John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield the balance of my time to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3626, which would reauthorize the Undetectable Firearms Act for 10 years. This statute's current authorization lasts only through December 9, and we must--at a minimum--extend the current protections. It is critical that we maintain the prohibition against the manufacture and possession of firearms that would escape detection by metal detectors or x-ray machines. We must take necessary steps to help protect ourselves from violent criminals and terrorists who may plan to target secure facilities such as airports, courthouses, government buildings, stadiums, schools, and hospitals, which use firearms detection equipment. While we must ensure the protections of the Undetectable Firearms Act do not lapse, we must also take up legislation as soon as possible to address a critical shortcoming in the statute. The law, as it currently exists, would allow the production of firearms whose detectability is provided by metal parts which may be easily removed without compromising the ability to fire. I support the efforts of Representative Steve Israel to modernize the statute to address this problem, and I urge consideration of his proposal as soon as possible. Because of the crisis of gun violence in our country, we must consider other important bills designed to protect public safety. We urgently need to expand the Brady background check system to guns sold at gun shows and through commercial advertisements. To do this, I call upon the House to pass H.R. 1565, the ``Public Safety and Second Amendment Rights Protection Act.'' We should do that at a minimum, but we also need to consider other bills such as those to help curb illegal gun trafficking and ban the sale of high-capacity ammunition magazines. We should also consider bills such as H.R. 1318, the Youth PROMISE Act, designed to promote proven crime prevention strategies. Instead, this House has ignored the daily toll of gun violence and refused to take action on this issue. While I urge my colleagues to vote today to extend the Undetectable Firearms Act, I also urge the House to not shrink from its responsibility to take on the other issues related to gun violence prevention.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Members of the House, I rise to speak about the negotiations under way in Geneva today between the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council plus Germany. Mr. Speaker, those negotiations have the potential to lead to a peaceful resolution to the standoff over Iran's nuclear program. If successful, these negotiations could put in place the restrictions and intrusive inspections needed to ensure that Iran's nuclear program is used exclusively for peaceful purposes. With a significant diplomatic breakthrough within reach, now is not the time to consider new sanctions which could derail the negotiations and strengthen the position of those in Iran who oppose a settlement with the United States.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about the healthcare benefits low-income residents of Michigan can now access because of the state's expansion of Medicaid. I strongly encourage my colleagues to ask their respective governors to take similar measures to expand Medicaid. In Michigan, this expansion will provide health insurance for thousands of Michiganders who need it most, while saving money and improving care for all of our citizens. In 2014 alone, 320,000 individuals will be able to access Medicaid benefits, and by 2021, 470,000 Michiganders will be covered--dropping Michigan's uninsured population by nearly 50 percent. Perhaps most beneficial is the fact that the state will actually save money since federal funds will cover 100 percent of the costs of this expansion for the first 3 years. Next year, the savings will be $206 million and much of these savings will be put in a fund to cover Michigan's future health care liabilities, meaning there will be no net cost to the state for the next 21 years. Further, this expansion will save the state $320 million in uncompensated care by 2022. This means tax savings for every single tax-paying Michigander, as they will no longer be responsible for paying the medical bill of uninsured individuals who used to seek services at expensive emergency room facilities. While many states are recognizing the irresistible benefits of Medicaid expansion, 25 states have yet to do so--apparently for ideological reasons. This summer, the Kaiser Family Foundation calculated that the Medicaid expansion would have twice the impact in the states that are leaning against expansion than those embracing it, exhibiting how incredibly positive it would be for those states to adopt expansion. If a state like my home of Michigan can recognize the benefits, I know others can as well. This is a common sense decision that will benefit every person, and even small businesses, in the states that have not yet expanded coverage. Mr. Speaker, I strongly encourage the 25 governors to see past the ideology and recognize the overwhelming benefit their constituents will reap by their actions to expand Medicaid.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today is opposition to H.R. 3350, the so-called ``Keep Your Health Plan Act of 2013.'' This bill is not a fix to the problems that have arisen because insurance companies are canceling plans that are insufficient to qualify under the new Affordable Care Act standards or are not viewed as economically viable and worth offering. Instead, this bill will raise premiums in insurance marketplaces and undermine the overall market reforms that Obamacare is designed to remedy. Yesterday, President Obama offered a better solution than this bill, to address these issues. As one of the few members that were here during the creation of Medicare, I remember first-hand the tactics used by those opposed to its creation. While this is a very different time and context in history, the vehemence of the opposition has its parallels. Let me remind you that Medicare was once described by George H.W. Bush as ``socialized medicine'' and Ronald Reagan once stated that, ``one of these days you and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it once was like in America when men were free.'' Today, Republicans have done little but resist and fear-monger in opposition to Obamacare's implementation. These conservatives see H.R. 3350 as ``a metaphorical bullet to the gut of Obamacare.'' James Capretta, a conservative health care policy expert at the Heritage Foundation and American Enterprise Institute, described it as having an ``end result that would be one more step toward fully reversing'' what he describes as the ``catastrophic mistake of Obamacare.'' And even Leader John Boehner has argued that it is part of a larger strategy to ``stop this law.'' Although, Medicare has issues that need to be addressed, it has dramatically improved access to health care for America's seniors, leading to longer and healthier lives, reducing poverty, desegregating southern hospitals, and becoming one of the most popular government programs. From my own political experience, I can safely say that once in place and allowed to operate as designed, Obamacare will have a similarly positive affect. Allowing H.R. 3350 to pass would be a step backward in the advances we have made in curbing healthcare costs and expanding access. The increase in grandfathered plans this bill allows would open the door to the cherry- picking by health insurance companies that Obamacare is designed to eliminate. Encouraging younger, healthier, and cheaper-to-cover-adults to withdrawal from the Marketplaces will cause premiums within the Marketplaces to substantially increase. The bill would also allow insurers to continue to offer plans that don't include essential health benefits, don't comply with the requirement banning annual caps on coverage, aren't subject to premium rate reviews to determine whether their premiums are reasonable, allow discrimination against people with pre-existing conditions, and force women to pay more than men for the same coverage. These are many of the past problems of the private insurance industry that Obamacare was specifically designed to correct. Further, it would cause major delays in the start of coverage because insurers would need to establish and file new rates to state insurance departments for review. This would impose major delays to Obamacare's implementation, which is the ultimate goal of this bill and the Republican agenda. Mr. Speaker, this is the 46th attempt by Republicans to vote to undermine and effectively repeal the Affordable Care Act. I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 3350, but in support of Rep. Millers' Motion to Recommit which legislates the President's position. I encourage all my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, on November 1st, thousands of families in my congressional district saw a cut to their SNAP (food stamps) benefits. A family of four saw a loss of up to $36 a month. Over the course of the next 12 months, many families across my district will lose more than 24 million meals. Michigan families are already struggling to put food on the table, and the last thing we should do is take food away from those who need it most. Unfortunately, this has already happened. There's no sugarcoating it: we have a hunger problem in Michigan and across the United States. The majority of households receiving SNAP are those with children. It is our responsibility to protect--not cut-- critical programs like SNAP for the families and kids who rely on them. That's why I introduced H.R. 3353, the ``Extend Not Cut SNAP Benefits Act'' which would extend the Recovery Act's 13.6% increase in SNAP for an additional year. This extraordinarily low level of SNAP benefits under the new levels will force families to find ways to stretch their already limited benefits even further at the grocery store in order to put healthy, nutritious food on the table for their kids. With less money to spend on groceries each month, the importance of nutrition education becomes even more real. Yet the House and Senate proposed deep cuts within the Farm Bill could cut SNAP by as much as an additional $40 billion (on top of the cut we just saw on November 1st) and would cut funding for SNAP Education (SNAP-Ed). Keeping SNAP and SNAP-Ed strong isn't just the right thing to do--it's also the smart thing to do. Children who get enough of the healthy food they need, as a rule, face fewer health problems, do better in school and grow up to lead stronger, more productive lives.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in opposition to H.R. 2655. I suggest that what we are doing here this afternoon will turn the clock back to a time when the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure discouraged civil rights cases, limited judicial discretion, and permitted satellite litigation to run wild. I repeat, we may turn the clock back to a time when the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure discouraged civil rights cases, limited judicial discretion, and permitted satellite litigation to run wild. And here is how it accomplishes it, by undoing the 1993 amendments to rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by: one, restricting judicial discretion; two, requiring mandatory sanctions for even unintentional violations; and three, eliminating the current rule's 21- day safe harbor provision, which has been so beneficial to our Federal court system. And so to put it as simply as possible, H.R. 2655 will have a disastrous impact on the administration of justice. Now, how would this bill chill legitimate civil rights litigation? Civil rights cases often concern novel issues which made them particularly susceptible to rule 11 before the 1993 amendments. I hope all the Members of this body appreciate how significant this is and the important history that was made during that earlier period of time. For example, a 1991 Federal Judicial Center study found that the incidence of rule 11 motions was ``higher in civil rights cases than in some other types of cases.'' Another study showed that, while civil rights cases comprised about 11 percent of Federal cases filed, more than 22 percent of the cases in which sanctions had been imposed were civil rights cases. This legislation will also substantially increase the amount, cost, and intensity of civil litigation and create more grounds for unnecessary delay and harassment in the courtroom. Experts in civil procedure are virtually unanimous on this point. By allowing rule 11 to be used as a tool to impose court costs on the other side, the 1983 version spawned a virtual cottage industry of rule 11 litigation. Each party had a financial incentive to tie up the other in rule 11 proceedings. Professor Theodore Eisenberg of Cornell University has demonstrated that roughly one-third of all Federal lawsuits were burdened by satellite litigation during the period when this prior version of the rule was in effect. Attorneys had a double duty, he argued: ``one to try the case, and the other to try the opposing counsel.'' In recognition of these problems, the Judicial Conference amended the rule in 1993 to its present form. And so we should realize that we have the support and appreciate the constructive assistance of many of these organizations: the American Bar Association, the Alliance for Justice, the Consumer Federation of America, the National Consumer Law Center, the National Consumers League, Public Citizen, and the United States Public Interest Research Group, among others. In addition, the legislation is opposed by the Judicial Conference of the United States, the principal policymaking body for the judicial branch charged with proposing amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure under the careful, deliberate process outlined in the Rules Enabling Act. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Judicial Conference of the United States, Washington, DC, July 23, 2013. Hon. John Conyers, Jr. Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC. Dear Representative Conyers: We write to present the views of the Judicial Conference Rules Committees on H.R. 2655, the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act of 2013. As the current chairs of the Judicial Conference's Committee on the Rules of Practice and Procedure (the ``Standing Rules Committee'') and the Advisory Committee on the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (the ``Advisory Committee''), we oppose H.R. 2655, which seeks to reduce lawsuit abuse by amending Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The bill would reinstate a mandatory sanctions provision of Rule 11 that was adopted in 1983 and eliminated in 1993. The bill would also eliminate a provision adopted in 1993 to allow a party to withdraw challenged pleadings on a voluntary basis, without the costs and delay to the challenging party of seeking and obtaining a court order. The concerns we express are the same concerns expressed by the Judicial Conference in 2004 and 2005, and by the Standing Rules Committee and Advisory Committee in 2011, when similar legislation was introduced. We greatly appreciate, and share, the desire to improve the civil justice system in our federal courts, including by reducing frivolous filings. But legislation that would restore the 1983 version of Rule 11 by undoing the 1993 amendments would create a ``cure'' far worse than the problem it is meant to solve. Such legislation also contravenes the longstanding Judicial Conference policy opposing direct amendment of the federal rules by legislation instead of through the careful, deliberate process Congress established in the Rules Enabling Act, 28 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 2071-2077. The 1993 changes followed years of examination and were made on the Judicial Conference's strong recommendation, with the Supreme Court's approval, and after congressional review. The 1983 provision for mandatory sanctions was eliminated because it did not provide meaningful relief from the litigation behavior it was meant to address, and instead generated wasteful satellite litigation that had little to do with the merits of cases and that added to the time and costs of litigation. The 1983 version of Rule 11 required sanctions for every violation of the rule. This mandatory sanctions provision quickly became a tool of abuse in civil litigation. Seeking to use mandatory sanctions to their advantage, aggressive lawyers filed motions for Rule 11 sanctions in response to virtually every filing in a civil case. Much time and money was spent in Rule 11 battles that had everything to do with strategic gamesmanship and little to do with underlying claims. Rule 11 motions came to be met with counter-motions that sought Rule 11 sanctions for making the original Rule 11 motion. The 1983 version of Rule 11 spawned thousands of court decisions unrelated to the merits of the cases, sowed discord in the bar, and generated widespread criticism. As letters from the Judicial Conference commenting on proposed legislation similar to H.R. 2655 pointed out, some of the serious problems caused by the 1983 amendments to Rule 11 included: 1. creating a significant incentive to file unmeritorious Rule 11 motions by providing a greater possibility of receiving money; 2. engendering potential conflicts of interest between clients and their lawyers; 3. exacerbating tensions between lawyers; and 4. providing a disincentive to abandon or withdraw a pleading or claim that lacked merit--thereby admitting error and risking sanctions--even after determining that it no longer was supportable in law or fact. The 1993 amendments to Rule 11 were designed to remedy the major problems with the rule, strike a fair balance between competing interests, and allow parties and courts to focus on the merits of the underlying cases rather than on Rule 11 motions. Since 1993, the rule has established a safe harbor, providing a party 21 days within which to withdraw a particular claim or defense before sanctions can be imposed. If the party fails to withdraw an allegedly frivolous claim or defense within the 21 days, a court may impose sanctions, including assessing reasonable attorney fees. The 1983 version of Rule 11 authorized a court to sanction discovery- related abuse under Rule 11, Rule 26(g), or Rule 37, which created confusion. Under the 1993 amendments to Rule 11, sanctioning of discovery-related abuse is limited to Rules 26 and 37, which provide for sanctions that include awards of reasonable attorney fees. The 1993 amendments to Rule 11 culminated a long, critical examination of the rule begun four years earlier. The Advisory Committee reviewed a significant number of empirical studies of the 1983 version of Rule 11, including three separate studies conducted by the Federal Judicial Center in 1985, 1988, and 1991, a Third Circuit Task Force report on Rule 11 in 1989, and a New York State Bar Committee report in 1987. After reviewing the literature and empirical studies of problems caused by the 1983 amendments to Rule 11, the Advisory Committee issued in 1990 a preliminary call for general comment on the operation and effect of the rule. The response was substantial and clearly called for a change in the rule. The Advisory Committee concluded that the cost-shifting in Rule 11 created an incentive for too many unnecessary Rule 11 motions. Amendments to Rule 11 were drafted by the Advisory Committee, approved by the Standing Rules Committee, and approved by the Judicial Conference. The Supreme Court promulgated and transmitted the amendments to Congress in May 1993 after extensive scrutiny and debate by the bench, bar, and public in accordance with the Rules Enabling Act process. Experience with the amended rule since 1993 has demonstrated a marked decline in Rule 11 satellite litigation without any noticeable increase in frivolous filings. In June 1995, the Federal Judicial Center conducted a survey of 1,130 lawyers and 148 judges on the effects of the 1993 Rule 11 amendments. About 580 attorneys and 120 judges responded. The Center found general satisfaction with the amended rule. It also found that a majority of the judges and lawyers did not favor a provision that would require mandatory sanctions when the rule is violated. In 2005, the Federal Judicial Center surveyed federal trial judges to get a clearer picture of how the revised Rule 11 was operating. A copy of the study is enclosed. The study showed that judges on the front lines--those who must contend with frivolous litigation and apply Rule 11--strongly believe that the current rule works well. The study's findings include the following highlights: More than 80 percent of the 278 district judges surveyed indicated that ``Rule 11 is needed and it is just right as it now stands''; 87 percent prefer the existing Rule 11 to the 1983 version or the version proposed by legislation (e.g., H.R. 4571 (the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act of 2004) or H.R. 420 (the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act of 2005)); 85 percent strongly or moderately support Rule 11's safe harbor provisions; 91 percent oppose the proposed requirement that sanctions be imposed for every Rule 11 violation; 84 percent disagree with the proposition that an award of attorney fees should be mandatory for every Rule 11 violation; 85 percent believe that the amount of groundless civil litigation has not grown since the promulgation of the 1993 rule (for judges commissioned before 1992) or since their first year as a federal district judge (for judges commissioned after January 1, 1992), with 12 percent noting that such litigation has not been a problem, 19 percent noting that such litigation decreased during their tenure on the federal bench, and 54 percent noting that such litigation has remained relatively constant; and 72 percent believe that addressing sanctions for discovery abuse in Rules 26(g) and 37 is better than in Rule 11. The findings of the Federal Judicial Center underscore the judiciary's united opposition to legislation amending Rule 11. Lawyers share this view. In 2005, the American Bar Association issued a resolution opposing a proposed bill similar to H.R. 2655. Minimizing frivolous filings is, of course, vital. But there is no need to reinstate the 1983 version of Rule 11 to work toward this goal. Judges have many tools available to respond to, and deter, frivolous pleadings. Those tools include 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915(e), which requires courts to dismiss cases brought in forma pauperis that the court determines are frivolous or malicious or fail to state a claim, and 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915A, which requires courts to dismiss prisoner complaints against governmental entities, officers, or employees that are frivolous, malicious, or fail to state a claim. Rule 12(b)(6) authorizes courts to dismiss pleadings that fail to state a claim on which relief can be granted. Section 1927 of Title 28 of the United States Code authorizes sanctions against lawyers for ``unreasonably and vexatiously'' multiplying the proceedings in any case. And the present version of Rule 11 itself provides an effective, balanced tool, without the problems and satellite litigation the 1983 version created. In May 2010, the Advisory Committee held a major conference on civil litigation, examining the problems of costs and delay--which encompass frivolous filings--and potential ways to improve the system. The Conference encouraged, and generated, a broad spectrum of criticisms by lawyers, litigants (including businesses and governmental entities), judges, and academics of the current approaches to federal civil cases, including the rules, and proposals for change. Conspicuous in their absence were any criticism of Rule 11 or any proposal to restore the 1983 version of the rule. Three years after the Conference, the Advisory Committee and Standing Rules Committee have approved publication of rules amendments designed to respond to suggestions made at the Conference on new means of reducing cost and delay in civil litigation and enhancing practical access to the federal courts. These three years of intense work did not find any reason to consider Rule 11 amendments. Undoing the 1993 Rule 11 amendments would frustrate the purpose and intent of the Rules Enabling Act. Congress designed the Rules Enabling Act process in 1934 and reformed it in 1988 to produce the best rules possible by ensuring broad public participation and thorough review by the bench, the bar, and the academy. The Act charges the judiciary with the task of neutral, independent, and thorough analysis of the rules and their operation. The Rules Committees are dedicated to extensive study and analysis of the rules, including empirical research, so that they can propose rules that will best serve the American justice system and will not produce unintended consequences. Experience has shown that this process works well. In summary, experience, research, and thoughtful deliberation have shown that there is no need to reinstate the 1983 version of Rule 11 that proved contentious and costly to litigants and diverted so much time and energy of the bar and bench. Doing so would add to, not improve, the problems of costs and delay that we are working to address. We urge you on behalf of the Rules Committees to not adopt the proposed legislation amending Rule 11. Thank you for considering the Rules Committees' views. We look forward to continuing to work together to ensure that our civil justice system is working well to fulfill its vital role. If you or your staff have any questions, please contact Benjamin Robinson, Deputy Rules Officer and Counsel, at 202- 502-1820. Sincerely, Jeffrey S. Sutton, U.S. Circuit Judge, Chair, Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure. David G. Campbell, U.S. District Judge, Chair, Advisory Committee on Civil Rules.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased now to yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), a senior member of the House Judiciary Committee.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I am now pleased to yield as much time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Houston, Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), a senior active member of the House Judiciary Committee.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure now to yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Cartwright).

Mr. CONYERS. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida, Ted Deutch, a very effective member of the House Judiciary Committee.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Ladies and gentlemen, as we see now, the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act will turn back the clock to a time when the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure discouraged civil rights cases and permitted satellite litigation to run wild. I want to point out, in closing, that this is now the second day this week that the House is considering legislation aimed at solving a nonexistent problem that has little or no chance of seeing the light of day in the other body and is solely aimed at limiting access to justice for victims of egregious harms. Just as I asked yesterday, who actually supports this legislation? Why are we putting their interests ahead of victims'? And why are we engaged in this charade when there are real problems facing our Nation that our constituents are still waiting for us to address? With just 13 legislative days left this year, we still haven't considered immigration reform. We haven't passed a budget. We haven't considered a single piece of legislation that will create jobs and put America back to work. So really, whose interest is this House concerned with today? I urge my colleagues, oppose this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Members of the House, we are confronted with a very simple proposition today. What we have here is a piece of legislation that seeks to address a nonexistent problem and is strongly opposed by asbestos victims, the trusts charged with administering compensation to victims, privacy advocates, consumer groups, labor organizations, and legal representatives of future claimants. I will point out that I have one of the longest lists of organizational opposition that I have seen in a long time, more than 11 organizations, starting with the Asbestos Cancer Victims' Rights Campaign and then going to the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization, the AFL-CIO, the United Steelworkers, AFSCME, Public Citizen, the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, the Environmental Working Group, the Alliance for Justice, the American Association for Justice, and many others. What we are doing here is beginning this debate by asking who actually supports this bill and why are their interests being put ahead of asbestos victims. To begin with, the bill's reporting and disclosure requirements are an assault against asbestos victims' privacy interests. The bill mandates that the trusts publicly report information on the claimants that could include their name, address, work history, income, medical information, exposure history, as well as the basis of any payment that the trust made to the claimant. Given the fact that all this information would potentially be available on the Internet, just imagine what insurance companies, potential employers, prospective lenders, and data collectors could do with this private information. Essentially, what this bill does is allow asbestos victims to be re- victimized by exposing their health information to the public, including those who seek information for illegal purposes. And so I ask all of the thoughtful Members of this body to join me in strongly and vigorously opposing the measure before us today. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute to thank my good friend, Spencer Bachus, a distinguished member of the Judiciary Committee, for participating here on the floor with me. I want him to know that the privacy part of his remarks are not too relevant at this point because this bill allows the name, the disease, and all related facts to be published. It can be picked up by the Internet; and so assurances of privacy are of little usefulness here. I am so glad to know that Mrs. Sue Vento, the widow of our former colleague, Bruce Vento, is here with us in the gallery. She has been working along with us in strongly opposing H.R. 982. Mr. Chairman, I am proud now to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutch), a distinguished member of the committee.

Mr. CONYERS. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased now to yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from Houston, Texas, (Ms. Jackson Lee), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. CONYERS. I yield the gentlelady an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Atlanta, Georgia, Hank Johnson, and I would indicate his very deep concern for asbestos cancer victims.

Mr. CONYERS. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee, Steve Cohen, a distinguished member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).