John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, today I introduce a bill that will create a national commission to examine fundamental questions regarding national security, civil liberties, and the rule of law. These include: What actions are permitted in the name of national security? What rights and liberties should a free people demand? Can the so-called Imperial Presidency be controlled? These questions take on greater significance every year. The power of the Presidency seems to grow and grow under both parties, and the ability of our democratic institutions to constrain it seems more and more uncertain. In the current political atmosphere, I believe that an expert commission with appointments made by both branches and individuals of both parties would be uniquely positioned to evaluate the issues and propose steps that the Congress can take to enhance both our liberty and our security for generations to come.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to introduce the Voting Opportunity and Technology Enhancement Rights or VOTER Act of 2011. I introduce this legislation, more than 200 years after the founding of our democracy, because we have yet to realize a government that is truly representative of the principle, ``of the people, by the people.'' Not until every eligible voter has the opportunity to cast a ballot and have that ballot counted, will we have a truly democratic government. Though the 2010 elections did not present the widespread irregularities and improprieties that were witnessed during the 2000 and 2004 elections, it was still an election in which voter disenfranchisement was attempted and accomplished. Voters' names were still missing from voter rolls. Voter harassment and intimidation complaints were still registered with Federal officials. In fact, over the years, the methods that are used to disenfranchise voters have become more sophisticated as evidenced during the 2008 Election. For example, in my home state of Michigan, in the midst of the current subprime mortgage crisis, a strategy to challenge a voter's eligibility based on home foreclosure status was devised. In Virginia, a flyer telling Democrats to vote on Wednesday, November 5, 2008, circulated. Similar tactics were present last fall, with complaints coming in from areas as diverse as Harris County, Texas, and even the state of Kansas. We should recognize that anything short of a perfect election system is unacceptable and work on a bipartisan basis in seeking corrective action. To that end, I have introduced VOTER so that we may work towards a more perfect system, one that reflects legitimacy, integrity, and inclusivity. VOTER will protect and expand voting rights in Federal elections, as well as ensure the proper administration of Federal elections. VOTER will: (1) provide for a uniform Federal write-in absentee ballot; (2) require states to provide for a verified audit trail; (3) count provisional ballots cast in the proper state; (4) properly allocate voting machines and poll workers; (5) provide for election day voter registration; (6) protect against improper purging of registration lists; (7) mandate early voting; (8) require verification and audit ability for punch cards; (9) simplify voter registration requirements; (10) allow voter identification by written affidavit; (11) provide for a study of nonpartisan election boards; (12) strengthen the EAC with funding and resources; (13) mandate the use of publicly available open source software; (14) restrict voting machine companies from engaging in political activities; (15) give greater deference to voter intent during recounts; (16) prohibit deceptive practices and intimidation; (17) prohibit caging and other questionable challenges; (18) restore voting rights to former felons; and (19) treat Election Day as a Federal holiday. Some of these initiatives have already been implemented by states, the success of which was observed during the 2010 elections. There are 32 states that currently provide early voting, including Florida, a state that witnessed over 1 million voters turn out to the polls the weekend before the 2008 election. There are also 29 states that currently provide no-excuse absentee voting by mail. Such practices were critical to managing an unprecedented voter turnout in the 2008 elections. More than 130 million people turned out to vote, the highest turnout in any presidential election. With this many longtime and new voters engaged in the 2008 election process, I suspect that voter participation will only increase in 2012. As such, we must pledge to fight for election reform this Congress. The right to vote and to have that vote counted is one of our democracy's most fundamental principles. It is with VOTER that I intend to protect this fundamental principle, and I ask that my colleagues in this Congress join me in this fight for fair and just elections.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to re-introduce H.R. 40, the Commission to Study Reparations Proposals for African-Americans Act. Since I first introduced H.R. 40 in 1989, we have made substantial progress in elevating this issue in the national consciousness. Through legislation, state and local resolutions and litigation, we are moving closer to a full dialogue on the role of slavery in building this country. At this time, however, I must acknowledge the passing of a major voice in the reparations debate, Dr. Ronald Walters. From his position in the academy--Professor at the University of Maryland and head of its African American Leadership Institute--Dr. Walters led the debate on reparation that touched both the grassroots and scholarly communities. His wisdom and clarity will be missed, but never forgotten. As evidenced by recent events, the sin of slavery is one that continues to weigh heavily upon us. Following the lead of other churches, the Episcopal Church formally apologized for its role in slavery on October 4, 2008. Florida became the sixth state to apologize for slavery on March 26, 2008, following Virginia, Maryland, North Carolina, Alabama and New Jersey. During the internationally renowned Sundance Film Festival, Traces of the Trade, a documentary in which descendants of the largest U.S. slave trading family confront this painful history, screened in January of 2008. In the 110th Congress, the House passed a slavery apology bill on July 29, 2008, in which the House issued a formal apology for slavery. The Senate followed on July 18, 2009, with the passage of S. Con. Res. 26 which was sponsored by Tom Harkin of Iowa. Moreover, in recognition of the 200th anniversary of the abolition of the transatlantic slave trade on January 1, 1808, both the House and Senate passed legislation creating a commemoration commission, which was signed into law on February 5, 2008, and is currently awaiting funding. I believe that such Federal efforts are significant steps toward proper acknowledgment and understanding of slavery and its implications, but our responsibilities on this matter are even greater. The establishment a commission to study the institution of slavery in the United States, as well as its consequences that reach into modern day society, is our responsibility. This concept of a commission to address historical wrongs is not unprecedented. In fact, in recent Congresses, commission bills have been put forward. In 1983, a Presidential Commission determined that the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II was racist and inhumane, and as a result, the 1988 Civil Liberties Act provided redress for those injured by the internment. However, the internment of Japanese Latin Americans in the United States during World War II was not examined by the Commission, resulting in legislation calling for a commission to examine this oversight. Legislation establishing a commission to review the injustices suffered by European Americans, European Latin Americans, and Jewish refugees during World War II has also been proposed. H.R. 40 is no different than these other commission bills. H.R. 40 establishes a commission to examine the institution of slavery and its legacy, like racial disparities in education, housing, and healthcare. Following this examination, the commission would recommend appropriate remedies to Congress, and as I have indicated before, remedies does not equate to monetary compensation. In the 110th Congress, I convened the first Congressional hearing on H.R. 40. With witnesses that included Professor Charles Ogletree, Episcopal Bishop M. Thomas Shaw, and Detroit City Councilwoman JoAnn Watson, we began a formal dialogue on the legacy of the transatlantic slave trade. This Congress, I look forward to continuing this conversation so that our Nation can better understand this part of our history. Attempts to eradicate today's racial discrimination and disparities will be successful when we understand the past's racial injustices and inequities. A commission can take us into this dark past and bring us into a brighter future. As in years past, I welcome open and constructive discourse on H.R. 40 and the creation of this commission in the 112th Congress.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to introduce the Caging Prohibition Act of 2011, a much needed reform to our election system. I believe that we should continue to focus on improvements to our election system in this Congress leading up to the presidential cycle next year. As we begin to focus election fixes and greater voter protections, this legislation can make a critical contribution to such efforts. Prohibitions on voter caging will ensure that our democracy lives up to the belief that every eligible citizen is entitled to the right to vote. Voter caging, though just recently given media attention, is a disenfranchisement tactic that has been around for over 50 years. This undemocratic tactic often involves sending mail to voters at the addresses at which they are registered to vote. Should such mail be returned as undeliverable or without a return receipt, voters' names are placed on a ``caging list,'' that list then being used to challenge voters'' eligibility. Those suggesting that voter caging is necessary to weed out ineligible voters must recognize this practice is unreliable and dangerous for such purposes. Mail may be returned as undeliverable for any number of reasons unrelated to an individual's eligibility to vote. For example, mail is returned due to typos, transposed numbers, new street names, and improper deliveries. Voters in my home state of Michigan have been subjected to voter caging controversies in the last two Presidential elections. In the 2008 Election, a voter caging strategy meant to politically capitalize on the subprime mortgage crisis was identified. Those voters whose homes had been subjected to foreclosure were targets for caging on the basis that they no longer resided at the addresses at which they registered to vote. During the 2004 Election, challengers monitored every single one of Detroit's 254 polling stations. This strategy was consistent with a Michigan lawmaker's effort to ``suppress the Detroit vote.'' It was widely accepted that this statement was synonymous with ``suppress the Black vote,'' as Detroit is 83 percent African American. Our most vulnerable voters--racial minorities, language minorities, low-income people, the homeless, and college students--always seem to be targeted for caging and other voter suppression campaigns. However, all voters are susceptible to voter intimidation and suppression. For example, during the 2004 election, Ohio and Florida caging lists included the names of soldiers whose mail had been returned as undeliverable because they were stationed overseas. It is because no one is immune to caging and other disenfranchisement tactics, that I have introduced the Caging Prohibition Act. This bill is really quite simple, as it one, requires election officials to corroborate their caging documents with independent evidence before a voter can be deemed ineligible. And two, limits all other challenges that do not come from election officials to those based on personal, first-hand knowledge. By eliminating caging tactics, we restore what has been missing from our elections--fairness, honesty, and integrity. I ask that my colleagues in the Congress join me in supporting the Caging Prohibition Act of 2011. Please stand with me in protecting the very core of our democracy.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, on December 17, 2010, I regret that I was not present to vote on H. Res. 1776, H.R. 2142, H.R. 5510, and S. 3874, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on all bills.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2103, the International Protecting Girls by Preventing Child Marriage Act. This important legislation will ensure a healthy life for young women across the globe by recognizing child marriage as a human rights violation and developing a comprehensive strategy that will include preventive approaches to ending the harmful practice of child marriage. Child marriage, also known as ``forced marriage'' is a common tradition in poor and rural communities. Poverty is a common thread in developing countries that carry this tradition of forced marriages. Limited family resources result in families offering their daughters in marriage with the hope of securing a better future and thus, escaping the trap of poverty. However, millions of girls who marry young are instead stripped of their childhood and deprived of their basic human rights as well as opportunities for education, employment and health. Moreover, they are subjected to extreme poverty, hard labor, domestic violence and maternal health risks that often ultimately lead to their death. In fact, child marriage is the leading cause of death for girls ages 15 to 19 in developing countries. These facts are troubling and daunting. Nevertheless, we have the resources to change and eradicate this practice by supporting comprehensive policies that will advance the necessary education and health awareness that will cause these communities to question this tradition's consequences. According to the United Nations Children Fund (UNICEF), an estimated 60 million girls in developing countries, now ages 20 to 24, were married under the age of 18. If present trends continue, more than one hundred million more girls in developing countries will be married as children over the next decade, according to the Population Council. This is a dangerous trend that the world cannot allow to continue or endure. It is important that the United States support these voiceless young girls and recognize child marriage as a human rights violation. This issue must be addressed, monitored, and prevented. The way of doing this is by passing this bill. I urge all of my colleagues to support vote ``yes.''

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I rise tonight, as I have the previous two nights, in order to prod this body to act to save lives before it is too late. It is simply unconscionable that 4,100 children die every day from diarrheal diseases spread through poor sanitation and hygiene. The mortality rate for children killed by waterborne diseases is six times as large as the number of children killed by HIV/AIDS and four times as many as killed by malaria. Melanie Nakagawa of the National Resources Defense Council has called the international water and sanitation crisis ``the most poorly addressed environmental problem of our day.'' Indeed, nearly one billion people lack safe drinking water. According to the World Health Organization, two and a half billion people lack sufficient water sanitation facilities. Many of us have seen the impacts of this ongoing tragedy first-hand-- from the United States, to Africa, to Haiti, where people are dying every day from cholera because of a lack of access to clean water and sanitation facilities. The gap between access to safe drinking water and proper sanitation is widening between those living in poverty and the wealthy. The former South African president, Nelson Mandela, challenged global leaders to make access to clean water a basic human right and to put water and sanitation much higher up on the political, economic and social agendas. ``The absence of access to clean water'' he stated ``is most stark in the widespread impoverishment of the natural environment.'' The U.N. agreed with Mandela at the Earth Summit, noting that water is the greatest obstacle to sustainable development and the most visible symbol of the growing gap between the rich and the poor. As the Archbishop Desmond Tutu said, ``No issue has ever been more neglected than water and sanitation. And it is neglected because it is of concern mainly to the poor and powerless.'' Kofi Annan, former United Nations Secretary General, stated that ``access to safe drinking water and sanitation is a fundamental human need and therefore, a basic human right.'' We have legislation before Congress that will address these inequities and demonstrate our government's commitment to the fundamental human right of safe and clean water. H.R. 2030, the Senator Paul Simon Water for the World Act of 2009, would give the U.S. government the tools to provide 100 million people with first-time access to clean water and sanitation. The Senate, which has been repeatedly criticized for not addressing the hundreds of bills passed by this body during the 111th Congress, has already approved the companion to H.R. 2030. And the Senate passed that legislation on September 20, 2010 by unanimous consent. Despite the occasional partisan differences here in Washington DC, this critical issue has support on both sides of the aisle. There are ten Republican cosponsors of the House bill and eight Republican cosponsors of the Senate bill. Water for the World is also supported by a broad spectrum of advocates, including Water Advocates, the Natural Resources Defense Council, ONE, Mercy Corps, International Housing Coalition, CARE, and Population Services International, Millennium Water Alliance, Living Water International and Religious Water Working Group. We are down to the wire and the time to act is now. If the 111th Congress expires without a vote on the House floor, millions of people will have to unnecessarily wait for clean water. And many lives will be unnecessarily lost. While many Americans take water for granted, one- sixth of the world's population, almost a billion people, do not have access to safe drinking water. The Water for the World Act is an important start to addressing this problem. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation before it is too late.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chair, I regret that I must rise in opposition to the Middle Class Tax Relief Act of 2010. Today's legislation is fiscally irresponsible and recklessly extends Bush era tax cuts for the rich, the millionaires and billionaires, and establishes an extremely low estate tax rate. However, I am supportive of efforts to extend unemployment benefits. To add insult to injury, this bill includes not one, but two bailouts for the ultra wealthy. In addition to extending income tax cuts for the rich, this bill reduces the estate tax from 55 percent to 35 percent next year. This second bailout will give a gigantic tax giveaway to a few thousand of the richest families in the country and add hundreds of billions to the national debt. I was also dismayed an increase to the debt ceiling was not included in today's proposal. Congress will have to vote to increase the debt ceiling next year. Many in this body would like to hold the debt ceiling vote hostage and demand massive spending cuts and or make the Bush tax cuts permanent in exchange for their votes. We need to show the American people that tax cuts for the wealthy are not free and that they add huge amounts to the national debt. Just a few weeks ago, this chamber voted separately to extend both middle class tax cuts and unemployment benefits to those who lost their jobs through no fault of their own. While I agree that we need to protect the most vulnerable, the unemployed and working families who need every cent during this time of economic malaise, it is irresponsible to continue Bush era tax rates for wealthy Americans, which are neither justified nor needed, for the next two years. Furthermore, there is no empirical evidence that tax cuts for rich have helped the economy in any tangible way. The Act will steal hundreds of billions of dollars of needed revenue for America's fiscal future. This compromise bill also includes a two percent employee-side payroll tax cut that I fear will weaken the Social Security trust fund. Today's proposal would deny over $120 billion each year to the Social Security fund and make it easier for conservatives to weaken Social Security's revenue streams in the future. I support giving working Americans extra cash in their pay check, but it should not be taken away from the Social Security trust fund. Last week, I stated that this tax compromise was a fight for the heart and soul of the Democratic Party. Democrats have always stood for the workers, the disenfranchised, and those who are denied the opportunity to compete for the blessings of the American Dream because of their race, creed, religion, or class. I fear that passage of this bill tonight will tarnish this proud legacy of our party and cause the 98 percent of Americans without estates or astronomical personal wealth to question which party will fight for them. If this bill passes, each and every member of this body should look themselves in the mirror and consider what we have lost in the name of compromise. I encourage my colleagues to reject this flawed bill.''

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I submit the following summary of the bill, H.R. 2030. The Water for the World Act sets a benchmark of providing 100 million of the world's poorest with first-time access to safe and sustainable drinking water and sanitation by 2015. To achieve this, the Act builds upon the success of the 2005 Water for the Poor Act by: Establishing a Senior Advisor for Water within USAID to implement country-specific water strategies; Creating a Special Coordinator for International Water within the State Department to coordinate the diplomatic policy of the U.S. with respect to global freshwater issues; Establishing programs in countries of greatest need that invest in local capacity, education, and coordination with US efforts; and Emphasizing cross-border and cross-discipline collaboration, as well as the utilization of low-cost technologies, such as hand washing stations and latrines. The Water for the World Act, S. 624/H.R. 2030, is endorsed by a number of global health and environmental advocates, including Water Advocates, the Natural Resources Defense Council, ONE, Mercy Corps, International Housing Coalition, CARE, and Population Services International. H.R. 2030 Co-sponsors: Democrats-87, Republicans-10. Important Facts The number of children who die every day from diarrheal diseases spread through poor sanitation and hygiene: 4,100. Every day that Congress delays in addressing this problem, more children unnecessarily die. We have the moral obligation to get this legislation done. The annual economic benefit to the African continent, including in saved time, increased productivity and reduced health costs if the Millennium Development Goals on water and sanitation are met by 2015: $22 billion. The amount national governments in sub-Saharan Africa could save in annual public health expenditures if the Millennium Development Goals on water and sanitation are met by 2015: 12% (http://www.one.org/c/us/ pastcampaign/2789/). According to the World Health Organization, over 10% of the world's disease are caused purely by unsanitary water supplies. One billion people do not have access to clean drinking water, and in the past ten years, everyone who has gained access to clean water in developing countries has lived in China or India, nations that are already rapidly improving their public water and sanitation systems. 2.4 Million deaths are caused annually by poor water conditions (4.2% of all deaths), meaning over 65,000 people die everyday that this bill is not signed. In developing nations, only 5% of rural populations have access to plumbing and over 1 billion people still do not have access to a bathroom, spreading disease and infections. Talking Points and Quotes Sustainable progress is about much more than water, but never about less. Water is medicine. Toilets are medicine. The best kind of medicine-- the kind that prevents African children from getting sick in the first place. We have known how to provide this medicine--safe water, sanitation, and handwashing, for centuries. As Martin Luther King, Jr. said: ``We will not be satisfied until justice rolls down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream.'' Supreme Court Justice Kennedy: ``This is not my area, but there are 6 billion people on the planet and over 2 billion do not have adequate drinking water. How many hours--and you can't call it man hours because it's women's work--how many hours a year are spent in sub-Saharan Africa bringing water to the family? Answer: 16 billion hours--with a ``b''--and that is the lowest estimate. For some people that's 6-8 hours a day to get water for their family. You take a photo in sub- Saharan Africa of the elegant, stately African woman with the long colored dress and the water jug on her head--that jug weighs more than the luggage allowance at the airport. The temptation of the rule of law is to say well, you have the Magna Carta, you wait 600 years, then you have a revolution, then a civil war. What about Martin Luther King, Jr.'s `fierce urgency of now'! These people cannot and will not wait and they should not.'' The water crisis is a global phenomenon. Around the world today, nearly 1 billion people lack access to clean, safe water. More than 2 billion people lack access to basic sanitation. Most of these people live on less than $2 a day. In Haiti, there are no public sewage treatment or disposal systems. Even in the capital, Port-au-Prince, a city of 2 million people, the drainage canals are choked with garbage. It is no wonder that Haiti has the highest infant and child mortality rate in the Western Hemisphere. One-third of Haiti's children do not live to see the age of 5. The leading killer? Water-borne diseases like hepatitis, typhoid, and diarrhea. In Sub-Saharan Africa, a lack of access to clean water enslaves poor women. Women and girls are forced to walk two or three hours, or more, in each direction, every day, to collect water that is often dirty and unsafe. The U.N. estimates that these women spend a total of 40 billion working hours each year collecting water. That is equivalent to all of the hours worked in France in a year. Water is even central to the fate of the Middle East. In his book, Paul Simon quoted former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin as saying, ``If we solve every other problem in the Middle East but do not satisfactorily resolve the water problem, our region will explode. Peace will not be possible.''

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Will the distinguished gentleman yield?

Mr. CONYERS. I want to thank the gentleman for his contribution tonight and associate myself with his excellent statement and remarks.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker and Members of the House, I rise to point out that a very important consideration is about to take place in the next 3 days dealing with the Senator Paul Simon Water for the World Act. Its main sponsor is the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer). It has 97 cosponsors. And I want to commend the bipartisan spirit in which this bill has been put forward, because we have no less than one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten Members of the House that belong to the minority that are cosponsors. And in the other body, we have one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight Members of that distinguished body who are in the minority there, plus two Independent Senators that have joined us. And why? Because we've been working on this question of water for the continent of Africa and the states and the millions of people there suffering there and in Haiti. And we have a very rare opportunity in these next several days. The other body has passed the measure, and I stand before the House tonight to urge that it be taken up here as soon as possible. As we gather for the holiday season, we are giving thanks for family and friends, but what may be unconsidered and unmentioned is appreciation for access to the water and adequate sanitation, something that's taken for granted in our great country. And so I rise to remind us that there are 884 million people across the planet who went without access to clean water this year, and 2.5 billion men, women, and many, many children who went without adequate sanitation. Without access to these basic building blocks, many of the people of undeveloped nations will likely have been left without the ability to work because of health problems that hamper productivity and discourage economic investment. The countries of the world, including our great Nation, have come together to say that we can do better. And so a set of shared goals, entitled the Millennium Development Goals, have set specific targets relating to increasing access to water and sanitation by 2015. With these goals, we and the international community have pledged to halve, by 2015, to cut in half, the proportion of people who are unable to reach or afford or come into possession of safe drinking water. Think of it. And many of these are children. That's the worst part of it all. And as this Congress draws to a close, we have a sensitive opportunity to make good on that promise. Important legislation, entitled the Water for the World Act, H.R. 2035, has already passed in the other body. We need it here. And, if enacted, this bill could help 50 million people over the next 6 years. Please join me in helping move this legislation across the finish line and provide millions of our fellow world citizens with the gift of water. In Historic Vote, UN Declares Water a Fundamental Human Right Juan Gonzalez: The United Nations General Assembly has declared for the first time that access to clean water and sanitation is a fundamental human right. In an historic vote Wednesday, 122 countries supported the resolution, and over forty countries abstained from voting, including the United States, Canada and several European and other industrialized countries. There were no votes against the resolution. Nearly one billion people lack clean drinking water, and over two-and-a-half billion do not have basic sanitation. Bolivia's Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Pablo Solon, introduced the resolution at the General Assembly Wednesday. Pablo Solon: [translated] At the global level, approximately one out of every eight people do not have drinking water. In just one day, more than 200 million hours of the time used by women is spent collecting and transporting water for their homes. The lack of sanitation is even worse, because it affects 2.6 billion people, which represents 40 percent of the global population. According to the report of the World Health Organization and of UNICEF of 2009, which is titled ``Diarrhoea: Why Children Are [Still] Dying and What We Can Do,'' every day 24,000 children die in developing countries due to causes that can be prevented, such as diarrhea, which is caused by contaminated water. This means that a child dies every three-and-a- half seconds. One, two, three. As they say in my village, the time is now. Amy Goodman: Bolivia's ambassador to the United Nations, Pablo Solon, urging support for the resolution Bolivia introduced recognizing access to clean water and sanitation as a fundamental human right. For more on this historic vote, we're joined now here in New York by longtime water justice advocate Maude Barlow. She's the chair of the Council of Canadians, co-founder of the Blue Planet Project and board chair of Food and Water Watch. Last year she served as senior adviser on water to the President of the United Nations General Assembly. Welcome to Democracy Now! Maude Barlow: So glad to be here. Amy Goodman: Talk about the significance of this. If you asked people in this country, they would have no idea this has passed. Maude Barlow: I know, I know, which is why you matter, I just have to say. This is very, very distressing to know something this important happened and it's been blanketed. There's no media here; it's just like it didn't happen. It's had media in other places. There's no human--there has been on human right to water. It wasn't included in the 1948 Declaration of Human Rights. And then, more recently, when people have realized that it needed to happen, there were very powerful forces against it--powerful countries, powerful corporate interests and so on. But Ambassador Solon and a number of developing countries decided that they were going to move this, countries from the Global South, that they were going to move this through, and they just tabled it a month ago, and yesterday, at the vote at the United Nations, they won. Not one country had the guts to stand against them, even though lots of them wanted to do it. And basically, for the first time, the United Nations General Assembly debated the right to water and sanitation-- it's very important both were included--and acknowledged and recognized the right of every human being on earth to water and sanitation. And this matters because--as you know, because we've talked so many times--we are running--a planet running out of water. Brand new World Bank study says that the demand is going to exceed supply by 40 percent in twenty years. It's just a phenomenal statement. And the human suffering behind that is just unbelievable. And what this did as basically say that the United Nations has decided it's not going to let huge populations leave them behind as this crisis unfolds, that the new priority is to be given to these populations without water and sanitation. Juan Gonzalez: And the countries that abstained, could you talk about--did any of them talk about why they were not voting ``yes,'' or did they just remain quiet? Maude Barlow: Oh, it was the usual gang. It was the United States and Canada, the European--not the European Union--the United Kingdom some of the European countries voted to abstain; some were wonderful--Australia, New Zealand. So it was all of the Anglophone, neoliberal, you know, bought into this whole agenda that everything is to be commodified, countries who are able to continue to supply clean water to their citizens, which makes it doubly appalling that they would deny the right to water to the billions of people who are suffering right now. They used procedural language about this and that. There's another process in Geneva with the Human Rights Council, which we support, and they used the excuse that we have to wait for that. But that's a long-term process, and it could or could not end in something very specific. So they just cut through it. A bunch of brave countries from the Global South said, ``We can't wait. We need this now.'' And it's not a surprise that it came from Bolivia, because, remember, Bolivia is suffering double whammy with a, you know, dearth of water, dearth of clean water, but also melting glaciers from climate change. Amy Goodman: Well, let's go back to Bolivia. I want to go back to Bolivia's UN representative, Ambassador Pablo Solon, at a speech he gave in Toronto, the event that you organized, Maude, last month, shortly before the G20 meetings. He outlined the need to support a UN declaration on the human right to water, referencing the long struggle for water rights in Bolivia, which successfully fought against Bechtel's water privatization efforts ten years ago. Pablo Solon: In those days, I was a water warrior. Now I'm a water warrior ambassador. We have to have water declared as a human right in the UN. It is not possible to see that we have declared in the UN food, the right to food, the right to health, the right to education, the right to shelter, the right to development, but not the right to water. And we all know that without water, we can't live. So nobody can argue that it's not a basic and fundamental and universal human right. But even though, until now, it's not recognized as a human right. So, we have presented, two weeks ago, a draft resolution so that this coming month, in July, we expect to have a vote in the General Assembly of the United Nations. And we want to see which countries are going to vote against that resolution. We want to go to vote to see which governments are going to say to the humanity that water is not a human right. Amy Goodman: That was Bolivia's ambassador to the United Nations, Pablo Solon, speaking in Toronto. Which nations are not going to say that water is a human right? Well, you said the United States didn't vote for this. Canada didn't, though they didn't vote against. What is their rationale? Maude Barlow: Well, it depends on the country. The United Kingdom says they ``don't want to pay for the toilets in Africa.'' That's a direct quote from somebody who wouldn't be quoted, from a senior diplomat in the government of Great Britain, that was in--quoted in a Canadian paper. Canada hides behind the false statement that we might have to share our water, sell our water to the United States, which is nonsense. We're in way more danger from NAFTA, which declares water to be a commodity. The United States, as you know, has not been supporting rights regimes for decades now, so this is just a continuation. And I have to tell you, listening to the statement from the United States yesterday at the United Nations, I wouldn't have thought there was any difference between George Bush and Barack Obama's administrations. It was haughty language. They scolded Bolivia. Bolivia came under a lot of heat, a lot of insults yesterday from these countries. New Zealand and Australia are both going private. Australia has privatized its water totally, and basically it's now for sale. And there's a big American investment firm that's actually buying up water rights. It was supposed to be, originally, just to get the farmers of the big farm conglomerates to share, to trade, but now it's all gone private and international, so they're hardly going to support something that says that water, you know, is a human right, when they've commodified it and said it's a market commodity. So, really, what you're seeing is a split between those countries that see water as a public trust, although that wasn't in the language of the legislation, but that see water as a public trust and a human right and that should belong to all, as opposed to those who are going to move to a market model. And I think that's the truth behind what happened. And it's very important for you to know that they did not allow the inclusion of the words ``access to,'' and that was one of the demands. I think some of those countries would have said yes to something that said ``access to.'' And it's very important. It's not semantic, because if you say you have access to it, then all the country--all the government has to do is provide you access. Then they can charge you, or they can have a private company come in and deliver it and charge you. And if you can't afford it, they provided you access, it's not their fault if you can't pay it. So it's very important that Bolivia and the other sponsoring countries held on to the language of the human right to drinking water and sanitation. They wouldn't drop sanitation. They wouldn't add the words ``access to.'' And those were the sticking points. Juan Gonzalez: And in practical terms, what will be the impact of this resolution on those efforts to continue to commodify or privatize water supplies in countries around the world, especially in the third world? Maude Barlow: It's a fight we're in. You know, I'm not going to say that suddenly everything is going to be fine tomorrow or today, today being the day after the vote, that anybody woke up in a different situation today, anybody had more water today than they did yesterday, or more access to sanitation. What it is is a moral statement, a guiding principle, of the countries of the world--and basically the UN is the closest thing we have to a global parliament--that they have taken a step in a direction of saying that water is a human right and a public trust and that no one should be dying for lack of water, and they shouldn't have to watch their children die a horrible death for lack of water because they cannot pay. And that was a statement that has taken us years and years to get the UN--they hadn't even debated the water issue. They hadn't even debated it in the past. They've done all this work on climate and absolutely no work on water. So it was a huge step forward to establishing some principles that we need if we are to avoid the crisis that I honestly see coming, that I think is going to be worse than anybody can imagine, in terms of the suffering.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of Senate amendments to H.R. 4994, the Medicare and Medicaid Extenders Act. One of the most important priorities of Congress, regardless of our current economic downturn, is the financial well-being of our nation's hospitals, and the ability of patients to have access to medically necessary care when they need it. Passage of the Senate amendments to H.R. 4994 accomplishes both goals by blocking a scheduled 25 percent cut in Medicare payments to doctors and extending current Medicare payment rates through December 31, 2011. Passage of the bill today by the House will send this legislation to the President's desk for his signature. In order to have world class hospitals in the United States, we must have the needed funding to ensure that our nation's hospitals can provide the highest quality care possible. Passage of the Senate amendments to H.R. 4994 will help strengthen our hospitals, especially those located in our inner cities and rural areas. These hospitals are experiencing serious funding shortages, and are at risk of losing much needed doctors and medical staff. This bill is fully paid for, and according to CBO, the bill would reduce the deficit by $2.8 billion over the next 10 years. This legislation also helps to protect access to doctors for Medicare beneficiaries and military families, given that payment rates for doctors in TRICARE, the health care program for active-duty servicemembers, National Guard and Reserve members, military retirees, and their families are tied to Medicare rates. Passage of the Senate amendments to H.R. 4994 is a good example of how Members of Congress working together in a spirit of bipartisan unity can improve the health and well being of all Americans. I do want to raise some concerns with the way this bill is going to be paid for, which is to decrease the affordability credits for Americans that are needed to defray the costs of purchasing private insurance under the soon to be established health exchanges in 2014. I believe that this is tantamount ``to robbing Peter to pay Paul.'' This Congress should not get into the habit of viewing future benefits for low-income Americans as a source of funding for today's legislative initiatives. There are other more fair minded and progressive offsets which could have been utilized for this payment fix--such as taxing Wall Street or our nation's billionaires. If we are going to make sure that Medicare doctors and hospitals are reimbursed at an appropriate rate over the next several years, we are going to have to be more serious and pragmatic about how to implement efficiencies in the Medicare program. Medicare is a highly successful and efficient program, but it can't keep feeding the ``corporate medical monster'' forever. The time has come for the Federal Government to rein in the costs of for-profit hospital care by taking a more serious look at how we can reduce the costs of prescription drugs and medical technology--two of the most costly expenditures for hospitals and doctors. Furthermore, we must pass H.R. 676, ``The U.S. National Health Care Act,'' so that all Americans can enjoy the benefits of a universal single payer system, which has successfully worked in every major industrialized country to contain the rising costs of health care and provide quality health care for all. If we created this system, then we would be able to pay our nation's physicians at optimal levels and provide America's hospitals and clinics with a more financially stable, predictable, and efficient health care payment system for years to come. In the meantime, today's physician payment bill will allow today's Medicare beneficiaries to enjoy the care they have earned. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1756, I call up the bill (H.R. 5281) to amend title 28, United States Code, to clarify and improve certain provisions relating to the removal of litigation against Federal officers or agencies to Federal courts, and for other purposes, with the Senate amendments thereto, and I have a motion at the desk.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson), chair of the Subcommittee on Courts of the House Judiciary Committee, and also a former magistrate.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the distinguished gentlelady from California, Lucille Roybal-Allard.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to Carolyn Maloney of New York for a unanimous consent request. (Mrs. MALONEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 45 seconds to the civil rights hero of the Congress, John Lewis.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 1 minute to the one and only majority leader of the House, Steny Hoyer of Maryland.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York, Gregory Meeks.

Mr. CONYERS. I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York, Yvette Clarke.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlelady from California, Grace Napolitano, for a unanimous consent request. (Mrs. NAPOLITANO asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a strong supporter of ``The Seniors Protection Act.'' As we enter the second consecutive year without a cost-of-living adjustment for Social Security retirees and other beneficiaries, this legislation would have helped to provide 54 million Social Security recipients with a one-time payment of $250 to help them make ends meet during this tough time. America has a moral and civic duty to always support our Nation's seniors, veterans, and the disabled, they may live a productive and secure life. The Seniors Protection Act is an investment in the economic stability of our seniors, veterans, people with idisabilities, and all who depend on Social Security to make ends meet. The bill also offers support to the millions of seniors who are struggling trying to pay their bills, mortgages, and other daily expenses. The Seniors Protection Act is critical to our seniors, and is fiscally responsible. Unfortunately, Congressional Republicans oppose the bill, something that is truly regrettable and a moral outrage. While Democrats maintain a strong record protecting, upholding, and strengthening Social Security, Republicans continue to advocate risky schemes to privatize it and cut benefits. America's seniors deserve better. I commend all of my colleagues who support this bill, and I thank Social Security Subcommittee Chairman Earl Pomeroy for his outstanding leadership on this issue. Democrats will always stand with our Nation's seniors, because it is the humane, just, and right thing to do.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5012, the ``Weekends Without Hunger Act.'' This important legislation will amend the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act to ensure that low income children who rely on school meal programs during the week have access to meals on weekends and long school holidays. By filling these gap periods, this bill will ensure that children return to school healthy and equipped with the necessary levels of nutrition to learn on Monday mornings. Last week, the House successfully passed a reauthorization of the child nutrition programs which improves nutrition and access to school meals. However, that legislation does not provide meals for our children when they are out of school. Far too many children suffer from food shortages and lack of nutritional meals at home during weekends and school holidays. Food insecurity is steadily rising. Although food banks and community providers successfully operate weekend meal programs for low income children, their funding is insufficient to sustain an increase in demand. I believe that our country will eventually recover from these tough economic times. Until then, we are obligated to provide for our children. Therefore, it is necessary that we supply funding to local existing efforts that provide these nutritional weekend or school break meals and expand these programs in more communities. We must make every effort to ensure that that no child goes hungry when they are out of school. I therefore urge my colleagues to support the bill.