John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. It has been mistakenly repeated at least a dozen times on the floor that without this bill Federal funds could be used for abortion. I want it to be clear on the Record that that is incorrect. I'm sorry that I have to make this statement. This legislation subjects women to profound government intrusion. It restricts women's access to health care, and it targets small businesses for additional taxing under our IRS Code. There are many, many organizations that are opposed to this legislation: The American Nurses Association, the American Civil Liberties Union, the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Catholics for Choice, the Equal Health Network, the Human Rights Campaign, the National Association of Nurse Practitioners, the National Organization of Women, the National Women's Law Center, People for the American Way, the Union for Reform Judaism, the United Church of Christ, the United Methodist Church, and the YWCA, plus numerous others. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I am proud to yield 2 minutes to the minority whip from Maryland, Steny Hoyer.

Mr. CONYERS. I yield my friend an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to urge all of the Members of the House to please consider this issue from as an unemotional point of view as possible, to please determine in your hearts and in your mind about the fact that this bill goes over the top. I would now like to yield 1 minute to the distinguished minority leader, Nancy Pelosi.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida, Ted Deutch, a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. CONYERS. I am pleased now to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlelady from Connecticut, Rosa DeLauro.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey, Rob Andrews. (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to introduce H.R. 1409, the ``Quality Health Care Coalition Act of 2011.'' This bill will strengthen patient safety and quality of care by clarifying the application of the antitrust laws to negotiations between groups of health care professionals and health plans and health care insurance issuers. Currently, the insurance industry, including health care insurance companies, is immune from federal antitrust laws under the McCarran- Ferguson Act. In contrast, health care providers can presently be prohibited from collectively negotiating against insurance companies. Accordingly, the playing field is terribly unbalanced. At a hearing the House Committee on the Judiciary held last Congress on the disparate treatment of physicians and health insurers by the antitrust enforcement agencies, I heard troubling testimony revealing that health care providers find themselves in an untenable situation. On the one hand, they are directed to find new efficiencies and coordinate care with other providers. On the other hand, they risk running afoul of the antitrust laws if they coordinate too closely. To level the playing field, I am pleased to join Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) in introducing bipartisan legislation to allow health care providers the ability to collectively negotiate against insurance companies. The Quality Health Care Coalition Act of 2011 will give health care providers the ability to collectively negotiate contractual terms with insurers, including provisions that affect the quality of patient care. By balancing the playing field between health care professionals and insurance companies, this legislation will help improve quality of patient care.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chair, today I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 910, the Republican Majority's so-called ``Energy Tax Prevention Act.'' I think a more accurate title would be the ``Science Ignorance Appreciation Act'' or ``Foreign Energy Dependence Act.'' Today's measure would unilaterally invalidate the Environment Protection Agency's findings that carbon dioxide and other air pollutants pose a threat to public health and environment. Even more egregiously, the bill prohibits the EPA to regulate man-made greenhouse gases in spite of verified independent scientific research that shows that climate change poses an existential threat to our way of life. The proposal is nothing more than censorship of government scientists who simply want to protect human and environmental health. There is an overwhelming scientific consensus that global warming is directly due to man-made behavior. In recent years we have begun to witness this science first hand, as extreme weather such as floods, droughts, blizzards, hurricanes and other natural disasters have begun to affect areas unaccustomed to such events. We cannot ignore the science and evidence. If we pass this flawed legislation, we will lose an incredible opportunity to create the market forces necessary to stimulate innovation in clean energy technology such as wind, solar, and other clean energy programs. The Energy Tax Prevention Act deliberately delays the day that America will be freed from its addiction to foreign oil. As we have seen with the recent instability in the Middle East, there are dramatic downsides to our current energy dependence strategy. A ``yes'' vote today is a vote for unchecked pollution and global warming. It is a vote against scientific consensus and a clean energy future.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to mourn the passing of a dear friend and colleague, former Congressman John Adler. It was truly an honor and a privilege to serve with John during the 111th Congress, where we worked together on legislation such as the Paycheck Fairness Act and the Employee Free Choice Act. John always put the interests of his constituents first, and I can confidently say that the people of New Jersey's 3rd Congressional District were privileged to have a representative as dedicated and committed to his job as John. John and I also shared a particular interest in Veteran's issues. As a member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, he worked tirelessly to ensure that our Nation's veterans received the benefits they deserved as a result of their tremendous sacrifice and service to this country. As a veteran myself, I take particular pride in saluting John's accomplishments in this field. Again, I join with my colleagues in expressing my sincerest condolences on the passing of Congressman Adler. My thoughts and prayers are with his wife, Shelley, and his four sons. I hope that my colleagues will take this time to reflect on his life and his work, and may he serve as an example to all of us of a life well lived.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I inadvertently voted ``yes'' on rollcall votes 226 and 227. It was my intention to vote ``no'' on both votes.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce this resolution expressing the sense of Congress that the federal government should take steps to counter anti-Muslim sentiment, along with additional cosponsors. Over the last decade, the American Muslim community has confronted a festering level of suspicion which has manifested itself in hostile government policies and bias from the general public. A CBS/ New York Times poll released in mid-September showed that as many as 20 percent of Americans said they have negative feelings toward Muslims because of the September 11th terrorist attacks. While Congress has confronted some of the more violent manifestations of this bias, the general climate faced by the community has continued to create barriers to full participation in public life that should be addressed by official government policy. As a member who represents a district with on of the greatest concentrations of American Muslims in the nation, I believe that this sense of Congress is a logical step toward sending the message that this group of proud citizens should be able to enjoy the rights guaranteed under the Constitution to the same extent as all other Americans. Throughout diverse cities and small towns across the country, American Muslims have a long history of playing crucial roles in law enforcement and the armed forces, and as business leaders, doctors, lawyers, and teachers. However, there exists in our nation today a disturbing and dangerous trend of anti-Muslim rhetoric and bigotry, evidenced by attacks against individuals, religious institutions and entire communities. The United States is a country founded on the principles of tolerance and religious freedom, as embodied in the First Amendment of the Constitution. The protection of these principles is vital to the ongoing sense of community shared by the diverse peoples and religious groups of this nation. Targeting American Muslims for scrutiny based on their religion goes against the core principles of religious freedom and equal protection under the law. Moreover, the practice erodes trust in government and law enforcement at all levels, which, in turn, undermines public safety. The American Muslim community should be able to rely on the federal government to lead the effort in fostering an open climate of understanding and cooperation. These communities must be shielded from the threat of violence and suspicion that was at the heart of last January's thwarted attack against the Islamic Center of America in Dearborn, Michigan. They should also be able to rely on law enforcement's fundamental integrity and respect for First Amendment protected rights. Only through a balanced examination of the challenges facing the nation will we establish a strong policy framework for protecting security, while respecting the Constitution and the interests of affected communities. This sense of Congress is an attempt to set the record straight and counter the perception of growing anti-Muslim rhetoric. Congress has a solemn duty to ensure that its actions do not fuel misconceptions about, and prejudices toward, any faith community, including the American Muslim community and Islam. Scores of religious, civil rights, law enforcement, and national security leaders and organizations representing diverse Americans and areas of expertise are concerned about messages which appear to target the American Muslim community, sending counterproductive messages both domestically and internationally. It is essential that the federal government send the message that we all must work together to guarantee the security of our country and that no community should be singled out for suspicion.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit the following article: Is Bush's War Illegal?--Let Us Count the Ways (By Francis Boyle) The ``Blowhard Zone'' On September 13, 2001 I got a call from FOX News asking me to go on the O'Reilly Factor program that night, two days after the tragic events of September 11, to debate O'Reilly on War v. Peace. It is pretty clear where I stood and where he stood. I had been on this program before. I knew what I was getting in to. But I felt it would be important for one lawyer to get up there in front of a national audience and argue against a war and for the application of domestic and international law enforcement, international procedures, and constitutional protections, which I did. Unfortunately, O'Reilly has the highest ranked TV news program in the country. I thought someone should be on there on September 13. I think most people agree that I beat O'Reilly. By the end of the show he was agreeing with me. But the next night he was saying that we should bomb five different Arab countries and kill all their people. But let me review for you briefly some of the international law arguments that I have been making almost full time since September 13. They are set forth in the introduction in my new book, The Criminality of Nuclear Deterrence. Terrorism v. War First, right after September 11 President Bush called these attacks an act of terrorism, which they were under the United States domestic law definition at that time. However, there is no generally accepted definition of an act of terrorism under international law, for reasons I explain in my book. Soon thereafter however and apparently after consultations with Secretary of State Powell, he proceeded to call these an act of war, ratcheting up the rhetoric and the legal and constitutional issues at stake here. They were not an act of war as traditional! defined. An act of war is a military attack by one state against another state. There is so far no evidence produced that the state of Afghanistan, at the time, either attacked the United States or authorized or approved such an attack. Indeed, just recently FBI Director Mueller and the deputy director of the CIA publically admitted that they have found no evidence in Afghanistan linked to the September 11 attacks. If you believe the government's account of what happened, which I think is highly questionable, 15 of these 19 people alleged to have committed these attacks were from Saudi Arabia and yet we went to war against Afghanistan. It does not really add up in my opinion. But in any event this was not an act of war. Clearly these were acts of terrorism as defined by United States domestic law at the time, but not an act of war. Normally terrorism is dealt with as a matter of international and domestic law enforcement. Indeed there was a treaty directly on point at that time, the Montreal Sabotage Convention to which both the United States and Afghanistan were parties. It has an entire regime to deal with all issues in dispute here, including access to the International Court of Justice to resolve international disputes arising under the Treaty such as the extradition of Bin Laden. The Bush administration completely ignored this treaty, jettisoned it, set it aside, never even mentioned it. They paid no attention to this treaty or any of the other 12 international treaties dealing with acts of terrorism that could have been applied to handle this manner in a peaceful, lawful way. War of Aggression Against Afghanistan Bush, Jr. instead went to the United National Security Council to get a resolution authorizing the use of military force against Afghanistan and Al Qaeda. He failed. You have to remember that. This war has never been authorized by the United Nations Security Council. If you read the two resolutions that he got, it is very clear that what Bush, Jr. tried to do was to get the exact same type of language that Bush, Sr. got from the U.N. Security Council in the late fall of 1990 to authorize a war against Iraq to produce its expulsion from Kuwait. It is very clear if you read these resolutions, Bush, Jr. tried to get the exact same language twice and they failed. Indeed the first Security Council resolution refused to call what happened on September 11 an ``armed attack''--that is by one state against another state. Rather they called it ``terrorist attacks.'' But the critical point here is that this war has never been approved by the U.N. Security Council so technically it is illegal under international law. It constitutes an act and a war of aggression by the United States against Afghanistan. No Declaration of War Now in addition Bush, Jr. then went to Congress to get authorization to to go to war. It appears that Bush, Jr. tried to get a formal declaration of war along the lines of December 8, 1941 after the Day of Infamy like FDR got on Pearl Harbor. Bush then began to use the rhetoric of Pearl Harbor. If he had gotten this declaration of war Bush and his lawyers knew full well he would have been a Constitutional Dictator. And I refer you here to the book by my late friend Professor Miller of George Washington University Law School, Presidential Power, that with a formal declaration of war the president becomes a Constitutional Dictator. He failed to get a declaration of war. Despite all the rhetoric we have heard by the Bush, Jr. administration Congress never declared war against Afghanistan or against anyone. There is technically no state of war today against anyone as a matter of constitutional law as formally declared. Bush, Sr. v. Bush, Jr. Now what Bush, Jr. did get was a War Powers Resolution authorization. Very similar to what Bush, Sr. got. Again the game plan was the same here. Follow the path already pioneered by Bush, Sr. in his war against Iraq. So he did get from Congress a War Powers Resolution authorization. This is what law professors call an imperfect declaration of war. It does not have the constitutional significance of a formal declaration of war. It authorizes the use of military force in specified, limited circumstances. That is what Bush, Sr. got in 1991. It was to carry out the Security Council resolution that he had gotten a month and one-half before to expel Iraq from Kuwait. But that is all the authority he had--either from the Security Council or from Congress. And that is what he did. I am not here to approve of what Bush, Sr. did. I do not and I did not at the time. But just to compare Bush, Jr. with Bush, Sr. So Bush, Jr. got a War Powers Resolution, which is not a declaration of war. Indeed, Senator Byrd, the Dean of the Senate, clearly said this is only a War Powers authorization and we will give authority to the president to use military force subject to the requirements of the War Powers Resolution, which means they must inform us, there is Congressional oversight, in theory, (I do not think they are doing much of it), controlled funding, and ultimately we decide, not the Executive branch of the government--we are the ones who gave the authorization to use force. Again very similar to what Bush, Sr. got except the Bush, Jr. War Powers Resolution is far more dangerous because it basically gives him a blank check to use military force against any state that he says was somehow involved in the attack on September 11. And as you know that list has now gone up to 60 states. So it is quite dangerous, which led me to say in interviews I gave at the time this is worse that the Tonkin Gulf Resolution. Better from our perspective than a formal Declaration of War, but worse constitutionally and politically than the Tonkin Gulf resolution. But still subject to the control of Congress and the terms of the War Powers Resolution. Indeed you might be able to use that War Powers Resolution and the authorization in litigation that might come up. Keep that in mind. No War Against Iraq! For example, on Iraq. Right now they cannot use that War Powers Resolution to justify a war against Iraq. There is no evidence that Iraq was involved in the events on September 11. So they are fishing around for some other justification to go to war with Iraq. They have come up now with this doctrine of preemptive attack. Quite interesting that argument, doctrine was rejected by the Nuremberg Tribunal when the lawyers for the Nazi defendants made it at Nuremberg. They rejected any doctrine of preemptive attack. Nazi Self-Defense Then what happened after failing to get any formal authorization from the Security Council, the U.S. Ambassador Negroponte--who has the blood of about 35,000 people in Nicaragua on his hands when he was U.S. Ambassador down in Honduras--sent a letter to the Security Council asserting Article 51 of the U.N. Charter to justify the war against Afghanistan. And basically saying that we reserve the right to use force in self-defense against any state we say is somehow involved in the events of September 11. Well, the San Francisco Chronicle interviewed me on that and asked what is the precedent for this? I said that the precedent again goes back to the Nuremberg Judgment of 1946 when the lawyers for the Nazi defendants argued that we, the Nazi government had a right to go to war in self-defense as we saw it, and no one could tell us any differently. Of course that preposterous argument was rejected by Nuremberg. It is very distressing to see some of the highest level of officials of our country making legal arguments that were rejected by the Nuremberg Tribunal. Kangaroo Courts Now let me say a few words about the so-called military commissions. I have a little handout out there called ``Kangaroo Courts.'' It would take me a whole law review article to go through all the problems with military commissions. I have been interviewed quite extensively. I have some comments on it in my book. Professor Jordan Paust, a friend and colleague of mine at the University of Houston, just published an article in the Michigan Journal of International Law which I would encourage you to read. It goes through the major problems. But basically there are two treaties on point here that are being violated at a minimum. First, the Third Geneva Convention of 1949. I will not go through all of the arguments here but it is clear that just about everyone down in Guantanamo (not counting the guys who were picked up in Bosnia and basically kidnapped) but all those apprehended over in Afghanistan and Pakistan would qualify as prisoners of war within the meaning of the Third Geneva Convention of 1949, and therefore have all the rights of prisoners of war within the meaning of that convention. Right now however, as you know, all those rights are being denied. This is a serious war crime. And unfortunately President Bush, Jr. himself has incriminated himself under the Third Geneva Convention by signing the order setting up these military commissions. Not only has he incriminated himself under the Third Geneva Convention, but he has incriminated himself under the U.S. War Crimes Act of 1996 or so, signed into law by President Clinton and making it a serious felony for any United States citizen either to violate or order the violation of the Four Geneva Conventions of 1949. The Federalist Society Cabal I am not personally criticizing President Bush. He is not a lawyer. He was terribly advised, criminally mis-advised, by the cabal of Federalist Society lawyers that the Bush administration has assembled at the White House and the Department of Injustice under Ashcroft. President Bush, Jr., by signing this order, has opened himself up to prosecution anywhere in the world for violating the Third Geneva Convention, and certainly if there is evidence to believe that any of these individuals have been tortured, which is grave breach, let alone at the end of the day executed. So this is a very serious matter. I did not vote for President Bush, Jr. But I certainly think it is a tragedy that these Federalist Society lawyers got the President of the United States of America, who is not a lawyer, to sign the order that would incriminate him under the Geneva Conventions and United States Domestic Criminal Law. This is what happened. Jeopardizing U.S. Armed Forces Moreover, by us stating we will not apply the Third Geneva Convention to these people we opened up United States armed forces to be denied protection under the Third Geneva Convention. And as you know, we now have U.S. armed forces in operation in Afghanistan, Georgia, the Philippines, in Yemen and perhaps in Iraq. Basically Bush's position will be jeopardizing their ability to claim prisoner of war status. All that has to happen is our adversaries say they are unlawful combatants and we will not give you prisoner of war status. The Third Geneva Convention is one of the few protections U.S. armed forces have when they go into battle. Bush, Jr. and his Federalist Society lawyers just pulled the rug out from under them. U.S. Police State In addition the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights clearly applies down in Guantanamo. It applies any time individuals are under the jurisdiction of the United States of America. Guantanamo is a colonial enclave, I will not go through its status any further. But clearly those individuals are subject to our jurisdiction and have the rights set forth therein--which are currently being denied. If and when many of these Bush, Ashcroft, Gonzalez police state practices make their way to the U.S. Supreme Court, we have to consider that a five to four majority of the Supreme Court gave the presidency to Bush, Jr. What is going to stop that same five to four majority from giving Bush, Jr. a police state? The only thing that is going to stop it is the people in this room.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today because the return home of our U.S. military in the absence of a declaration of war by this Congress is long overdue. Members of this House must support H. Con. Res. 28, and help reverse the course of the unconstitutional Afghan war. First, the war in Afghanistan is unconstitutional. Article 1, Section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution grants Congress-- not the President--the power to declare war. Once that declaration is made by the Congress, the President can conduct war. The Constitution is clear and there is no debate over the fact that the Constitution never intended any shared decision making in declaring a state of war. Such a shared decision making was rejected originally by the Framers. Thus, without a declaration of war, the President's continued use of force to continue a war in Afghanistan is unconstitutional. James Madison, one of the key architects of the Constitution on separation of powers, said that ``this requirement for Congress to be able to declare war is one of the most important provisions of the Constitution.'' However, ten years after the conflict began in Afghanistan, we still have no such declaration. This significant authority granted to Congress is why I rise today in support of the gentleman from Ohio's resolution. Congress cannot hand over to the President our exclusive power to declare war. Without a declaration of war, the President's use of military force in Afghanistan is unconstitutional. The seminal case of Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer rejected the President's claim that he had authority as Commander-in- Chief to unilaterally seize steel production plants. Justice Douglas' concurring opinion contained an important recognition of the importance of separation of powers during war: ``All executive powers--from the reign of ancient kings to the rule of modern dictators--has the outward appearance of efficiency. Legislative power, by contrast, is slower to exercise . . . We therefore cannot decide this case by determining which branch of government can deal most expeditiously with the present crisis. The answer must depend on the allocation of powers under the Constitution.'' No one in this Congress argues that the military must diminish their role in fighting against attacks on the United States. However, if the armed conflict is not defensive, the federal constitution has, unmistakenly provided that the Congress shall have power to declare war. This war has continued for almost 10 years and it is time to call it to a stop until Congress declares a clear objective to engage the nation in war. The Framers granted Congress the authority to make the decision to go to war because Congress could best assess whether the country was behind a war, which is a key element to any victory. Therefore, we must remember our constitutional duty to represent the voice of the American people. The cost of war comes at the expense of their lives, their sons, and their daughters. Second, the war in Afghanistan exceeds the scope of the authorization of the AUFMA resolution. The authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), is not a general anti-terrorism bill. The resolution never gave the President perpetual authority to use military force after 9/11 to any acts or plans of terrorism. Instead, the AUMF resolution reads: ``The President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future act of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations, or persons.'' The AUMF cannot be used as a cover for a full-blown war, which is what has occurred in Afghanistan. We are now almost 10 years into a full-blown war under the claim that the AUMF continues to authorize this war cannot be upheld. For this claim to be upheld, Congress must then declare war. The United States cannot engage in national building type activities that are not connected to the scope of the authorization under the AUMF. Should Congress determine that the military needs more or less authority than it has been given under the AUMF, we will act accordingly. Thirdly, the armed unmanned drones in Pakistan are unlawful. Another concern is that the Afghanistan action has paved the way for unauthorized military actions in neighboring Pakistan, including the use of military drones. The military continues to use armed unmanned drones operated by the CIA and conducts exercises on the ground in order to target Al Qaeda and the Taliban and additional terrorist groups. How can the administration pursue the use of drones without abandoning America's hallmark commitment to civil liberties? The use of drones has placed the United States military in a bad light internationally for the killings of innocent people from the use of drones. The New America Foundation, reportedly, estimates that between 867 and 1,281 deaths from drone strikes, with 277 to 435 being noncombatants that have died since 2004. The use of drones by the United States has been called ``one of Washington's worst-kept secrets.'' American drones may well have attacked jihadist groups not connected to the supporters and members Al Qaeda or the Taliban. This combat can not be justified under the AUMF authorization because the attacks exceed the scope the authorization. Our actions may well be increasing the rush of Pakistan jihadist gaining greater influence in combat in Pakistan. Increased military presence in Afghanistan has inflamed anti-American resentment in the region. Pakistan, reportedly, also has hundreds of nuclear weapons. Our troops may be in more danger because of the effects of compromised U.S. efforts in the region and the greater Middle East. Expansion of executive war power beyond the AUMF is precisely the kind of momentous decision making the Framers conferred upon the Congress. We must put a stop to this war in Afghanistan or else it will send a message to the world that our Executive Branch may pick and choose wherever they want to send troops or to start a war. The United States military is in a dozen different locations all over the world engaged in combat. Even now, our military is fighting in Libya, yet there has been no authorization or declaration from this Congress nor has there been any meaningful consultation with Congress. The burden caused by the decision to expand military activities into Pakistan exceeds the scope of the AUMF. Congress must support H. Con. Res. 28 in order keep this Country dedicated to the way the Framers of the Constitution structured our nation on how to commit to armed conflict. Finally, the military action appears to violate international legal norms. H. Con. Res. 28 will place the United States in a better position in light of our international obligations under the U.N. Charter. None of the mandates from the two resolutions passed in the wake of the tragedy on 9/11 decided that any state should engage in war. Instead, for example, Resolution 1373 directs member states to root out terrorism through means that affect the financing, harboring, investigating, and collaborating of terrorist groups while Resolution 1268 strongly condemned the attacks on 9/11 and called for international cooperation to find the perpetrators of 9/11. Without a clear objective or credibility that the United States is acting in self defense, our country may be violating our obligation as a member state in the U.N. to refrain from acts of aggression that are unauthorized by the Charter. The use of drones and military operations by the CIA also conflicts with both article 51 and article 2. Combat for the purposes of article 51 only authorizes the right of the use of military force if the force is in self-defense in the event an armed attack occurs. Article 2 of the Charter also prohibits the use or threatened use of force against another state. Article 51 does not grant the right of bombing, unmanned armed drones, nor does it describe armed force as self-defense. Unfortunately we have engaged in such force and accepted the risks associated with the use of such force. The U.S. must comply with our obligations under these Articles. The attacks on the United States on 9/11 were horrific. However, the horror we experienced on that tragic day does not provide any legal justification to use deadly force against people believed to be hiding in regions throughout Afghanistan. There is no justification for the Afghan war to be transformed into an authorization to use force anywhere we think terrorism exists.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. So now we're in Pakistan and the CIA is operating covert combat activities there, and those are unlawful. We're violating the UN Charter, which we are supposed to be a leader in. And so the Obama administration is carrying on the same military operations of its predecessor.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I have a senior member of the Judiciary Committee on the floor with me, the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman). I don't see any other members here. But this is an important matter for the Judiciary Committee in that article I, section 8, says only Congress has the right to declare war. Obviously, we haven't declared war in a very, very long time, so I think that we have to find out what is the constitutional basis that we are operating under in--well, I will skip Iraq. We all know that was based on false information promulgated from the President of the United States. But, now, getting to Afghanistan, we find that we have a resolution dating back to September 14, 2011, a use of force resolution. But that has expired, by any rational investigation of it. It was designed to respond to the 9/11 terrorist attack and to fight al Qaeda. But today we're in Afghanistan on a long-term effort at rebuilding the nation. Nation building is unrelated to that original resolution. And now we're in Afghanistan and an unlawful incursion into Pakistan.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong disapproval of H.R. 1076, which would prohibit federal funds to National Public Radio. The proposal today is a draconian attempt to kill public radio to millions of listeners across our nation who depend and cherish this essential service. The bill would significantly impede NPR's local station in Detroit, WDET 101.9 to continue its public service. Over 150,000 listeners in southeast Michigan, northwest Ohio and our neighbors in Canada would be deprived of such great shows such as The Diane Rehm Show, Jazz Profiles hosted by my friend Nancy Wilson and many other news and cultural programs. Furthermore, WDET and other NPR stations are one of the few radio providers of local news. The station carries many diverse perspectives that strengthen the social fabric for Detroiters. Media consolidation, for a variety of reasons, has resulted in a less progressive, less diverse, and a narrower set of viewpoints. For years, public radio has successfully been able to provide Americans with cutting edge, sophisticated, and culturally relevant news that otherwise would not be able to enjoy this much needed public service. Today's bill jeopardizes public radio's ability to operate at an optimal level, and could result in a dramatic decrease in Americans' access to this vital medium. It is a shame that our nation's children and young people may not have the ability to listen to classical music, opera, and other intellectually stimulating broadcast that are vitally important to the intellectual and cultural of our future Americans. In short, today's vote is a needless attack on one of America's cherished institutions--public radio. I urge my colleagues to look at other ways to balance our Nation's budget that do not include cuts to education and culture.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, every day, our federal judges make decisions in cases that directly and personally affect lives. They may find someone guilty and sentence that person to a lengthy prison sentence. They may rule against someone for thousands of dollars. Or, they may dismiss a medical malpractice case. Chicago district judge Joan Humphrey Lefkow did the latter and tragically, shortly thereafter, the plaintiff in that case went to her home and murdered her husband and mother in 2005. One way a disgruntled litigant can learn of a federal judge's home address and avenge a ruling is by requesting a copy of the judge's financial disclosure report under the Ethics in Government Act. Information in financial disclosure reports can reveal the filer's or a family member's residence or regular presence at an unsecured location such as a spouse's place of employment. Fortunately, Section 105(b)(3) of the Ethics in Government Act (5 U.S.C. App), allows the Judicial Conference to redact statutorily required information in a judge's or judiciary employee's financial disclosure report in circumstances where release of the information could endanger the filer or the filer's family. The Judicial Conference uses its redaction authority carefully. Under the regulations that the Judicial Conference promulgated in accordance with the statute, there must be a clear nexus between a security risk and the information for which redaction is sought, before redaction will be permitted. As required by the statute, the Judicial Conference reports to Congress annually on the number of redactions and the reasons for them, usually involving over 200 judges and judicial employees per year. This redaction authority is set to expire on December 31, 2011, pursuant to the ``Court Security Improvement Act of 2007'' (Pub. L. No. 110-177). Allowing this redaction authority to sunset will create tremendous security risks to judges and judiciary employees. Consequently, I am introducing legislation today which would extend the authority of the Judicial Conference to redact sensitive information contained in judges' financial disclosure reports. Where we can prevent tragedies such as Judge Lefkow's from happening, I believe we should. As our federal judges uphold the law, they should not have to worry about whether they or their family members will be harmed. I, together with my good friends, Representative Cohen and Representative Hank Johnson, ask Members on both sides of the aisle to join me in supporting this critical and timely legislation. We fervently hope that Congress will act expeditiously on it.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, today, I am proud to introduce H.R. __, the PLAY Act. This bill will ensure that a congressionally granted antitrust immunity is never again misused to build up an improper ``war chest'' to gain leverage in a football lockout and put our nation's most popular sport at risk. An independent United States District Judge recently found that the NFL acted in bad faith by negotiating broadcast contracts ensuring the league would be paid even if it locked out players. In other words, the league manipulated broadcast negotiations to maximize its ability to force and win a lockout, and did so--in the Court's words--``to advance its own interests and harm the interests of the players.'' Those flawed negotiations were conducted under the protective umbrella of the antitrust immunity given to football by the Congress. Accordingly, the PLAY Act would strip this immunity from professional football so it can never be misused in this way again.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, a recent Washington Post article examined the Embassy of Turkey's role in promoting jazz in America. Former Turkish Ambassador Mehmet Munir Ertegun and his sons Ahmet and Nesuhi Ertegun were instrumental in raising the profile of jazz in the 1930s and 40s in the District of Columbia. While growing up in Washington, DC, Ahmet Ertegun and his brother, Nesuhi, disregarded the racial barriers that divided the city and the country and hosted jam sessions at the Turkish Embassy. Many notable jazz artists performed, including Lester Young, Benny Carter, Meade Lux Lewis, Leadbelly, and members of the Count Basie and Ellington bands. On a recent visit to the Embassy, Ambassador Tan showed me a picture of Dr. Martin Luther King at the embassy with jazz musicians. Later in his life, Ertegun went on to found Atlantic Records in 1947 as a record label for gospel, jazz and R&B music with partner Herb Abramson. His brother eventually joined the firm and created one of the most successful independent labels in American history. Many renowned artists joined Atlantic Records such as Ray Charles, Ruth Brown, LaVern Baker, the Drifters, the Coasters, Aretha Franklin and Led Zeppelin. Other artists shaped by Ertegun include John Coltrane, Stevie Wonder, and Mick Jagger. Asked by the Slate magazine on his legacy, Ertegun responded, ``I'd be happy if people said that I did a little bit to raise the dignity and recognition of the greatness of African-American music.'' On Friday, February 4th, in acknowledgement of Black History Month, Namik Tan, the Republic of Turkey's current ambassador to the United States, announced a series of six concerts at the Turkish Ambassador's residence to highlight the unique role the Embassy played in the promotion of jazz music and racial integration and acceptance in our Nation's capitol. The first concert will be tomorrow and it will feature the Orrin Evans Trio. As we conclude Black History month, I would like to pay tribute to the contributions of the former Turkish Ambassador Mehmet Munir Ertegun and his sons Ahmet and Nesuhi Ertegun and to their contributions to bringing jazz to the world. A stirring Moment in Jazz History To Echo in Turkish Embassy (By J. Freedom du Lac) The ghosts are jamming again. They're playing that hot jazz in the Turkish Embassy's old Sheridan Circle mansion, just as they did in the 1930s and '40s, when the ambassador's boys, Ahmet and Nesuhi Ertegun, were always inviting their favorite musicians over to hang and blow and thump. The informal, integrated gatherings achieved near-mythic status--``Washington's most famous private jam sessions,'' jazz journalist Bill Gottlieb called them in The Washington Post in 1943--and then they evaporated into history. ``So many people don't know about it,'' said Namik Tan, Turkey's current ambassador. He's in the mansion's second- floor music parlor, envisioning Lester Young sitting in the wood-paneled room, coaxing those light, airy notes out of his tenor saxophone. Or maybe it's Benny Carter, making his alto sax sing. And aren't those the cats from Duke Ellington's band--Johnny Hodges, Harry Carney, Barney Bigard--on deck to play? ``Just try to scan back and imagine sitting here and listening to those great jazz musicians play,'' Tan said. On Friday, in a nod to Black History Month, Tan will announce a series of six invitation-only concerts at his palatial residence just off Embassy Row. The first, March 1, will feature pianist Orrin Evans. Jazz at Lincoln Center, on whose board Ahmet Ertegun served, is curating the series, which Tan conceived to highlight the mansion's past as one of Washington's most exclusive--and unlikely--jazz venues. These will be much more formal affairs than the jam sessions hosted by the brothers: Ahmet, who founded Atlantic Records and produced some of R&B's greatest sides; and Nesuhi, who ran the jazz department at Atlantic and produced classic records for John Coltrane, Ray Charles, Bobby Darin and Roberta Flack. But any jazz is notable at 1606 23rd St. NW, where the Erteguns proudly flouted the conventions of segregated Washington by welcoming black musicians through the front door. This was done, as Ahmet Ertegun liked to point out, much to the consternation of ``outraged Southern senators,'' who complained to his father, Ambassador Mehmet Munir Ertegun, about the practice. ``I thought it would be wise to rebuild the historical image of the Turkish Embassy residence as a center for jazz and jazz fans,'' Tan said. ``People should be aware of the historical significance of this house and of Ahmet and Nesuhi Ertegun. They made a good place for Turkey in the hearts and minds of the black community here and in the music community around the United States and elsewhere.'' The Ertegun boys were already hard-core swing buffs by the time their father was named Turkey's ambassador to Washington in 1934, when Nesuhi was 17 and Ahmet was 11. Upon landing in America, the young Turks dived headlong into the heart of the District's hopping jazz scene, frequenting the Howard Theatre, a mecca of black entertainment, to hear Ellington and other favorites. ``I got my education in music at the Howard,'' Ahmet later declared. The Erteguns began promoting concerts, too--at the Jewish Community Center, the National Press Club and elsewhere-- partly because they so loved the music but also out of a sense of social responsibility. ``You can't imagine how segregated Washington was at that time,'' Nesuhi told The Post in 1979, a decade before his death. ``Blacks and whites couldn't sit together in most places. So we put on concerts. . . . Jazz was our weapon for social action.'' They regularly invited musicians back to the embassy. The typical gathering began with a meal served by servants in tuxedos. Then came the sweetest dessert for hard-core swing fans. ``Nesuhi and I made the most out of the extra-territorial situation offered by the embassy by inviting musicians who'd played in town the night before over for Sunday lunch,'' Ahmet recalled in his 2001 book, ``What'd I Say: The Atlantic Story.'' ``They all loved the idea of having lunch at an embassy, particularly one as well-appointed and in such grand surroundings as the Turkish embassy in Washington. After lunch, jam sessions would inevitably develop.'' If there's a record of the artists who visited the Erteguns, the embassy hasn't been able to find it. Based on interviews with the brothers, Gottlieb's columns in The Post and photos at the Library of Congress, though, the cumulative guest list probably included Young, Carter, boogie-woogie pianist Meade Lux Lewis, blues giant Leadbelly, and members of the Count Basie and Ellington bands. You can feel it when you set foot in the place, said Washington jazzman and educator Davey Yarborough, who performed at the residence in October in what Tan called ``a practice for the series.'' ``You feel the history coming up the steps,'' Yarborough said. ``There's a sense of energy, a sense of ancestry that you get to absorb. If Lester Young played here, his spirit is still here, and he might guide me through a breakthrough on my instrument--like, `Here, let me show you what it really felt like.' '' To Nesuhi Ertegun, watching Ellington's band jamming at the mansion ``was one of the biggest thrills of my life,'' he told The Post in 1979. The music, he said, seemed to go over well with others, too. ``I remember once there was an embassy party, and I was having some musicians over at the same time. We were really getting kind of loud, and I was worried that maybe the people outside could hear us. At about that time, my father peered in and said, `Can you leave the door open? That music sounds awfully good.' ''

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1, the Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act of 2011. This ill conceived bill imposes draconian spending cuts that harm working families and, if implemented, could cause 1 million Americans to lose their jobs. Even worse, this bill hampers our country's ability to compete with other rising world powers, like China and India, by imposing draconian cuts to education, research, and infrastructure investments. At a time when education is critical to thriving in our global economy, the Republican led House is undermining America's future. Specifically, today's legislation would reduce the Pell Grants award by $845, causing over 9.4 million college students to suffer from increased levels of educational debt. Additionally, 218,000 children will be immediately dropped from Head Start program and 7,000 special education teachers will lose their jobs. House Republicans also want to reduce job training programs by $3.6 billion, cutting training for more the 200,000 Americans who lost their jobs in this ``Great Recession.'' H.R. 1 will cut $740 million in WIC nutrition assistance and thus cause thousands of low-income children to lose access to nutritional foods and health coverage. During one of the coldest winters in memory, Republicans propose to cut $400 million to the low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program--literally leaving many of our fellow citizens out in the cold. They also would abolish Title X funding, thus cutting life-saving health services such as HIV testing, cancer screening, blood-pressure testing, and contraceptive services to more than five million low-income women, the majority of whom are uninsured. $1.3 billion is cut from Community Health Centers, which would deny care to over 3.2 million Americans. Lastly, 75,000 homeless veterans would lose their housing vouchers under this bill. With the passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the Democrats boldly showed that investing in America's infrastructure could put America to work, while laying the groundwork for future private sector investment. With this measure, Republicans would seek to undo that commitment and move our country backwards with billions in cuts to transportation funding. H.R. 1 would cut $2.5 from high speed rail projects that have been already awarded and eliminate funding for High Speed Rail Corridors. It would also eliminate 750 fewer wastewater and drinking water projects. 25,000 TIGER Surface Transportation Projects would be terminated. During the Great Depression, conservatives advocated for reduced spending at a time when the government needed greater investments in job creation. This unfortunate decision prolonged that economic malaise and resulted in untold levels of human suffering by millions of Americans. With H.R. 1, today's conservatives are simply repeating these failed economic policies. We cannot allow this. Republican ``No Jobs Agenda'' to succeed. I encourage my colleagues to oppose this legislation.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chair, today I rise to oppose the reckless Republican proposal to eliminate funding for the Title X Family Planning Program. This cut is a legislative assault on women's health and a failure of House Republicans to strengthen American families. Instead of focusing on issues Americans are most concerned about, like creating jobs, House Republicans have decided to target women's health programs and women's health providers under the guise of deficit reduction. Since 1970, Title X Family Planning Program has been a critical component of our nation's health care infrastructure and an essential vehicle in preventing unintended pregnancies and providing basic primary and preventive health care, including annual exams lifesaving screenings for illnesses like breast cancer, cervical cancer and HIV. If these cuts are allowed to become law, 5 million Americans will lose these services and women's access to health care will be severely restricted. House Republicans are using this legislation to mislead the American people by suggesting that federal funds are being used to pay for abortions. This is flatly untrue, since federal law has already banned Title X funds from being used for abortion services. Moreover, in 2008 Title X supported services prevented 973,000 unintended pregnancies which resulted in thousands of fewer abortions. However, if Title X Family Planning Programs are eliminated more women will experience unintended pregnancies and face potentially life-threatening cancer and other diseases that could have been prevented. Preventing women's health centers from receiving this critical funding stream is not the answer and the majority of Americans do not support this proposal. According to a January 2011 CBS/New York Times survey found that by a margin of 67 percent to 27 percent, Americans oppose cuts for health care and education as a means of reducing the deficit. Instead, the American people want Congress to work together to address their top priority, which is creating jobs and strengthening middle class families, not imposing new restrictions to legal health services and screenings and eliminating critical programs. Eliminating Title X funding does not create jobs or help our economy. In fact, family planning programs like Title X save money because every $1 spent on family planning results in a $4 savings to Medicaid. House Republicans proposal to eliminate Title X Family Planning goes too far and is bad policy, bad politics, and is flat out immoral. I ask that my colleagues join me in opposing cuts to Title X Family Planning Program.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by my friend, Mr. Jones of North Carolina. This amendment would cut $400 million in funding for the Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund. I support this cut not because I am opposed to providing humanitarian aid to other countries. To the contrary, I am very supportive of helping improve living conditions and human rights in countries around the world by investing in infrastructure. However, I have strong concerns about this important work being directed by our armed forces because it raises the specter of the ``militarization'' of our foreign aid, which can often place troops, aid workers, and the civilian population at risk. In a January 2010 report, eight international agencies expressed their concern that the militarization of aid in Afghanistan is putting ordinary Afghans at risk when they build schools and clinics, which then become targets of insurgents. Additionally, many agencies say that these ``quick impact'' projects do not contribute to sustainable development, but instead are used as a good will building exercise by military forces engaged in a failing counterinsurgency strategy. Under the current system, distribution of aid is heavily biased in favor of areas where the troop presence is strongest rather than distributed according to need. The needs of people in more secure areas and vulnerable populations, particularly Afghans displaced by the conflict and other factors as well as returnees, are being overlooked. We need to rethink our country's militarized approach to aid and shift our focus towards a long-term aid strategy based on meeting the real needs of Afghans. As a first step in this process, I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment.