John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. But how is it we knew better what they should do with their State criminals than they did?

Mr. CONYERS. I thank the gentleman, Mr. Speaker. Those are legitimate sentiments that are held by many in this body. Could I ask my dear friend, the gentleman from Michigan, and we are friends, and this is a friendly discussion, does he believe that we should continue to deprive judges of the discretion necessary to fashion criminal sentences in individual cases appropriate to the persons standing before them in the court? I yield to the gentleman for his comments.

Mr. CONYERS. Has the gentleman examined what criminal justice authorities say about this kind of draconian addition of time to people who are incarcerated who may be rehabilitatable, and that this works in a very onerous way upon people who, as the gentleman may know, are receiving longer and longer sentences than ever before? In other words, it may be considered counterproductive to the very thing that the gentleman is trying to accomplish. This includes the concept of three-strikes-and-you-are-out, which is another throw-the- baby-out-with-the-bath-water situation. We are paying States to go along with us, and now the gentleman is passing a sense-of-the-Congress resolution asking the States that have not jumped in on the cash-flow, which, by the way, is $800 million so far, and I know the gentleman is concerned about balancing the budget, but we have to fight crime at all costs. Does the gentleman have a little concern that maybe all of these impositions of more and more time, mandatory minimums, 85 percent, we pay people, States, hundreds of millions of dollars to build more facilities, since they cannot afford it anymore themselves, we have three-strikes-and-you-are-out at the Federal level, three-strikes-and- you-are-out at the State level, does the gentleman not have any sense that maybe we could be more efficient and effective in reducing crime than just piling on sentence upon sentence upon sentence? I yield to the gentleman for a response.

Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Barcia].

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, 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. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Barcia].

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Lofgren], a distinguished member of the committee.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, with the conservatives in the House reminding me that the President supports this bill, what am I here for? That is about it, once the Democrats and the Republicans put their arms around a measure. There are only a couple of things I want to point out, with all due respect to the author of the bill and the gentleman from Tennessee who brings it to the floor today. In expanding the definition of war crimes in this bill to include not only grave breaches of the Geneva Convention but also breaches of any other convention or protocol to which the U.S. is or becomes a signatory, this becomes prospective. Maybe somebody can explain this to me. Why are we writing legislation to cover protocols and agreements into the future, maybe long beyond the time any of us might be serving in this distinguished body? Do any of my colleagues know the answer to that? I will research it for us and get back to my colleagues on that. Now, this companion piece of legislation establishes jurisdiction over the war crimes, and it became law in the last Congress. It includes a provision which permitted the imposition of the death penalty in cases where the victim of the war crime was killed, and therein lies the problem. We support our war crime legislation, but we do not believe such legislation should include a death penalty in order to be effective. Does anybody here disagree with that? In other words, if we had left the death penalty out, we would not be here today. We would be saying President Clinton, the Republicans and the gentleman from Michigan are all in agreement. So we want to make it clear, as the gentlewoman from California did, that we are not against war crimes legislation. We are against the implementation of the death penalty wherever it appears. So my question number two is, would my colleagues have blown a gasket if the death penalty was not in there? And I assume the answer is no, they would not have. In effect, then, our limited objection is to the net effect of this measure broadening the scope of the death penalty. That is our only problem with this legislation. And so a number of us on the Committee on the Judiciary have opposed it and we continue to oppose it. Why do we oppose it? Well, because the death penalty is frequently applied racially; race plays a role in the imposition of the death penalty, according to the studies that we keep looking at year in and year out. It has been like that for a long time. So it is because of that, for some of us. Some people would probably oppose the death penalty even if it were not racially discriminatory. But that is the big hangup inside the United States where the death penalty is law and in certain instances and in certain places. We oppose it because we have seen the racial bias that can occur. I would like to draw the attention of the author of the bill and the Member from Tennessee that is moving this, that is managing it on the floor, to the fact that the Death Penalty Information Center, which has put out a report that is called ``Innocence and the Death Penalty: The Increasing Danger of Mistaken Executions,'' describes 69 instances since 1973 in the United States in which condemned prisoners had to be released from death row because mistakes had led to their wrongful conviction in the first place. Now, of course, we do not know how many people went to their death despite their innocence and because no one got to them in time. And by the way, my colleagues know also that frequently many people of less financial means are not able to get the lawyers that can make sure all these kinds of technicalities are adhered to in the courts. So this is the reason we oppose the death penalty, because of the racial implications in the administration of the death penalty. My lawyer colleagues will be pleased to know that the American Bar Association this year passed a resolution declaring that the system for administering the death penalty in the United States is unfair and lacks adequate safeguards. The resolution further declared that the executions ought to be stopped until a greater degree of fairness and due process can be achieved, which is exactly what the Supreme Court said in an earlier period in the Furman versus Georgia death penalty case, in which they suspended the death penalty at the Federal level. Now, it is that same problem, Mr. Speaker, that we have seen in the experience of the United States, that we can see in the context of international justice. The tribunal in the Hague which prosecutes war crimes against Bosnians has received excellent resources and quite a bit of attention. But in Africa, the Rwandan War Crimes Tribunal in Zimbabwe is poorly staffed and has not been able to prosecute a single case. I think it is fair to say that millions of people have been assassinated, prosecuted, oppressed over there in their very troubled situation. The war crimes against Africans in an international context seem to be less pressing than the war crimes against Europeans. I am not trying to extrapolate in generalities, but there is a stunning similarity about how the death penalty is imposed, even in the international arena as well as domestically. Now, here is question number three for my conservative friends in the Congress. How many of my colleagues would like to be allied with Cuba, Syria, Iraq, Iran, China and Libya? Let us raise our hands. Not all at once. The only issue that binds us, the United States, to Cuba, Syria, Iraq, Iran, China and Libya is that we are the only nations that impose the death penalty. The only ones. Now, I am embarrassed by that. Some of my colleagues are proud of that. Some of my colleagues are happy to join with America's friends from these countries and support our death penalty, as they support their own death penalty, if there were democracies in any of those countries. But everywhere else there is not a death penalty. So I just ask my colleagues to think about this with me and join with me, and let us vote down this resolution and go back and take out the death penalty. Let us keep war crimes legislation but remove the death penalty. Could my colleagues go along with me on that? That is the fourth and last question. If they can, I think my colleagues will sleep better in their beds at night. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, 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. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Lofgren].

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, July 24 a great constitutional scholar and advocate of social justice passed away. Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. served the highest branch of our judicial system from 1956 until 1990. His scholarship was at the forefront of an intellectual and moral frontier that began in the pre- civil-rights era. Justice Brennan shaped our law and touched our lives in countless ways. In the area of voting rights he authored Baker versus Carr, 1962, which was one of the cornerstone of voting rights case law. It lead to one-person one-vote reapportionment cases. On the issue of affirmative action he authored Metro Broadcasting versus the Federal Communications Commission, 1990, which upheld two affirmative action programs aimed at increasing African-American ownership of radio and television stations. In Texas versus Johnson, 1989, Brennan declared, ``If there is a bedrock principle underlying the first amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.'' And continuing in his tradition of protecting the most vulnerable, in Goldberg versus Kelly, 1970, he established that it was a violation of the 14th amendment's guarantee of due process under law for a State to cut off a welfare recipient's benefit without a hearing. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor this great drum major for justice of the 20th century. I submit for the Congressional Record two articles from the Washington Post which I believe capture some of the spirit and letter of his contributions to our great system of justice. [From the Washington Post, July 25, 1997] The Biggest Heart in the Building (By Joan Biskupic) Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan Jr. was remembered yesterday as a bulwark of liberal activism whose effects on America is so great--and his personality so compelling--that even those who disagreed with his views said much of his legacy will endure. Brennan ``played a major role in shaping American constitutional law,'' said conservative Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist. ``He was also a warm-hearted colleague to those of us who served with him.'' ``He had the biggest heart of anyone in the building'' said Thurgood Marshall Jr., son of the late justice. ``Justice Brennan was not just my father's closest and dearest partner, but his hero in the pursuit of equality and justice.'' Marshall, President Clinton's Cabinet secretary, said his father and Brennan could not have been more different as people, given the backgrounds from which they emerged. ``But they both believed fervently in the very same ideals.'' News of Brennan's death, coming shortly after noon yesterday, spread quickly among former colleagues and friends. He was known for the force of his opinions--more than 1,000--that embodied the notion that the federal courts should actively seek to right society's wrongs. He was venerated yesterday for his persuasive approach and good humor, and for a charisma that will help him be remembered for generations. ``There are few people who are truly extraordinary and we don't always know the reasons why they rise above the rest of us. But he did,'' U.S. appeals court judge Richard S. Arnold of Little Rock, who was a law clerk to Brennan in 1960, said yesterday. ``His chief characteristics were kindness and love--to everybody.'' Brennan, who retired from the court in 1990 and initially kept up professional and personal contacts, had been in poor health in recent months. He died at a nursing home in Arlington, where he had been rehabilitating after he broke his hip in November. A court spokeswoman said Brennan's body would lie in state from 10:30 a.m. until 10 p.m. Monday at the Supreme Court Building. His funeral is set for 10 a.m. Tuesday at St. Mathews Catholic Church in the District. All quarters of government reacted to word of Brennan's death. Clinton, who said Brennan's devotion to the Bill of Rights inspired millions of Americans and countless young law students, including myself,'' ordered flags flown at half- staff at government buildings, military facilities and U.S. embassies worldwide. In addition to Rehnquist, three other of Brennan's former court colleagues issued statements of admiration yesterday. Justice John Paul Stevens, who sat with Brennan for 15 years and shared some of his liberal views , said, ``The blend of wisdom, humor, love and learning that Justice Brennan shared with his colleagues--indeed with all those privileged to know him--was truly unique. He was a great man and a warm friend.'' ``Justice Brennan's death means the passing of an era in the history of the Supreme Court,'' Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said. ``In addition to the remarkable legal legacy he left behind, he left a legacy of friendship and good will wherever he went.'' Justice Anthony M. Kennedy said, ``Justice Brennan was one of the great friends of freedom, freedom for those who have it and freedom for those who yet must seek it.'' Justice Antonin Scalia, who strongly disagreed with Brennan's liberal approach, nonetheless once called Brennan ``probably the most influential justice of the century'' and ``the intellectual leader of the movement that really changed, fundamentally, the court's approach toward the Constitution.'' Joshua E. Rosenkranz, a 1987-88 clerk who is now executive director of the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University, said, ``I would be willing to bet that there is not a single person in our nation who hasn't been touched by Justice Brennan's legacy, whether they know it or not.'' Attorney General Janet Reno said she was sad to hear Brennan had died and added: ``Justice Brennan stood up for people who had no choice. He devoted his long, rich life to helping the American justice system live up to its ideals. He made a difference, and he will be remembered always by all Americans who prize the rule of law.'' Justice Brennan, Voice of Court's Social Revolution, Dies Former Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan Jr., the progressive voice of the modern court and a justice unequaled for his influence on American life, died yesterday. He was 91. During his 34 years on the court, Brennan pushed his colleagues to take on a variety of social issues and was widely recognized as the chief strategist behind the court's civil rights revolution. He was the architect of rulings that expanded rights of racial minorities and women; led to reapportionment of voting districts guaranteeing the ideal of ``one person, one vote,'' and enhanced First Amendment freedom for newspapers and other media. A slight man with a ready Irish grin, Brennan was recognized across the political spectrum not only for his legal mastery but as a defender of individual liberty and a voice of civility. Poor health forced his retirement from the court in 1990. ``He was a remarkable human being, one of the finest and most influential jurists in our nation's history,'' President Clinton said yesterday upon learning of Brennan's death. ``The force of his ideas, the strength of his leadership and his character have safeguarded freedom and widened the circle of equality for every single one of us.'' Justice David H. Souter has said of the man he succeeded on the court: ``One can agree with the Brennan opinions and one may disagree with them, but their collective influence is an enormously powerful defining force in the contemporary life of this republic.'' What distinguished Brennan was his ability to forcefully articulate a liberal vision of judging. It was a vision that found the essential meaning of the Constitution not in the past but in contemporary life, prized individual rights beyond what was explicitly written in the text, and compelled him to reach out to right perceived wrongs. He called the Constitution ``a sparkling vision of the supreme dignity of every individual,'' and employed it as a tool of racial equality and social justice. ``The genius of the Constitution rests not in any static meaning it may have had in a world that is dead and gone,'' he wrote in an essay published in 1997, ``but in the adaptability of its great principles to cope with current problems and present needs.'' In the confines of the court's conference room and chambers, Brennan was renowned for his cunning and persistence, and relentlessness in winning votes for his side. If a justice initially turned him down, Brennan would begin with gentle persuasion, then offer grounds for compromise, then pull out all the stops to try to win another vote. If he lost, he would pursue the justice in the hope he would win on an issue the next time around. In a May 1995 tribute to Brennan to inaugurate the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law, former appeals judge Abner J. Mikva defined ``a Brennanist'' as ``one who influences his colleagues beyond measure.'' Retired Justice Harry A. Blackmun said Brennan operated in ``quiet but firm tones.'' Brennan was appointed to the court by President Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1956, three years after Earl Warren became chief justice. And Brennan's unmatched ability to build consensus made him a central figure in the Warren Court and a key participant in its most celebrated decisions. He is considered the primary writer of the 1958 Cooper v. Aaron decision that forced school officials to accelerate classroom integration in the face of mass resistance. Brennan also was the author of a 1962 decision that permitted federal courts for the first time to hear constitutional challenges to a state's distribution of voters, a ruling that brought new fairness to the sharing of political power between rural and urban America. He broadly interpreted the Constitution's guarantee of due process for criminal defendants, in cases, for example, that protected state defendants against self-incrimination and gave prisoners greater access to federal courts to challenge convictions. ``In a civilized society,'' he wrote in the latter, ``government must always be accountable to the judiciary for a man's imprisonment.'' He led the majority to bolster the right of free speech, including a 1964 opinion that requires public figures who sue for libel to prove ``actual malice'' on the part of the media. To the consternation of his conservative critics, Brennan was not afraid to cross boundaries into areas previously considered off-limits for federal courts. ``Our task,'' Brennan once said, ``is to interpret and apply the Constitution faithfully to the wisdom and understanding of the Founding Fathers. But often it is impossible to make a constitutional decision without basing certain findings on data drawn from the social sciences, from history, geography, economics and the like.'' When Warren was succeeded as chief justice by Warren E. Burger and then William H. Rehnquist, the court began to move gradually to the right, and many of the rulings from the Warren era were reversed. But several Brennan decisions endured. Among the most important is Baker v. Carr, a 1962 opinion that gave federal courts the power to ensure the fairness of voting districts, reshaped politics and broadened participation in democracy. Even as he found himself increasingly on the losing side in the 1980s, Brennan remained on good terms with his fellow justices. ``Brennan brought to the work of the court a personal warmth and friendliness which prevented disagreements about the law from marring the good personal relations among the justices,'' Rehnquist once wrote. The chief justice also remarked after Brennan had retired that ``the enduring legacy of Justice Brennan--the high value which he placed on claims of individual constitutional rights asserted against the authority of majoritarian self- government--is in no danger of being forgotten or disregarded simply because he has left the bench.'' Georgetown University law professor Mark V. Tushnet, who has read through the private papers of several former justices, said Brennan's winning personal style added tremendously to his effectiveness. ``If you look at the tone with which people responded to his suggestions for changing an opinion, Brennan made it easy. He was friendly and had a tone of accommodation.'' A minor stroke and related poor health forced Brennan to retire suddenly in 1990, but he remained active in liberal causes. In 1994, a national anti-death penalty project was begun in his name. A year later, he was the inspiration for a free speech award given periodically by the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression in Charlottesville, Va. Brennan said he hoped to continue effecting change and affecting lives. ``Justice Brennen has an abiding belief in the power of thoughts, thoughtful words and good will to reach understanding and solutions that more contentious methods cannot,'' Vernon E. Jordan, Jr., the civil rights leader and Washington lawyer, said in 1995 when a group of Brennan's admirers dedicated the Brennan Center. Brennan was born in Newark on April 25, 1906, the second- oldest of eight children of Irish immigrant parents. His father worked as a laborer in a brewery and became a union leader and local politician. Brennan was an honors student at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School of Finance and received a scholarship to Harvard Law School. Upon graduation in 1931, he joined a Newark law firm, Pitney, Hardin & Skinner, practicing there until he entered the Army in 1942. While in the military, he handled labor disputes on the staff of the undersecretary of war. He returned to his law firm and began specializing in labor law, representing several large manufacturing enterprises, before being appointed to the New Jersey bench. In 1949 Republican Gov. Alfred E. Driscoll named him to the state superior court. Three years later, Driscoll elevated him to the New Jersey Supreme Court, and Brennan became a reliable lieutenant to Chief Justice Arthur Vanderbilt. Brennan's nomination to the high court apparently came as a surprise. Then U.S. Attorney General Herbert Brownell Jr. telephoned him late one afternoon in his New Jersey chambers and asked that he meet Eisenhower at the White House the next day. Brennan thought nothing of the request and even stopped at Union Station for a hot dog to bide his time, according to Robert M. O'Neil, who would become one of Brennan's first law clerks. ``He didn't expect to get dinner at the White House,'' O'Neil said. University of Virginia law professor John C. Jeffries Jr. wrote in his biography of Brennan's colleague, Lewis F. Powell Jr. that Brennan's shot at the high court was owed to chance. ``In 1956 the chief justice of New Jersey, Arthur Vanderbilt, was scheduled to give the keynote address at a large Washington conference on the problem of overburdened courts. Two days before the meeting, Vanderbilt fell ill, and Brennan went in his place. His speech impressed U.S. Attorney General Herbert Brownell, who, when a Supreme Court vacancy opened four months later, contemplated the electoral advantages to President Eisenhower of appointing Irish Catholic Democrat from the Northeast and recommended Brennan.'' Brennan later said no one in the Eisenhower administration asked him a single question about his politics or judicial philosophy. And indeed, Eisenhower's choice for the high court marked the third time Brennan had been appointed or elevated to a court by a Republican official. The ability to bridge differences would distinguish his early career on the high court. Brennan succeeded Justice Sherman Minton, who was retiring because of failing health, and initially received a recess appointment on Oct. 16, 1956. He was confirmed by the Senate March 19, 1957 on a voice vote. The only audible dissent came from Sen. Joseph R. McCarthy (R-Wis.), who said he was convinced that Brennan was ``hostile'' to congressional investigations of communism. Brennan had given a speech in 1954 in which he said ``there are some practices in the contemporary American scene which are reminiscent of Salem witch hunts.'' Brennan was 50 at the time of his appointment, the youngest member of a court that included William D. Douglas, Hugo L. Black and Felix Frankfurter. In 1962 Frankfurter who taught Brennan at Harvard and was a strong advocate of limiting judicial power, told Look magazine: ``I taught my students to think for themselves, but sometimes I think that Bill Brennan carries it too far.'' Brennan formed an immediate relationship with Warren, becoming a close ally and developing the legal justifications for the decisions that would result in a social revolution. The Warren Court broadly interpreted the Constitution to provide greater protections for individual rights. It demanded, for example, that states abide by most of the provisions of the Bill of Rights, a document originally interpreted to safeguard individuals only from the hand of the federal government. Essentially a political actor of the era, the court actively addressed society's problems, accelerating the civil rights movement, bringing fairness to reapportionment and reforming police practices. When he saw a litigant in need, Brennan's litmus test for offering legal protection was whether anything in the Bill of Rights explicitly prevented him from doing so. He favored the individual and put the burden on the government to show that something in the Constitution disallowed protection. (The opposite, ``judicial restraint'' approach asks whether anything in the Constitution or in the court's precedents explicitly permits it to extend protection to an individual.) Brennan and the other Warren-era judges crossed boundaries into areas previously considered off-limits for the federal courts. Before 1962, for example, the question of whether legislative voting districts were drawn fairly was considered a ``political question,'' that is, the business of elected officials, not judges. But Brennan said the fairness question was constitutional, not political. Warren would later call the ruling in Baker v. Carr the ``most important'' of his time on the court. The decision broke rural America's lock on political power and gave urban voters equal representation to fulfill the principle of one person, one vote, as articulated in later voting rights cases. Brennan also led the court in increasing protections against sex discrimination, writing in 1972, ``distinctions between the sexes often have the effect of invidiously relegating the entire class of females to inferior legal status without regard to the actual capabilities of its individual members.''

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to a true American hero; a lady of unconquerable spirit, a loving mother, educator, and activist for her people and our Nation. I rise to pay tribute to the legacy of Dr. Betty Shabazz. I would like to read to you the letter that was sent by me to Dr. Shabazz's family upon her passing: Dear Attallah, Qubilah, Malaak, Gamilah, Malikah, and Ilyassah Shabazz: Please accept my condolences upon the transition of your mother. I know this is a great loss to you. There can be no words to describe what you are feeling. I hope that it is of some comfort to you that I, and millions of other Americans, are also deeply saddened by her passing. I do not believe that I am exaggerating when I associate myself with millions of Americans in this regard. Your mother's self-evident love of her people, her heroic composure in assuming the mantle of leadership, her purposefulness, her quiet strength, and her professional achievement have shown as beacons of triumph over adversity. Your mother's life has been a testament to the power of integrity and dignity. When the harsh winds of hatred swept across our country and prematurely ended the life of Malcolm X, they could not overcome the strength of his wife. Dr. Betty Shabazz continued the struggle after his death, keeping his quest for justice for all alive. As a doctor of education administration, she brought the movement into academia, where she immeasurably touched the lives of hundreds of students. Dr. Shabazz served Medgar Evers College as director of Institutional Advancement with ability, passion, and caring, qualities that were reflected in everything she did in life. A single mother, Dr. Shabazz's challenges as a parent were not unique. However, they were heightened by the fact that she was the single mother of Malcolm X's children. She reared her six daughters alone, constantly preparing them for a life in the forefront of the African-American community, one that is a requirement of their lineage. One of her daughters is a successful public relations executive, another a vocal activist in her late father's movement of human rights. In this way, Betty Shabazz has served as a model of motherhood and a reflection of the family values that every American family aims to emulate. Malcolm X left us with a commitment to work so that people around the world, regardless of their race, are afforded their basic human rights. A warrior in her own right, Dr. Shabazz has made countless contributions to the cause of oppressed people around the globe, and especially within the African-American community. Her message will be forever with us, an inspiration to all who choose a life of service to their fellow man. In this time of need for the entire Shabazz family, let us reflect upon the lessons that have been taught us by Dr. Betty Shabazz. Her life has been a testament to the virtues of family, community, and activism, and it is fitting for this House of Representatives, in the name of the American people, to pay her tribute.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am privileged to yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California [Mr. Sherman].

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 45 seconds. Mr. Chairman, this just in: The reason maybe Chairman Goss' people do not ever ask him about it, about this financing of the intelligence, is that they do not know that we are not being told. They may not even know that he is being told. For my dear friend, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum], again, with whom we have had great discussions about American history, in 1770 and 1773, in those 2 years the intelligence budgets were in the aggregate disclosed. If Members need a more recent time, check in 1994, when the Subcommittee on National Security of the Committee on Appropriations inadvertently released the whole blooming thing and nothing happened. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Adam Smith].

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes 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 myself 15 seconds. Mr. Chairman, the argument that the President can do it and has not done it but he approves of it is not a reason for us not to go ahead and do it. If the gentleman does not object if the President declassifies, then why do not we do it? We were only 30 votes away last year from doing it. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California, Mrs. Ellen Tauscher.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. John Tierney].

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs].

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds because some may be surprised at the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks] but I am not surprised at the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde). Mr. Hyde said it makes hardly any difference what the aggregate amount would be. He is worried about what comes after that. Well, we are not legislating about after that, and he is quite right. It does not make any difference.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks], the frequently talked about ranking member.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds, because the amicable nature of the ranking member and the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary is very close, and I respect his learned judgment. But this time he is up against the Secretary of Defense, the former Secretary of the CIA. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] was on this committee as well, the Committee on Foreign Relations in the other body, the framers of the Constitution and 176 of his colleagues. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks], the distinguished ranking member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. May I point out that the arguments, the more we go over them each year, the more it becomes clear that there is very little objection to revealing the aggregate budget for the 14 intelligence agencies in our system. It is a practice that is followed by at least four of our allies that I know with no harm. It is like trying to get us to agree to a secret that is already open.

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

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This amendment is precisely the same one that was voted on last year that makes this modest proposal, that the aggregate amounts of all intelligence agencies be revealed in the President's budget and in the final appropriation for intelligence. It is a simple compilation, and I know some people did know this, of 14 different intelligence agencies in the military budget. It has been examined with great care by the Commission on the Role and Capabilities in the Intelligence Community, chaired by the Secretary, former Secretary of Defense Harold Brown, by Warren Rudman, and even the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] served with some distinction on this committee. They recommend this. The Council on Foreign Relations recommends this. In last year's Senate bill, this provision was included. I apologize, it is not radical, it is not revolutionary, it is embarrassingly modest, the aggregate figure of 14 intelligence agencies. The President of the United States has indicated that he would accede to this request. The ranking member of the Committee on National Security has supported us year after year, so we are only doing what other allies of ours do on this subject. England reveals their aggregate figure, Canada reveals their aggregate figure, Germany reveals their aggregate figure, Australia reveals their aggregate figure. We are moving in the same way that the Framers of the Constitution moved in 1790 and 1793 when they made public disclosure of their aggregate sum even though British spying and counterespionage was at a very intense level. I urge that Members support the measure. I would like to point out for those who will be spared this argument of why you do not go up to the green room and look at the intelligence figures. First of all, there are 14 of them. This is why only four Members have done this. Second, you are then bound by the House rules of secrecy and who knows what you can or cannot say. What we are saying is that for two reasons, we need this amendment very badly. One is that we must not undermine the legitimacy of the need for secrecy where it does exist. Secondly, unless we reveal the aggregate budget, we will not gain the support of the American people. For those reasons, I urge that we please support this amendment when it comes to a vote. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer a modest but long overdue proposal. My amendment would simply declassify the aggregate amount of the intelligence budget. Specifically, it would require the President to provide an unclassified statement of the bottom-line number of the current appropriated amount and the amount being requested. It would not disclose any operations. It would not reveal any agency budgets. It would simply provide the American taxpayers with information they are clearly entitled to. The amendment is modeled after my bill, H.R. 753, the Intelligence Budget Accountability Act, a bill with 83 Democratic and Republican cosponsors. That bill, and the amendment I am offering today, seek to implement a key recommendation of a congressionally-mandated Commission on Intelligence Reform. The Commission on the Roles and Capabilities of the United States Intelligence Community was chaired by former Secretary of Defense Harold Brown and former Republican Senator Warren Rudman. Dr. Brown, who is now at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, and Senator Rudman, who served on the Intelligence Committee, both endorsed the Intelligence Budget Accountability Act in a letter. Even a former Director of Central Intelligence, Stansfield Turner, wrote me a letter supporting my bill. I am submitting all these materials for the Record. I would also like to point out that the gentleman from Florida who is the current chairman of the House Intelligence Committee sat on the Brown-Rudman Commission when it recommended disclosure of the intelligence budget. When the Commission's report came out, the White House publicly declared that ``The President is persuaded that disclosure of the annual budget for intelligence should be made public, and that this can be done without any harm to intelligence activities.'' So my amendment is really a mainstream proposal, with the support of Republicans and Democrats in and out of government. During my service as chairman of the Government Operations Committee, I became intimately familiar with mounds of classified information and with secrecy policy. I became convinced that too much secrecy is not only counterproductive to our democracy, but it also undermines the credibility of our legitimate secrets. Another congressionally-mandated study, the Commission on Protecting and Reducing Government Secrecy made some of the same observations. This Commission was chaired by Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, and the gentleman from Texas who served as the chair of the House Intelligence Committee last year. It observed in its report that ``Secrecy exists to protect national security, not government officials and not agencies.'' It also noted that the expansion of the national security bureaucracy has far outpaced oversight by the public and the Congress. It's time to stop blurring legitimate secrecy that serves our national defense with arbitrary secrecy that is used to avoid the debate on the balanced budget. You will likely hear some of my colleagues today say that once we disclose the aggregate figure on the intelligence budget, we'll be starting down a slippery slope. This is absurd. The Defense Appropriations Committee in 1994 accidentally disclosed not only the total figure, but even an agency by agency breakdown. Three years later we're still waiting to hear how that harmed our national security. You will also likely hear some say today that it is currently within the President's power to disclose the intelligence budget, and if he wants to he can. Talk about debating the chicken and the egg. That is precisely what this amendment would do anyway: require the President to submit an unclassified statement of the current appropriated amount and the current requested amount. Finally, as a member of the Judiciary Committee, I would like to mention that the Constitution wanted all arms of the government to be fiscally accountable. Article I, section 9, clause 7 states that ``No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.'' I think if the Framers could disclose the aggregate figure of their secret expenditures after the Revolutionary War, then we sure can disclose such a sum after the cold war. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I include the following: Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I support a limitation for this reason: This is precisely the same amendment that was offered a year ago, and it received 176 votes. Although we have a lot of speakers, I think the lateness of the hour and the fact that this bill has been brought under the 5-minute rule requires that we accede to the chairman's request. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.