John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is very kind. I just want to remind the gentleman, it is his amendment, but it not only affects managers, it affects every employee in the INS, everyone.

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

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, all I want to say to my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa), is that I wish he had more management experience.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. CONYERS. Yes, sir.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that we have 1 minute each on both sides.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), a member of the committee.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the chairman, for yielding time to me, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I have not been surprised by many amendments before, but here is an amendment that proposes to set aside the civil service laws as applied to hiring people at INS, and to set aside civil service law as it applies to their discharge. In other words, the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa) wants to go back to the bad old days. What does he have in mind, patronage, or what? And why would we come up with such a narrow eviscerating of civil service law? Nobody has attacked civil service law on either side of the aisle, in my memory, and now it is being done here. Mr. Chairman, I yield to my colleague, the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas), and the ranking member, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) for taking us through an original bill that was not adequate. We worked on a substitute, and now we are able to come together in a bipartisan fashion that I think acquits the Committee on the Judiciary very well. I note that the chairman of this committee has been able to accomplish that on more than one occasion, so I am delighted that we will now consider some amendments, many of them that we think will improve the bill. But I remind my colleagues that we have the other body in which we will come together in a conference as soon as they finish their work product, and one of the key issues is going to be the relationship of the Associate Attorney General to that of the current Immigration and Naturalization Service Commissioner. We have met with the Commissioner. He has been before our committee more than once, and I think that is an important issue where we ought to work carefully with the Senate, and hope that we can reach harmony. The bill is a structural bill. It is a process bill. The substance of how we are going to improve the Immigration and Naturalization Service really awaits the further work of the committee in this body and that in the other body; but I am pleased that we can work with the administration and with our Republican colleagues on dealing with a matter that it is perfectly clear is long overdue for reform. Today is a very important first step in that direction. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). No one has worked harder on the Committee on the Judiciary than the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims; and I really want to praise her for her work. (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/4\ minutes. First of all, I want to thank my colleague for his very sobering interactive examination of this bill. It pains me that we are not on the same side, but I promise to work with him to make it as effective as we can. I remind him and all of our colleagues that this is the administrative part, the process part of the legislation towards INS. This is not the substantive issues being taken care of. And I cannot agree with my colleague, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt), more, that dividing an ineffective agency into two does not make it a whole or well, and putting Ms. Jordan's name on it does not help. Her name was not snatched up from the rolls of ex-Members. She conducted the study upon which this bill is built. If any of us are interested in why this bill was named after our colleague that formerly served on the Committee on the Judiciary, it is because she was appointed by the President to make a study. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 minutes to the able gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis).

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 476, the Child Custody Protection Act because the bill is unconstitutional, dangerous, anti-family, and incredibly broad. 1. The bill is blatantly unconstitutional in at least three respects: First, the bill violates minors' due process rights by increasing their risk of physical harm. This violates the principles of Carey v. Population Services, where the Supreme Court held that a state may not seek to deter sexual activity by ``increasing the hazards attendant on it.'' Second, H.R. 476 contains an inadequate exception to protect women's lives, and it does not have any exception to protect a woman's health-- in clear violation of Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Finally, the bill violates the Privileges and Immunities Clause by denying citizens the right to travel freely and enjoy the legal rights of citizens of other states. In violation of these principles of federalism, the bill saddles a young woman with the laws of her home state no matter where she travels in the country. 2. The bill is also dangerous because it takes away from young women safe alternatives to parental involvement--such as turning to close relatives, close family friends, and religious counselors--and replaces them with life-endangering ones, such as hitchhiking, self-induced, or back-alley abortions. If you don't believe me, ask Becky Bell's family. She died from a back alley abortion as a result of Indiana's parental consent law when she was afraid of confiding in her family. The bill will inevitably lead to increased family violence. We know that one-third of teenagers who do not tell their parents about a pregnancy have already been the victim of family violence. We also know that the incidence of family violence only escalates when a teenage daughter becomes pregnant. This bill will only exacerbate those problems. 3. In addition, the bill is anti-family because it will turn family members into criminals. In a state that requires the consent of both parents, a single parent who takes a child across state lines would be subject to criminal charges, even if the other parent was estranged or their whereabouts were unknown. Grandparents would also be subject to prosecution, even if they were the child's primary caregiver. 4. Finally, the legislation is incredibly broad. Supporters of this bill claim to be targeting predatory individuals that force and coerce a minor into obtaining an abortion. However, the net cast by this bill is far broader and far more problematic. Under the legislation, anyone simply transporting minor could be jailed for up to a year or fined or both. Any bus driver or taxi driver unaware that the young woman has not engaged a formal parental involvement process could conceivably be sent to jail under this prohibition. The same applies to emergency medical personnel who may be aware they are taking a minor across state lines to obtain an abortion, but would have no choice if a medical emergency were occurring. What we have is yet another shortsighted effort to politicize a tragic family dilemma that does nothing to respond to the underlying problem of teen pregnancies or dysfunctional families. I urge the Members of vote ``no'' on this simple-minded, dangerous, and misguided legislation. Mr. Sensenbrenner. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the ranking member, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) would allow me some time, because I knew Phil Ruppe and worked with him. He was a real gentleman, a collegial Member of Congress. We worked on many projects together. I also wanted to raise the memory of his wife, Loret Ruppe, who was a former head of the Peace Corps and an Ambassador to Norway as well. I do not think it has ever been done before, but if ever there was a case for naming this Federal facility after both a husband and wife, this would be it. Unfortunately, she is deceased but those of us who remember this great couple from Michigan will remember and think very highly of the very appropriate memorialization of a building in their honor.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), the ranking member of the subcommittee for yielding me this time, and I thank the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter), the chairman of the subcommittee. I am delighted to be here, because Lionel Hampton is coming to the Capitol tomorrow and I am hoping that a number of us will be able to celebrate, not just his birthday, but his life and works. The gentleman from Idaho and a number of people from the University of Idaho will be here and we will be able to see and enjoy the company of this great legend. Now, some wonder why on earth would a university in Moscow, Idaho, of all places, decide to name its institution after Lionel Hampton. Well, I am glad that question was asked, because years ago, and I think it was in the 1930s, someone there used to call Lionel Hampton and beg him to either come in or send jazz musicians and Lionel Hampton would always come out to Idaho. And gradually, over the years, the jazz department, the music department began to grow, because no one could figure out why all of these people were flying in from New York and Los Angeles to celebrate with the University of Idaho. Lionel Hampton would either go himself or, if he could not go, he would send someone, and the school has become one of the famous music institutions that grants degrees in the country. So with this American music called jazz came the references that were made by my colleague about how the social, musical, religious and racial diversity grew up in that State and out of that university, and now it brings in people from all over the world. I was privileged to be there one year myself. So this is a wonderful occasion. I am confident that this resolution will be unanimously supported by the Members. I just wanted to add a comment about Lionel Hampton the musician, the human being, because he is one of the warmest, most outgoing people that one could have ever hoped to meet, and when he performs, it is like he has to put everything into every performance. Every performance is his best; complete, exhaustive, exuberant. He goes up and down the aisles and out into the street and anywhere else, and his music is infectious. Everybody goes along with it. As the gentleman from Hawaii was mentioning about the epiphany that can occur when one listens to great jazz, and Lionel Hampton, when we think of all of the people that he has been associated with that came out of his group, we understand why. National Public Radio did a profile on Lionel Hampton, and I am going to include it in my remarks. It details all of the people that have been connected with this great musician. Now, it is only appropriate to mention that he was not the first great jazz vibraphonist. As a matter of fact, Red Norvo was the first person to popularize that instrument. But his enthusiasm and his learning of music, because he was originally a drummer, but he studied piano, as has been indicated, but he laid the groundwork for the greatest jazz bebop vibraphonist, Milt Jackson, the late Milt Jackson, who was at his birthday, another birthday celebration in New York, and he came to pay tribute. Bill Cosby was there, who was another great jazz aficionado. Mr. Speaker, it is just a marvelous thing that we here in the House and in the Senate would collaborate to get this resolution out just in time for Lionel Hampton to make his appearance on the Hill tomorrow. So I congratulate the committee for its expeditious work, and I look forward to presenting this resolution to Lionel Hampton tomorrow. Biography There is some confusion about the year of Lionel Hampton's birth, which has sometimes been given as 1908. Around 1916 he moved with his family to Chicago, where he began his career playing drums in various lesser bands. In the late 1920s he was based in Culver City, California, where he worked in clubs and took part in several recording sessions (1930) with Louis Armstrong, who encouraged him to take up vibraphone. Hampton soon became the leading jazz performer on this instrument, and achieved wide recognition through his many film appearances with Les Hite's band. After playing informally with Benny Goodman in 1936 he began to work in Goodman's small ensembles, with which he performed and recorded regularly until 1940; as a result he became one of the most celebrated figures of the swing period, and his resounding success allowed him to form his own big band in 1940. This group, which at times has included musicians of the stature of Cat Anderson, Illinois Jacquet, Clifford Brown, and Quincy Jones, has been one of the most long-lived and consistently popular large ensembles in jazz. From the 1950s Hampton undertook numerous ``goodwill'' tours to Europe, Japan, Australia, Africa, the Middle East, and elsewhere, and made a large number of television appearances, attracting a huge and enthusiastic international following. Hampton performed in the Royal Festival Hall, London, in 1957, and played at the White House for President Carter in 1978; during the same year he formed his own record label, Who's Who in Jazz, to issue mainstream recordings. In the mid 1980s his band continued to draw capacity crowds throughout the world. Hampton was honored as alumnus of the year by the University of Southern California in 1983. Hampton was not the first jazz musician to take up vibraphone (Red Norvo had preceded him in the late 1920s), but it was he who gave the instrument an identity in jazz, applying a wide range of attacks and generating remarkable swing on an instrument otherwise known for its bland, disembodied sound. Undoubtedly his best work was done with the Goodman Quartet from 1936-1940, when he revealed a fine ear for small-ensemble improvisation and an unrestrained, ebullient manner as a soloist. The big band format was probably better suited to the display of his flamboyant personality and flair for showmanship, but after a few early successes, especially the riff tunes Flying Home, Down Home Jump, and Hey Bab-Ba-Rebop, the group was too often content to repeat former trimuphs for its many admirers. Hampton has at times also appeared as singer, played drums with enormous vitality, and performed with curious success asa pianist, using only two fingers in the manner of vibraphrone mallets. Lionel Hampton, former Presidential appointed Ambassador of Goodwill, the holder of over 15 Honorary Doctor of Music Degrees, awarded the highest honors from the Kennedy Center of the Performing Arts and, the National Commission On The Endowment for the Arts, was recently honored at the White House in August 1998 in celebration of his 90th birthday. This musical legend has been the Co-Honorary Chairman of the International Agency for Minority Artist Affairs (IAMAA) since 1978. Not only a musician, Lionel Hampton is a businessman and, has developed housing projects across this nation and, is a leading philanthropist for community-based initiatives. Mr. Hampton, reigning King of the Vibraphone for over a half a century, begain his musical career as a drummer. Born in Birmingham, Alabama in 1908, he spent most of his childhood in Kenosha, Wisconsin, where he first studied music under very strict Dominican nuns. His tools then were Louis Armstrong and a drummer named Jimmy Bertrand, who tossed his sticks in the air as lights blinked from inside his bass drum (a style Hamp still uses today in some of his shows). In 1930, Lionel finally got to meet Louis Armstrong. Playing in a backup band for ``Satchmo'' at a nightclub in L.A. Hamp so impressed Louis that he invited him to a recording session. Armstrong spotted a set of vibes in the studio and asked Hamp if he knew how to play them. Never one to refuse a challenge, Lionel (who knew keyboards well) picked up the mallets. The first tune they cut was ``Memories of You,'' a new number just written by Eubie Blake, and it became a hit for Louis. John Hammond, great jazz impresario, heard the record and began touting Lionel's vibes work to Benny Goodman. In August, 1936, Hammon flew out to L.A. and brough Goodman in to the Paradise Club to hear Lionel play. At that time, Benny had a trio within his big band featuring Teddy Wilson on piano and Gene Krupa on drums. ``Next thing you know,'' recalls Hamp, ``I was out there on stage jamming with these great musicians. That's one session I'll never forget'' To make a long story short, the Benny Goodman Trio became a quartet and made history-not only with the brilliant music they produced, but because they were the first racially- integrated group in the nation. The foursome recorded ``Memories of You,'' ``Moonglow,'' and ``Dinah.'' Hamp spent the next four years with Goodman as the quartet developed into the hottest jazz group in the world. In the early 1940's, Lionel left Benny Goodman to form his own big band after the release of a couple of wildly successfully RCA singles under his own name: ``Sunny Side of the Street'' (on which he sang as well as playing vibes) and ``Central Avenue Breakdown'' (on which he played piano with two fingers, using them like vibes mallets.) His first big band included such sidemen as Dexter Gordon and Illinois Jacquet, and he busted the charts with his recording of ``Flying Home'' in 1942 and ``Hamp's Boogie Woogie'' in 1943. Among the sidemen who got their start with Lionel Hampton are Quincy Jones, Wes Montgomery, Clark Terry, Cat Anderson, Ernie Royal, Joe Newman, Fats Navarro, Charlie Mingus, Al Grey, Art Farmer, and, of course, the singers: Dinah Washington (who was discovered-and named-by Hamp while working in the powder room of Chicago's Regal Theater), Joe Williams, Betty (Be Bop) Carter the great Aretha Franklin, among others.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the ``Corporate and Criminal Fraud Accountability, Act of 2002,'' legislation that imposes tough criminal and civil penalties on corporate wrongdoers and helps protect employees and shareholders against future acts of corporate fraud. I am joined by Minority Leader Gephardt along with Representatives Frank, Jackson Lee, Berman, Waters, LaFalce, Engel, Dingell, Jackson, Jr. (IL), Christensen, Davis (IL), Cummings, Sanders, Solis, Clayton, Brown (FL), Lynch, Hoeffel, Gutierrez, and Schakowsky. As you know, the past several months have revealed widespread incidences of corporate fraud and abuse committed by Enron and its advisers. With each passing day, a new revelation concerning the dissemination of misinformation, evidence shredding, obstruction of justice, and insider trading has been unveiled. And, as more companies file for bankruptcy, I am convinced that we may very well learn of additional instances of fraud occurring across corporate America. One step we can take to prevent corporate wrongdoers from preying on innocent investors and employees is to enact legislation that increases the penalties that companies face for engaging in such rapacious acts. The bill that I am introducing, the ``Corporate and Criminal Fraud Accountability Act of 2002'', does just that. Among other things, it creates a new 10-year felony for defrauding shareholders of publicly- traded companies; clarifies current criminal laws relating to the destruction or fabrication of evidence, including the shredding of financial and audit records; provides whistleblower protection to employees of publicly-traded companies, similar to those currently available to many government employees; and establishes a new bureau within the Department of Justice to prosecute crimes involving securities and pension fraud. In the wake of the Enron debacle, I believe the time is now ripe to protect American investors once again. The Enron case has established beyond a shadow of a doubt that white collar fraud can be incredibly damaging, in many cases wiping away life savings and costing innocent Americans billions of dollars of their hard earned money. There can be no conceivable justification for shielding corporate wrongdoers from criminal prosecution for their outrageous behavior. I am hopeful that Congress can move quickly to enact this worthwhile and timely legislation. The following is a section-by-section analysis of the bill: Section 1. Title. ``Corporate and Criminal Fraud Accountability Act.'' Section 2. Criminal Penalties for Altering, Destroying, or Failing to Maintain Documents--provides two new criminal statutes which would clarify and plug holes in the current criminal laws relating to the destruction or fabrication of evidence, including the shredding of financial and audit records. Currently, those provisions are a patchwork which have been interpreted in often limited ways in federal court. For instance, certain of the current provisions make it a crime to persuade another person to destroy documents, but not a crime to actually destroy the same documents yourself. Other provisions have been narrowly interpreted by courts, including the Supreme Court in United States v. Aquillar, 115 S. Ct. 593 (1995), to apply only to situations where the obstruction of justice can be closely tied to a pending judicial proceeding. First, this section would create a new 5 year felony which could be effectively used in a wide array of cases where a person destroys or creates evidence with the specific intent to obstruct a federal agency or a criminal investigation. Second, the section creates another 5 year felony which applies specifically to the willful failure to preserve audit papers of companies that issue securities. Section 3. Criminal Penalties for Defrauding Shareholders of Publicly Traded Companies--creates a new 10 year felony for defrauding shareholders of publicly traded companies. The provision would supplement the patchwork of existing technical securities law violations with a more general and less technical provision, comparable to the bank fraud and health care fraud statutes. The provision would be more accessible to investigators and prosecutors and would provide needed enforcement flexibility and, in the context of publicly traded companies, protection against all the types schemes and frauds which inventive criminals may devise in the future. Section 4. Review of Federal Sentencing Guidelines for Obstruction of Justice and Extensive Criminal Fraud--requires the United States Sentencing Commission (``Commission'') to consider enhancing criminal penalties in cases involving the actual destruction or fabrication of evidence or in fraud cases in which a large number of victims are injured or when the injury to the victims is particularly grave--i.e. they face financial ruin. This provision first requires the Commission to consider sentencing enhancements in obstruction of justice cases where physical evidence was actually destroyed. The provision, in subsections (3) and (4), also requires the Commission to consider sentencing enhancements for fraud cases which are particularly extensive or serious. Specifically, once there are more than 50 victims, the current guidelines do not require any further enhancement of the sentence, so that a case with 51 victims may be treated the same as a case with 5,000 victims. In addition, current guidelines allow only very limited consideration of the extent of financial devastation that a fraud offense causes to private victims. This section corrects both these problems. Section 5. Debts Non-dischargeable if Incurred in Violation of Securities Fraud Laws--amends the federal bankruptcy code to make judgments and settlements arising from state and federal securities law violations brought by state or federal regulators and private individuals non dischargeable. Current bankruptcy law may permit wrongdoers to discharge their obligations under court judgments or settlements based on securities fraud and securities law violations. This loophole in the law should be closed to help defrauded investors recoup their losses and to hold accountable those who perpetrate securities fraud. Section 6. Increased Protection of Employees' Wages Under Chapter 11 Proceedings--increases the amount in unsecured claims (wages, commissions, etc.) an individual could claim in bankruptcy proceedings from $4,300 to $10,000. This change would aid employees who are usually only paid their priority wage claims early in the case. The rest of the employee's wage claim is a general unsecured debt and may not be paid except on a pro rata basis at the end of the case, which could be several years later. In the Enron case, employees were paid only their priority wage claims while certain individuals were given generous ``retention bonuses.'' This change would make it possible for the court in similar cases to provide a more realistic buffer to employees who have been laid off or who have not been paid in the period leading up to the bankruptcy. Section 7. Statute of Limitations for Securities Fraud-- sets the statute of limitations in private securities fraud cases to the earlier of 5 years after the date of the fraud or three years after the fraud was discovered. The current statute of limitations for private securities fraud cases is the earlier of three years from the date of the fraud or one year from the date of discovery. In the Enron state pension fund litigation, the current short statute of limitations has forced some states to forgo claims against Enron based on securities fraud in 1997 and 1998. Victims of securities fraud should have a reasonable time to discover the facts underlying the fraud. The Supreme Court, in Lampf v. Gilbertson, 501 U.S. 350 (1991), endorsed the current short statute of limitations for securities fraud in a 5-4 decision. Justices O'Connor and Kennedy wrote in their dissent in the Lampf decision: ``By adopting a 3-year period of repose, the Court makes a Sec. 10(b) action all but a dead letter for injured investors who by no conceivable standard of fairness or practicality can be expected to file suit within three years after the violation occurred. In so doing, the Court also turns its back on the almost uniform rule rejecting short periods of repose for fraud-based actions.'' Section 8. Whistleblower Protection for Employees of Publicly Traded Companies who Provide Evidence of Fraud-- provides whistleblower protection to employees of publicly traded companies, similar to those currently available to many government employees. It specifically protects them when they take lawful acts to disclose information or otherwise assist criminal investigators, federal regulators, Congress, supervisors (or other proper people within a corporation), or parties in a judicial proceeding in detecting and stopping fraud. Since the bill's provisions only apply to ``lawful'' actions by an employee, it does not protect employees from improper and unlawful disclosure of trade secrets. In addition, a reasonableness test is also set forth under the information providing subsection of this section, which is intended to impose the normal reasonable person standard used and interpreted in a wide variety of legal contexts. See generally Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners v. Department of Labor, 992 F. 2d 474, 478. Certainly, although not exclusively, any type of corporate or agency action taken based on the information, or the information constituting or leading to admissible evidence would be strong indicia that it could support of such a reasonable belief. If the employer does take illegal action in retaliation for lawful and protected conduct, subsection (b) allows the employee to elect to file an administrative complaint or to bring a case in federal court, with a jury trial available in cases where the case is an action at law. See United States Constitution, Amendment VII; Title 42 United States Code, Section 1983. Subsection (c) would require both reinstatement of the whistleblower, double backpay, compensatory damages to make a victim whole, and would allow punitive damages in extreme cases where the public's health, safety or welfare was at risk. Section 9. Establishment of a Retirement Security Fraud Bureau--establishes a Bureau within DOJ that, among other things, will advise the Assistant Attorney General of the Criminal Division on matters pertaining to pension and securities fraud, and assist federal, state and local law enforcement authorities in combating pension and securities fraud-related activities.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the ``Gun Show Background Check Act of 2002'', legislation designed to close the loophole in federal gun laws which allow criminals to buy firearms at gun shows. I am Joined by Representatives Frank, Berman, Nadler, Lofgren, Waters, Meehan, Delahunt, Weiner, Ackerman, Andrews, Brown, Clay, Crowley, Cummings, Davis (IL), DeGette, Hastings (FL), Jackson (IL), Kilpatrick, Lee, Markey, Schakowsky, and Wexler. As you know, under current law federal firearms licensees are required to maintain careful records of their sales, and under the Brady Act, to check the purchaser's background with the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) before transferring any firearm. However, a person does not need a federal firearms license-- and the Brady Act does not apply--if the person is not ``engaged in the business'' of selling firearms pursuant to federal law. My bill corrects these deficiencies by (1) requiring background checks for all firearms sales at gun shows, (2) defining gun shows to include any event at which 50 or more firearms are offered or exhibited for sale and (3) by improving firearm tracing measures--in the event that a firearm becomes the subject of a law enforcement investigation. I do not believe we can close a loophole by opening a dozen more. We should not weaken the Brady law by shortening background checks to 24 hours--thereby allowing more than 2,200 additional felons, fugitives and stalkers to purchase guns in an 18 month period; we should not allow states to limit the search of individual records to ``disposition information''--which, as you may know, excludes mental health records and restraining orders; and we should not create an unprecedented exemption that would allow a gun trafficker to sell thousands of guns from his home without conducting any background checks. Considering the many recent tragedies and threats of violence we have had in our nations schools and the recent reports indicating that the U.S. gun industry sold numerous guns to members of Osama bin Laden's ``al Qaida'' terrorist network, the importance of enacting legislation that will promote a more secure nation can not be overstated. It's time for smarter, better gun safety prevention and enforcement. The bill we are introducing today will move us in that direction, I am hopeful that Congress will move quickly to enact this worthwhile and timely legislation.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. CONYERS. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Chairman, could I ask the gentleman if he would consider, with me, the proposal of the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) in terms of a freestanding proposal separate from this?

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I am glad the gentleman pointed out the fact that I claimed that the judges were overworked. I think they are probably in the same condition today that they were yesterday, which is overworked; and I would like to use the gentleman's solution, which is that we get more judges into the judicial system. I think it is 70-something, and I think that would help. So I think the gentleman thinks they are overworked and so do I, but we think that this could be a useful purpose.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to introduce a notion that we would require the Administrative Office of the United States Courts to compile and report to the Congress its findings pertaining to the impact of this legislation, specifically relating to race, gender, age, ethnicity of victim and defendant; the reasoning behind the government's decision to prosecute the defendant in Federal court instead of deferring to a State or tribal court; and the sentence that the court would have imposed on the defendant if the statutory minimum life sentence had not applied. The idea is to provide our colleagues with invaluable insight into the effect of this legislation as it will relate to prison overpopulation, racial considerations, and the costs that would be attached to the Federal court in the event of the enacting of this legislation. This is dealing with the ballooning prison population because we have more people proportionately in prison than anywhere else on the planet, and we think that this would be a very important move in the right direction; and I hope that it will become a part of this legislation.

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

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, as I understand what we are doing here, we are allowing tribal governments to opt out of coverage, as we have done in other matters like this before, so it is not encouraging this kind of offense to get softer treatment than it would anywhere else in the country. The racially discriminatory impact on Native Americans is pretty clear here, and that is what we are trying to deal with, because the legislation that is proposed applies to conduct occurring on land owned by the United States or within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States. So that is Indian reservations. Most of the cases have indicated that 75 percent of these kinds of cases arising under the bill's provision will involve Native Americans, so to give the tribal government this option is no less rational than when we did it before. We did an opt-out provision in the Three Strikes legislation. It did not work in any kind of way to mitigate the way that law was handled. Therefore, there should be no difference in the action we take here today with respect to these groups. Mr. Chairman, that is my take on the Scott amendment, and I hope that we can reach agreement on it.