John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this is a measure, H.R. 1875, that will remove class actions involving State law issues from State courts, the forum most convenient for victims of wrongdoing to litigate and most familiar with the substantive law involved, to the Federal courts where the class is less likely to be certified and the case will take longer to resolve. Now why is this being done in the face of all the arguments for States rights, the concern about the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution that reminds us that all powers not explicitly delegated to the Federal system is reserved to the States? Why are we here with a bill that would now take this power from the State courts and subject it to Federal rule? Although this bill is described by its proponents as a simple procedural fix, in actuality it rewrites a major rewrite of the class action rules that would bar most forms of State class actions. That is right; it would bar most forms of State class actions. H.R. 1875 is appropriately opposed by the Department of Justice, both the State and Federal courts, by consumer interest groups, and public interest groups as well. Now class action procedures offer a valuable mechanism for aggregating small claims that otherwise might not warrant individual litigation. This legislation will undercut that important principle by making it far more burdensome, expensive and time consuming for injured persons to obtain access to justice in the State courts. In doing so, it will make it more difficult to protect our citizens against violations of consumer health, safety and environmental laws, to name but a few important ones. Thus, the bill will benefit only one class of litigants, corporate wrongdoers. The most obvious examples of corporate defendants that have been susceptible to State class actions are, as we know, tobacco, gun, and managed care industries. H.R. 1875 will also damage both the Federal and State courts. As a result of Congress' increasing propensity to federalize State crimes and the Senate, the United States Senate's, unwillingness to confirm judges, the Federal courts are already facing a dangerous work-load crisis. By forcing resource-intensive class actions into Federal court, H.R. 1875 will effectively further aggravate those problems and cause victims to wait in line even longer, as much as 3 years or more, to obtain trial. Moreover, to the extent class actions are remanded to State court, the legislation effectively only permits case-by-case adjudications, potentially draining away precious State court resources as well. Now finally, the legislation raises constitutional issues because H.R. 1875 does not merely operate to preempt an area of State law, which is onerous enough, but rather it unilaterally strips the State courts of their ability to use class actions' procedural device to resolve State law disputes. The courts have previously indicated that efforts by the Congress to dictate such State court procedures implicate important Tenth Amendment issues and should be avoided. These powers that are not explicitly granted the Federal system are reserved to the States, and we are taking this very important judicial tool away from the States. So H.R. 1875's incursion into State court prerogatives is no less dangerous to the public than many of the radical forms of tort reform that were rejected of court stripping that was rejected by both the Congress and the administration, and thus I urge that H.R. 1875, Interstate Class Action Jurisdiction Act of 1995, likewise be rejected. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I begin my discussion by commending the gentlewoman from California. This motion to instruct is right on time. It tries to put together what the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and I are working on into a general picture that can lead to a resolution that will satisfy the majority of the Members of the House of Representatives and the American people. Now, if we can accomplish this difficult goal, I think that we will have a successful conclusion to a serious problem that has been neglected for far too long. May I also say to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) that negotiations have been in total good faith from the beginning. It is not out of order for me to let everybody know that we are meeting on this even as the motion to instruct is being resolved here on the floor; and these meetings will go on as long, as often, as frequently is necessary if between us and the forces that we represent we can hammer out a consensus that will lead us to a position that the majority of the Members of this House can repair. If that happens, I will be very personally gratified. Now, these discussions are in good faith. They have been productive over the last 2 months. The possibility of reaching a bipartisan agreement on reasonable and commonsense gun safety legislation is good. It is positive. It is in that spirit that I join both the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) and the chairman of the committee in urging that the motion to instruct be adopted by as great a majority as is possible. It is true that the descriptions of the compromises that the chairman and I are working on have been inaccurate and incomplete. But that is not news with the press. The media has not been a party to our meetings. They do not know what we have been talking about and what agreements have been reached. But let me tell my colleagues what, in my mind, are the kind of things that we should be looking for if we are going to resolve the question of commonsense gun safety legislation. Would it not be wonderful that there would be no exemption of a substantial number of gun shows for events where guns are sold simply because other items are sold as well? I think that is reasonable, and I hope that we will include this in our thinking on both sides of the aisle. Would it not be wonderful if proposals for independent check registrants that will invite fly-by-night background checkers who will consummate sales that are difficult to trace may be impossible, making the enforcement of our gun laws against dangerous criminals who use guns even more unlikely, eliminating sufficient recordkeeping requirements which might tempt fraud to enter into this system? There should be, in my view, no exclusion of coverage of domestic violence offenders and mentally disturbed individuals from the background check requirement. And hopefully, unconstitutional provisions, the Ten Commandments proposal, for example, is something that probably does not materially fit into the notion of how we achieve commonsense gun safety in America. So personally, my colleagues, I believe that these matters are resolvable. We are still confronted with the goal of coming to a conclusion and then going into conference. After all, the meetings are not going to solve the problem. The meetings are laying the groundwork for the conference committee to come to the agreements that the chairman and I are struggling toward. There are over 35,000 gun-related deaths in the country, and the ease with which wrongdoers can obtain semiautomatic weapons and other firearms is a national outrage. So what we seek is to meet the modest goals established in the Senate-passed bipartisan gun violence bill. I will continue to commit to do everything in my power to see that this is accomplished. Again, I commend the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the ``Multidistrict, Multiparty, Multiforum Jurisdiction Act of 1999.'' I'd like to begin by expressing thanks to Chairman Coble and Representative Sensenbrenner of the Intellectual Property and Courts Subcommittee for their hard work and dedication to working out the concerns that we raised with respect to the original version of the bill in a truly bipartisan fashion. I. Section 2--Overturns Lexecon v. Milberg Weiss, 523 U.S. 26 (1998) Section 2 of the bill overturns the recent Supreme Court decision of Lexecon V. Milberg Weiss, where the Supreme Court held that a transferee court (a district court assigned to hear pretrial matters by a multidistrict litigation panel in multidistrict litigation cases) must remand all cases back for trial to the districts in which they were originally filed, regardless of the views of the parties. It is my understanding from the hearing that for some 30 year the transferee court often retained jurisdiction over all of the suits by invoking a venue provision of Title 28, allowing a district court to transfer a civil action to any other district where it may have been brought--in effect, the transferee court simply transferred all of the cases to itself. The Judicial Conference testified that this process has worked well, and as a matter of judicial expedience, I support overturning the Lexecon decision. There was a concern raised at the Subcommittee hearing, however, that Section 2, as originally drafted, would have gone far beyond simply permitting a multidistrict litigation transferee court to conduct a liability trial, and instead, would have allowed the court to also determine compensatory and punitive damages. The concern here is that trying the case in the transferee forum could be extremely inconvenient for plaintiffs who would need to testify at the damages phase of the trial. As a result of discussions between the minority and majority, Representative Berman successfully offered a bipartisan amendment addressing this concern at the Full Committee markup. Pursuant to this amendment, Section 2 now creates a presumption that the trial of compensatory damages will be remanded to the original district court. ii. section 3--minimal diversity for single accidents involving 25 people Section 3 of the bill expands federal court jurisdiction for single accidents involving at least 25 people having damages in excess of $75,000 per claim and establishes new federal procedures in these narrowly defined cases for selection of venue, service of process, issuance of subpoenas and choice of law. It is my understanding here that mass tort injuries that involve the same injury over and over again such as asbestos and breast implants, etc., would be excluded. And that the types of cases that would be included would be plane, train, bus, boat accidents, environment spills, etc.--many of which may already be brought in federal court. While I traditionally oppose having federal courts decide state tort issues, and disfavor the expansion of the jurisdiction of the already- overloaded district courts, unlike the broader class action bill (H.R. 1875), this bill would only expand federal court jurisdiction in a much narrower class of actions, with the objective of judicial expedience. Thus, I support this Section with the understanding that it would only apply to a very narrowly defined category of cases and does not in any way serve as a precedent for broader expansion of diversity jurisdiction.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez). (Ms. VELAZQUEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks and include extraneous material.)

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of the time to the gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Romero-Barcelo) to conclude our debate on this.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra), a former member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), a former member of the Committee on the Judiciary. (Mr. SERRANO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce.)

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to what is clearly a politically motivated and totally senseless resolution. We are a Nation of laws, and if any matter is abundantly clear by our Constitution, it is that the President has the sole and unitary power to grant clemency. Is there any Member that does not understand that? Every President has the sole and unitary power to grant clemency. For the first time in American history, the House of Representatives, under our present leadership, has determined that we should have a vote to determine whether clemency should be granted or whether the President is doing the same or doing the right thing from their point of view. Now the reason that he has the power to grant clemency is that it is that the President is uniquely positioned to consider the law and the facts that apply in each request for clemency. Despite this long and uninterrupted history of congressional nonintervention through both Democratic and Republican Presidents, today the Republican Congress tells us that we have an emergency on our hands, an emergency. This matter has not even gone through the Committee on the Judiciary. It arrives here on the Floor after a lot of talk over the media over the weekend. We have an emergency on our hands that requires that we stop all of our legislative business so that we can express our opinion on a clemency that he has already granted. Mr. Speaker, the majority is forcing us to vote on this phony emergency at the same time that our Nation faces serious economic and social issues which should be requiring our immediate attention. Thirteen children killed each day in this country by handguns, and yet the majority does nothing about gun safety; millions of Americans face serious health care insurance problems, and yet we do nothing about the Patients' Bill of Rights; billions of dollars of special interest money corrupting our political system, and yet the majority continues to ignore campaign finance reform. The real reason that we are voting on this emergency resolution today is because the majority is looking to score some cheap political points. How sad. They were so eager to begin pointing the political finger that they skipped the normal hearings and markup as well as the floor process that this measure would require or that any measure would require that comes before the floor for disposition. Now of course, if anyone would bother to look at the actual record, they would see that the clemency was justified and appropriate. First off, the clemency is not absolute. It is conditional, and it is so conditional that it is really a parole. This is parole for life. The President attached several important serious conditions to the grant of clemency, any violations of which would immediately result in the revocation of the commutation. One condition was that the offenders had to renounce the use and advocacy of violence. Some inmates do not receive clemency because they declined to sign the pledge to renounce violence. Another condition restricted the grantees' freedom of travel and association. The grantees, even those related to one another, can no longer associate with each other. Finally, the inmates received excessive sentences and have served terms far longer than comparable offenders. The individuals in question have served some 20 years in prison for nonviolent offenses. Although they possessed weapons, no one was harmed. Ultimately no person, no single person, was harmed. So this is far longer than average for most violent offenses. The reason they received such harsh sentences was because they received consecutive sentences for various offenses even though almost all defendants who were prosecuted for multiple crimes received concurrent sentences. So the resolution before us today is a tawdry one, a sham one, an embarrassing one, an insult to our Constitution and the Puerto Rican people who care so deeply about the clemency issue. Can we not move forward? Please vote no on this concurrent resolution before us. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce).

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, as the dean of the Congressional Black Caucus, I rise to salute the lifetime achievements of pianist Hank Jones. The eldest of the three illustrious ``Jones Brothers,'' including trumpeter Thad and drummer Elvin, Hank Jones was born in Pontiac, Michigan in 1918. Hank Jones played in territory bands around Michigan and Ohio while a teenager, and in 1944 he moved to New York to play with Oran ``Hot Lips'' Page's combo at the Onyx Club on 52nd Street. He was the first of the great Detroit pianists (including Tommy Flanagan, Barry Harris and Roland Hanna) to emerge as a major talent on the New York jazz scene after World War II. During the remainder of the 40s, Hank Jones had stints with John Kirby, Howard McGhee, Coleman Hawkins, Andy Kirk and Billy Eckstine. Influenced by Fats Waller, Teddy Wilson, and Art Tatum, Jones' style was also open to the emerging bebop style and his playing was flexible enough to fit into many genres. He was on several Jazz at the Philharmonic tours (starting in 1947), worked as accompanist for Ella Fitzgerald (1948-53) and recorded with Charlie Parker. In the 1950s Jones performed with Artie Shaw, Benny Goodman, Lester Young, Cannonball Adderley and many others. He was on the staff of CBS during 1959-1976, performing with the network's orchestra on a variety of shows, but always remained active in jazz as an independent artist. In the late '70s Jones was the pianist in the Broadway musical ``Ain't Misbehavin'' and he recorded with a pickup unit dubbed the Great Jazz Trio which at various times included Ron Carter, Buster Williams or Eddie Gomez on bass and Tony Williams, Al Foster or Jimmy Cobb on drums. Hank Jones is widely regarded as a masterful piano player, known especially for his sensitivity and musical intelligence. His lasting success lies in his ability to assimilate different styles, while retaining his own identity and temperament. He can be heard on thousands of recordings, both as a leader and an accompanist. He has also performed in numerous clubs worldwide. Having reached the age of 81, Hank Jones is still booking dates for his trio, which includes George Mraz on bass, and Dennis Mackrel on drums. Among the many labels that Hank Jones has recorded for as a leader are Verve, Savoy, Epic, Golden Crest, Capitol, Argo, ABC-Paramount, Impulse, Concord, East Wind, Muse, Galaxy, Black & Blue, MPS, Inner City and Chiaroscuro.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the Congressional Black Caucus to honor one of the most influential musicians in American history, Mr. Johnnie Clyde Johnson. Johnnie was born the son of a coal miner in Fairmont, West Virginia, on July 8, 1924. He began playing the piano at the age of 5, on a second-hand upright his mother had purchased as a decoration. Unable to afford lessons, Johnnie practices and absorbed the sounds of big band jazz and swing, barrelhouse boogie and country western that he heard on the radio. His heroes were the piano players: Count Basie, Art Tatum, Earl Hines, Pete Johnson and Meade Lux Lewis. Johnnie studied each man's repertoire, mixing and matching until he found his own unique style. In 1943, with the War in full tilt, Johnnie enlisted in the Marines and became one of the first 1,500 black soldiers in this branch of service. He later had an opportunity to join the company band--The Barracudas--an elite group made up of some of the finest jazz musicians in the world, including members of Count Basie's, Lionel Hampton's and Glenn Miller's bands. It was a dream come true to play alongside his radio idols at U.S.O. shows, and by the time he returned home in 1946, Johnnie had decided to make music his life. Over the next few years, Johnnie honed his craft studying under the masters. After hearing T-Bone Walker in a Detroit club, he decided to move to Chicago, where the post-War blues scene was at it's height. Befriending and sitting in with legends like Muddy Waters, Memphis Slim and Little Walter sharpened Johnnie's skills. When he finally settled down in St. Louis in March of 1952, he formed a band--The Johnnie Johnson Trio--and soon thereafter procured a regular gig at one of the biggest night spots in town--the Cosmopolitan Club. Then fate stepped in. On New Year's Eve of 1952, Johnnie's saxophonist fell ill and was unable to make the show. Desperate for a replacement, Johnnie hired a fledgling guitarist named Chuck Berry to fill in for the night. Although he had only been playing professionally for six months, Berry had a gift for performance and a way with words that caught the attention of audiences. Johnnie decided to keep him on as a singer/guitarist, and for the next two years, The Johnnie Johnson Trio rocked the Cosmopolitan every weekend. In 1955, while still performing as The Johnnie Johnson Trio, Johnnie, Chuck Berry and Ebby Hardy traveled to Chicago and, along with Chess studio stalwart Willie Dixon, recorded ``Maybellene'' for Chess Records. The record was a hit and quickly reached number five on the charts. It was then that Berry approached his partner about taking over the band. Confident of Berry's business acumen, and yearning simply to ply his craft--the piano--Johnnie entrusted Berry with his band. And so it was that Johnnie became the silent partner in the first writing/ performing team in the history of rock and roll. Together, with Johnnie's musical inspiration and Berry's gift of poetry, they collaborated over the course of the next 20 years to create the songs that defined the genre, including ``Roll Over Beethoven,'' ``School Days,'' ``Back in the U.S.A.,'' ``Rock and Roll Music'' and ``Sweet Little Sixteen'' among many, many others. In fact, the song that may consider the ``national anthem'' of rock and roll--``Johnny B. Goode''--was a tribute written by Berry to his musical partner and collaborator--Johnnie Johnson. Johnnie and Berry performed and recorded together through the 1970s. However, as Berry's popularity grew, and he began traveling internationally, Johnnie elected to stay home in St. Louis. During this time, Johnnie also recorded with the legendary Albert King, for whom he contributed a great number of musical arrangements. But through it all--the birth of rock and roll with Chuck Berry and the inspired recordings with Albert King, Johnnie toiled largely unrecognized by the public. That is, until 1986, when Rolling Stones guitarist Keith Richards sought out Johnnie for the documentary Hail! Hail! Rock `n' Roll. Richards observed that many of Chuck Berry's songs were written in piano keys and that without Johnnie's melodies, the most influential songs in rock and roll history would be ``just a lot of words on paper.'' Moreover, Johnnie's performance during the film left no doubts as to his unequaled prowess at the keyboard. Since the film, Johnnie has begun to receive the public acclaim he so justly deserves. Widely recognized by the industry as the world's greatest living blues pianist, he has released six solo albums and contributed his considerable talent to recordings by John Lee Hooker, Eric Clapton, Buddy Guy, Bo Diddley and the late Jimmy Rogers. Johnnie Johnson has suffered for his art. Yet, through it all, he has never lost the gentle, self-effacing demeanor that causes everyone he meets to love him. He has no bitterness, no regrets. Equally at home playing in front of thousands, or in a tiny club with a local band, Johnnie plays for the sake of playing. ``All I want to do is play my piano,'' he says. ``I'm just glad that I have the chance to make people happy.'' I am honored, Mr. Speaker, to present to the 106th Congress, a man who has never lost touch with what it means to be a musician--the Father of Rock and Roll, Mr. Johnnie Johnson.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, as the Board of Directors of the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP) prepares to meet here in Washington, DC, I wish to call to the attention of all Members of Congress the many accomplishments of its President and Chairman of the Board, Marilyn Bergman. ASCAP, the organization Ms. Bergman now leads, is a membership association of over 80,000 composers, songwriters, lyricists and music publishers. ASCAP's function is to protect the rights of its members by licensing and paying royalties for the public performances of their copyrighted works. Marilyn Bergman is the first woman to be elected to ASCAP's Board of Directors. She brings to the leadership of ASCAP the unique experience of a creator, being herself an award-winning lyricist along with her husband, Alan Bergman. Among her many awards and honors, she has received three Academy Awards, three Emmy Awards, two Grammy Awards and one Cable Ace Award. In collaboration with her husband, Alan, Marilyn won Oscars in 1968, 1973 and 1984 for the songs, ``The Windmills of Your Mind,'' ``The Way We Were,'' and for the score for Yentl. Since their first Oscar nomination in 1968, they have been nominated sixteen times--for such songs as ``It Might Be You'' from Tootsie, ``How Do You Keep The Music Playing?'' from Best Friends, ``Papa, Can You Hear Me?'' and ``The Way He Makes Me Feel'' from Yentl and ``What Are You Doing the Rest of Your Life?'' from The Happy Ending. In 1996 they were nominated for both a Golden Globe and an Academy Award for their song ``Moonlight,'' performed by Sting, from Sydney Pollack film, Sabrina. ``The Windmills of Your Mind'' and ``The Way We Were'' also received Golden Globe awards and ``The Way We Were'' earned two Grammys. The three Emmys are for ``Sybil,'' ``Queen of the Stardust Ballroom'' and ``Ordinary Miracles.'' Among their principal collaborators are Michel Legrand, Marvin Hamlisch, Dave Grusin, Henry Mancini, Johnny Mandel, John Williams, Quincy Jones and James Newton Howard. Marilyn was inducted into the Songwriters Hall of Fame in 1980, and was a recipient of the Crystal Award from Women in Film in 1986. In 1995 she received a National Academy of Songwriters Lifetime Achievement Award. In 1996 Marilyn received the first Fiorello Lifetime Achievement Award from New York's LaGuardia High School of Music and Art and Performing Arts. In 1997, the Songwriters Hall of Fame honored Marilyn with their Johnny Mercer Award. Marilyn is a member of the Executive Committee of the Music Branch of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, a member of the National Academy of Songwriters and the Nashville Songwriters Association. Marilyn was the only creator to serve on the Advisory Council to the National Information Infrastructure (NII). She is a founder of the Hollywood Women's Political Committee and serves on the Board of Directors of the Streisand Foundation. Ms. Bergman served two terms (1994-1998) in a leadership capacity on behalf of songwriters on the world stage as President of CISAC, the International Confederation of Performing Right Societies. In 1996 she received France's highest cultural honor, Commander of the Order of Arts and Letters medal. In June of this year, she received a cultural Medal of Honor from SGAE, the Spanish performing rights organization. Ms. Bergman was a music major at New York's High School of Music and Art, going on to study Psychology and English at New York University. She has received Honorary Doctorate Degrees from Berklee College of Music in Boston Trinity College in Hartford, Conn.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. To the Members of the House, I have just listened to the very scathing critique of another colleague who supports the majority leader's position, but I rise to point out that this request is still $50 million short of last year's funding level. What we have here is still a reduction, even with the amendment skillfully put together by the gentleman from New York in a bipartisan way. Let me tell you that in Michigan, these Legal Service corporations do wonderful work. Wayne County Legal Service, headed by attorney Linda Bernard, has been working for years and years on a very important mission and does great work. They get rave reviews constantly. This request, even though short $50 million of last year's funding level, is still $90 million short of the administration's request, so I do not think we are doing anything as dramatic as one of the speakers indicated. Are we trying to punish the poor or deprive them from legal access? This amendment says restore funding. As it is written, we cannot help but notice that the bankruptcy reform that the majority supported, that the majority leader supported, gives big companies and powerful creditors even more power, and at the same time they impose dramatic cuts on Legal Services representation for the poor. What are we revealing about this Congress? Fortunately, I am told that most of the Members of the House and the other body support some modest improvements. So we have to remember that during last year's impeachment proceedings, it was the majority that clamored about ensuring equal access to justice and equal access to the courts. The cuts in this bill, however, only ensure unequal access to the court. Remember, the Legal Services Corporation is only representing some of the people that are eligible. It is not that everybody eligible for Legal Services that is getting them. We are still very much short of providing all of the work and representation they need. Now, these are not bureaucrats. Somebody referred to them as bureaucrats. These are members of the bar who have sacrificed in many ways, not just financially, but to work the long hard hours. I have visited some of these people. They work long hard hours on cases that will not bring them fame, certainly not fortune. So to merely pass them off as some kind of a government apparatus is really not doing fairness and demeans the whole concept of this organization. Happy birthday, Legal Services Corporation. You are 25 years old, and there are still people trying to beat your brains out. Perhaps you are doing too good a job to those who do not want the poor to be represented. But I am sure that there is a spirit larger than some of the language and debate that I am hearing here. So, despite repeated attempts to reduce Legal Services, and, from some people's point of view, let us face it, to kill Legal Services, to get rid of it entirely, we feel that there is strong support in both bodies for this Legal Services mission. Join us in this bipartisan effort to show that democracy can work in the Legal Services area. I commend all of the Members who have created this amendment, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ramstad), and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), and I think that they will be rewarded in the end. I urge the Members to support the Serrano-Ramstad-Delahunt amendment seeking funding for the Legal Services Corporation at the level of $250 million. This is a modest request that is still $90 million short of the Administration's request and $50 million short of last year's funding level. As it is written, this bill demonstrates the hypocrisy of the Majority's position. They use bankruptcy reform to give big companies and powerful creditors even more power, and, at the same time, they impose dramatic cuts on the Legal Services Corporation to take power away from those who have none. Moreover, during last Congress's impeachment proceedings, the Majority clamored about ensuring equal access to justice and equal access to the courts. The cuts in this bill, however, only ensure unequal access to justice. If the Majority truly is interested in empowering those who most need legal assistance, the powerless, it will support this modest increase in funding for the LSC. Only in March, Majority Members of the Judiciary Committee promised to hold a hearing on what level of funding the LSC should receive. Yet, here we are, 5 months later, and no such hearings have been held. Now, we are left debating the future of the LSC, at the last possible minute, on the House floor. We cannot allow the Majority to constrict the LSC until it can no longer function. Despite repeated attempts to reduce or kill legal services funding, we have learned that the full House and Senate are strongly supportive of the Legal Services mission, which is to assist non-profit organizations that provide legal services to individuals living in poverty. And the need for Legal Services continues to be overwhelming even though we live in a time of great economic prosperity. There are still 35 million Americans living below the poverty line and 10 million additional individuals with income below 125% of the poverty level. This means almost 1 in 5 Americans is eligible for LSC-funded services. If we increase funding for the Legal Services Corporation, we will enable it to address over 1.6 million issues annually involving critical legal problems for clients and their families, including employment disputes, individual rights, consumer fraud, and assistance to veterans suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. Nearly 30% of the requested increase is needed to provide a small cost of living adjustment, while the remaining 70% would fund initiatives to help victims of domestic violence and children, and to expand the use of technology to promote client self-help. I urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of this common sense amendment.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, what we are trying to do is suggest that there be a study, an impact study on the legislation if and when it is passed. I do not think that will hurt anybody pro or con. It should be very helpful to us, particularly on the Committee on the Judiciary, who will be looking at this matter across the years. This is not some fly-by- night provision. And it expedites time. We are working under 2 hours of amendments. The gentlewoman from California has an amendment she would like to put forward. It would save us a vote. I think that without a not taking effect for 90 days taken out of this, we are in a position to move forward expeditiously.

Mr. CONYERS. I was wondering over here on our side, if we strike out the not taking effect for 90 days and make this a straight study, would that meet the objections and then the approval of the leadership on that side?

Mr. CONYERS. Suppose we make it a study of the impact of this legislation assuming that it passes, so that there would be no taking of effect and it would have no negative implications.

Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the point of order that is made, and I simply want to make it clear that this is a completely different amendment that is being brought forward. What the gentlewoman is pointing out is that this is a subset of liquor violations, and some liquor violations result from gun violations. She is merely setting a different effective date for those violations. This is just empowering the States to enforce their own liquor laws, which sometimes involve gun laws. So this supports the principle purpose of the bill. It in no way is caught by germaneness. It is stopping the sale of alcohol in violation of State laws. It does this by allowing cases where firearms' use violate State alcohol laws to be heard immediately. She merely changes the date. So to argue the same nongermaneness arguments that were previously advanced fails to recognize that this is a substantially different amendment, and that it is clearly germane and is in accord with the precedence of the House. This amendment does nothing whatsoever to expand the scope of the bill. It merely deals with the effective date issue, and for that reason I urge that the point of order be rejected.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I wish the membership to know that there was a vote taken on the third reading. That has only occurred about 2 times in recent years. So this is a motion to recommit for which I will not ask a record vote, and then there will be a final passage vote, which may or may not be a record vote. Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit is simple. It merely provides for a study to ascertain the impact of the legislation. It does not limit the study to the impact on underage drinking or any other specific area, although the amendment of the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) originally did that. This will give the Congress the information we need to assess how the legislation is working so that we can determine any changes that might be needed in the bill in the future. As the bill passed the committee, I opposed it. I believed the bill had the potential to burden Internet providers, to discriminate against out-of-State winemakers, and to authorize discriminatory taxes. Many of these concerns were addressed in the Goodlatte-Conyers-Cox amendment, which passed. The acceptance of this motion to recommit will offer an additional modest improvement to the bill.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from California for yielding to me. I am glad the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Scarborough) realizes that this is perfectly orderly procedure. I wanted to just thank the gentlewoman for her persistence in trying to connect at a Federal level the relationship between gun safety, the shipment of firearms, and the shipment of alcoholic beverages. There is nothing illogical or irrational about it. They are both very related subject matter. The need for using these regulations and looking at them from this perspective of a Federally licensed firearm dealer and wine distributor or alcohol beverage distributor are related. I am glad that the gentlewoman has reformulated her amendment. I think it now attaches to this bill with a great rationality, and it is an amendment on its own that I support very strongly.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) for her insistence. Parliamentary Inquiry

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