John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), a senior member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume for my concluding remarks. Members of the House, in 2004, Congress, in recognition of the serious dangers faced by the Federal law enforcement officers, passed the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act, which authorizes Federal law enforcement officers to carry concealed weapons in any jurisdiction in the United States. Passage of H.R. 2137 would ensure that, when appropriations lapse or another government shutdown occurs, which we hope it won't, Federal law enforcement officers authorized to carry firearms will continue to be able to carry their government-issued firearms throughout the shutdown's duration for personal protection and to respond to critical incidents. I urge support for this bill. I thank all of the Members who contributed to it. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I was at the White House to discuss criminal justice reform and I was unable to return in time for roll call votes 170, 171, and 172. Had I been here, I would have voted Yes to 170, Ms. Waters Amendment; No to 171, Final Passage; and Yes to 172, on the Defend Trade Secrets Act.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), one of the authors of the measure before us.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In 2014, in a unanimous ruling delivered by Chief Justice Roberts, the Supreme Court concluded that the police may not search a cell phone without first demonstrating probable cause. Citing an obvious Fourth Amendment interest in the vast amount of data we store on our personal devices, the Court wrote: ``The fact that technology now allows an individual to carry such information in his hand does not make the information any less worthy of the protection for which the Founders fought. Our answer to the question of what police must do before searching a cell phone seized incident to an arrest is accordingly simple--get a warrant.'' With that decision, the Court took a bold step toward reconciling the Fourth Amendment with the advent of modern communications technology. Today, the House takes a similar step to reconcile our interests in privacy and due process with the realities of modern computing. H.R. 699, the Email Privacy Act, recognizes that the content of our communications, although often stored in digital format, remains worthy of Fourth Amendment protection. And to the investigators and government agents who seek access to our email, our advice is accordingly simple: Get a warrant. It is an idea whose time has long since come. This bill will allow us to move to a clear, uniform standard for law enforcement agencies to access the content of our communications, namely, a warrant based on probable cause. H.R. 699 also codifies the right of the providers to give notice of this intrusion to their customers, except in certain exigent circumstances that must also be validated by the court. We should note the absence of a special carve-out from the warrant requirement for the civil agencies, like the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Internal Revenue Service. In the House Judiciary Committee, we reached quick consensus that a civil carve-out of any kind is unworkable, unconstitutional, or both. I would have preferred to have kept the notice provisions of the original bill, which are absent from the version we reported from committee. In the digital world, no amount of due diligence necessarily tells us that the government has accessed our electronic communications. The government should have an obligation to provide us with some form of notice when intruding on a record of our most private conversations; but I understand that not everyone shares this view, and I am willing to compromise, for now, in order to advance the important reforms that we will adopt today. I am proud of the work we have done. This legislation is several years in the making, and it should not be delayed any further. I compliment our colleague Mr. Polis. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 699, the Email Privacy Act. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), a senior member of the House Judiciary Committee.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. DelBene), a very effective member on the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to close today by thanking Chairman Goodlatte of the Judiciary Committee and his staff for working with us to develop the final draft of this legislation. Once again the chairman has helped us find a way to resolve our differences and advance core civil liberties and constitutional values. I would also like to thank the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Yoder) and the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis) for their leadership on this issue from the very beginning. The Email Privacy Act comes to the floor today in large part because of your work in gathering more than 300 cosponsors for this bill. Finally, I want to express appreciation to the coalition of technology companies, civil liberties organizations, and individual experts whose persistence and dedication have made this moment possible. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 699, the Email Privacy Act. I believe that they will do so. I also urge our comparable body in the Senate to take up this measure as quickly as possible. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, today, as Ranking Member of the Committee on the Judiciary, I join with my colleagues, Chairman Bob Goodlatte of Virginia, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. of Wisconsin and Subcommittee Ranking Member Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas, in celebrating and recognizing the life and accomplishments of Tiffany May Joslyn, who sadly passed away on March 5, 2016. A 2004 graduate of Clark University and a 2007 graduate of George Washington University Law School, Tiffany was a dedicated public servant, highly-respected counsel to the Committee, and beloved colleague. Tiffany worked diligently and with distinction for nearly seven years as an attorney for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL). As a co-author of numerous studies and reports, she played a critical role in the NACDL's efforts to fight for effective representation of the accused. After her work with the NACDL, Tiffany joined the House Judiciary Committee Democratic staff as Deputy Chief Counsel of the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations in 2015. In her time serving the Committee, Tiffany helped Crime Subcommittee Ranking Member Jackson Lee and other Committee Members make historic advances in the cause of reforming our broken criminal justice system. She was dedicated to addressing youth justice issues, recognizing the need to value all of our young people and allow them to grow into adulthood without the burdens of the mistakes of their youth. Among her most prominent accomplishments while working for the Judiciary Committee are important bills such as H.R. 3713, The Sentencing Reform Act; H.R. 1854, The Comprehensive Justice and Mental Health Act; H.R. 3406, the Second Chance Reauthorization Act; and H.R. 759, the Corrections and Recidivism Reduction Act of 2016. She was also vital in assisting Ranking Member Jackson Lee draft several youth justice bills: H.R. 3158, the Reforming Alternatives to Incarceration and Sentencing to Establish A Better Path for Youth Act of 2015 (RAISE Act), H.R. 3156, The Fair Chance for Youth Act of 2015, and H.R. 3155, The Effective and Humane Treatment of Youth Act of 2015. Though her life was cut short by tragedy, Tiffany had a profound and positive impact on her community and our country. Today and always, we remember and appreciate her devotion to public service, her drive to make our nation more equal and fair, her wise and dedicated counsel, and the friendships she developed with us and her colleagues. We are grateful for the time we were able to spend with Tiffany, and for her invaluable work on the Committee. It is in her honor and spirit that we continue the fight to reform our criminal justice system.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the author of this bill, the gentlewoman from Texas, who first saw the importance of it. I want to tell you that this measure before us today strengthens the Terrorist Screening Database maintained by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and in doing so, aids in our efforts to combat terrorism and keep our Nation safe. The FBI's Terrorist Screening Center helps to identify known and suspected terrorists by integrating information collected by law enforcement and the intelligence community. Since its inception in 2003, this sophisticated watch list and screening system has undoubtedly saved lives; but despite the work of the dedicated individuals who make the screening database possible, the system is not flawless. Past incidents, such as the 2009 Christmas Day attempted attack on a Northwest Airlines flight bound for my hometown of Detroit, already mentioned by the gentlewoman from Texas, has put a spotlight on potential gaps in the system. Over the years since, the FBI has made significant improvements to the database. Audits by the Department of Justice's Office of the Inspector General reveal movement in the right direction; but, to date, no independent review has been conducted to evaluate the sufficiency of these changes. H.R. 4240 addresses this precise issue by directing the Government Accountability Office to conduct a review of the operation and administration of the Terrorist Screening Database. This review will assess whether past weaknesses have been eliminated and the extent to which existing vulnerabilities may be addressed or mitigated through additional changes. An independent audit will give us the tools we need to make additional changes if necessary. I want to commend, once again, the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas, Sheila Jackson Lee, ranking member of the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations of the Judiciary Committee, for her leadership on this important issue. I also want to thank the chairman of the full committee, Chairman Goodlatte, and former chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Chairman Sensenbrenner, for their assistance in bringing this important legislation to the floor today. I join with all of those who are with us in supporting this measure.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Jeffries), a distinguished member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of S. 1890, the Defend Trade Secrets Act. This measure amends the Economic Espionage Act of 1996 to create a Federal civil cause of action and to facilitate expedited ex parte seizure of property when necessary to preserve evidence or prevent dissemination. The House counterpart to this bill, H.R. 3326, which was introduced by our committee colleagues, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins) and the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), now has 164 bipartisan cosponsors, including myself. Likewise, S. 1890 enjoys broad bipartisan and bicameral support, as evidenced by the fact that the Senate passed this bill by a vote of 87- 0 earlier this month. The House Committee on the Judiciary reported this bill favorably by a unanimous voice vote only last week. There are several reasons that I support the legislation. To begin with, S. 1890 will enhance the protection of trade secrets, which is integral to the success of any business. It is estimated that the value of trade secrets owned by United States companies as of 2009 was approximately $5 trillion. Although trade secrets are fundamental to the success of any business, United States companies have struggled to protect these valuable assets, especially in the digital age of smartphones and the Internet. It is estimated that the loss of trade secrets as a result of cyber espionage costs these businesses between $200 billion and $300 billion annually. Thieves take advantage of ever-evolving, innovative technologies to access sensitive trade secrets information and to distribute it immediately. While Federal law protects other forms of intellectual property by providing access to Federal courts for aggrieved parties to seek redress, there is no Federal civil cause of action for enforcement of trade secrets protection. S. 1890 addresses this need by establishing a Federal cause of action for trade secrets owners to obtain injunctive and monetary relief, which will be a powerful new tool to protect their intellectual property. Now, another reason I support the bill is that it would foster uniformity among the States. Although States provide civil remedies for trade secrets theft, these laws often fall short when trade secrets are taken across State lines. As a result, businesses that have nationwide operations must deal with various differing State laws, which can be too costly for some businesses, particularly smaller ones. This also prevents businesses from taking full advantage of the rights that they might have under the law. S. 1890 would provide trade secrets owners access to uniform national law and the ability to make their case in Federal court. Lastly, I support the bill because it reflects constructive feedback from various stakeholders. We have been working on this legislation for almost 2 years. It reflects the input from a broad spectrum of stakeholders, and the bill is an excellent example of what can be achieved when there is bipartisan collaboration. I close by urging my colleagues to support this important legislation so that we can send it to the President's desk for signature. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), a senior member of the Committee on the Judiciary and author of this bill.

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

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

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I now yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez).

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland for his incredible analysis. I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez).

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff), the ranking member on the Intelligence Committee and a former member of the House Judiciary Committee.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent for all Members to have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the subject of this Special Order.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I rise to implore the Senate to fulfill its responsibility and give fair consideration to President Obama's nomination of Judge Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court. During my tenure in this honorable body, I have witnessed no comparable examples of partisan politics and complete obstructionism with respect to the consideration of a Supreme Court nominee. I introduced H. Res. 661, together with my Democratic colleagues on the House Judiciary Committee. This resolution calls on the Senate to hold hearings and an up-or-down vote on the President's nomination of Judge Garland. The Senate majority's flat-out refusal to consider President Obama's nominee, regardless of the nominee's qualifications, is historically unprecedented and is part of a longstanding pattern of disrespect shown to this administration in particular. Our Constitution relies on a system of checks and balances; yet the Senate majority's continued stonewalling of the President's nominee threatens to throw the system into an imbalance. The President, of course, has the constitutional authority and obligation to appoint Justices to the Supreme Court, pursuant to Article II, section 2, and he has fulfilled his duty with his nomination of Judge Garland. The Senate has both the authority and the duty to provide advice and consent on the President's nominee; yet the Senate has, thus far, refused to do its job, which is simply unacceptable. It is clear the Constitution requires that both the President and the Senate fulfill their respective roles in the Supreme Court nomination process in order for the Supreme Court to be able to fully perform its constitutional role. Otherwise, what is to stop the Senate from grinding the Court--a coequal branch of government, I remind you--to a halt by simply refusing to consider any nominees to fill any vacancies on the Court? There is no merit to their argument that we have to wait until we elect a new President. After all, the American people twice elected President Obama to fulfill the duties of President, including the duty to appoint Supreme Court Justices. A strong and independent judiciary is a prerequisite for a strong democracy. This remains as true in the last year of a Presidency as it does in the first. Moreover, there is ample precedent for Presidents nominating and the Senate confirming Supreme Court nominees in a Presidential election year. For example, in 1988, during the last full year of Ronald Reagan's Presidency, the Democratic-controlled Senate confirmed the nomination of Justice Anthony Kennedy by President Reagan by a vote of 97-0. There are 9 months left in President Obama's term. The President has nominated an eminently qualified jurist in Judge Garland, and the Senate has more than enough time to consider and vote on his nomination. It is vital that the Supreme Court have a full complement of Justices so that the critical constitutional and legal questions before the Court can be given the full attention they need. Already, we have seen a number of 4-4 decisions that have left much uncertainty in place for the lower courts, for the litigants, and for Americans generally. The Senate should do its job: comply with regular order, hold hearings on Judge Garland's nomination, and then have an up-or-down vote on the nomination. Now it is with great pleasure that I yield to the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Steny Hoyer, the distinguished minority whip.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline), a distinguished member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Foster).

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman. I now yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gallego).

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and I now yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Castro).

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I am now pleased to yield to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Heck).