John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor my good friend and colleague, Kweisi Mfume. The gentleman from Maryland will be leaving this body next month to accept the job as president and CEO of the NAACP, the most important civil rights organization in the United States. I also want to thank Mr. Cardin for convening this special order. In 1986, Kweisi Mfume was elected to represent Maryland's Seventh Congressional District, a seat that Parren Mitchell had held for 16 years. So, even before he arrived, our expectations of Mr. Mfume were great--filling Mr. Mitchell's shoes would not be easy. But Mr. Mfume has shown us on many occasions that he has been more than able in meeting the challenges of representing his constituents to this body. Mr. Mfume's lasting mark in Congress will most certainly be his tenure as chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus. Elected chairman for the 103rd Congress, Mr. Mfume shepherded our caucus to become a prominent coalition in shaping legislation during President Clinton's first 2 years in office. Under his leadership, the caucus achieved a critical mass of some 41 members, its largest presence ever. With Mr. Mfume at the helm the caucus played an integral role in assuring that the President's budget passed, and that it included programs to help the urban poor. Among the victories in that budget were an expanded earned-income tax credit, the creation of urban empowerment zones, an expanded Food Stamp Program, and mandatory immunization for all children. The caucus, through Chairman Mfume's leadership, has also been at the forefront of many struggles of particular importance to African-Americans, including the efforts to preserve affirmative action and to restore democracy to Haiti, one of the foreign policy highlights of the Clinton administration. As a member of the Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs, Mr. Mfume has worked diligently on issues important to cities, African- Americans, and the urban poor. He has worked hard to assure that banks loan money and offer services in poor neighborhoods to assure that the underserved have the same opportunities as others. In 1990, Kweisi successfully offered an amendment that changes the way public housing tenants pay their rent. Rent payments are now based on actual income, not estimated income. This year Mr. Mfume, as a member of the Minority Leader Gephardt's Policy Committee, has led the fight against attacks on Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, job training, and other important elements of our social safety net. We, certainly, can't afford the cuts the Budget leaders have prescribed, and Kweisi has worked to preserve these important programs. Mr. Mfume has served his Maryland constituents with dignity and honor throughout his 9-year career. He is now leaving us to manage the largest civil rights organization in our Nation. I must confess that when I first heard of Kweisi's decision to leave Congress I was disappointed. I felt that his exemplary leadership was needed more than ever as Congress grappled with the extraordinary agenda of reactionary legislative initiative now confronting it. Upon reflection I embrace and salute without reservation Mr. Mfume's decision. He leaves us in order to lead the revitalization of an organization that has a critical, perhaps seminal, role to play in mobilizing millions of African-Americans and progressive Americans of all types to halt this Nation's slide into a reactionary abyss and to move this Nation toward the full realization of justice and the promise of democracy. His decision is one that all Americans, in and out of Congress, committed to the struggle for justice can endorse. The NAACP is very important to me. I am a lifelong member of the NAACP and my home city boasts this Nation's largest NAACP Chapter. I have no doubt that the NAACP is in good hands and that Kweisi will raise the NAACP to new heights, and will continue to fight for civil rights, social change, and economic justice. I wish him well in his new career. His commitment and passion will be sorely missed in this Congress. It is not often that we are able to work with a more dedicated or honorable individual. We, certainly, could use a few more Members like Kweisi in the U.S. Congress.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, yesterday marked the first day workplace and civil rights laws have been applied to this body. Now Congress is required to play by the same rules as everyone else. But there is still at least one special exception the Congressional Accountability Act did not eliminate: Congress gets paid during Federal shutdowns while other Federal employees do not. We can clear up this matter by passing H.R. 2658, a bill I introduced which would suspend Member's salaries during Federal shutdowns and furloughs. It is only fair that Congress be treated like every other Federal employee. If we are serious about playing by the same rules that govern everyone else, we need to pass this now. On January 3, 1996, Carol Ann Rinzler and Perry Luntz wrote an excellent and eloquent article for the New York Times which accurately describes this problem. I have enclosed it below so all of my colleagues can better understand the magnitude of this issue: [From the New York Times, Jan. 3, 1996] Our 2 Cents' Worth (By Carol Ann Rinzler and Perry Luntz) Almost exactly a year ago, Congress passed the Congressional Accountability Act, a much ballyhooed measure that requires the House and Senate to abide by the workplace and civil rights laws they enact for the rest of us. Alas, like so many things in life, this long-overdue legislation turns out to be less than meets the eye. In an effort to minimize the effects of the Government shutdown on their constituents, Republicans in the House proposed last week that furloughed Federal employees go back to work without being paid, surely a new idea in free-market, conservative economics. Afterward, someone asked Representative Tom DeLay of Texas, the House majority whip, whether he would consider giving up his own salary during the crisis. No way, said Mr. DeLay, explaining that, like every other member of Congress, he isn't a Federal employee--he is a ``constitutional officer.'' Well, we've reread our copy of the Constitution, and frankly the distinction seems a bit arcane to us. True, members of Congress are specifically mentioned in the Constitution, Article I, Section 6 says that ``Senators and Representatives shall receive a compensation for their services, to be ascertained by law and paid out of the Treasury of the United States.'' Cabinet members and Federal judges also get a mention, later on, but other workers-- curators at the Smithsonian, say--do not. But every Federal paycheck originates in an appropriation requiring money from the Treasury, whose funds come, in large part, from income taxes. That should give everyone of us the inalienable right to put in our 2 cents. Or to take it out. Members of the House and Senate earn a base salary of $133,600 a year (those in leadership positions get more.) And don't forget the generous benefit package: life insurance, health insurance, per diem travel and a nifty pension. Mr. DeLay's base salary alone costs each of America's more than 115 million individual taxpayers 1.2 cents a year. As conscientious citizens, we have always paid our taxes, regardless of our political gripes. Even though one of us was tear-gassed in 1971 by an overzealous guard at the Nixon White House, protecting it from throngs of balding, middle- aged Vietnam War protesters and their children, the Internal Revenue Service got paid the following year anyway. This time, however, we plan to draw a line in the sand. Having voted to obey its own laws, members of Congress should be man (or woman) enough to live up to that requirement. Before Tom DeLay votes for trimming Medicare, he should whittle down his own Government-financed health insurance. If he expects Federal workers to show up for free, so should he. Until then, he can forget our helping to pay his salary. Come April 15, our joint tax return will be 2 cents short. That ought to send a message: keeping Congress in line is a hard job, but somebody has to do it.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Barbara Jordan, our distinguished colleague who recently passed. I had the privilege to serve with her in this body, and on the Judiciary and Government Operations Committees. The 6 years we served together gave me the fortunate opportunity to work with a true leader. I also want to thank the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Sheila Jackson-Lee, for calling this important special order. Barbara Jordan was one of the few Members of Congress whose influence was felt from the moment she arrived. Her powerful intellect and her logical approach to the legislative process made her formidable throughout her career. It is easy for me to remember that she influenced my decisions more frequently than I hers. I know many of my colleagues here tonight would agree with that statement. In addition to her incredible gift of oratory, she carefully reasoned her way through the end to what Government policy might best be for our country. Barbara dedicated her career to fighting for those who couldn't fight for themselves. As the first African-American woman elected from the South in the 20th century, she worked hard to continue the Federal protection of civil rights. She worked to improve the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by extending its merits to Hispanic- Americans, native Americans, and Asian-Americans. She was also the author of the Consumer Goods Pricing Act of 1975. Many will remember Barbara Jordan from her role in the Watergate hearings. Barbara's remarkable oratory, her passion for the Constitution and public service, and her commitment to the democratic processes helped guide the Nation during some of our most troubling and soul-searching days. She was a critical figure at a pivotal time for our Nation and for the House. She helped us see the way through a turbulent time. We cannot forget that Barbara Jordan was the first African-American and the first woman to serve as a keynote speaker at a Democratic National Convention when she spoke in 1976. She served as a keynote speaker again in New York at the 1992 Democratic Convention. Her words helped remind us, both times, why we were Democrats and what we needed to do to fulfill our commitment to working Americans. I will never forget Barbara Jordan. She did everything with unlimited passion and commitment and was one of the most thoughtful Members of Congress I have ever worked with. She touched the lives of thousands of Americans, and was a wonderful source of strength to everyone that met her.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in tribute to Prof. Harold Norris, a gifted attorney and profound humanitarian who imbued generations of law students with a love and a passion for justice. This fall, Professor Norris retired from the Detroit College of Law where he taught constitutional and criminal law for the past 35 years. Professor Norris is far more than just a teacher. He is a tireless crusader for human rights. He is blessed with the soul of a poet, the insight of a historian, the curiosity of a philosopher, and the courage of a warrior. Law students in his final constitutional law class presented him with a plaque on the Bill of Rights. That plaque illustrates his impact on them and on thousands of other young people. It reads in part: While the Bill of Rights grants assurance to the individual of the preservation of liberty, it does not define the liberty it promises . . . only in recent American history has the Bill of Rights been used as a shield in the battle against indignity, abuse, oppression, inequality, unfairness and intrusion. And while the Bill of Rights is the individual's shield against governmental abuse and power, that shield is of little use without a hand to hold it high. Throughout his life Professor Harold Norris has held that shield and taught his students and others to do the same. He has taught us that the Bill of Rights does not implement itself, it is only by the conviction, courage and strength of people who recognize its indispensable protections that the true spirit of its contents are achieved. Born in Detroit, Harold Norris' early life was shaped by the Great Depression. He was keenly aware of the Depression's devastating impact on the lives of working-class people who desperately sought help and guidance from the Government. That experience helped crystalize his feelings about the importance of justice as a reality, not just a concept. Over the years, Professor Norris has engaged in ground-breaking work in the areas of civil and human rights. As a delegate to the Michigan Constitutional Convention of 1961, he served as vice-chair of the Committee on the Declaration of Rights, Suffrage, and Elections. He wrote numerous key provisions of the Michigan constitution of 1963, including provisions that prohibited racial and religious discrimination and provisions that created a right to appeal in a criminal case. He was coauthor of the provisions creating a civil rights commission. He is former chairman of the constitutional law round table of the Association of American Law Schools. He was counsel to the Committee on Constitutional Revision of the House of Representatives of the State of Michigan, and he has been a consultant to the Judiciary Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives. Professor Norris' passion for the law affected every aspect of his life. At his retirement party, Norris' son, Victor, a Detroit-area attorney, observed that the first gifts given to him and his sister, Barbara, by their father caused us to be the only kids on the block with their own individually framed copy of the Bill of Rights. Harold Norris received a bachelor of arts degree from the University of Michigan in 1939. Two years later, he earned a master's degree in economics, also from the University of Michigan. In 1942, he joined the Army Air Corps and attended the Harvard Business School program to train statistical control officers. He spent almost 3 years overseas before being discharged in 1946. When he returned home, he enrolled in Columbia University and earned his law degree in 2 years. He and his wife, Frances, had two children, Victor and Barbara, both born during the Columbia years. In 1948, Harold Norris was admitted to the Michigan bar. For the next 13 years, he engaged in private practice. During that time, he became active in bar associations where, as he recalled in a 1991 magazine interview, ``I helped initiate and secure prepaid legal insurance, the principle of fair employment practice legislation, compulsory automobile liability insurance, and the inclusion of lawyers in the Social Security Act.'' Norris wrote the Michigan Automobile Liability Accident Claims Act. In addition to his private practice and his work with the bar associations, Harold Norris involved himself with the American Civil Liberties Union where, among other things, he represented teachers and students who were subpoenaed by the House Un-American Affairs Committee. He pushed for one-man, one-vote, and he spoke out on the need for fair and impartial evaluations of citizen complaints against the police. In 1961, a number of forces converged on Professor Norris and moved him toward the realization of one of his goals: to be a teacher. While serving as president of the ACLU's Detroit chapter, Norris met the late Charles King, deal of the Detroit College of Law, who asked him to join the faculty. in 1961 Norris became a professor at Detroit College of Law; that same year he was elected a delegate to the Michigan constitutional convention. In the classroom and in the political arena, he was able to expand his efforts to help this country live up to its promise of freedom and justice for its citizens. Despite Professor Norris' awesome accomplishments, he remains an unpretentious man who always makes time to talk to students and friends. He encourages open debate in his classes, and he considers it his mission to spark an unquenchable thirst for justice in his students. Professor Norris' passion for justice is a natural part of his lifelong search for balance and harmony in the universe. His talent as a writer and social commentator has won him praise in the literary field as well as in the legal field. As an author, Professor Norris' works include ``Mr. Justice Murphy and the Bill of Rights,'' published in 1965; ``Reflections on Law, Lawyers, and the Bill of Rights, a Collection of Writings 1944-1984,'' published in 1984 and ``Education for Popular Sovereignty Through Implementing the Constitution and the Bill of Rights,'' published in 1991. Included among the collected writings found in ``Education for Popular Sovereignty Through Implementing the Constitution and the Bill of Rights,'' is ``Due Process and the Rule of Law: Earning Citizen Cooperation with Police.'' Presented at a public meeting in Detroit, the speech is as relevant today as it was when Professor Norris gave it in 1961. Detroit police were engaged in a unlawful crackdown on African American citizens. Some 1,500 dragnet arrests resulted in only 40 warrants. Much of the community was outraged over the trampling of individual rights. Professor Norris went directly to the heart of the issue when he wrote: We believe that the public has a tremendous interest in law enforcement, but it has an even greater long-range and permanent interest in the rule of law. We hear of promoting world peace through law. We need the rule of law to promote the peace of the Detroit community. Justice through law is the objective of government and law enforcement, not merely the apprehension and prevention of crime. Inscribed upon the portals of the building housing the United State Supreme Court in Washington, are the words Equal Justice Under the Law . . . the watchwords of our constitutional faith. In other words, it is the purpose of the Bill of Rights and Due Process to make all citizens self-governing and equally secure against any arbitrary and unlawful intrusion, private or public. The Bill of Rights was born in controversy and lives in controversy. Due Process of law is to be observed in emergencies as well as in conditions of safety. Harold Norris also is a sensitive poet whose work has been praised by Archibald MacLeish and Theodore H. White. White said Norris' poetry is ``infused with an almost forgotten sense of love--love of country and of people, love of America's monuments and places, love of its future and heroes.'' Professor Norris' poem, ``The Liberty Bell'' hangs in the lobby of the Detroit College of Law and in the public lobby of Philadelphia's Independence National Park's Administration Building, the home of the Liberty Bell. In a moving tribute to civil rights legend Rosa Parks, Norris wrote in part: ``I will walk. My will is responsible. I am this nation. This nation is what I do. It will not be done. Unless I do it. This nation is determination. This nation is conduct. Conduct with a free will. During his career, numerous groups have honored Professor Norris with awards and commendations. Included among these awards are the National Judge Finch Law Day Speech Award from the American Bar Association for his address on ``Law, the Language of Liberty,'' the ``Champion of Justice Award'' by the State Bar of Michigan and the ``Distinguished Warrior for Civil Rights Award'' by the Detroit Urban League. In 1987, the Michigan supreme court presented him with a citation for his vision, faith, and commitment that have inspired a lifetime of contributions to the jurisprudence of our State. In that citation, he was aptly described as a lawyer, educator, poet, and statesman. Professor Norris enjoyed a unique and beautiful relationship with his wife, Frances, whose death in 1990 ended a forty-seven year marriage. Their son, Victor, recently provided one of a most telling and insightful assessment of Professor Norris. Asked to describe his father, Victor said: ``Even if he wasn't my father, I would say that I have never known anyone who on a minute-by-minute, day-by-day basis feels so responsible to his country and to making it a better place to be.'' When Professor Norris' name is mentioned, the most respected and successful lawyers and judges in Detroit say he shaped their law perspective about justice and led them to understand that the Bill of Rights is a living document that must be protected by those who practice both justice and the law. Harold Norris' presence has made this a better, stronger, and more decent Nation. During a teaching career that spanned four decades, he touched the lives of thousands of lawyers who now carry on his mission of our Nation. One of Professor Norris' last acts at Detroit College of Law was to create and to help fund the Harold Norris Colloquium, which is an annual even that will explore key issues in the fields of constitutional law, civil rights, and civil liberties. Detroit, the State of Michigan, and the United States are deeply indebted to Professor Harold Norris--humanitarian, lawyer, teacher, and poet. Because of his appreciation and understanding of the living power of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, generations of citizens have been able to live with a greater measure of freedom, opportunity, and dignity. I am pleased that my family and his have been friends, neighbors, and leaders in helping define and resolve the issues that yet may make this form of government great.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on House Oversight be discharged from further consideration of the bill (H.R. 2658), a bill which would suspend pay of Members of Congress during this Government shutdown and thereby force us to play by the same rules as the rest of the Federal Government, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to commend the gentleman's dialog. I think the gentleman has made an important connection here between the point of suspending the pay of the Members while we are suspending the pay of other people.

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

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend on the subcommittee, the ranking chairman, for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, may I again wish my friend, the subcommittee chairman with the least meritorious appropriation bills, a warm and happy new year. The time that he had off for Christmas has left him confused and not as prepared as he normally is, because he said the Congress has an opportunity to bring people back to work. Dear Mr. Subcommittee Chairman of Appropriations, a Congressman rose on the floor in April and said, ``I will shut down the government if the President does not agree to my budget, and when that happens, watch and see what he will do then.'' That was the Time Man of the Year that uttered those now famous remarks. So why does the gentleman not admit that a continuing resolution would not free your appropriation, which was wisely vetoed by the President, but that a continuing resolution would open up the entire Government? Let us get real around here. We could not work during Christmas because there was not anything to do. We come back now, there still is not anything to do. So we start bringing up these lemons, trying to see if we can override them. Please, the President's veto did not shut down the Government. So my dear friend, recognize that we are the ones that could operate. Tell me what is the problem with your Presidential candidate, the majority leader, who is trying to organize the Republicans to make a face-saving device after Christmas. Now, in Detroit, the eighth largest police force in the country, we strongly support the President's Cops on the Beat Program. We have already received the first round funding. In Dearborn Heights, Mayor Ruth Canfield has said this is excellent. We are on the way. In Highland Park, MI, another part of my district, the mayor, Lindsey Porter, has praised the half dozen. They only got six cops, but six makes a difference in a small town. Ruth Canfield, the mayor of Dearborn Heights, the Detroit police chief, Isaiah McKinnon, all say the same thing. Do not kill this program.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the conference report on welfare reform which disregards the health and welfare of children, the elderly and victims of domestic violence. Amazingly, at a time when Republicans claim to be pro-family this conference report denies innocent poor children health care and food. And while Republicans purport to be pro-work they offer us legislation which provides no funding whatsoever for job creation. As ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, I also strongly oppose the conference report provisions dealing with immigration matters. These issues clearly fall within the purview of the Judiciary Committee and should be dealt with in the context of the immigration bill, not welfare legislation. The conference report imposes harsh restrictions on legal immigrants by barring them from the Food Stamp Programs and SSI programs until they become citizens. Those denied benefits would include legal immigrants who have no sponsors to help support them, those who have paid taxes for many years, and poor immigrant families with children. The conference report also changes the definition of illegal immigrants. Under this definition individuals who have temporary protective status and are in the United States legally, would be barred from receiving any public assistance. This means that individuals who have been given permission to stay in this country by the INS would be denied assistance. This is mean-spirited immigration bashing and has no place in a bill being considered by this body. The members know full well the administration will veto this bill. What we have is more partisan grandstanding by the majority, rather than a good-faith effort to genuinely reform and improve the Nations' welfare system. I urge my colleagues to vote against this conference report and to send this bill back to conference.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. That is, if they have any money left.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, well, it is nice to find out stockbrokers would advise us to vote on this special interest legislation. Some believe the President perhaps overreacted last night with the veto. But could I suggest another route? What about making some common sense revisions he is recommending and then coming back and unanimously passing this bill? Besides, I think there is another body that has something to say about the override. So let us not get too carried away on the vote here. Let us all settle down here for just a minute. Now, the bill simply goes too far. We are not talking about simply limiting frivolous cases with this bill. So could all the rest of the speakers comport all of the passion that they have about frivolous cases just a little bit? We want to stop frivolous cases. What we do not want to do is stop meritorious cases. And, there are a few meritorious cases around. This House was mistaken in trying to gauge the President's determination about these matters. The gentleman from Massachusetts told you repeatedly the President was going to veto the bill because you overreached, and now he did it today. So now we are faced with an extreme measure that requires a two-house override. Why do we not do something more reasonable? Let us go back and look at what we can do to repair what provoked the veto, and then come back with a bill that we can all agree on. Is there something wrong with that? I do not think so. Even the conservative Money Magazine told you the bill went too far, once, twice, three times, four times, and the local officials, 15 Attorneys General, told you the same. Thank you, Mr. President, for having the courage to do the right thing. So, Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this matter. The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell] pointed out that this is classic special interest lobbying legislation. So now we are at a point of where the American people are not going to get robbed. The Nation's seniors, whose life savings are tied up in investments, depend on honesty in investment transactions. They are being robbed with this bill. Now, American investors know they may be robbed by swindlers, but they do not expect to be robbed from the House of Representatives. So let us get a little bit of reason in here. I think a few of our leaders on this measure, Mr. Markey for instance, have some suggestions that would make for a decent agreement, and that would meet White House objections, and we could go home feeling that we have not involved ourselves in this rather large rip-off that is occurring. Now, does somebody not have something to explain about Money Magazine and the 15 Attorneys General and the thousands of local officials, the 150 outspoken editorials all who believe this bill is to extreme? Are we all nuts and you are all right? Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for allowing me to make a few comments on the floor.

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

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member of the subcommittee for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, we are back to the bill that has come from the nicest subcommittee chairman in the Congress with the lousiest bill. Here we are again. I guess the Republicans have to say I believe the President now. He told them in the summer; he told them in the fall; he told them when the bill was being debated, I will veto this bill. And the Republicans gave him their advice, which is their responsibility, and now he has vetoed the bill. They believe him now. Now, where is the continuing resolution? I think the gentleman from West Virginia is absolutely correct. Look at what we are doing here, gentlemen. Over and above the COPS Program, we are eliminating the Drug Initiative Program. I am glad the chairman of the subcommittee saw fit not to mention it. It is on the first page of the veto, if he will take a look at it. We are getting rid of or crippling the Legal Services Corporation, the program that would represent people who are indigent and cannot otherwise afford these services. We have a rider in the bill that the gentleman did not mention, a moratorium on the Endangered Species Act, which has nothing whatsoever to do with the bill. I guess the gentleman does not know where that one came from. So, I would suggest to my colleagues that this is a very serious veto, well-anticipated. We knew it was coming. Why they would want to take away the Death Penalty Resource Center out of the legal services programs, I do not know. Mr. Speaker, when race relationships are at an all-time high in terms of misunderstanding, what do they do with the Community Relations Service in the Department of Justice? Wipe it out. Now, we come to the floor belaboring the fact that the President did precisely what he said he was going to do. Do not be ashamed. Look, my colleagues have been there before. They have done it all summer. I still say that the chairman of the appropriations subcommittee here is still one of the nicest guys in the Congress, with the lousiest bills that ever come to the floor.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a longtime friend and colleague, John Dingell of Michigan. Last Wednesday marked the 40th anniversary of his election to the House of Representatives. John Dingell is the longest serving House Member of the 104th Congress, and I think we all should take a minute to reflect on the distinguished record of this distinguished gentleman. John Dingell has spent his career fighting for the betterment of our country on a broad range of issues. As chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, a post he held for 14 years, John Dingell was able to make a real difference for improving the lives of all Americans. He was instrumental in writing every major law to improve air quality standards, radon testing and lead paint removal and was the author of the Clean Air Act of 1990. He is the author of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and has been effective in protecting millions of acres of wetland and controlling pollution in the Great Lakes. In 1987, John Dingell wrote strong Federal nursing home care standards in response to widespread abuse in our nation's nursing homes. He ushered through the Americans with Disabilities Act, the law which affords disabled Americans with the same rights and privileges other Americans enjoy. John Dingell served as chairman of the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee, where he was able to reveal dozens of instance of waste and abuse. His subcommittee directed an investigation of the safety of our Nation's blood supply that prompted the Red Cross to completely revamp its blood collection system. He exposed corruption in the generic drug industry and uncovered corrupt billing practices by defense contractors. John Dingell investigated waste and abuse in public and private institutions with such tenaciousness that correspondence from the Dingell Committee was one of the most feared letters in Washington. I have had the privilege to know John Dingell more than 30 years; he hired me to work on his staff in Detroit prior to may election to Congress in 1964, and we have worked closely together ever since. He is one of the most dignified, honest and hard-working members this body has ever witnessed--and today those are qualities that are becoming harder to find in the House of Representatives. Congratulations, John Dingell, for 40 years of distinguished service.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, with all of the problems facing our prison system today--a system which has proven to be a breeding ground for more serious crime--what the majority sends us is a bill increasing the penalties for escaping from prison. And instead of explaining why such a bill is necessary, we hear that the problem is that the judges don't give stiff enough sentences. H.R. 1533 responds to a non-existent problem. I am unaware of any great rash of prison breaks. In 1993 for example, only 6 people escaped form Federal prisons, 197 people were considered walk aways--people who did not return to halfway houses. Prison officials are not clamoring for this change in the law. this increased penalty is unnecessary. It is ridiculous to think that potentially higher sentences will deter attempts to escape from prison. Those individuals who attempt such escapes are not thinking about the penalty for getting caught, because they do not think they will get caught. If they thought they would be caught, they wouldn't try to escape in the first place. There is no way to characterize legislative proposals such as this other than whistling past the graveyard. Just last week the Justice Department released a startling midyear report showing that the incarceration rate in this country had reached an all-time record of 1.1 million people. The number of prisoners grew by 90,000 people last year--another all-time record. The incarceration rate in this country is higher than any other country in the world and is 8 to 10 times higher than other industrialized nations. And the racial make up of our prison population is even more striking. Last year some 33 percent of black men in their 20's were in prison or on parole. This contrasts with the rate for white men, which was 6.7 percent. Why are such an increasing number of African-Americans serving more time in prison? The Sentencing Project concludes that ``the statistics primary reflected changes in law enforcement policies that have resulted in a greater number of defendants receiving prison sentences, especially prison sentences, rather than an increase in the number of crimes committed by black men.'' So instead of trying to deal with the very real, very serious problems which face our prisons--like the problem of a disparity in crack cocaine sentences--we will be voting on a bill to increase sentences for attempted escapes from prison. The bill we are considering today is a complete waste of time. I only wish the majority would spend half as much time on the real problems facing our prisons as they do trying to score political points by acting tough on crime.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from West Virginia, for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the chairman of this subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, who is the nicest guy that has ever run through a rotten bill. It is a wonderful feat. Everybody brags about him, but the bill stinks, thank you very much. The President is going to veto the measure. He has told us that over and over and over again. Even a Republican Attorney General came before the Senate and told them that the provisions dealing with terminating all consent decrees is unconstitutional, we do not need an ex- Republican Attorney General to find that out, and that it would not stand constitutional muster. It never got changed. What about the most authorizing on an appropriation that has happened this year? It happened in this nice chairman's bill here that is loaded with judicial matters. I urge my colleagues to vote against the Commerce, Justice, State appropriations conference report. This conference report improperly includes substantive legislative provisions regarding prison litigation reform and truth in sentencing. In addition, the bill severely cuts funding for both drug courts and the President's Cops on the Beat Program. We cannot incarcerate ourselves out of crime. None of these provisions belong in an appropriations bill. These are matters clearly within the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee and I am distressed that the Judiciary Committee's jurisdiction has been subverted in this way. The prison litigation reform provisions are problematic for several reasons. First, these provisions would have an enormous, negative fiscal impact on the Federal judiciary. According to the Administrative Office of Courts, requiring the Federal judiciary to hold a trial in every future prison conditions case and in every case that is currently operating under a consent decree, and requiring that such a hearing be held every 2 years thereafter could cost $239 million annually and require the hiring of 2,096 new personnel. Notwithstanding this price tag, the bill does not appropriate any funds for the Federal judiciary to offset these costs. Second, the provisions would render emergency relief ineffective. Preliminary injunctions would mandatorily terminate 90 days after entry unless the court made the injunction final within the 90-day period. It is virtually impossible for the parties to complete discovery and for the court to complete a trial and issue a decision within 90 days. Preliminary injunctions are designed to address emergencies, often involving life and death situations that warrant attention in advance of the time that is required to conduct a full-blown trial. Termination of a preliminary injunction, without attention to whether there is good cause for the injunction to remain in effect, and without allowing adequate time for the parties to conduct discovery and the court to hold a trial would deprive a court of the power to prevent a defendant from returning to life threatening practices. Federal courts would be prevented from issuing any relief in prison or jail conditions cases without a finding of a violation of law, effectively prohibiting court-enforceable settlement agreements. Third, the provisions would require a court to terminate relief, upon motion of either party, 2 years after issuance or 2 year's after the Act's enactment unless the court holds a trial and finds an ongoing violation of law. In effect, this would legislatively authorize defendants to revert to practices that run afoul of the Constitution or Federal statutes without consequence until the court could conduct a trial and reissue relief. This provision also fails to take into account the fact that changing systemic problems often takes years. Fourth, the bill would prevent the Federal courts from remedying egregious abuses suffered by prisoners. The provisions in the bill would apply to all prisoner initiated lawsuits, not merely frivolous lawsuits. Thus lawsuits seeking to enjoin the rape of juvenile and female prisoners by prison guards, suits to enjoin sadistic beating of prisoners, and the failure to provide prisoners with minimally adequate medical care would all be prevented by this legislation. Finally, the prison litigation reform provisions are unconstitutional as written. Witnesses called by both sides at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing this past July agreed that changes were necessary before the bill could pass constitutional muster. For example, former Attorney General William Barr, who testified in support of the general principles behind the bill, testified that the termination of all existing consent decrees is unconstitutional. The changes suggested by the witnesses to make the bill constitutional are not reflected in the current language. The truth in sentencing provisions in the conference report are also troubling. Current law evenly distributes funding for prisons. But under the new provisions in this bill, some states will totally be denied funding and states that make only modest improvements in relatively weak sentencing schemes will be highly favored over states with long-standing, tougher policies. Moreover, funds will be unfairly and irrationally allocated among the states so that low population states with relatively little violent crime will often get the same funding as high population states with serious violent crime problems. Finally, the conference report contains block grants for both the Cops on the Beat Program and the Drug Court Program. If states are given block grants for general law enforcement purposes rather than given money to be spent on hiring more police officers, the President will not be able to fulfill his pledge to put 100,000 more cops on the beat. Putting police officers on the streets, walking the beat, has proven effective. There is no reason to halt the funding for a program that has been shown to reduce crime and increase public confidence in police. Similar logic applies to the drug courts program. We should not stop funding programs that have been shown to reduce crime. Because I object to this use of an appropriations bill as a way to subvert the Judiciary Committee's jurisdiction and because the bill contains provisions which are substantively harmful, I urge a no vote on the conference report.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding me this time. As the distinguished gentleman from Michigan and dean of the House, Mr. Dingell, has pointed out, this is classic special interest legislation of, for, and by special interest lobbyists. Among the many outrageous provisions of the legislation is the 3-year statute of limitations. Unless a victim brings suit within 3 years, that victim can be forever barred, even if circumstances prevented his or her knowledge of the cause of action. That could leave those who would rob our seniors and other investors laughing all the way to the bank. Witness the Washington Public Power System nuclear reactor case. In that case, there was a highly complex scheme to defraud relying on borrowed money, obscured by delayed construction, and eventually resulting in a massive bond default. A 3-year statutory bar in that case could have let the wrongdoers go scott free, because the discovery of the actual wrongdoing took years. In the Prudential Securities case, in which over $1 billion was paid to bondholders, the settlement required an actual waiving of the statute of limitations. That tells us that, if anything, the current law is already too burdensome for victims. Making it even more restrictive, as this measure proposes, is an outrage. We also conveniently eliminate the civil RICO law that provides treble damages for securities fraud. It is a law that is continually relied on by our Nation's seniors and others who invest their life savings in retirement accounts only to have those accounts then stolen through fraud. We create a safe harbor for misleading corporate statements about future investments which lure unsuspecting investors; in effect it's a license to lie. We also create immunization for all those wonderful middlemen in securities fraud schemes--lawyers, accountants, and brokers--who represented more than half of the legal judgments in the Keating scandal. We also create a wonderful new trick in the law, a loser pays provision, so that a fraud victim that dares sue a big corporation could end up paying the corporation's legal bill. Then we eliminate joint and several liability, just to further prevent full recovery for even more fraud victims--that is if victims can still bring suit after the civil RICO and statutory limitation bars. This is the biggest rip-off that we are perpetrating. This is no longer about the crooks in the investment and securities fraud. This is about what we are going to do. Keep a straight face if you can, but I believe that the Members of this House can do a little better in protecting the needs of our seniors and average investors than that very distinguished other body.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the Trade Union Leadership Council [TULC] which was organized nearly 40 years ago by a small but determined group of African-American trade unionists in Detroit. These men and women banded together to fight the blatant racism that existed in unions as well as in management. From its modest beginnings in 1957, TULC developed into a powerful political and social force that was nationally recognized and praised. It attacked the racist policies in the unions and it literally changed the complexion of union leadership; it forced companies to desegregate their work forces; it operated skilled trades apprenticeship programs aimed primarily at young blacks who had been excluded from such programs, and it became a force to be reckoned with in the field of politics. In its heyday in the 1960's and 1970's, TULC had some 10,000 members. The organization was applauded for its emphasis on self help and self development. It often was harshly criticized by union and management chiefs for its insistence on job equality, but it withstood the criticism and forced open the doors of opportunity. Those gains did not come easily. In the decades of the forties, fifties, and sixties, discrimination was rampant across the Nation. As late as the mid-1940's, more than a dozen unions still had white-only policies. Through the 1950's and until the 1960's, the powerful executive board of the United Auto Workers was lily white. It was in this atmosphere that TULC was forged. Its 19 founding members included the late labor activists Horace Sheffield and Robert (Buddy) Battle III, both of whom rose to key positions in the UAW. Also among that group was a local 600 activist and democratic State Central Committee member named Elizabeth Jackson who would later become one of the most powerful women in the UAW. Hubert Holley, head of Detroit's bus drivers and John Brown, the current TULC president, were founding members as was my late father, John Conyers, Sr. I was one of the lawyers who drafted TULC's articles of incorporation. Initially, TULC planned to focus on unions and to restrict its membership to union members. But, as Robert Battle explained years ago in an interview: * * * we found that we could not separate the problems of the unions from the community because basically the union people are the community when they are at home. So we lifted the bar then and made it a community organization. We figured that the problem of job discrimination and discrimination within the unions were problems that should be dealt with within the community as well as within labor. We dropped the bar and said that all you had to believe in was the struggle, the fight of all mankind. The TULC members knew the problems in the unions, and they tackled them head on. The organization's leaders repeatedly and publicly challenged the AFL-CIO to eliminate segregation from the locals and to remove the constitutional color bars that were part of the AFL-CIO philosophy. In its monthly publication entitled ``The Vanguard,'' the TULC wrote an open letter in 1962 to AFL-CIO president George Meany. The letter warned Meany that African-American trade unionists would no longer tolerate the discriminatory practices of the AFL-CIO. ``Discrimination, no matter how it is packaged or who does the wrapping, remains discrimination'' the letter said. ``Negroes insist on an end to job discrimination now. Not when Mr. Meany and his righteous followers get around to it, not when the so-called grievance `machinery' is perfected, not when the NAACP (or any such organization) fills staff positions with people strictly suitable to AFL-CIO tastes-- but now.'' At the same time TULC was relentlessly pushing the AFL-CIO to change, the group was running classes to teach young people how to apply for and prepare for a job. Over the years, TULC continued on that two- tiered track--pushing unions, management, and government to increase opportunities and teaching people how to avail themselves of those opportunities. The AFL-CIO wasn't TULC's only target. For years, TULC members were furious because the United Auto Workers' all powerful executive board was also all white. In 1959, Sheffield, Battle, and union activist Willoughby Abner set the stage for change when they forced the issue at the UAW's 17th Constitutional Convention in Atlanta. Sheffield told the gathering that the union leadership had promised some 16 years earlier to put an African-American on the executive board. He said blacks were tired of waiting. In 1962, the color barrier was broken with the election of Nelson ``Jack'' Edwards, a region 1A staff representative, to the executive board. Although many thought Sheffield should have had that post, his outspoken criticism of the UAW leadership kept him from it. TULC remained busy on the social and political fronts. In 1960, TULC rallied more than 1,400 people to form the National Negro American Labor Council. The late A. Philip Randolph was the first president. Around the same time, TULC was flexing its political muscle. TULC was instrumental in the election of African-Americans to government office and it successfully campaigned for the ouster of Louis Miriani, Detroit's incumbent mayor who was openly hostile to blacks. TULC also campaigned vigorously to increase the minimum wage to a level where people earning it could afford to buy the products they produced. The organization also traveled the Midwest explaining to working people the dangers of ``right to work'' legislation. On the job front, TULC forced many companies, including United Parcel and Wolpin Distributors, to hire their first black drivers. Also during the 1960's, TULC and the Building Trades Council jointly initiated an apprenticeship training program that became a national model for such efforts. By the mid-1970's, the program had recruited thousands of minority youths, and the majority of them were employed in the Detroit area. Recognizing the need for educational enrichment programs for deprived youth, TULC established the Educational Foundation of all races. The foundation offered classes ranging from remedial reading to typing to job-seeking skills. TULC also offered enrichment classes for preschoolers and helped 10 Detroit high schools establish sections on African-Americans in their school libraries. John Brown, current TULC president, said that the founding members took a risk in forming TULC. ``Quite a few people resented us for doing this,'' Brown said. The criticism did not deter the group from attacking gross discrimination wherever they found it. Today, only four of the original members are still alive, Elizabeth Jackson, John Brown, former State Representative Daisy Elliott, and retired city of Detroit employee Mickey Welch. Membership stands at over 2,500. TULC works with the Detroit Board of Education, and it makes regular contributions to local charities. It also sponsors weekly programs for senior citizens, and it continues to sponsor cultural enrichment programs for local youths. The bold efforts of the Trade Union Leadership Council have enabled thousands of African-American men and women to progress through the ranks of both unions and management. That small group of people who gathered nearly 40 years ago today to demand equality deserve our praise and our respect. Their noble efforts must not be forgotten. CONFERENCE REPORT ON S. 440, NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM DESIGNATION ACT OF 1995

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased this day to join with the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, in cosponsoring legislation that will help our nonprofits solicit charitable gifts which are so vital to their long-term operation and exclude them from being subjected to the possibility of unnecessary antitrust litigation. As the Members of this body know so well, I support antitrust laws and their vigorous exercise thereof, and I am pleased to note that the ever-watchful Assistant Attorney General Anne Bingaman of the Antitrust Division has not had anything to do with the bringing of this case. This case was not brought nor was the Department of Justice involved in it in any way. I favor the enforcement of antitrust laws and normally am very careful about exclusions or exemptions to the antitrust law. This limited instance, however, I believe, is one so important and so vital to public policy purpose that to subject the calculation of charitable gifts to antitrust scrutiny is something that we might want to avoid. Moreover, the bill has been crafted in an extremely narrow manner, and so it will not apply to any potential anticompetitive conduct. The measure before us will overturn a legal action brought in a Federal court challenging the actions of the American Council on Gift Annuities in recommending annuity rates for nonprofits. These annuity rates represent complex calculations which allow donors to receive a reasonable future income and a tax deduction while preserving much of the gift's value for the charity. If the courts find the antitrust laws apply to these actions, it would cost our charities billions of dollars in resources and this would come at the expense of urgently needed civic and charitable needs at a time when they are more vital then ever to those who need them. I would like to point out that the case that has been referenced has not been concluded. No decision has been rendered. And so we are acting in a very zealous fashion to make sure that no outcome that would cast a doubt over many of the activities of nonprofits could ever occur. I must make one observation, though, that we are here under the corrections day calendar, Mr. Speaker. There have been 5 correction days and 7 bills so far, but might I point out that this measure could have perhaps more properly been brought under suspension of the rules. We have bipartisan support, there is little opposition, but to suggest that the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act, the antitrust laws of the Federal Government, should be subject to a corrections day revision I do not think speaks very thoughtfully about the importance of our bill, and the fact that the amendment we are making is neither ludicrous nor arbitrary. It is a serious change that we are making. We are making it in anticipation of a decision that nobody knows what would have happened. I think we are quite properly removing a cloud [[Page H 13679]] from over charitable gifts in the first place. With that very minor and I hope not too nagging technicality, I also, as an original cosponsor of the legislation, urge Members to support the passage of this measure. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Stark].

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. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to me, and commend the leaders of this important subcommittee of the Committee on the Judiciary. This is a bill that we can all support, the reason being that these temporary judgeships created by our former chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Texas, Jack Brooks, is an excellent idea in terms of a way to deal with temporary shortages in the judicial districts across the country. I support it, and we suspect that every Member in the House does as well. In Michigan, Mr. Speaker, we had the unique circumstance in the western district in which they have taken care of their shortage and have returned the temporary judgeship, of all things. This has never happened in the annals of American judicial history, and may not likely happen again soon, so we were delighted about that. The law created 13 unique, temporary judgeships for a 5-year period ending in 1995. Optimists on this side assumed that the incumbent President will get the benefit of naming these extra judges, but I do not want to spoil this discussion, now that we have all arrived at great harmony on this subject. The bill responds to the oversight in the law by specifying that the districts in question benefit from the added position for the full 5- year term, beginning on the date that they were filled, as Congress originally intended, rather than the date that the temporary judgeship law became effective. So I congratulate the chairman of the subcommittee and the ranking member, the gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder].

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I want to take a few minutes to tell you about a man who has spent his life working as a healer but he is not a medical doctor. He has not repaired any broken bones or mended any human hearts. But he has devoted his life to healing the bitter and gaping rifts that separate the races in our country. The man I am describing is Dr. Arthur Johnson, my longtime friend in the struggle for justice, who retired September 30, 1995, as Vice President for University Relations and Professor of Educational Sociology at Detroit's Wayne State University, which just happens to be my alma mater. His title and his long list of degrees and commendations might lead some to believe he concentrated his civil rights work in the academic arena. That was not the case. His activism, which has spanned six decades, has taken him repeatedly into hostile and dangerous territory. In the 1950's, as executive director of the Detroit branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, he helped organize sit-ins at Detroit lunch counters that refused to serve African-Americans. In the early 1960's, he was at the front of civil rights marches to protest unfair housing practices in Detroit suburbs. Almost 40 years later, these suburbs still hold the dubious distinction of being the most segregated in the Nation. In the 1970's, he struggled to bring order out of the social chaos in the Detroit Public schools where militant young students disrupted classes and shut down schools to demand a curriculum that reflected their African heritage. In the last two decades, Dr. Johnson has kept up his hectic pace and worked on numerous projects to increase understanding among the races. He has written passionately about the question of race which still divides this country. As he recently said, ``My experience kept me close to the issue of race and race oppression. The struggle is a part of me.'' But no matter how harsh the struggle, he never became embittered. He remained outwardly calm, refusing to let the enemy destroy him in anger. That enemy began testing him at an early age. Born in Americus, GA, in 1925, he grew up in an atmosphere poisoned by hatred and supremacy. But instead of creating hatred in him, that environment made him a determined fighter against the evils of racism. One incident in his youth helped shape his views. He was 13 years old and his family had moved to Birmingham. The memory of what happened is still vivid in his mind. One time he was walking in downtown Birmingham early in the evening with his uncle, who was about 20 years old. Suddenly they found themselves walking behind a white family--a father, a wife, and a little girl who was about 6 or 7. The girl was not paying attention to what she was doing, and she walked across young Arthur's path. He put his hand on her shoulder [[Page E 2210]] in a caring fashion to prevent her from stumbling. When her father saw that, he began to beat on Johnson as if he had lost his mind. During the entire beating, Johnson's uncle stood frozen in fear. For years, his uncle's failure to respond troubled him. Only later, when he himself was a grown man, did he fully understand why his uncle just stood there. In that racist climate, the uncle would have been killed for challenging a white man on a public street. Once he understood what had happened, he did not focus his anger on the specific individuals involved in that incident. Instead, he focused on a perverted system that filled whites with blind rage and blacks with terror. He knew that the ravenous monster called racism had to be attacked. His lifelong struggle began on that Birmingham street. Johnson's parents were hard-working people who valued education. His mother was a domestic servant; and his father worked in the coal mines and the steel mills. After graduating from Birmingham's Parker High School, he attended college through the help of his grandmother, also a domestic servant. She used the little money she earned to help put him through Morehouse College in Atlanta. During those Morehouse years, he was part of a class that included students who would alter the course of this Nation: The young Martin Luther King Jr., Ebony Magazine Publisher Robert Johnson, and noted historian Lerone Bennett whose work on African-American history has successfully linked generations of black Americans with their past. Those young men studied in an atmosphere that was carefully crafted by the late Dr. Benjamin Mays, Morehouse president and one of the Nation's premier and dignified voices for social change. Dr. Mays' message was not lost on them. ``Dr. Mays challenged us not to accept any measure of racial discrimination we did not have to,'' he once reflected. ``Above all else, he told us to keep our minds free. He told us that nobody can enslave your mind unless you let them.'' While on campus, Johnson organized the school's first chapter of the NAACP. Armed with an undergraduate degree in sociology from Atlanta University, Art Johnson moved to Detroit in the early 1950's to take a job as executive secretary for the Detroit branch of the NAACP. He planned to stay in Detroit 3 years so he could get the urge to change the world out of his system before returning to academia. Those 3 years turned into 40. He remained at the helm of the NAACP for 14 years, guiding the organization through some of the most turbulent years in Detroit. In the 1950's, blacks were blatantly discriminated against in the job market, the housing market, and in hotels and restaurants. The NAACP led protest marches and sit-in demonstrations that battered the door of institutional racism and forced some change. The group's activism attracted a record number of new members. The Detroit chapter grew from 5,000 members to 29,000 during his tenure. Detroit proudly claimed the title of the largest NAACP chapter in the United States. Under his guidance, the Detroit chapter initiated the NAACP Freedom Fund Dinner which has become the most successful NAACP fund raiser in the country. Held each year, the event draws thousands of people and has been labeled the largest indoor dinner in the world. Art Johnson took a struggling local organization and helped it develop into a major force in the local and national struggle for civil rights. One reason for his success was his uncanny insight into society's problems. During a speech he gave some 35 years ago, he pinpointed six crucial issues facing African-Americans: voting rights, civil rights, segregated housing, inadequate medical care, job discrimination, and segregated schools. Despite some progress, those issues still remain at the top of our agenda. In 1964, he left the NAACP to become Deputy Director of the newly created Michigan Civil Right Commission, the first such body in the Nation. The commission needed someone with proven skills. No one doubted that Art Johnson had them. In one of his first official statements, he made it clear that he had not forgotten that 13-year-old boy who was beaten without cause years earlier. In his low-key, no-nonsense fashion, he said that the struggle for equity and fairness in jobs, housing, education, and police community relations would keep the commission busy. He spent 2 years getting the commission on a solid footing, then he waded into one of the biggest challenges of his career. The Detroit Public Schools hired him as Deputy Superintendent for School Community Relations at the most turbulent time in the history of the school. The wrenching social upheavals in the streets during the 1960's registered in the classrooms as well. And Arthur Johnson was right in the middle of it all. In July 1967, Detroit exploded in a civil disturbance that claimed 43 lives and destroyed hundreds of millions of dollars worth of property. Rather than watching the flames from the safety of his office, Johnson joined those who told the rioters to calm themselves and told the police to immediately cease their wanton and often deadly attacks on the citizens. Conditions were tense in the classroom, too. Students wee riding a wave of militancy, and Detroit was at the crest of that wave. Young protestors shut down schools and disrupted board meetings to air their grievances about a curriculum that largely ignored African-American culture. During one such protest, a group of determined young students ``arrested'' Johnson and held him captive for 2 hours in a school library to call attention to their demands. When he was not caught up in the thick of debates with parents, students, and administrators, he was arguing with publishers whose text books failed to accurately and fairly reflect the experiences and contributions of African-Americans. More than once, he infuriated publishers by refusing to accept books that directly or indirectly fostered notions of black inferiority. After that demanding stint in the public schools, most people would take it easy, but he did not. In the early 1970's, he traded one group of protesting students for another when he left the public school system and joined Wayne State University, a hotbed of student activism. As the Vice President for University Relations and as professor of educational psychology, he was right in the middle of the fray. Students demanded increased and immediate access to the decisionmaking process. They tried, as many good students do, to reshape the school in their image. Art was there, mediating, challenging, explaining and listening. Sometimes the volume of the debate was so high that it was nearly impossible to hear the words, but he persevered. To me, the most amazing thing about Art Johnson is that he never lets problems trigger an emotional out burst in him. His studied calm has become his trademark. He has used his intellect to reason with friends and foes. He has walked into hostile and dangerous territory to push for freedom. He has maintained has composure and his dedication despite numerous threats and insults. When he suffered painful setbacks in the struggle for human rights, he never gave up hope or bowed to temporary defeat. Throughout his life, he carried the words of his teacher with him. He never allowed anyone to shackle his mind. He has fought consistently and tirelessly against such efforts. In 1988, he was working at the university, active in a number of community groups and deeply involved in the local NAACP chapter as president, a position he held from 1987 to 1993. During this period he also served a co-chair of the Race Relations Task Force for the Detroit Strategic Plan. As co-chair, he wrote and insightful commentary on race relations that was published in The Detroit News. He wrote: When we freely examine racism for what it is--through our individual experiences and as exposed in the Race Relations Task Force report and other studies--it becomes clear that the problem of race and racism in its structural and institutional aspects--is in reality the form and practice of our own apartheid. Because of his insight and his singular dedication to civil rights, Art has been awarded so many honors that it would take far too long to list them all. He wears his well-deserved praise with the humility of a man who realizes he is only doing what is just and right. In 1979, Morehouse College awarded him the Honorary Degree of Doctor of Humane Letters in recognition of his scholarship in the field of sociology and his leadership in the battlefield of civil rights. His other honors include the Distinguished Warrior Award from the Detroit Urban League, the Greater Detroit Interfaith Round Table National Human Relations Award, the Afro-Asian Institute of Histadrut Humanitarian Award, the Greater Detroit Chamber of Commerce Summit Award, and the Crystal Rose Award from the Hospice Foundation of Southeastern Michigan. The NAACP conferred five Thalheimer Awards upon for outstanding achievement. Art is a member of a variety of community groups. He sits on the board of directors of the Detroit Science Center, the Detroit Symphony Orchestra, and the American Symphony Orchestra League. Like me, he has a love of music. He is also a trustee for the Founders Society of the Detroit Institutes of Arts and president emeritus of the University Cultural Center Association. Art is the father of five children. He and his wife, Chacona Winters Johnson, a development executive for the University of Michigan, still live in Detroit. Even though Art Johnson has retired, he is busier than ever. When it comes to the struggle for justice, he just can not pull himself from the front lines. [[Page E 2211]] The Detroit community, and indeed the Nation, have benefited from his efforts to promote understanding and healing. It is with joy and sincerity that I thank Arthur Johnson. Because he never allowed anyone to shackle his mind, he made it possible for others to know the beauty of freedom.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, this bill continues to constitute an unbridled attempt to bribe doctors by offering them legal goodies which have little to do with the underlying legislation and have no positive budget impact. The process has also been abhorrent--we only today received a several-thousand page bill, without any prior opportunity to review or debate its provisions in conference. The bill continues to include a new antitrust exemption which protects physician networks from the usual per se rule against price fixing. As the ``New York Times'' recently wrote, easing the rules for PSN's would ``invite doctors to engage in blatant anti-competitive behavior [and] allow doctors who have no intention of going into business together to conspire among themselves to impose high fees and needlessly expensive treatment practices on health plans using their services.'' This antitrust loophole is strongly opposed by both the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission. Amazingly, the provision was included without any review, hearing, or consideration by the Judiciary Committee in either the House or the Senate, even though it constitutes one of the most far reaching antitrust changes adopted in the last 20 years. The bill also continues to be weak on white collar fraud committed by doctors and other health care providers. Among other things, the legislation includes a shameful provision that changes the law to prevent private citizens form brining ``whistle blower'' suits against health care organizations that fraudulently receive funds from Medicare or Medicaid programs. Considering the amount of money saved by these suits, it is difficult to understand why we are eliminating them. To date, the government has recovered nearly $1 billion dollars through these so-called ``qui tam'' actions. Moreover, some of the biggest health care fraud recoveries began as whistleblower suits. For example, a total of $139.8 million dollars was recovered from qui tam actions filed against National Health Laboratories, Metpath, and Metwest based on allegations that the Medicare program was overcharged for unnecessary laboratory tests. This republican reconciliation bill has been bought and paid for through a series of back-room legal concessions granted to powerful health care interests. If we adopt these provisions, Congress will be sending the special interests a message that any objections they may have to controversial legislation can be overcome by unrelated legal concessions. The ultimate victim will be the American public.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey], the distinguished ranking member of the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance of the Committee on Commerce.