John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the dynamic gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey). (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. We should all be embarrassed that instead of repealing the biggest loophole in the bankruptcy code, we have had 8 years to study it, the homestead exemption, the bill places only weak obstacles in its path. Instead of protecting women and health care providers from those who would terrorize abortion clinics, we lay out a blueprint for them to avoid their debts. Instead of helping individuals who have lost their job or faced a health care emergency, we deny them the chance for a fresh start. By passing this measure in this form, the majority is telling the American people, Republicans are telling the American people, it is more important to help credit card companies than innocent spouses and children; that it is more important to protect corporate scam artists than workers losing their pension; that it is more important to protect unscrupulous lenders than disabled veterans. Mr. Speaker, I yield the remainder of my time to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the distinguished minority leader. (Ms. PELOSI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks, and include extraneous material.)

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 seconds to let the gentlewoman from California know that the credit card companies solicit five billion mailings every year to college kids and others. Mr. Speaker, may I ask the chairman how many speakers he may have remaining.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to break the line of members of the committee. I yield 1 minute and 15 seconds to a distinguished friend of mine, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Los Angeles, California (Ms. Waters), a member of the committee.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) for a unanimous consent request. (Mr. KUCINICH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 20 seconds to my friend, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this is the most special interest-vested bill that I have ever dealt with in my career in Congress. It massively tilts the playing field in favor of banks and credit card companies and against working people and their families. I have never, ever faced such a piece of legislation. That explains to me why it took 8 years to get this thing up here, because they kept fixing it up, making it wrong. Mr. Speaker, all I want to say as we open this debate is that to those who assert that this bill cracks down on creditor abuse, I would ask them to realize that this bill does absolutely nothing to discourage abusive, underage lending; nothing to discourage reckless lending to the developmentally disabled; nothing to regulate the practice of sub-prime lending to persons with no means or little ability to repay their debts; nothing to crack down on the sharks, the lenders, that charge members of the Armed Forces up to 500 percent interest per year or more. They hang around the bases and lure them in. What this is is something that we should all be truly embarrassed about. This bill is opposed by every consumer group, by all the bankruptcy judges, the trustees, law professors, by all of organized labor, by the military groups, by the civil rights organizations, and by every major group concerned about seniors, women, and children. Please, if we do not do anything else in the 109th Congress, let us not let this bill get out of the House of Representatives. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren), a distinguished member of the committee.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan), an excellent member of the committee.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan).

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. There is?

Mr. CONYERS. Is there some precedent for that, sir?

Mr. CONYERS. And in the judgment of the distinguished Speaker, how much time are you proposing to take from the floor manager?

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, may I point out that the floor manager in no way encouraged anyone to speak contrary to the rule that you have just enunciated.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, did I understand you to tell the leader of the Rules Committee managing the bill today that time would be taken from him because of the unanimous consent request?

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend SBC Communications, Inc.; its Michigan president Gail Torreano; the Governor of my home State of Michigan, Jennifer Granholm; and representatives from the Michigan Economic Development Corporation and the Communications Workers of America. Earlier this month they came together to unveil a ten-year economic development project, which will keep 930 metropolitan jobs in Detroit and invest over $3.6 million to upgrade seven network facilities in Southfield and Detroit. This incredible news comes only four months after SBC had initially announced plans to layoff workers. Over the past five years, Michigan has lost nearly 300,000 jobs, and has had little prospect for significant job growth in sight. My State's unemployment rate was nearly two percent above the nation's average. That number increasingly looked gloomier with news last week that General Motors expects to lose money in this year's first quarter. As a result, their stock dropped 14 percent. My distinguished colleagues, there is no question about it--jobs in Michigan are in jeopardy. But now, the future appears brighter with SBC Communications and others leading by example in recognizing that corporations play an integral role in their communities, and corporate decisions have consequences that reach much further than their own bottom line. Such an agreement could not have been reached without strong leadership and a shared vision for the future from all parties involved. This agreement to keep SBC Communications' business in Michigan not only exhibits the great benefits that partnerships between the private and public sectors can reap for our nation's metropolitan communities, but more specifically, it demonstrates the success of Michigan's economic development programs and their capability of serving as a prime example for the rest of America's cities and states. In agreeing not to move nearly 1,000 jobs out of Michigan, SBC Communications will receive a single business tax credit worth approximately $18 million from the Michigan Economic Development Corporation, in addition to an Economic Development Job Training grant of up to $930,000. The proposed cuts had been part of a planned company-wide reduction of 10,000 workers by the end of this year. And other companies are also staying, too, rather than moving to neighboring states as they had once considered. Assay Designs, Inc. will be adding 86 new jobs and investing an additional $18 million to a new site in Washtenaw County's Pittsfield Township. Faurecia, a Michigan auto supplier, will be creating nearly 450 more jobs in Sterling Heights as part of a $40 million expansion. Emerald Graphics Corp. will be producing an additional 347 new jobs near Grand Rapids, rather than in Texas. And with these Michigan fixtures staying, who knows what the future holds for our great State. The significance of this private-public partnership cannot be overstated. In addition to the immediate consequence of job retention, the University of Michigan projects that the State's agreement with these companies will create an additional 1,210 jobs and generate over $97 million in revenue for Michigan over the next ten years, with another 1,000 jobs indirectly generated at other area companies. Rather than facing the prospect of helplessly watching hundreds of families potentially flee the metropolitan area--or even the state--in search of new jobs, Michigan's economic future looks brighter with a commitment that these hard workers will remain at home and continue to contribute to the State's economy. Instead of disrupting their children's lives with moves to new schools, SBC employees will continue to root themselves in their respective local communities. I see no reason why other States cannot create similar incentive programs to keep private sector jobs within their borders as well. The tax credits that Michigan has extended to SBC Communications, Assay Designs, Faurecia, and Emerald Graphics Corp. are just the start. My home state recognizes that corporations naturally desire to expand. And it also recognizes that the State has too many brownfields that require developing. These two are not mutually exclusive. So Michigan has decided to invest in its own future. And what will be the reward? An anticipated $558 million in private investment! Michigan has proven that it is committed to working with labor and management. Our State has shown that it truly has an open door policy, and will meet and work with all those interested in doing business within its borders, whether your company resides there already and is looking to expand, or is looking to relocate to a local economy that suddenly has a more optimistic forecast. I encourage my colleagues in Congress to take a close look at what Governor Granholm, SBC Communications, the Michigan Economic Development Corporation and the Communications Workers of America have accomplished. I see no reason why such a success story cannot be replicated in other States as well. In closing, I commend all those parties involved; am grateful for their willingness to work together for our State's future; and hope that this is just the beginning of many success stories to come out of Michigan and America's other 49 States.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for his leadership tonight. Mr. Speaker, if we pass this bill, we will be intruding in the most sensitive possible family decision at the most ill-opportune time. It will be hard to envision a case or circumstance that Congress will not be willing to involve itself from now on if this precedent is approved this evening. By passing legislation which takes sides in an ongoing legal dispute, we will be casting aside the principle of the separation of powers. We will be abandoning our role as a serious legislative branch, and we will be taking on the role, as we have done during this debate, of judge, of doctor, of priest, of parent, or spouse. By passing legislation which wrests jurisdiction away from a State judge and sends it to a single preselected Federal court, we will forego any pretense of federalism. The concept of a Jeffersonian democracy as envisioned by the Founders and the States as ``laboratories of democracy,'' as articulated by Justice Brandeis, will lie in tatters. By passing this legislation in a complete absence of hearings, committee markups, no amendments, in complete violation of what we once called ``regular order,'' we will send a signal that the usual rules of conduct and procedure no longer apply when they are inconvenient to the majority party. My friends on the other side of the aisle will declare that this legislation is about principle and morals and values. But if this legislation was only about principle, why would the majority party be distributing talking points in the other body declaring that ``this is a great political issue'' and that by passing this bill ``the pro-life base will be excited''? If the President of the United States really cared about the issue of the removal of feeding tubes, then why did he sign a bill as Governor in Texas that allows hospitals to save money by removing feeding tubes over a family's objection? If we really cared about saving lives, why would the Congress sit idly by while more than 40 million Americans have no health insurance, or while the President tries to cut billions of dollars from Medicaid, a virtual lifeline for health care for millions of our citizens? When all is said and done, this bill is about taking sides in a legal dispute, which we should not be doing. Last year, the majority passed two bills stripping the Federal courts of their power to review cases involving the Defense of Marriage Act and the Pledge of Allegiance because they feared they would read the Constitution too broadly. Last month, the majority passed a class action bill that took jurisdiction away from State courts because they feared they would treat corporate wrongdoers too harshly. Today, we are sending a case from State courts to the Federal courts, even though it is already the most extensively litigated right-to-die case in the history of the United States. There is only one principle at stake here: manipulating the court system to achieve predetermined, substantive outcomes. By passing this bill, it should be obvious to many that we are no longer a Nation of laws, but have been reduced to a Nation of men. By passing this law, we will be telling our friends abroad that even though we expect them to live by the rule of law, Congress can ignore it when it does not suit our needs. By passing this law, we diminish our Nation as a democracy and ourselves as legislators. Do not let this bill pass.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I inadvertently voted ``yes'' on H.R. 1268, the Emergency Supplemental Wartime Appropriations Act. My intention was to vote ``no'' for the following reasons: The President is asking for another blank check, despite the fact that its policies in Iraq have made our country and the world less safe. The President has neither accounted for the funds spent pursuing these unsuccessful policies nor have they offered the American people a plan to stabilize the situation in Iraq and bring our troops home. March 19, 2005, is the second anniversary of the war in Iraq and the world is a more dangerous place. To date 1,500 American troops have died in Iraq and 11,000 have been wounded. I want to make clear that I support the courageous men and women in combat and I think it is imperative that we bring our troops home as quickly and safely as possible.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of Mr. Pitts and myself to introduce this Resolution to condemn the alleged statements and actions of complacency by the government authorities in Gujarat, led by Chief Minister Narendra Modi, in the face of the religious persecution of the Gujarati people. In February of 2002, India experienced its greatest human rights crisis in a decade: orchestrated violence against Muslims in the state of Gujarat that claimed at least 2,000 lives in a matter of days. Three years after that horrific incident, Narendra Modi, the Chief Minister of Gujarat has been indicted by various Indian and International human rights organizations for lending his hand to the violence. Mr. Modi himself has not been shy about proudly professing his anti- Christian, anti-Muslim, and anti-tribal stances. He has repeatedly dehumanized the Muslim population of his state by accusing them of treachery; he has actively sought to interfere in the practice of the Christian faith in Gujarat, and he has caused wide-scale displacement of indigenous populations in the State in the face of stiff popular resistance. I find Mr. Modi's actions to be of the most reprehensible sort. In an article in the Hindu Times on March 2, 2005, former Indian President K.R. Narayanan stated that ``there was a `conspiracy' between the BJP governments at the Centre and the state behind the 2002 Gujarat riots . . .''. Further, a number of Indian human rights organizations, international human rights organizations, and a former Supreme Court Justice all recognize Chief Minister Modi's complicity in the violence. He has attacked Muslims and Christians with vile venom, and according to both India's highest court and many international human rights groups, has condoned terrible, violent religious hate crimes, all the while, shielding those said to have committed them. In fact, in a scathing indictment of Mr. Modi, the Supreme Court of India referred to the Chief Minister and his government as ``the modern day Neros''. Moreover, in a recent unprecedented order, the Supreme Court of India ordered the reopening of all the criminal cases that Mr. Modi has closed, regarding over 2000 police cases in which the non-Hindu victims filed reports of rapes, killings, and destruction of their property. Such actions by high ranking government officials of any religion are unacceptable and must not be tolerated. I urge my colleagues to join me in condemning religious intolerance and promoting religious freedom, so that others may see what our great democracy stands for.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, the Congressional Black Caucus has carefully considered its responsibility here, and they have asked me to point out a couple of things. In the Justice Department we need to put more money into three programs that were cut: First, the programs that investigate gang- related crimes; secondly, the problems of juvenile delinquency; and, third, prison reentry. These are incredibly important. And I just want to add that this budget that we are trying to replace ours with is one of the most mean-spirited documents that I have witnessed. Over 150 domestic program cuts. The $81 billion for Iraq was not even included in this budget, as if it was a supplemental consideration. So I ask the Members to join with us and let us have a great number of people supporting the CBC budget this year.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce this Resolution to condemn the alleged statements and actions of complacency by the government authorities in Gujarat, led by Chief Minister Narendra Modi, in the face of the religious persecution of the Gujarati people. In February of 2002, India experienced its greatest human rights crisis in a decade: orchestrated violence against Muslims in the state of Gujarat that claimed at least 2,000 lives in a matter of days. Three years after that horrific incident, Narendra Modi, the Chief Minister of Gujarat has been indicted by various Indian and International human rights organizations for lending his hand to the violence. Mr. Modi himself has not been shy about proudly professing his anti- Christian, anti-Muslim, and anti-tribal stances. He has repeatedly dehumanized the Muslim population of his state by accusing them of treachery; he has actively sought to interfere in the practice of the Christian faith in Gujarat, and he has caused wide-scale displacement of indigenous populations in the State in the face of stiff popular resistance. I find Mr. Modi's actions to be of the most reprehensible sort. In an article in the Hindu Times on March 2, 2005, former Indian President K.R. Narayanan stated that ``there was a `conspiracy' between the BJP governments at the Centre and the state behind the 2002 Gujarat riots . . .''. Further, a number of Indian human rights organizations, international human rights organizations, and a former Supreme Court Justice all recognize Chief Minister Modi's complicity in the violence. He has attacked Muslims and Christians with vile venom, and according to both India's highest court and many international human rights groups, has condoned terrible, violent religious hate crimes, all the while, shielding those said to have committed them. In fact, in a scathing indictment of Mr. Modi, the Supreme Court of India referred to the Chief Minister and his government as ``the modern day Neros''. Moreover, in a recent unprecedented order, the Supreme Court of India ordered the reopening of all the criminal cases that Mr. Modi has closed, regarding over 2,000 police cases in which the non-Hindu victims filed reports of rapes, killings, and destruction of their property. Such actions by high ranking government officials of any religion are unacceptable and must not be tolerated. I urge my colleagues to join me in condemning religious intolerance and promoting religious freedom, so that others may see what our great democracy stands for.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to introduce the Civic Participation and Rehabilitation Act of 2005, legislation that will provide persons who have been released from incarceration the right to vote in Federal elections. With just two states, Maine and Vermont, placing no restrictions on the voting rights of offenders or ex-offenders, the United States may have the most restrictive disenfranchisement policy in the world. Such prohibitions on the right to vote undermine both the voting system and the fundamental rights of ex-offenders. This legislation will serve to clarify and expand voting rights, as well as assist former felons with their reintegration into our democracy. This past November it was estimated that approximately 2.3 percent of the voting age population, about 5 million people, were prohibited from voting because of state felon disenfranchisement laws. While it is undeniable that this group of disqualified voters was large enough to influence the outcome of close elections, partisan concerns obscure the fact that our varied, state-by-state approaches to ex-offender voting rights leads to confusion and disenfranchisement of legitimate voters under these existing laws. In the past two election cycles, flawed voter purges have deprived legitimate voters of their rights. Moreover, in Ohio, an erroneous interpretation of state law by the Secretary of State deprived thousands of ex-felons of even the right to register. Only federal law can conclusively resolve the ambiguities in this area plaguing our voting system. In addition to tainting this country's fundamental principle of the right to vote, denying voting rights to ex-offenders denies them of the opportunity to fully participate and contribute to their society. Disenfranchisement laws isolate and alienate ex-offenders, and serve as one more obstacle in their attempt to successfully reintegrate into society. Restricting voting rights, a critical tool of self- empowerment, can only lead to higher rates of recidivism, community apathy, and other social ills. We fail not just ex-offenders by denying them the right to vote, but the rest of a society that has struggled throughout its history to be legitimate and inclusive. Just like poll taxes and literacy tests prevented an entire class of citizens, namely African Americans, from integrating into society after centuries of slavery, felon disenfranchisement laws prevent ex- offenders from reintegrating into society after retribution. Statistics on felon disenfranchisement indicate that Congressional action is clearly warranted. The Sentencing Project estimates that 4.7 million Americans, or 1 in 43 adults, have currently or permanently lost the right to vote as a result of a felony conviction. 1.4 million or 13 percent of African American men are disenfranchised, a rate seven times the national average. Given current rates of incarceration, 3 in 10 of the next generation of African American men can expect to be disenfranchised at some point in their lifetime. An estimated 676,730 women are currently ineligible to vote as a result of a felony conviction. These statistics have prompted state responses. Most recently, Alabama, Nevada, Wyoming, and Connecticut, have adopted legislation that expands voting rights for ex-felons. We must now act at the Federal level.