both bad.'' My father and uncles grew up steeped in accountings like this one. For 250 years African-Americans were deprived of freedom, basic education and the right to accumulate wealth, which they could have passed on to their descendants. This history would have left a wound in any case. But the wound is open and running because the country refused to atone materially when it had the chance. In that sense, at least, my Uncle Mack is right about the apology. No amount of talk can alter the past.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am attaching a copy of two important resolutions adopted by the United Conference of Mayors, at their meeting in San Francisco last month. These resolutions reflect strong support across the country for protecting a cornerstone of our democracy--an independent judiciary. The Conference also recognizes that to preserve an independent judiciary Federal judges must be adequately and fairly compensated. I encourage Members to take a moment to review these resolutions. Federal judges have not received a pay increase since 1993, therefore, I also urge Members to support a salary increase for Federal judges which will help ensure an effective and independent judiciary; and reject legislation that seeks to undermine the judiciary's integrity: Resolution No. 43: An Independent Judiciary Submitted by: The Honorable Dennis Archer, Mayor of Detroit Whereas, an independent judiciary is a fundamental part of our system of democracy; and Whereas, in recognition of the need to preserve judicial independence, Article III of the United States Constitution provides for lifetime tenure for federal judges and indicates that they can only be removed from office for ``Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors''; and Whereas, judges are required to decide cases based upon the evidence presented and the applicable law, regardless of the political popularity of those decisions; and Whereas, this doctrine of judicial independence enshrined in our Constitution and laws has made the courts of this country the protectors of the politically weak and unpopular; and Whereas, in August 1993 the National Commission on Judicial Discipline and Removal which was created by the United States Congress reported that while from time to time various federal judges have been removed from office for specific acts of official or personal misconduct, Congress has never removed a federal judge from office simply because it disagreed with his or her judicial decisions; and Whereas, it appears that certain members of Congress who disagree with the judicial decisions rendered by various federal judges are threatening to use the congressional impeachment power to remove those judges from the bench; and Whereas, such threats chill the independence of the judiciary and violate the separation of powers doctrine contained in the United States Construction by substituting congressional use of the impeachment power for the constitutional process of appellate review of judicial decisions; and Whereas, the threat by certain members of Congress to institute impeachment proceedings against federal judges whose decisions they find politically unpopular is an attempt to undermine the separation of powers doctrine contained in the United States Constitution by subordinating objective and rational legal decision making to popular political whims; and Whereas, it further appears that certain members of the Senate are attempting to prevent action by that body on the confirmation of various judicial nominations which have been submitted to the Senate; and Whereas, it appears that this refusal to act on judicial nominations is based on concerns regarding the nominees' political ideology rather than concerns regarding the nominees' legal qualifications or ability to perform the duties of the office to which they were appointed; and Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved that The United States Conference of Mayors affirms its support for a strong and independent federal judiciary; and Be it further Resolved that The United States Conference of Mayors calls upon the Senate and in particular the Senate Judiciary Committee to handle judicial confirmation proceedings in an objective and expeditious matter. Projected Cost: None

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, we have a problem with this sense-of-the- Congress resolution because most of the supporters of this are the conservative Members of Congress who came to Congress talking about States rights, the rights of States to take care of their own business, and frequently the Federal Government was considered to be meddling when it imposed their requirements on the States. That is what we are continuing to do today. We ask that States rights be considered on welfare matters, on civil rights matters, on the environment; that is what my colleagues were saying, I was not saying that, and that the States know best; that is what my colleagues were saying, I was not saying that. And now we have this sense-of-the-Congress resolution in which we tell the States that we know best. Does anybody care to explain why we have this bifurcated policy when it comes to criminal matters that all of a sudden we know better than the States who write their own State criminal laws, and we who write our own Federal criminal laws, we are not telling the States that they ought to shape up and join the other 16 States and abolish parole. Why? OK, silence.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. CONYERS. I thank the gentleman for his colloquy with me. It has been very helpful. Mr. Speaker, I hope that the States that have not jumped on the bandwagon requiring that offenders serve at least 85 percent of their sentence pay very close attention to House Concurrent Resolution 75, which rereminds them that they are really missing out; if they would join in, they could be getting Federal money, if they would only listen to us a little bit more. We cannot make the States impose these sentences.

Mr. CONYERS. The gentleman voted against the crime bill of 1994, too?

Mr. CONYERS. I said, was the gentleman not?

Mr. CONYERS. Was the gentleman not?

Mr. CONYERS. If the gentleman had known that I had voted against the crime bill of 1994, would that have slowed down the gentleman's enthusiasm for anything we have done or said here today? I yield to the gentleman for a response.

Mr. CONYERS. I thank the gentleman very much, because he has been very helpful. Mr. Speaker, this is the gentleman's House concurrent resolution on truth in sentencing, is that correct, I would ask the gentleman? The gentleman is the author of this sense-of-the-Congress?

Mr. CONYERS. I appreciate the gentleman's knowledge on the subject so far. He is doing pretty well, better than, I will not say than some people on Judiciary, but he is holding his own very, very well. What if the gentleman found out that the three strikes provision does not carry any discretion, and that little incident that you talked about, and I have some more in which the third offense being a violent offense, that is it, for the rest of your natural life? Does that, or is that something we might want to go back and hold hearings on, for example, to see if it might be corrected? I yield to the gentleman from Michigan for a response.

Mr. CONYERS. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman aware that in the three strikes legislation in California, in particular, it has clogged the courts, the processes, so much that neither the prosecutors nor the defense lawyers bother with it anymore, because employing it makes it absolutely unworkable? Does the gentleman have any knowledge on that?

Mr. CONYERS. I would ask the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, is that a reason to eliminate parole for everybody in the State of Michigan? I yield to the gentleman for a response.

Mr. CONYERS. That was not going on in Michigan, and the gentleman knows it. So why did the gentleman persuade Governor Engler of Michigan, who does not know particularly much about criminal law at the State or Federal level, to do something like this?

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Lofgren].