John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the Democracy Restoration Act of 2009. This legislation will serve to clarify and expand voting rights, as well as assist former felons with their reintegration into our democracy. The Sentencing Project reports that, since 1997, 19 states have amended felony disenfranchisement policies in an effort to reduce their restrictiveness and expand voter eligibility. These reforms have resulted in more than 760,00 citizens regaining their voting rights. Yet, despite these reforms, an estimated 5 million people continue to be ineligible to vote in Federal elections, including nearly 4 million who reside in the 35 states that still prohibit some combination of persons on probation, parole, and/or people who have completed their sentence from voting. I believe that there are three grave discrepancies in State laws regarding felony convictions that lead to unfairness in Federal elections. First, there is no uniform standard for voting in Federal elections, which leads to an egregious disparity and unequal participation in Federal elections based solely on where a person lives. Second, laws governing the restoration of voting rights after a felony conviction are unequal throughout the country and persons in some States can easily regain their voting rights while in other States persons effectively lose their right to vote permanently. Third, State disenfranchisement laws disproportionately impact ethnic minorities, thus adversely infringing upon citizens of these communities constitutional right to vote. These concerns about ex-offender disenfranchisement are not rhetorical. In the past two election cycles, flawed voter purges have deprived thousands of legitimate voters of their rights. For example, an erroneous interpretation of state law by the Ohio Secretary of State deprived thousands of ex-felons in that state of even the right to register. Only Federal law can conclusively resolve the ambiguities in this area plaguing our voting system. Like the States, Congress has recognized the need to address the barriers to full citizenship faced by ex-offenders. Last Congress, President Bush signed the Second Chance Act into law, signaling a greater awareness of the need to implement policies to aid the reintegration of our ex-felon community. This voting legislation is the next step in restoring the ex-felon community to full citizenship. Denying voting rights to ex-offenders robs them of the opportunity to fully participate and contribute to their society. Disenfranchisement laws isolate and alienate ex-offenders, and have been shown to serve as one more obstacle in their attempt to successfully reintegrate into society. Moreover, these obstacles adversely impact the voting participation of their families, further undermining the effectiveness of our voting system. This legislation is a narrowly crafted effort to expand voting rights for ex-felons, while protecting State prerogatives to generally establish voting qualifications. This legislation would only apply to persons who have been released from prison, and it would only apply to Federal elections. Consequently, the bill is fully consistent with Constitutional requirements established by the Supreme Court in a series of decisions upholding Federal voting rights laws. In past Congresses, voting restoration legislation has been supported by a broad coalition of groups interested in voting and civil rights, including the NAACP, ACLU, the National Council of Churches (National and Washington Office), the National Urban League, the Human Rights Watch and the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights, among many others. The practice of many states denying voting rights to former felons represents a vestige from a time when suffrage was denied to whole classes of our population based on race, gender, religion, national origin, and property. Ex-felons who have been lawfully released from prisons have paid their debts to society. To continue denying them the ability to reclaim rights as citizens resurrects historic unenlightened practices of our society. Ultimately, I believe that we fail not only ex-offenders by denying them the right to vote, but the rest of a society that has struggled throughout its history to be legitimate and inclusive. Just like poll taxes and literacy tests, it is long past time that these restrictions be relegated to unenlightened history.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Would the distinguished gentleman yield to me?

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Mr. Ellison, and to our colleague and friend, Steve King, who is also on the floor enjoying the proceedings. I came down merely to let you know how much I admire and respect your determination to make sure that every American can listen and learn about the importance of health care, the issues as you see them developing, and what it means for all of us to come up with the best possible result that we can. The 44th President of the United States brought his case to the public last night, a brilliant explanation, very persuasive, very intellectual, and then he answered more than a dozen questions from the press. It was very instructive. I was moved by that last night, and I'm moved by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison) this night as well, because what you're doing is so very, very important. I get calls in my office, and I have the unique tendency to answer my own phone. And people are very surprised when I answer the phone and they're telling me what to tell the Congressman, and I explain to them who I am, and they're pleased and flattered by that. But a lot of those calls are about health care. Some of them are very moving, like some of the stories that you've related here tonight. Other people are not happy about health care, and some hope that we don't come up with a bill, a few. But most people realize that this struggle has been going on for 30, 40, 50 years. Harry Truman began talking about universal health care, and then Lyndon Johnson was able to come through with Medicare. And in respect to Harry Truman's determination, although unsuccessful, he went to the Harry Truman Library in Missouri to sign the Medicare bill. There's a rich history, a legacy about how we've gone through these different changes. And now the President, after only a few months, calls us together in the White House at a White House summit to declare his determination to do more about this system--we call it a system. It's a broken-down, nonworking system--about health care. And so it's so interesting to study what all of our Presidents, what our leaders have done and why it's so important when we think of the millions and millions of people that don't have health care. I'm going to say something here tonight that, to me, I want to put in perspective the issues. The plan, as I understand it, that's being proposed does not relieve everybody of the threat of not having health care. It is not a universal system. Let's put these things on the table. I am for a universal system of health care. I've worked with doctors, medical scholars, nurses for years now, and they say that that's the only way we're going to reduce costs. And for anybody that's talking about--it's bad enough that we don't have single-payer health care involved in this, except for the tremendous efforts of the gentleman from Ohio, Dennis Kucinich, who's got it in one of the committee's bills that would allow States to develop health care if they chose an option. But we don't even know what the public option is finally going to be. There are those that don't even want to give the opportunity of Americans to choose between their health care plans, and the controls of the insurance industry have been legendary. It's been written, spoken about, people's own experience. And then if I hear anybody talk about the government controlling medicine, it's the health insurance companies that are controlling medicine, not the doctor. So I just want to listen, take in the wisdom that you have brought to this body and enjoy this discussion. I hope any other of our colleagues that want to join in this can participate as well if they choose, and I'm just so proud you're doing it tonight and that I can just add my comments to this decision of yours to once again take out a Special Order to discuss this subject.

Mr. CONYERS. Well, improving our health care system is the most single fundamental domestic issue that we can deal with. The second most important is creating a full employment society. And both go together, because if you've got your health and don't have any employment, I don't know if you're in worse shape than a person who has employment and doesn't have any availability for health care. They're both fundamental rights that are inherent in a constitutional system of democracy, and we've been working on this so for long. I remember when the First Lady then, Hillary Rodham Clinton, called us into the White House and asked us to hold back on our push for universal single-payer health care when her husband became President, because she, with Ira Magaziner, was going to work on health care reform. We did. We met. I remember and said, look, we should honor her request. There had never been a First Lady in the White House designated by the President to work on an issue this momentous, and so we pulled back. It did not succeed. It wasn't her fault. She had no way of estimating how powerful the corporate medical sources in health care were and that were determined not to make this universal or to make any changes at all. And so this, to me, is one of the highest issues that all of us in the Congress can repair to, and I'm so proud that we now have a total of 85 Members of the House now on H.R. 676. I'm proud that we have it in the health care reform as an option for States so that we can overcome some of the restrictions that will be relieved through the Kucinich amendment to allow States that want to begin this global experiment. That's how it started in Canada. It was a province in Canada that first passed it, and then another, and yet another. And of course, Canadians are overwhelmingly, extremely proud of the system that they have. No, it's not perfect, but very few things in this life are. They're working on it, and we're not copying it. We're looking at health care systems from around the world, everywhere, all countries that have them and the problems in countries that don't have them, and so this is an exciting global setting. I was even in China not too long ago examining their system, which sometimes they're very efficient, and in other places, they don't exist at all. But we're putting the study together so that the plan that we create is an American plan, created by us, benefiting from all the improvements and problems of other countries that have universal health care systems. And so even though my primary concerns are the Judiciary Committee issues, some of which tie into health care, the bankruptcies caused by health care are in our committee, and now we're having hearings on medical bankruptcies next week in the Judiciary Committee, and I know my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will no doubt attend these hearings. And so there's a relationship. There's a relationship in creating a full employment program. I will be talking to some of the Caucus members tomorrow morning about unemployment and the importance that we sever the link between unemployment and health care, because what has happened in Detroit is that, as the plants are closed and people laid off and no longer have employment, guess what? They no longer have health care either. So the relationship of employment-based health care to unemployment is profound, and a person without employment needs health care guaranteed and assured, needs health care, whether he's working or not. He needs it even perhaps more than when he is working. And so as the unemployment continues unfortunately to rise, more and more people who once enjoyed health care from the employer-based system don't have it anymore.

Mr. CONYERS. I think a distinct relationship, and there are many people that have told me--and I'd like to compare it with your experience and our colleagues'. There are those who have said, first of all, they're disappointed that a single-payer system, which is the most popular in the country and has the most numerous supporters in the Congress of any other plan, did not get more consideration. But they said, well, at least we ought to have a strong public option at a minimum, and so, yes, there is a relationship between those who still seek a single-payer system who demand that there be a public option. Unfortunately, there are some of our colleagues who are still not persuaded that we need a public option even. There are reservations in the other body. And so it still remains to be seen what is really going to happen in that regard.

Mr. CONYERS. Well, it's clear that many in the insurance field-- remember, there are over 1,200 or 1,300 different insurance policies for health care, dozens and dozens of companies writing their own policies and plans, creating huge administrative overhead for doctors who are practicing, who frequently have to hire more and more administrative people just to sort through all of the policies of patients that come to visit them. So they don't want competition. They don't want a free market. They want a market in which the ones that have the business and have been in it for a long time don't have to share it with anybody. And they certainly don't want to have to face the competition of an effective public option, which almost surely would be less expensive and perhaps more efficient than most of the private insurance systems. Why? Because they won't have the advertising costs, the overhead costs, the administrative costs--all of these things that burden and raise the cost of private insurance. The same way with Medicare. Medicare costs have an overhead of 3 percent. In the private sector, the insurance policies run 10, 15, 17 percent or more in cost. All the advertising we see, at least in my area, these huge billboards, Come to this hospital because we're better at this particular health service. Another hospital, Come to this hospital; we're specialists in this particular service. And so on. MRI equipment, the overuse of equipment. And doctors tell me if they're in a hospital and another hospital nearby gets new MRI equipment, they have to go get it to compete with theirs, and they don't really need it, but they want to have state-of-the-art, the latest thing. And so this fee-for-services notion keeps raising the cost of health care. Many of the people that complain about these costs don't realize that the public option will almost surely lower the cost of health care.

Mr. CONYERS. The answer is yes. No question about it. This is what the goal of health care reform is about, to lower the costs, which, by the way, each year the costs keep increasing and we have to find ways to deal with it. There are other reasons that costs go up. We have got to tackle this on a realistic basis. This isn't about emotions or whether a capitalist system is being challenged or not. We have plenty of examples in which--your highway systems aren't run by different companies, your water systems, your electricity. Health care is a matter of having it available to every citizen, regardless of their ability to pay. Of course, many of the people that end up in bankruptcy, they had health insurance. They didn't know that what they needed it for wasn't covered by the health insurance that they have. And so, for me, it's been such an interesting field of endeavor to meet and talk with these really wonderful doctors in different parts of the country, at the medical schools, and to have made their acquaintance and then to learn of all the innumerable citizens who are so grateful to us for dealing with their problems. By the way, this isn't some kind of circumstance that applies in rural areas as opposed to urban areas or in conservative areas as compared to liberal areas. These people are in the same fix all across the country in every one of the congressional districts. I yield.

Mr. CONYERS. Not on your life. We're all experiencing much the same thing. I had hearings around the country on this subject. And I remember going to the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. Our good colleague, the gentleman from Michigan, Bart Stupak, had invited me up there for hearings. I thought the urban areas were in trouble. I got a lesson. The rural areas were in even more difficulty in some respects. Let me explain what I mean. They were of the opinion that they couldn't get doctors or nurses to come up there to serve their population. I remember their telling me about one doctor whose wife had said, At the end of this year, I'm leaving. I'm going back. I just don't fit in here. I'm not comfortable. And there are people that would love to be in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. It's beautiful. I have people rhapsodic about the beauty of the outdoors. But this wasn't for her. This was the only doctor. They were begging the doctor not to leave, and his wife. They knew if she left, he would leave, too. They were flying people from upper Michigan to Wisconsin because they didn't have any way to serve people who needed serious hospital treatment. So we find that in Minnesota, up there at the Canadian-Michigan border, in that State, I remember distinctly talking with farmers who called their health insurance agents and said, Please. I'm a successful farmer. Please come out and help me get insurance. I remember distinctly this one farmer said, The insurance agent said you don't want me to come out to quote you a price because I know you can't afford it. We don't even want to bother even trying to sell you insurance because I don't care how successful a farmer you are, because with you and your family, you won't be able to afford it, so we don't even need to try to sell you the policy. There are all sorts of circumstances going on that I learn of as I accept invitations around the country to meet with health care experts in hospitals, in medical schools, in town hall meetings where people are trying to get some relief from this terrible fact that originally 37 but now 50 million people are without any insurance at all. And more people who are losing their jobs end up going into that column as well.

Mr. CONYERS. Well, exorbitant salaries to the chief executives and the managers of the company, as you imply, runs into millions of dollars annually, and many of them are the precise people who, through their lobbyists on K Street, are fighting any kind of serious health care reform. It's not a pretty picture.

Mr. CONYERS. Well, there is a relationship, and that's what makes it so difficult for us to come to a conclusion and to do something about this. Notwithstanding the great intellect of the President and his determination to correct the situation, there are people that put profits before health care. I'm sorry that that's the case, but that's what it really comes down to.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. If the gentleman will yield, I haven't read it yet. But I will be reviewing it tomorrow and I will be prepared to discuss this with him next week.

Mr. CONYERS. Not until I've examined the document the gentleman has referred to.

Mr. CONYERS. Well, I haven't seen the report that you've reviewed. But I will be happy to look at it next week. We're in dialogue. We see each other every day that we're in session. I will be delighted to discuss it with you.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, on July 20, 2009, I was called away on personal business, I regret that I was not present to vote on the Journal Vote, H. Res. 607, and H.R. 2245. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on all votes.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, Ranking Member Lamar Smith and I are introducing a bill to codify into positive law as title 51, United States Code, certain general and permanent laws related to national and commercial space programs. This bill was prepared by the Office of the Law Revision Counsel, as part of its ongoing responsibility under 2 U.S.C. 285b to prepare, and submit to the Committee on the Judiciary one title at a time, a complete compilation, restatement, and revision of the general and permanent laws of the United States. The new positive law title replaces the existing provisions, which are repealed by the bill. The bill is not intended to make any substantive changes in the law. As is typical with the codification process, a number of non-substantive revisions are made, including the reorganization of sections into a more coherent overall structure, but these changes are not intended to have any substantive effect. This bill is substantially identical to H.R. 4780, which Lamar Smith and I introduced in the last Congress, on December 18, 2007, with a few revisions to respond to comments received. As there has already been significant opportunity for public review and comment, the Committee intends to move expeditiously to consider the bill after the House returns from its August recess. The bill, along with a detailed section-by-section explanation of the bill, can be found on the Law Revision Counsel website at http:// uscode.house.gov/cod. Interested parties are invited to submit comments to Rob Sukol, Assistant Counsel, Office of the Law Revision Counsel, U.S. House of Representatives, H2-304 Ford House Office Building, Washington, DC, 20515-6711, (202) 226-2411, as well as to the Committee.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chair, today, I rise in opposition to Representative Flake's amendment, which would reduce funding for the Consortium for Plant Biotechnology Research by $1 million. This project, which provides grants to universities for plant-based biotechnology research to promote a cleaner environment, has bipartisan and multiregional support. Funding for the Consortium for Plant Biotechnology Research helps promote goals set out by this Congress: higher education, job training and environmental protection. A non-profit corporation based in Georgia, CPBR has partnered with researchers and students in universities located in 32 states across the country to develop biotechnology and renewable energy, biofuels and ``green'' chemicals that can be used in place of ones that are harmful to the environment. CPBR has been a pioneer in using plants and plant-based materials as affordable and environmentally safer alternatives to fossil fuels. CPBR is an example of what a public-private partnership should look like. Federal funding is matched, on average, with 130% of non-federal funds, allowing for $2.30 worth of research to be done for every dollar appropriated by Congress. The vast majority of the project funding, 92%, will go to research projects. In my own District, the University of Michigan at Dearborn received funding from CPBR and the Ford Motor Company which allowed Professor John Thomas and his students to research safer methods of cleaning up toxic waste. They were examining whether plants could be used to extract harmful contaminants from the soil. Important research like this is being done in universities all across the country because of collaboration between CPBR, the federal government, and private companies. In addition to invaluable information gained from this research, a new generation of environmental students and engineers is being exposed to cutting edge technology. CPBR also has a history of working with predominately African American institutions like Tuskegee University and Albany State. These partnerships provide exciting opportunities for minority students who are traditionally underrepresented in the environmental science and research fields. Innovation from these projects can lead to new, high-paying jobs. As of September, CPBR research had led to 129 patents granted and 5 start- up companies. Additionally, students that have participated in this research have gained experience that makes them more competitive applicants when they seek high tech jobs after they graduate. I am pleased to support the Consortium for Plant Biotechnology Research and its vital mission of providing universities and private industry the tools to collaborate to allow for vital environmental research. I encourage my colleagues to oppose Mr. Flake's amendment.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, on July 14, 2009, I was not present and therefore missed the following votes: On the passage of H. Res. 612, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.'' On the passage of H. Res. 469, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.'' On the passage of H.R. 1037, had I been present I would have voted ``yea.'' On the passage of H.R. 402, had I been present I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, this evening, I was called away on personal business. I regret that I was not present to vote on the motion to adjourn for the day. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.'' Accordingly (at 7 o'clock and 2 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, July 14, 2009, at 10:30 a.m., for morning-hour debate.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, more than 200 years ago, on September 18, 1793, our Nation broke ground for what would become our home to democracy--the United States Capitol. At this time in our Nation's history, however, democracy and freedom were not enjoyed by all Americans. Ironically, it was those who were disenfranchised--enslaved African Americans--who helped construct our symbol of democracy, the Capitol. I commend my colleague, the gentleman from Georgia, John Lewis, for introducing this bipartisan resolution acknowledging this fact. Specifically, the resolution ``directs the Architect of the Capitol to place a marker in Emancipation Hall in the Capitol Visitor Center which acknowledges the role that slave labor played in the construction of the United States Capitol.'' There are at least three reasons why this resolution is necessary. First, the history of the United States Capitol would not be accurate without recognizing that enslaved African Americans played an integral role in building the Capitol. For example, the Capitol's architects negotiated with slave owners with respect to hiring out their slaves. Although the Architect of the Capitol states that ``[n]o one will ever know how many slaves helped to build the United States Capitol Building,'' it is estimated that at least several hundred were involved in the construction. These slaves skillfully toiled as carpenters, sawyers, blacksmiths, brickmakers, and bricklayers. They were responsible for quarrying stone and then hauling it to the work site. Notably, an enslaved African American--Philip Reid--helped cast the Statue of Freedom, which was placed on top of the Capitol Dome during the Civil War on December 2, 1863. Second, given the significant contributions of enslaved African Americans in the building of the U.S. Capitol, a marker in Emancipation Hall is an appropriate tribute to such efforts. The marker was recommended by the Slave Labor Task Force Working Group, which also recommended designating the great hall of the Capitol Visitor Center as Emancipation Hall. This marker, which is to include stone quarried by these slaves, will ensure that this part of the story of the Capitol's construction is told. When visitors stand in Emancipation Hall and view the commemorative marker, they will be reminded of the significant role that slaves played in the construction of the U.S. Capitol, thereby ensuring that the legacy of these slaves will live on. Finally, by acknowledging that enslaved African Americans played a major role in building the Nation's Capitol, we recommit ourselves to the pursuit of freedom and democracy for all Americans. We recognize that, even today, there are some who have yet to realize all of the rights and privileges that are afforded through our Constitution and laws. Prejudice, discrimination, and inequities remain a reality. However, by paying tribute to those enslaved African Americans who built our Nation's Capitol, we understand that freedom and democracy are constantly evolving. We recognize that we can commit ourselves to the advancement of these principles, knowing that those who toiled and labored in the very building that we stand in today, could not enjoy freedom and democracy for themselves.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2454, ``The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009,'' because, as a nation, we simply cannot afford to delay addressing the cataclysmic economic, national security, and environmental threats posed by global climate change any longer. Although imperfect, this piece of legislation is a necessary precondition for crafting a global solution to climate change. With this vote today, the United States reclaims the mantle of world leadership in addressing the single most important issue facing the planet. The opponents of this legislation will argue that we are taxing away our economic prosperity and our jobs. This could not be further from the truth. For 22- to 30-cents a day, less than the cost of a stamp, this bill will transform our economy by investing in new energy technologies that will create whole new industries and millions of jobs. All together, this legislation will create 1.7 million new jobs, 53,816 of which will be located in my home State of Michigan. This bill isn't a job killer. In fact, it will unleash a flood of jobs created by a mean, lean, and innovative energy sector. This bill also furthers other important national priorities. If enacted, this bill would finally break the chokehold the OPEC cartel has over our energy security, provide a lifetime of clean air for our children and their children, and prevent the threats of environmental catastrophes like hurricanes, draughts, and famines. We must consider the costs of inaction. During the Bush-Cheney years, our dependence on foreign oil increased, average household energy costs went up $1,100, and job growth slowed to a crawl. Throughout this time, the threat of climate change multiplied as the administration ignored reality and the scientific community and turned a blind eye to the plight of future generations. Although this is not the bill I would have written, the costs of inaction are simply too great to ignore. A vote for this bill is a vote for jobs at home, energy independence, and a livable world for all.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, I was present at a two-hour meeting at the White House with the President of the United States. As such, I was unfortunately not able to be present for the following votes: On the inclusion of the McGovern/Jones/Pingree Amendment. Had I been present, I would have voted ``Aye.'' On the inclusion of the McGovern/Sestak Amendment. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.'' On the inclusion of the Franks Amendment. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.'' On the inclusion of the Akin/Forbes Amendment. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.'' On the inclusion of the Holt Amendment. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.'' On the inclusion of the Connolly Amendment. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.'' On the motion to recommit H.R. 2647. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.'' On final passage of H.R. 2647. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, on June 23, 2009, I was called away on personal business. I regret that I was not present for the following votes: On the passage of S. 407, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.'' On the passage of H.R. 1016, as amended, had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.'' On the passage of H.R. 1211, as amended, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.'' On the passage of H.R. 1172, as amended, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.'' On the passage of concurring on a Senate amendment to H.R. 1777, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Judiciary, I call up House Resolution 520 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.

Mr. CONYERS. I yield 30 minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, Lamar Smith of Texas, and ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to control the time on his side for purposes of debate.