John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone].

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentlewoman from the District of Columbia [Ms. Norton].

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee], a sterling member of the Committee on the Judiciary, in whose State there have been church burnings. (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cummings]. (Mr. CUMMINGS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt] in whose State there have been church arsons.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, we come here today because the Nation is in crisis, and the symptoms of that crisis have been reflected in these church burnings in mostly African American churches. It is to the credit of the Federal Government that we have reacted in a serious and, I think, swift manner, and I want to say that this legislation is the work product of all of us on the committee and that we have held hearings in the Committee on the Judiciary on May 21 in which we had a wide range of witnesses, both in the church and out of the church, in government and out of government, plus the law enforcement agency heads who were dealing with this matter. Mr. Speaker, what we found out, that is to me one of the most single important matters to come out of this tragedy, is the fact that these burnings are not condoned by anyone, no one in the Congress, no one in the Senate. Our law enforcement agencies, both Federal and State, are united in trying to put an end to this scourge. Mr. Speaker, I have been in the South on two occasions in which I saw this at the grassroots level, in which law enforcement officers were working very effectively. In addition, I think we should lift up the name of the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Deval Patrick for the excellent leadership that he has given and is giving as we move through this nightmare in American history. Yesterday three more African-American churches were torched. It is pathological. It is the consequence of a lot of things we might have done otherwise. But on this one point we are all united. The Assistant Secretary for Enforcement in the Treasury, Jim Johnson, has been before the committee and has told us what they are doing. John McGaw, the Director of the Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms unit, has given us his report of what is going on. The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Louis Freeh, through his representatives, have worked completely. We have more than 200 investigators on the ground working full-time on this matter as we speak. It is a difficult crime for all the obvious reasons, but we are united. We are working closely with State and local law enforcement officers as well. And so we are here today as a combined unit in agreement that the church arson law on the Federal books has to be made effective to be operable. Our chairman, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], has explained in perfect detail precisely what we have done to facilitate the implementation of this Federal statute which has lain fallow, actually, up until now. So I am very pleased about what is going on and the resources that are being committed to continue the law enforcement side of this. I must say that at that hearing on May 21 the president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, Dr. Joseph Lowery, urged us to do what we have done, move swifter, move faster, move more effectively. I think that he will agree that we have listened to his comments and are following them with as much speed as the bureaucracy can work. Then I want to lift up the name of Rev. Jesse Lewis Jackson who has done a marvelous job of trying--well, he has done two things. The first thing he has done is to speak sensibly and in a teacher way about the problem, and the second thing he has done is try to do this healing that has been referred to by the President. Now, how do we heal a nation that is coming out of a history of racism? It is not just done by words or sermons or speeches from on high. But, as my colleagues know, I believe that we have struck a nerve in the American body politic that has led us all to say enough of this kind of foolishness. The conservative Members of the Congress came to the members of the Congressional Black Caucus to join together even before we had the hearings to urge, and they met with the law enforcement officials of the Federal Government and urged with us that they move as swiftly as they can, no holds barred, get whoever is at the bottom of this, if it is individuals, whatever, let us deal with it in a way that reflects the understanding and common sense and leadership that should be expected of the Federal Government. Mr. Speaker, I want to say as one Member of this body that this Government has made me proud. This membership in Congress has made me proud because this is the most sensitive thing in the American body politic right now. When in God's name are these few people out there going to turn away from this kind of pathological conduct? But we are doing all we can on this side. Oh, yes, there is more to be done. These kinds of problems are not healed by a bill, but it is my privilege, as the ranking member of this committee, to commend to all of the Members and the staffs, Alan Coffey and the other members, Julian Epstein Melanie Sloan, and Diana Schacht and all of those that have been working with us for a job well done. 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 1 minute to the gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton], who has worked on this matter with a great deal of commitment. (Mrs. CLAYTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, 333 days ago more than 2,000 union employees of the Detroit Newspaper Agency were forced to strike after the Detroit News and Detroit Free Press refused to bargain with them in good faith. In the 5 years before the strike, the relevant unions conceded to management demands to eliminate nearly 1,000 jobs and gave up countless pay raises to help make these newspapers profitable, but this profit only made the newspapers eager for more. When these papers began to earn more than $1 million per week, instead of using this money to rehire workers and restore pay raises to the workers who made it possible, they said it was time for more sacrifices. Today, the Detroit News and Detroit Free Press are losing almost $5 million per week because of reaction to their antiworker business tactics, but the newspapers claim that they no longer need the striking workers. Even though the NLRB has issued two unfair labor practice complaints against the Detroit newspaper for their bad faith bargaining and unilateral imposition of changes in working conditions, they refuse to even begin negotiating with the unions. I urge my colleagues to join with me in reexamining the Newspaper Preservation Act of 1970 which sanctions, joint operating agreements, like the one under which the Detroit newspapers operate. The joint operating agreement gives the combined Detroit News and Detroit Free Press a powerful weapon against the unions by providing them limited antitrust immunity for the purpose of combining certain operations, such as printing and other production operations. Before the workers were forced to strike, the Detroit Newspaper Agency earned $56 million in 1 year; this year, with the workers striking, they are expected to lose $250 million. It is clear that Gannett and Knight-Ridder are willing to sacrifice their economic well- being in order to gain the upper hand in labor-management relations. I urge the Detroit Newspaper Agency to please come to the bargaining table and end this impasse.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I support this bill which requires prisoners eligible for drug treatment to successfully complete drug treatment programs and remain drug free after the program's completion to receive good time credit. Current law unfairly favors drug-abusing offenders--who may receive up to a year off their prison terms by undergoing treatment--in comparison with nondrug abusing offenders who have no comparable opportunity for early release. This bill provides that good time credit would not vest for an eligible prisoner unless the prisoner successfully completes a substance abuse treatment program and remains drug-free thereafter. Good time credit would accumulate, as it would for any prisoner, but it would not vest and could be revoked at any time prior to release if the prisoner did not receive treatment for drug abuse or if the offender failed to remain drug-free. The incentives in the current law are misguided. Current law actually allows prisoners with drug problems to reduce their sentences more than prisoners who have no substance abuse problems. I support this bill because it rectifies this incentive problem while still encouraging prisoners with substance abuse problems to receive treatment.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, the United States has the best intentions in Haiti but right now it is engaged in an obstruction of justice of the most egregious kind. When a multinational force restored democracy to Haiti the United States Military seized thousands of documents from the Haitian Military headquarters and from the headquarters of FRAPH, a violent paramilitary organization. Over a year and a half after they were taken, the Department of Defense still has not returned them, and the State Department is still supposedly negotiating their return. The seized documents are desperately needed today to collect information about human rights violations that took place while the elected president, Jean-Bertrand Aristide was in forced exile. On December 1, 40 Members of Congress wrote the following letter to President Clinton, calling for the release of the documents: Congress of the United States, House of Representatives, Washington, DC, December 1, 1995. President William Jefferson Clinton, The White House. Dear Mr. President: Just over a year ago, we celebrated the restoration of democracy to Haiti with the return of its duly elected President, Jean-Bertrand Aristide. Your role as president was crucial to this occurring. The re-establishment of the legitimate government of Haiti followed three years of a murderous military regime. Recent press accounts have discussed how the Pentagon is now holding tens of thousands of pages of documents taken during the restoration of government, and has yet to return them. We seek a complete account of all documents and their immediate return to the Haitian government. This is not only normal and appropriate, but expected in the relations between the two friendly nations. The documents should include any and all that may pertain to the Central Intelligence Agency, the Defense Intelligence Agency, or any other part of the United States Government. There is absolutely no justification why these materials should be in the hands of our government now that the legitimate government of Haiti has been restored. The fact that these documents have been withheld obviously raises questions about the level of collaboration between elements of the American government and the former military regime. These documents are necessary to the government of Haiti if it is to make sense of what happened during the three years of President Aristide's forced exile. We should be comforted by President Aristide's enlightened policy of reconciliation that has been the hallmark of his new government. Nevertheless, Haitian investigators must have full knowledge about the sources and causes of the pain and bloodshed during the rule of the military junta if Haiti is to be reconciled and to move forward. The United States must satisfy its responsibility to meet the Haitian government's right to the ownership of these documents. To deny President Aristide the official documents of his insubordinate military is an insult to this new democratic nation. Anything short of a complete return of all documents also undermines our policy's goals of supporting a thriving, stable, and peaceful democracy in Haiti. It would also undermine the integrity of open democracy in our nation. We might add that history has taught us repeatedly that democracy is not strengthened by concealing what may be embarrassing or what may be inconvenient. We expect that you will facilitate the immediate return of all the aforementioned documents. Sincerely, John Conyers, Jr., Carrie Meek, Julian Dixon, Alan Mollohan, Jim Traficant, Marcy Kaptur, Nancy Pelosi, Eva Clayton, Kweisi Mfume, Barney Frank, Ron Dellums, Joe Moakley, Paul Kanjoriski, Cardiss Collins, Dave Bonior, Sheila Jackson-Lee, George Brown, John Lewis, Louis Stokes, George Miller, Maurice Hinchey, Bennie Thompson, Martin Sabo, Peter DeFazio, Joe Kennedy, Henry Gonzalez, Victor Frazer, Neil Abercrombie, Bobby Rush, Eliot Engel, Major Owens, Eddie Bernice Johnson, Earl Hilliard, Ed Towns, Donald Payne, Sam Gibbons, Chaka Fattah, Bernard Sanders, Vic Fazio, Nita Lowey. A few days later, Members of the Congressional Black Caucus had a meeting with the Haitian Ambassador Jean Casimir. Then we met with the State Department Haiti Coordinator, Ambassador James Dobbins, who has since moved on to the National Security Council. At both briefings, we learned that the administration intended to return the documents and materials. Soon thereafter, the U.S. government offered the Haitian Government incredibly onerous terms for return which the Haitian Government rejected. On January 30, two dozen members of Congress joined me in writing to President Clinton again and demanding the release of these documents. That letter follows: Congress of the United States, House of Representatives, Washington, DC, January 30, 1996. The President, The White House. Dear Mr. President: We are writing to you regarding the Haitian documents and materials still in possession of the United States Government. The restoration of democracy in Haiti has been a hallmark of your foreign policy success and we are enthusiastic supporters of this policy and your ongoing attention towards Haiti. We applaud the release of some of the documents, but the continued retention of those remaining troubles us because it is frustrating the judicial process in Haiti. Therefore, we urgently request a meeting with you as soon as possible. Many of us first wrote to you about this matter on December 1, 1995, and were encouraged by your administration's announcement that the documents would be released. Nearly two months later, they still have not been returned. Surely this is far longer than is required to resolve any logistical requirements necessary for the secure transfer of such materials. The Government of Haiti needs these documents if it is to understand what happened during the years of President Aristide's forced exile, to continue the process of disarmament, and to fully investigate the crimes of paramilitary groups such as FRAPH. Return of the documents is especially urgent in light of the pending extradition of FRAPH's leader, Emmanuel Constant. In your eloquently delivered State of the Union address, you pointed out that ``in Haiti the dictators are gone, democracy has a new day.'' The inauguration of a new president in Haiti on February 7 promises a new era of peaceful transition of power. However, the challenges of disarmament and judicial inquiry remain. An important way of assuring that these processes continue is to return the Haitian documents and materials. There is no excuse for the intransigence of elements of the United States Government who are obstructing the rule of law the United States and the Multinational Force helped restore to Haiti. Doing so interferes with the young spirit of democracy and reconciliation in Haiti and contradicts the old tradition of democracy and openness in America. We look forward to meet with you to discuss these matters in full detail. Sincerely, John Conyers, Major Owens, Cynthia McKinney, Harold Ford, Barbara-Rose Collins, Bennie Thompson, Ronald Dellums, Louis Stokes, Carrie Meek, Eleanor Holmes Norton, Donald Payne, Alcee Hastings, Sheila Jackson-Lee, Earl Hillard, Sanford Bishop, Albert Wynn, Corrine Brown, Bernie Sanders, Victor Frazer, Jim Clyburn, George Miller, Xavier Becerra, Peter DeFazio, George Brown, Barney Frank, Luis Gutierrez. But the seizure of the documents took on a whole new meaning when the New York Times reported on February 6 that during the invasion American troops were told by superiors that FRAPH was a legitimate opposition group. They were told this despite the fact that Pentagon and State Department officials knew that FRAPH was a group of bloodthirsty thugs, and that it had been linked to thousands of murders. This raised a number of troubling questions. For example, why were US troops deliberately misinformed? Why was there such a stark contrast between stated policy and action? Why were the documents taken in the first place? If the documents were taken to protect our troops, why haven't they been returned since, and why weren't they shared with other troops? I decided to put some of these questions to my good friend, the Honorable Togo West, the Secretary of the Army. I am submitting my letter to Secretary West for the Record. Congress of the United States, House of Representatives, Washington, DC, April 12, 1996. Hon. Togo D. West, Jr., Secretary of the U.S. Army, The Pentagon, Washington, DC. Dear Togo: I know you are aware that our relations with haiti are of great concern to me. I have traveled there many times over the years, most recently with Ambassador Madeleine Albright to witness that nation's first peaceful transfer of power as the democratically elected Rene Preval was sworn in as president. While this was cause for celebration, difficult challenges for Haiti remain. One of the most pressing issues facing Haiti is to establish security among the people and confidence in the new justice system by investigating human rights crimes and continuing the disarmament process. I am concerned that the United States is not doing everything it could to advance these goals. While the Republican Congress is preoccupied with a few select murder cases, new gangs and paramilitary organizations threaten a new surge of vigilante violence because their weapons have not been taken away. News reports from Haiti indicate as many as ten armed anti-democratic gangs are currently operating. During the restoration of democracy to Haiti in the fall of 1994, the U.S. military seized photographs, thousands of pages of documents, and other materials from the Haitian Army (the FAH'd), the headquarters of the Front for Advancement and Progress of Haiti (FRAPH) and other locations. I am well aware of the ongoing discussions between the United States Government and the Government of Haiti to arrange for the return of the Haitian documents.\1\ I have written two letters to President Clinton about this matter, signed by a cumulative total of 50 members of Congress. I believe that a return of these materials could make an important contribution to the establishment of peace and justice in Haiti. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ I commissioned a Congressional Research Service study by the American Law Division which determined that according to the Foreign Relations Law of the United States and international law as interpreted by the United States, the seized documents clearly belong to the legitimate government of Haiti. The opinion also noted that their seizure and retention is a departure from these norms. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- This letter, however, is a request for information about the directives that were given prior to the seizure of the documents and materials and what happened in the period after they were taken. Since the U.S. Army constituted a large proportion of American involvement in the multinational operation in Haiti, I thought you would be able to provide me with some details about the actual seizure of the documents and the decisions leading up to that action. Specifically, I would like to know (1) generally what troops were told to look for by commanding officers before the searches; (2) which locations were searched and if a complete list of these sites is available; (3) if SALUTE forms or other inventories are available describing everything that was found; and most importantly, (4) what the established priority intelligence requirements and information requirements were. I understand that captured enemy material is an important element of intelligence, and that seizure of CEM is vital to gaining information about the adversary. In meeting that requirement, it seems to me that the armed forces involved in the seizures did an admirable job. The seizures in Haiti are a special case because they occurred during a multinational operation. The ``Joint Doctrine for Intelligence Support to Operations'' (Joint Pub. 2-0) notes in its chapter on multilateral operations that ``. . . nations should share all relevant and pertinent intelligence about the situation and the adversary to attain the best possible common understanding of the threatened interests, determine relevant and attainable objectives, and achieve unified efforts against the adversary.'' I am a strong supporter of the United Nations and the UN is of course facing increased skepticism in the United States. Therefore my fifth and final request is to hear--from the Army's perspective--how information contained in the seized materials was shared with other members of the multilateral forces and how that contributed to the successful prosection of the overall mission. The restoration of Haiti's legitimate government was a great success for the cause of democracy in general and the foreign policy of President Clinton in particular. UN Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali, who I met with yesterday, agrees with me and I know you do too. For that reason, I hope you will assist me in my effort to learn more about our operation in Haiti. I look forward to hearing from you, and I hope you will personally contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, John Conyers, Jr., Member of Congress. I will have a copy of today's Congressional Record for May 24, 1996, delivered to his office in case my letter was lost before. I look forward to my good friend's response. [From the New York Times, Feb. 6, 1996] Cables Show U.S. Deception on Haitian Violence (By Larry Rohter) Port-au-Prince, Haiti, February 5.--In the months after the United States invasion of Haiti, American officers repeatedly told their troops that the country's most dreaded paramilitary group was actually a legitimate opposition political party. ``They're no different from Democrats or Republicans,'' soldiers in Haiti dutifully echoed when asked about their instructions. But a review of classified cables sent by the American Embassy in Haiti to the Defense and State Departments shows that for a year before the invasion in September 1994 the Pentagon knew that the official version was not true. Within weeks of the founding of the Front for the Advancement and Progress of Haiti, the papers indicate, American intelligence agencies had concluded the group was a gang of ``gun-carrying crazies'' eager to ``use violence against all who oppose it.'' ``All over the country, Fraph is evolving into a sort of Mafia,'' a cable from the office of the American military attache in Port-au-Prince warned in the spring of 1994, using the group's acronym. ``Its use of force to intimidate and coerce is sanctioned by the local military, which derives both political and especially material benefits from their relationship.'' With United States troops now in Bosnia pursuing some of the same objectives as in Haiti, the documents raise questions about the soliders' mission, the information they are given by superiors and the action they take in the field. Human rights observers and others who have seen the papers say they also raise the question whether the military ordered American troops to ignore human rights abuses committed before they arrived. What remains uncertain is why the Pentagon took a public stance clearly at odds with the classified information it had collected in Haiti. A Pentagon official denied today that there was any conflict between the official position and the inside information: ``If daylight is perceived between our public and private perceptions, that's wrong. We agreed on what Fraph was. Fraph was a political movement, but clearly a political movement with a substantial thug element to it. It was clear to us that Fraph represented a potential threat. That didn't change. There were efforts, clearly, in the initial weeks of the intervention to calm the rhetoric and reduce the likelihood that there would be violent confrontations--and that was relatively successful.'' Ira Kurzban, an American lawyer who has reviewed the cables on behalf of the Haitian Government, said, ``There is absolutely no ambiguity in these documents with respect to the fact that Fraph was an instrument of repression under the control of the Haitian military.'' In a telephone interview from the Maryland jail where he is being held for deporatation, Emmanuel Constant, the founder of Fraph, said that from the moment American troops landed he was under pressure from the United States military to help it maintain ``a form of balance in Haiti'' between groups supporting President Jean-Bertrand Aristide and those opposing him. Mr. Constant said he was told by the American military early in October 1994 that ``I should ease up the tension and avoid confrontation'' by ``giving a speech in which I promised to be a constructive opposition to Aristide.'' That speech was delivered soon afterward, and Mr. Constant maintained it ``was approved by the U.S. Government, by the embassy people'' in advance. In the interview, Mr. Constant acknowledged that he had been an informant of the Central Intelligence Agency before the American invasion but said he now feels betrayed ``They have the wrong man in jail,'' he said. Haitian Government officials and foreign diplomats here said it appeared the Defense Department and American intelligence agencies were acting to weaken Mr. Aristide, whom they had long distrusted. These officials suggested that United States Government agencies may also have been trying to protect Haitian informants who might be useful in the future but had been discredited by the collapse of the military dictatorship that overthrew Mr. Aristide. In separate raids on the headquarters of Fraph and the Haitian armed forces after the invasion, American troops seized more than 150,000 pages of official documents, which were taken to the United States. Haiti has demanded their return. Several hundred pages of United States documents relating to Fraph were obtained last year by the Center for Constitutional Rights for a suit filed in Federal Court in Brooklyn by Alerte Belance, an Aristide supporter now living in New Jersey. She says the group abducted her in Haiti in 1993 and attacked her with a machete, cutting off one of her arms, an ear, and parts of her nose and tongue before leaving her for dead. Human rights groups say such brutality was typical of Fraph, which they hold responsible for many of the more than 3,000 deaths during Mr. Aristide's exile, from 1991 to 1994. The Center for Constitutional Rights has filed a motion for a default judgment against Fraph, which has failed to respond to the suit. But Ms. Belance's lawyers have asked the presiding judge to delay any award of damages until their client obtains additional documents, including tens of thousands of the pages seized by American troops from Fraph's headquarters. ``These documents are relevant to establish that Fraph was acting under color of official authority when it carried out the torture of Alerte Belance, and therefore violated international law,'' the Center for Constitutional Rights contended in court papers filed last month. Cables that have already been declassified by the Defense Intelligence Agency as part of the suit indicate that American intelligence agencies had a broad network of informants both within the Haitian armed forces and Fraph. In public, however, all parties denied that they were connected. Soon after Fraph was formed, a State Department cable on Oct. 28, 1993, concluded, ``Their effectiveness is a function of the willingness of their patrons'' in the Haitian Armed Forces ``to use intimidation and violence (carried out by armed civilian attaches) to `enforce' their political initiatives.'' By December, the military attache in Port-au-Prince was warning the Pentagon that repression by Fraph in Haiti's southern peninsula ``has increased considerably.'' When in the spring of 1994 American officials began interviewing refugees who had fled by sea, they obtained an even clearer picture of Fraph's violent methods. Some testimony came from Fraph members who said they had fled in disgust. ``When they kill and rape people, we (new members) are forced to sit and watch,'' a cable quoted a former Fraph operative as saying, adding, ``He also related that later in the initiation process you are forced to participate in the killings and rapes.'' But that information was apparently withheld from American troops after they intervened on Sept. 19, 1994, to restore President Aristide and his Lavalas movement. Radio broadcasts to Special Forces units in the Haitian countryside, for example, described Lavalas and Fraph as competing political parties equally dedicated to the country's well-being. The documents suggests that the American military's willingness to work with Fraph began to diminish only after a radio conversation between Mr. Constant and other leaders of the group was intercepted. According to a cable sent on Oct. 3, 1994, they were ``threatening to break out weapons and begin an all-out war against the foreigners'' and ``named an American official as their first target.'' By January 1995, the State Department was denying that the United States had ever treated Fraph as anything but thugs. The Secretary of State's office said of Fraph in a cable to the American Embassy in Haiti, ``We viewed it as basically a rent-a-mob group financed by the military for recruiting purposes and dependent upon the military leaders' ability to punish/reward.'' In addition, the unclassified cable said, ``we appreciate the embassy's consistent hard line on Fraph and strongly endorse the embassy's latest clarification of our position.''

Mr. CONYERS

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

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer today a modest proposal that would do no more than provide the American people and the Congress with information they are entitled to. The amendment would essentially declassify the aggregate figure of the intelligence budget. It would make public the requested amount in the current fiscal year's appropriated amount beginning October 1996. It would not disclose any specific operation or department budgets, only the bottomline budget number. The amendment would conform to the recommendations of the Commission on Role and Capabilities of the Intelligence Community, chaired by the former Secretary of Defense, Harold Brown. This bipartisan commission proposed that the President or his designee disclose the total amount of money appropriated for intelligence activities during the current fiscal year and the total amount being requested for the next fiscal year. Similarly, the prestigious Council on Foreign Relations report on intelligence reform likewise urged the opening of the intelligence budget. This amendment would also mirror the provisions contained in the intelligence authorization bill produced by the other body, which has passed in the Senate Intelligence Committee. Now, why? The reason is, first of all, constitutional, which in our Constitution, it is clearly stated that a regular statement and account of the receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time. It is simple, straightforward, and clear. The Framers of the Constitution, themselves fresh from secret military operations against the British, were no strangers to the need for secrecy. Yet, they decided they needed to be accountable to the taxpayers. As early as 1790 and 1793, when the Congress created a secret fund for persons to serve the United States in foreign parts, the law provided for public disclosure of the aggregate amount. I think if Americans could have openness after the Revolutionary War, then we can certainly have the same openness after the cold war. Now, in my earlier service on the Government Operations Committee of this body, I had a number of decades of experience dealing with classified information and the procedures for handling that information. When the Government unnecessarily withholds information from the public, believe me, it undermines the legitimate secrecy of information that really should be protected. When we have an open secret, as we do presently, and let us make it public, like the intelligence budget, it creates a government by leaks, where information is controlled more by access than by policy. Withholding this kind of information from the public, in addition, undermines confidence in government. I think Americans support an intelligence system that provides accurate, timely information to our policymakers. When the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency was asked in April what was the purpose of disclosure of the budget, he said that ``the importance here is to gain public support for intelligence.'' I do not think it is asking too much for Congress to tell our citizens and constituents, in general terms, how many resources we are allocating for intelligence purposes. Mr. Chairman, I conclude by observing that it is time to stop withholding this information. My amendment to make public the bottomline amount of the intelligence budget is a sensible step toward fiscal responsibility. I have a great deal of support both in and out of the Congress for this amendment and I urge that it be speedily approved.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the temporary repeal of the 4.3-cent-per-gallon gas tax. This misdirected legislation will do very little to help our constituents who have been paying more at the pump. The problem with this legislation is that there is no guarantee the consumer would see any of the savings created by the repeal of the tax, which generates nearly $4 billion per year for the Treasury. Any gas tax repeal would create a huge windfall for the oil companies, not the motorist. Because the gas tax is levied on the oil companies, the tax is not actually imposed at the pump. Instead, it is imposed at an earlier point in the sale, then passed on to the service station and the motorist. Contrary to the arguments from our friends on the other side of the aisle, repealing the gas tax will not automatically reduce the prices at the pump. We cannot afford to wait and hope that, if we eliminate this tax, consumers will get a discount at the pump. There is no mechanism in this bill to assure that gas prices will fall, that the savings will go to the motorist. All we need to do is look to see what the oil companies have done to prices in the last month. Wholesale gasoline prices have dropped nearly a nickel since President Clinton's decision to release Government oil reserves--but the nationwide retail prices rose 0.2 cents per gallon. In California, the gap is more extreme: Wholesale prices have fallen an incredible 31 cents per gallon--but retail prices have shown no decrease. Oil companies are keeping the difference, padding their balance sheets and wallets. Even if the average motorist saw a 4.3-cent discount at the pump, it would only save that motorist $15 per year. Is this the Republican idea of a middle class tax cut? It is quite clear that this bill is just another Republican give-away to their favorite corporate friends. Republicans issued a closed rule to assure that the oil companies would get to keep every penny of the tax repeal. The average American motorist will never see a decrease at the pump because of this repeal. We're giving oil companies another $4 billion per year if we pass this bill.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the floor manager for his generosity. Can one of the Members on the Republican side, including the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays], my good friend, ever get off the rhetoric and start talking about what is in this great bill? The tax breaks are for the wealthy. There is a $13 billion increase in the military. Let us not say that Medicare or health care premiums are not going up. Let us talk specific. We have only got an hour for debate.

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

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I have just a brief question to the leader of the opposition of this bill. The gentleman that is opposing this bill is my good friend from Connecticut, a moderate Republican. When he takes to the well, will he kindly explain to all of his friends on this side how he ended up being designated the person to lead the opposition to one of the finest budgets that I thought I remembered he used to compliment?

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, did the chart of the gentleman from California include the leg that added $13 billion on to defense? That is the chart we are looking for. That is the leg that is out of order here. Where is the gentleman from California? He is not here.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the Sabo substitute to the budget resolution. Although it is much more appealing than the Republican proposal, it certainly isn't the best substitute we had the opportunity to consider today. The Congressional Black Caucus-Progressive Caucus budget offered a 6- year balanced budget that proposed to increase investments in education, job training, infrastructure and at the same time protected Medicare and Medicaid. To pay for these investments the substitute proposed to modestly reduce the defense budget and closed tax loopholes that create corporate welfare. It made investing in the working class, the middle class, the poor, our children a priority. The CBC- Progressive Caucus budget proved that we can invest in education, job training, infrastructure, while protecting health security and still achieve a balanced budget. The CBC-Progressive Caucus budget also provided sufficient military funding to keep national defense strong while eliminating large amounts of waste through a thorough analysis and projection for future world security and peacekeeping needs. But the Sabo substitute still spends $251 billion more than CBC-Progressive budget over 6 years. In fact, the Sabo military provision is virtually indistinguishable from the Republican defense budget. The $251 billion the CBC saves allows us to invest more in education, job training, transportation, and health care. Without the savings, we will not have the resources to make the necessary human investments, even as we move toward a balanced budget. In the CBC-Progressive budget substitute, we proposed to invest more than $80 billion over 6 years in education and job training--to assure that we have the most advanced and competitive work force in the 21st century. We protected large job-creating programs like transportation and public works--investments that not only create work but also improve our Nation's standard of living by improving our infrastructure. We protected Medicare and Medicaid, assuring its effectiveness for our Nation's elderly population. Until we get real health care reform, spending on Medicare and Medicaid cannot be compromised. We just can't afford the cuts that the Republican budget leaders are prescribing. Mr. Chairman, this budget debate is about priorities. I believe the CBC-Progressive Caucus defense budget fairly reflects our Nation's security needs, while offering this country the peace dividend it has earned. Without the savings realized by a more efficient Defense Department, we are not able to make the kinds of investments that will truly help working people in America. Americans have rejected the extreme ideas of the Republican majority. Democrats have the responsibility to represent the middle class, the working class, the poor, the elderly, and our children. The CBC- Progressive Caucus budget emphasized a commitment to these priorities and deserves our support. But yet how do we account for the fact that the CBC-Progressive budget garnered only 63 votes and the Blue-Dog Democrats were able to manage twice as many votes? I urged my Democratic colleagues to vote for the CBC-Progressive budget so we could in turn vote for the President's budget--but they refused. What kind of message does this send to 40 million people who are represented by members of the Black and Hispanic caucuses, that endorsed the CBC-Progressive budget? I ask our esteemed leader, Mr. Gephardt, to share with me the serious dichotomy that honestly reveals at bottom that most of the Democrats have very little vision of how we would discharge the most important responsibility as legislators, if we were in power. We're run over now, and unless things change, we will be run over when we win on November 5, 1996. I have asked Mr. Gephardt to meet with me on this subject at his earliest convenience.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I compliment the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], the Budget chairman, on his disingenuousness. All the budgets have agreed that we would balance in 7 years. All the budgets have agreed that we would downsize. So what else is new? The question is, inside of that, what is going to be cut? What is not going to be cut inside of yours, ladies and gentlemen, is Star Wars, a $13 billion increase in the Pentagon, and all the taxes for the wealthy, and in the meantime the people on Medicare pay higher doctor bills, more seniors will be in the system, there will be more inflation. You have got a lot of backloading. Then Mr. Dole has already said, ``I tried to get Medicare once but it was not politically timely, but I think we can do better this time.'' But what is disturbing is how come I cannot get more votes for the Congressional Black Caucus budget because we are Democrats, too, with one of the better programs that have been on the floor. I ask the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo] to consider that.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, it has happened once or twice in this session. I will be happy to clarify this for the chairman, because he sounds sincere in his desire for this information. It especially discriminates against working people, who this Congress will not provide an increase in the minimum wage for. It discriminates against women, who might lose their reproductive capacity as a result of deadly injury brought on by irresponsible corporate behavior. So this is a one-way street of federalism, return power to the States, so long as it disadvantages consumers and the common folks. I reject that completely. Now, to make matters even worse, we are considering this override at the very same time that the Republican majority I proposing to gut the safety regulations and eliminate safety agencies like the Consumer Product Safety Commission. That is going on in another bailiwick. And if you do not think the threat of private lawsuits can help keep dangerous products off the market, just think about the history of personal injury litigation over the past decade or two. We know what has happened by the lawsuits brought by the parents of children who have been killed by wearing flammable pajamas. That was a direct result of personal injury litigation. Or the women who have been maimed by the copper 7 intrauterine device. There again, lawsuits, long and hard, that brought about a change in dangerous products. Both the products are now off the market, thanks to good legal work and trial work and the threat of punitive damages. And that is what punitive damages are about. This bill, however, will not reduce litigation, cannot reduce litigation, because we are up against the myth that product liability suits are exploding. Let us deal with that right off the bat here. Product liability suits represent less than 2 percent of the litigation that goes on in the United States of America, less than 2 percent, and even those two 2 percent of cases are dropping, it is going down. And with that drop, product liability premiums are also dropping. So there. How much can we be interfering with economic development and expansion in the United States? Punitive damages is always a great subject. Where are they taking place and how frequently? Punitive damages occur in about 14 cases a year, going back to the 1960's. The cap of $250,000 on punitive damages is a joke. It is not a deterrent. That is all punitive damages are for, and that is why they are used so rarely. How can a Fortune 500 company, making annual revenues of billions of dollars, be deterred from placing a dangerous product on the market because of the threat of a punitive damages award that is hacked to literally nothing under this bill? That is why the special interests are behind the bill. The next point that should be considered a big one as a reason to sustain the President in his veto is that this bill will also limit victims' rights to recover the non-economic damages when there are joint tortfeasors. So if a jointly produced product induces a loss of reproductive capacity in a housewife, she will be limited in her recovery, but if an expensively paid corporate executive is injured by a product and loses his salary, obviously, under this test, the bill ensures that he will be fully compensated. So we have talked about the political special interests, but what about others? The electric, water, and gas utilities industries have obtained a provision overruling liability laws in states which hold them strictly liable for utility disasters. Is that a good thing for the consumers in America? By the way, everybody is a consumer. Even the fat cats are consumers. The rich are consumers. The poor are consumers. Working people are consumers. What are we thinking about here? Oh, more special interests. The gun sellers and the bar owners obtained special language limiting their potential liability for careless sales to third parties, Now, that should go over big with the American citizenry. This is a bill of the special interests. It is by the special interests, for the special interests, who have done so much to show their appreciation of the promoters of this piece of legislation, that could not pass a very modest level of muster from the White House. We will be remembered in this 104th Congress as the Congress that did not do much, and even when we tried to do something, it was so poor that it had to be vetoed. I am counting on that veto being sustained, because those who continue to insist that we have to limit the rights of working Americans, limit the rights of consumers, make the legal system less accessible, I think are doing a disservice to the legal process and to the Congress that we are operating in. It is another example of a Republican legislative effort that is heading for the trash bin. The President is right to veto the bill. It is harmful to consumers, it disrespects working Americans, it is discriminatory against women, and for any of those reasons and more, I think there is more than enough reason to vote no to sustain the veto. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. I will in just a moment, if I can proceed.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], dean of the House, dean of the Michigan delegation, my good friend, and once the former chairman of the Committee on Commerce.

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 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt], a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.