John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, today I notified Speaker Ryan, Leader Pelosi and Governor Snyder of my retirement from the United States House of Representatives. It has been a privilege and an honor to serve the citizens of Detroit, Michigan as their United States Congressman in the 13th and 14th Congressional District for more than 50 years. I came to Congress in 1965. Since then, I have devoted my entire career to improving the lives of my constituents in Detroit and fighting for justice everywhere. These years witnessed a profound evolution in civil rights, led by millions in the streets who marched for justice, and people of conscience in the Congress--both Democrats and Republicans--who heard them and enacted the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act and other landmark reforms. I have been at the forefront of the civil rights movement, I have been a champion of justice for the oppressed and the disenfranchised. I have never wavered in my commitment to justice and democracy. I am proud to have been part of that rich history. I have been privileged to be a founder of the Congressional Black Caucus and to represent the United States Congress as Dean. I spearheaded and passed the Martin Luther King, Jr. Holiday Act, the Violence Against Women Act, the Hate Crimes Act, the USA Freedom Act, and the extensions of the Voting Rights Act into law. I have led the fight against mandatory minimum sentences, hoping to reverse the devastating incarceration rates for African Americans and poor people, I have tried to pass a universal healthcare law (H.R. 676) every Congress since 1989. I have introduced H.R. 40 to study reparations for slavery, and I deeply appreciate those handful of courageous colleagues who have joined me. For Detroiters, I am proud of what we have been able to accomplish by bringing hundreds of millions of dollars in critical grants and federal funding to Southeast Michigan to revitalize our great city, attract rich talent, and return us to prosperity. I vehemently deny any and all allegations of harassment or dishonor, but I recognize that in this present environment, due process will not be afforded to me. I was taught by a great woman, my mother, to honor women. The first employee I ever hired was Mrs. Rosa Parks, who worked in my office for 22 years. It has been a great honor to work alongside some of the most talented and honorable staff on Capitol Hill and in Detroit, both women and men. Given the totality of the circumstance of not being afforded the right to due process, in conjunction with my current health condition, and to preserve my legacy and good name, I am retiring. I hope that my retirement will be viewed in the larger perspective of my record of service, and as I enter a new chapter, I pledge to continue my commitment to a progressive vision and a better future for this country that I love. I owe that to the legacy of my father, John Conyers, Sr., who integrated labor unions in this country; to my brother Nathan, who integrated business and is my ``main man'' and to my loving wife Monica, my sons John III, whom I believe offers hope to this generation of leadership, and who is committed to being an advocate of fairness and justice for all, and Carl Edward who never leaves my side. I cannot allow the great work of this body or the important work or the goals of the Democratic Party to be distracted. It has been the greatest honor and privilege of my life to represent the people of Michigan in the House of Representatives, but that responsibility will now fall to my colleagues and my successor. They have my deepest support and prayers. Jobs, Justice, Peace.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, although H.R. 469 has many flaws, I am particularly concerned that the bill's broad and ill-defined requirements would effectively delay and possibly deter civil enforcement agencies from providing general relief in discrimination cases, discourage courts from enforcing these settlements, and also invite costly and needless litigation. In response to this problem, my amendment would simply exclude from the bill's burdensome requirements settlement agreements and consent decrees intended to remediate generalized harms in civil rights cases. Mr. Chairman, this is a commonsense amendment, and I urge my colleagues here to support it. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would exempt from H.R. 469 settlement agreements and consent decrees intended to prevent discrimination based on race, religion, national origin, or other protected category. Given the often systemic nature of discriminatory conduct, settlement agreements and consent decrees provide an invaluable means to provide for general relief for non-identifiable victims and to prevent future discriminatory acts. In particular, they are instrumental in enforcing critical civil rights protections in a wide variety of cases, including voting rights violations and predatory lending practices based on race. Other examples include the use of consent decrees by the Justice Department to address unconstitutional police pattern or practice activities. For example, in 2003, the City of Detroit entered into a consent decree with the Justice Department concerning the inappropriate use of force and arrest practices by the city's police department. As a result of this decree, the police department implemented vastly improved practices that have substantially reduced the incidence of fatalities caused by law enforcement activities, a goal that the Judiciary Committee Chairman Goodlatte and I very much endorse. According to the department's civil rights division, these decrees facilitate institutional reforms, such as improving systems for supervising officers and holding them accountable for misconduct, as well as ensuring officers have the policy guidance, training, equipment, and other resources necessary for constitutional and effective policing. Unfortunately, H.R. 469 would make the use of such remedies exceedingly difficult by subjecting them to numerous procedural and potentially meritless court challenges. A particularly concerning provision of this bill is its broad and ill-defined authorization allowing virtually anyone to intervene with respect to a proposed settlement agreement or consent decree. For example, imagine a proposed settlement agreement intended to restrict a city's school district from discriminating against Muslims. Under the bill, any anti-Muslim or neo-Nazi organization could petition the court to intervene for the purpose of opposing such agreement on the ground that it ``would affect'' such person. This is just one of the many fundamental problems presented by this thoroughly flawed and, I think, harmful measure, and, so, accordingly, I ask my colleagues here to join me in opposing H.R. 469. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to be here to support--well, I don't think it is going to be support. It is really more in opposition to this so-called Sunshine for Regulations and Regulatory Decrees and Settlements Act. Well, why? Well, because it is anticonsumer. Well, why? Because it is antienvironment. Well, why? Because it is antiprivacy. Not surprisingly, a broad consortium of more than 150 organizations strenuously oppose this bill, including some of our best nonprofits: the National Resources Defense Council, for example; the Sierra Club, for another example; Public Citizen; and a lot of labor organizations and other groups. Title I of this bill, for example, has one goal: it is to discourage the use of settlement agreements and consent decrees that compel agencies to follow the law. When enacting new statutes, Congress routinely establishes deadlines for agency action, particularly when it involves urgent public health and safety concerns. When agencies fail to meet these deadlines, a party with standing may file a lawsuit under section 7 of the Administrative Procedure Act to ensure that the agency performs this mandatory, nondiscretionary duty. By delaying the enforcement of statutory deadlines, the bill, however, jeopardizes public health and safety, which explains why the previous Obama administration issued a veto threat to similar legislation considered only last Congress. Title I imposes nearly impossible hurdles for agencies seeking to resolve the deadline lawsuits and gives opponents of regulation multiple opportunities to stifle agency regulatory actions. With respect to consent decrees concerning a rulemaking, an agency would be forced to go through two public comment periods--one for the consent decree, and one for the rulemaking that results from the consent decree--doubling the agency's effort. In addition, it would allow any affected party to intervene in opposition to a proposed settlement agreement or consent decree. Contrary to the claims of those who support this measure, the Government Accountability Office has found no evidence that these deadline lawsuits are collusive. As the Justice Department, which represents most Federal agencies, acknowledged earlier this year, these agencies are left with few defenses, if any, to these lawsuits. I am also concerned that H.R. 469 will inevitably generate more litigation that will result in millions of dollars of additional transactional costs, all of which will be borne by you know who--the American taxpayer. For example, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, in its analysis of the bill's predecessor from the last Congress, concluded: The measure would impose millions of dollars in additional costs, most of which would be incurred because the litigation involving consent decrees and settlement agreements would probably take longer under the bill, and agencies would face additional administrative requirements. That is a quotation. In other words, Title I of this bill is a costly solution, again, in search of a problem. Now, Title II of the bill isn't much better. For instance, Title II overrides the Privacy Act to require publication of sensitive personal information of victims of government abuse or unlawful conduct, which raises serious privacy concerns. Although proponents of this measure argue it will increase government transparency, its real effect will be to force the Treasury Department to publish, on the Internet, the names of individual victims of government misconduct compensated for their claims by the Judgment Fund, including victims of race and sex discrimination, and so, in effect, revictimizing victims harmed by the Federal Government. Finally, Title III would facilitate the ability of the House majority to intervene in pending cases where the Justice Department has already determined that it will not defend the constitutionality of a Federal law. Not only do these provisions raise possible separation of powers concerns, it is unclear why they are even needed. This measure has not ever been the subject of a single hearing or markup by the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives. As a result, there has not been any opportunity to consider these critical issues and to analyze the ramifications presented by Title III. For all of these reasons, I must, accordingly, urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 469. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS

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

Mr. CONYERS

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

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

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would exempt from H.R. 732 settlement agreements that direct funds to remediate the indirect but catastrophic effects of unlawful conduct resulting in lead contamination in public drinking water. Lead contamination in public drinking water is potentially a national public health crisis as older cities continue to rely on aging lead pipes for the delivery of public drinking water. A report from the American Water Works Association estimates that this problem could potentially affect millions of water service lines. For example, Highland Park, located in my district, has been dealing with issues resulting from aging lead pipes. Just last month, officials closed public water fountains and fixtures due to unsafe samples of lead in public drinking water. The well-publicized Flint water crisis is another painful example of the disastrous consequences of lead contamination in public drinking water. The director of the pediatric residents at Hurley Children's Hospital in Flint wrote: ``To understand the contamination of this city, think about drinking water through a straw coated in lead. As you sip, lead particles flake off into the water and are ingested. Flint's children have been drinking water through lead-coated straws.'' The Flint water crisis has generated numerous lawsuits by individuals, local and State agencies, and public interest organizations such as the Natural Resources Defense Council and the American Civil Liberties Union. While these cases tend to involve numerous victims directly affected by unlawful conduct, they can also affect the interests of persons who are not parties to the case or are likely to receive compensation for unlawful conduct. Given the systemic nature of lead contamination in drinking water, settlement agreements resolving civil and criminal liability related to the Flint water crisis may require setting aside funds for unidentifiable victims, directing payments to address generalized harm, or establishing an environmental compliance program to avoid lead contamination in the future. Unfortunately, these entirely legitimate forms of indirect remediation of environmental harms would be prohibited by H.R. 732. Mr. Chair, accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chair, Members of the House, this amendment makes a bad bill even worse. To begin with, it would prohibit cy-pres distributions pursuant to which parties attempt to find the next best use of funds that remain after a class action settlement has been finally administered. Cy-pres is especially important in actions where the recovery is so small for an individual class member that he or she may not bother to make a claim or where a distribution is not practical. For example, courts under cy-pres may permit unclaimed settlement funds to provide indirect compensation to the class, such as future price reductions or remediation efforts. As a result of this amendment, however, the unclaimed settlement funds would be returned to the very entities that caused the injury in the first place. Simply put, this amendment would benefit the wrongdoers to the detriment of the victims they harmed. In addition, this amendment would restrict the amount of compensation a victim could receive under a settlement agreement to the extent the victim was actually harmed by the wrongdoer. The amendment completely ignores the pragmatic realities of systemic harms, such as widespread long-term or latent environmental damage like lead-contaminated public water drinking systems--think of Flint, Michigan--where the extent of a victim's exposure to such harms may be difficult and, perhaps, even impossible to quantify. In a letter opposed to this amendment, a group of public interest organizations, including Earthjustice, Public Citizen, Alliance for Justice, the Center for Justice & Democracy, and the American Association for Justice, said it is terrible public policy because wrongdoers would benefit from a windfall for cheating and harming consumers, undoing the accountability or deterrence function of the entire settlement. This is absolutely the wrong result, and so I urge that this amendment be rejected. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, in closing, I note that a broad coalition of public interest organizations, including Public Citizen, Americans for Financial Reform, the National Urban League, among others, strongly oppose H.R. 732. They warn: ``This measure would undermine law enforcement goals by reducing the availability of suitable remedies to address these kind of injuries to the public caused by illegal conduct.'' This bill is, in effect, a gift to lawbreakers that comes at the expense of families and communities impacted by injuries that cannot be addressed by direct restitution, and so I have to ask: Why are we giving a gift to lawbreakers in the guise of H.R. 732? If you value, as I do, upholding the rule of law, then you will join me and many others in opposing this seriously flawed measure. I thank everyone who has participated in this discussion, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman.

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

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), the ranking member of the Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 20 seconds to the gentlewoman.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), who is the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman from Tennessee an additional 30 seconds.

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