John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit the first sections of a terrific article, entitled, `This Man Will Almost Certainly Die' by Seth Freed Wessler, and published by The Nation. As we continue to discuss Criminal Justice Reform, I hope that this article can be invaluable resource to my colleagues. Where Claudio Fagardo-Saucedo grew up, on the colonial streets of the Mexican city of Durango, migrating to the United States was almost a rite of passage. It was following the stream of departures from Durango in the 1980s that the lanky young man left his family and traveled north. His mother, Julieta Saucedo Salazar, heard that he'd found jobs working as a laborer in Los Angeles. But they soon lost touch. ``We did not know much about him, really,'' his younger sister told me. This article was reported in partnership with the Investigative Fund at the Nation Institute, with support from the Puffin Foundation. It will be part of the February 6 episode of Reveal, a new podcast and public radio show produced by The Center for Investigative Reporting and PRX. Fagardo-Saucedo worked, his jobs sometimes taking him out of California, and occasionally he got into trouble--once for ``possession for sale'' of cocaine, another time for stealing jewelry. Every seven or eight years, his mother recalled, he'd return to her house--but never by choice. ``They caught him all the time for being illegal,'' Julieta said. She always hoped her wandering son might stay, get to know the family again, but he never did. ``He would be here a month, and then he'd go again.'' In the summer of 2003, immigration agents detained Fagardo- Saucedo on his way back to California, but this time the Border Patrol referred him to federal prosecutors, who charged him with ``illegal re-entry,'' or returning to the United States after deportation. He served nearly five years before being sent back to Mexico. Again, he tried to return. Early one morning in August of 2008, Fagardo-Saucedo triggered an infrared sensor as he and two others ran across the border near Tijuana. He pleaded guilty in a U.S. District Court to another ``illegal re-entry'' charge. The judge sentenced him to four years in federal prison. When Fagardo-Saucedo arrived at Reeves, a prison complex in rural West Texas, he entered a little-known segment of the federal prison system. Over the previous decade, elected officials and federal agencies had quietly recast the relationship between criminal justice and immigration enforcement. These changes have done as much to bloat the federal prison population as the War on Drugs; they have also helped make Latinos the largest racial or ethnic group sentenced to federal custody. Until the 1990s, border crossing was almost always treated as a civil offense, punishable by deportation. But in the late 1980s, Congress started to change that. By 1996, crossing the border after deportation was punishable by years of imprisonment, with enhanced sentences for people previously convicted of crimes--most often drug offenses. Though federal investigators have found no evidence that criminalization has reduced the pace of border crossings over the long term, prosecutions for illegal entry and re-entry rose from fewer than 4,000 a year at the start of Bill Clinton's presidency, to 31,000 in 2004 under George W. Bush, to a high of 91,000 in 2013 under President Obama. By the late 1990s, the flood of inmates from this new class of prisoner, coupled with a raging War on Drugs, sent the Bureau of Prisons searching for places to put them. The BOP turned to private companies to operate a new type of facility, low-security prisons designed to hold only noncitizens convicted of federal crimes. As of June 2015, these facilities--which are distinct from immigration detention centers, where people are held pending deportation--housed nearly 23,000 people. Three private companies now run 11 immigrant-only contract prisons. Five are run by the GEO Group, four by the Corrections Corporation of America, and two by a privately held company called the Management & Training Corporation. (A third MTC prison was recently shut down after inmates ransacked it in a protest.) Except for a prison largely used to house inmates from Washington, DC, these 11 facilities are the only privately run prisons in the federal criminal- justice system. In 2013, the BOP spent roughly $625 million on them. The contracts include the provision of medical care, for which the companies often hire health-services subcontractors. In one such facility in Reeves County, Texas, the BOP entered into an agreement with the county, which in turn hired GEO to operate the prison and Correct Care Solutions to manage prison healthcare. The BOP's contracts with these facilities are meant to cut costs. Though the prisons are part of the federal infrastructure, the companies that run them operate under a different--and less stringent--set of rules in order to allow cost-cutting innovations. As a retired BOP contracting official said in an interview, ``The more specificity you put in the contract, the more money the contractors are going to want for performing the service.'' At least five times since 2008, inmates have rioted in the BOP's contract prisons. The unrest has often come after medical-care complaints. (Pecos Enterprise, Smokey Briggs /

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I was detained and unable to cast my vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on Roll Call Vote 61.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I was detained and unable to cast my vote. Had I been present, I would have voted No on Roll Call Vote 55.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I, along with House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte of Virginia, would like to honor Norberto Salinas for his nearly nine years of dedicated service to the Committee on the Judiciary. Norberto's work in advising and crafting policy on intellectual property, state taxation, arbitration, sports law, and many other issues were invaluable to the Committee. A proud native of Arlington, Texas, Norberto came to the Committee after practicing law in the District of Columbia. He earned his Bachelor's degree from Wabash College and graduated from the University of Michigan Law School. During law school, he interned at the Michigan Poverty Law Program, which provides support services to legal aid programs throughout Michigan, and the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. He continued his passionate work for legal services on the Committee, where he served as the lead counsel and liaison to the Legal Services Corporation, a critical federally-funded program that provides grants for civil legal assistance to the indigent. He played an important role on budget and appropriations issues for the Committee. He also organized forums for the Committee on the impact certain budget proposals and the Federal shutdown and sequestration would have on the provision of justice in the United States. Throughout his tenure with the Committee, Norberto worked with his colleagues across the aisle on a wide variety of bills. He was responsible for helping guide several legislative measures including remote sales tax, the Fairness in Nursing Home Arbitration Act, the Mobile Workforce State Income Tax Simplification Act, the Innovation Protection Act, the Open Book on Equal Access to Justice Act, and updates to the Internet Tax Freedom Act. He also worked on regulatory and arbitration provisions in several comprehensive legislative proposals, including the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act and the 2008 Farm bill. Norberto's friendly nature, work ethic, and expertise earned him the respect and admiration of his colleagues on both sides of the aisle. He has been a valued member of the Committee's staff. We are grateful to have had the opportunity to work with Norberto. Norberto and his talents will be sorely missed by the Committee. We wish him well in his future endeavors.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, today, I wish to ask my colleagues to join me in celebrating the esteemed life of Roger Haggins, a clerk for the House Office Buildings. A kind and generous man, Roger's life was tragically cut short on January 8. For a dozen years Roger was our coworker in the halls of Congress. After graduating from high school as an honors student in 2003, he began working for the Architect of the Capitol as an elevator operator and continued to assist the Members and staff of this body admirably. This honorable young man was senselessly killed and was, as far too many of our citizens are, victimized by the epidemic of gun violence that infects the United States. Roger was among the many whose exemplary work and commitment supporting the functioning of the House is rarely given its just appreciation and recognition. To his family, friends, and coworkers in this time of grief, I extend my heartfelt sympathy. In the words of President Lincoln, ``I feel how weak and fruitless must be any word of mine which should attempt to beguile you from the grief of a loss so overwhelming.'' Roger will be missed.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of my neighbors in Flint, Michigan, who are facing one of the greatest disasters in American history. We cannot erase their pain. But I know that I stand with my colleagues in saying we will do everything in our power to help them recover and help make sure it never happens again. The sort of regulatory neglect that has brought Flint to its knees has a well-known disparate impact on urban, low-income, and minority communities. Residents who cannot afford to move to suburbs and wealthier neighborhoods, or who do not want to leave their longtime communities, are treated as second-class citizens. Here in Michigan, the twofold combination of negligent environmental protection and underinvestment in infrastructure is forcing those in underserved communities to pay with their health and lives. We see this in places like Detroit, where 8% of children have elevated blood levels--16 times the national average according to the Centers for Disease Control. We see it in places like Flint, where an unelected emergency manager switched the city's water to an unsafe, untreated source, which has exposed tens of thousands of residents to toxic lead levels. Exposure to lead--a potent neurotoxin--carries lifelong consequences. Flint parents must now raise children who face lifelong developmental and behavioral challenges, cover economic costs their city cannot afford, and confront mounting medical bills that cannot undo the harm they have suffered. Our thoughts and prayers are with them. But they need more than that--they need action. It has become an all too common tale that whenever an urban or low- income community's water or air quality is in question, risks to the health and safety of its residents are ignored. This must stop. Underserved communities generally face so-called ``acceptable'' risks that no other community or suburb would ever accept--or be asked to accept. This must stop. In Flint, the decision was made by someone they never voted for and approved by someone who did not care that it might lead to toxic exposure for city's residents. This must stop. The time when apologies and resignations would suffice has passed. The disregard for the health and safety of our neighbors in Flint will mean massive, heartbreaking consequences for those affected and their city. Anything less than a transformative, lasting shift in the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality and Michigan's other regulatory bodies--from panderers to guardians--simply adds insult to injury. We are not dealing with isolated events of negligence. There is a pattern and practice of disregard for the quality of our air and water that has become intolerable, and we will not settle for mere assurances to do better. Unfortunately, it appears those responsible for Flint are more focused on surviving the scandal than fixing the problem. Governor Snyder has said he is sorry but he's only offering half measures: free water that they cannot drink anyway, a fraction of what is needed to fix Flint's plumbing, and resources that cannot possibly overcome the health impacts of lead exposure. It appears the only time he thinks Michigan, the City of Flint, and the federal government should work together is when it is time to apportion blame, or when it is time to do everything he says on his terms. But we know how that story ends. It is time for those of us in Congress who care about a safe environment more than the business environment to act. That means directing federal resources to help Flint recover and rebuild, figuring out exactly what went wrong, and ensuring that this never happens again. Fixing this problem starts with providing government services that will actually help these people heal. Especially the children so they can succeed in life--which means a proper education, comprehensive healthcare, and access to everything a child in a wealthy community would have if they were similarly exposed. It means repairing the infrastructure, so that they can have clean water again. Preventing this from happening in the future starts with strengthening--not cutting--our enforcement capacity. It means eliminating emergency management programs that cut government regardless of the cost and strip citizens of their democratic rights. It means stopping with the idea that a small government is a good government, and it means stopping efforts to undermine our government by cutting its budgets to the bone.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, the Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King's vision of ending inequality through providing jobs, justice, and peace to all Americans is a vision that many have fought and died to make a reality. As the Civil Rights Movement battled against discrimination and inequality in the 1960's, I adopted Dr. King's vision of jobs, justice, and peace when I ran for Congress in 1964. I remember the Jim Crow era, poll taxes, and institutionalized segregation when I arrived in Congress. Yet, for all of these institutional scars and discriminatory impediments, the work we did in Congress aided in fulfilling the promises of equality enshrined in our Constitution. After a historic effort, the Civil Rights Act was passed, the Voting Rights Act was adopted, and a new era of federal protections around equality was ushered in the 20th Century. Some fifty years later, this era has yet to be fully realized. While the initial challenges of recognizing and upholding civil rights have been met, many of the original problems persist, but in an evolved form. Fifty plus years later, the American people confront issues of voter suppression, gender and sexual orientation discrimination. Many communities feel under siege from those sworn to protect their liberty. Hate crimes and religious intolerance are on the rise as reported nightly on the news. And women contend with a pay inequity hampering their standing with men in the workplace. In spite of all of these shortcomings, strides have been made: reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act in 2006; the passage of legislation expanding access to healthcare; the introduction of legislation combating voter caging and deceptive practices, and the passage of the Hate Crimes Prevention Act, signed into law by the first African- American President of the United States, himself emblematic of civil rights progress. These issues were all, at one point in time, deemed radical. Women's suffrage, racial equality, and now gay and lesbian rights: for each, the civil rights movement has expanded until true justice is achieved. Many problems persist and more are certain to arrive, but through renewed determination to tackle these deep-seated problems, we can one day live up to the beloved community envision by Dr. King. While our struggle for equality stems from being afforded the basic human rights associated with a free society, the ideal of achieving economic justice, with employment for all who seek it, remains out of reach for many. The aftermath of the financial crisis has brought crippling unemployment, wage stagnation, and rising income inequality. Yet, the Great Recession has only exacerbated a decades-long decline in the fortunes of the working and middle classes. As finances continue to deteriorate, basic social and public services have often been the first to go. In the realm of healthcare, a basic safety net was only recently afforded to the underserved in the United States with passage of the Affordable Care Act, yet millions of low-income and unemployed individuals remain uninsured. Housing remains a continued blight, as mass-foreclosures following the aftermath of the Great Recession tear apart communities and destabilizes families. Even after fifty years of promoting Dr. King's cause for peace, our country is enmeshed in gun violence, which tragically produced the shootings in Newtown, Aurora, Tucson, and Wisconsin, and daily on the streets of America's most populated cities. These horrific occurrences are unacceptable for our nation, which is why catapulting peace to the forefront of our nation's agenda will save lives and protect our most vital right under the Constitution: life. I am hopeful that by strengthening our gun laws we can remove military style weapons out of our communities, prohibit the sale of deadly gun clips, and close loopholes on the sale of guns. Our rate of incarceration and length of sentences are unjust and unsustainable. The United States incarcerates 25 percent of the world's prisoners, while we have only five percent of the world's population. And we disproportionately prosecute and incarcerate African Americans more than any other race. This is the result of what President Obama has called a ``huge explosion'' in our incarceration rates, with 500,000 people imprisoned in America in 1980 growing to 2.2 million today. We must change our prosecution policies and sentencing laws to address this crisis, and I am working with my colleagues to do that. The profiling of racial and religious minorities is also a terrible reality that threatens peace in our nation. Profiling is an archaic form of discrimination that subjects individuals to criminal indictments or investigations based on their race or religion. Although profiling cannot be found in any form of written law, the practice is real in America and threatens the trust and peace that is essential in the relationship between citizens and their law enforcement. Our nation's leaders can work to pass legislation, such as the End Racial Profiling Act, to prohibit this practice in any law enforcement agency and the Law Enforcement Trust and Integrity Act to provide real standards for the operation of police departments. As we press forward to address inequality in the 21st Century, the outstanding question is whether or not Congress will rise to tackle these issues. The American people have already witnessed how politics can transform our legislative body into a body producing nothing but dysfunction. However, the erosion of Congress's focus on protecting civil rights and civil liberties can be reversed. This Congress has the opportunity to answer these present injustices by assuming the unwavering commitment to jobs, justice, and peace that was displayed so valiantly by Dr. Martin Luther King. Ending inequality in America is a battle that can be won, and although the enemy is still the same, our approach in the 21st century must not lack the strength and courage of those who have fought so bravely before us.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to make todays votes due to important business in my district. Had I been here, I would have voted against both H.R. 3662 and S.J. Res. 22. S.J. Res. 22, the bill to kill the Waters of the United States rule, is a cynical attempt to endanger the public health to score points with anti-environmental interests. At this very moment, parents in Flint, Michigan are worried about their children's future after toxic lead exposure in their water. The blame for their concerns belongs here and in Lansing where anti- environmental interests have co-opted elected leaders. Today, Republicans spoke about the governors who have not challenged the Waters of the United States rule, saying they were too afraid to stand up for corporate interests. Bills like S.J. Res. 22 leave me wondering when my colleagues across the aisle will have the courage to stand up to corporate interests and for their constituents. H.R. 3662 is a similarly wrong-headed bill, which requires the President to certify things he cannot know or prove, and would have the effect of blocking the Iran Deal from going into place. Bills that serve no purpose other than inflaming tensions between the United States and Iran have no place in this body, and I strongly condemn this attempt to derail the Iran Deal.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the minority leader.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to ask my friend from Texas: Are there any asbestos victims organizations among that list that you recited? I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Farenthold).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes. Members of the House, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1927, the so-called Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act and Furthering Asbestos Claim Transparency Act. I oppose the legislation because it cleverly shields corporate wrongdoers by making it more difficult for those who have been harmed by their actions from obtaining justice and it allows these wrongdoers to further victimize their victims. Among H.R. 1927's many flaws is the fact that this legislation will have the effect of denying individuals access to justice and threatening victims of corporate wrongdoing, all in the name of protecting the powerful. Section 2 of H.R. 1927 will make it virtually impossible for victims of corporate wrongdoing to obtain relief through class actions in cases seeking monetary relief by requiring a party seeking class certification to show that every potential class member suffered the same type and scope of injury at the certification stage. Now, you know that is going to be difficult. We come to the realization that, as it is, class actions are very difficult to pursue. Under current procedure, the courts strictly limit the grounds on which a large group of plaintiffs may be certified as a class, including the requirements that their claims raise common and factual legal questions and that the class representative's claims are typical of those of the other class members. Rather than improving upon this class certification process, however, H.R. 1927 imposes requirements that are almost impossible to meet, effectively undermining the use of class actions. Finally, section 3 of H.R. 1927 gives asbestos defendants--the very entities whose products injured millions of Americans--new weapons with which to harm their victims. Section 3 requires a bankruptcy asbestos trust to report on the court's public case docket, which is then made available on the Internet, the name and exposure history of each asbestos victim who receives payment from such trust as well as the basis of any payment made to the victim. As a result, the confidential personal information of asbestos claimants, including their names and exposure histories, would be irretrievably released into the public domain. Just imagine what identity thieves and others, such as insurers, potential employers, lenders, and data collectors, could do with this sensitive information. Essentially, this bill revictimizes asbestos victims by exposing their private information to the public, information that has absolutely nothing to do with compensation for asbestos exposure. This explains why asbestos victims vigorously oppose this legislation, as it is an assault against their privacy interests. So, in sum, H.R. 1927 is a seriously flawed bill that only benefits those who cause harm to others. Not surprisingly, the White House has appropriately issued a veto threat, stating that the administration ``strongly opposes House passage of H.R. 1927 because it would impair the enforcement of important Federal laws, constrain access to the courts, and needlessly threaten the privacy of asbestos victims.'' For all these reasons, I urge that this House oppose H.R. 1927. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Reclaiming my time, that is what I wanted to know, and the gentleman has told me. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Cartwright).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chair, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson), a distinguished member of our committee.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record letters from 19 veterans organizations that are totally opposed to this bill. January 7, 2015. Re Veterans Service Organizations oppose H.R. 1927, the Fairness in Class Action Litigation and Furthering Asbestos Claims Transparency Act. Hon. Paul Ryan, Speaker of the House, House of Representatives, Washington,

Mr. CONYERS. I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. DelBene).

Mr. CONYERS. I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentlewoman.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Peters).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Jeffries), a distinguished member of our committee.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), a senior member of the House Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), our former leader of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Members of the House, this legislation is just the latest attempt to take power away from ordinary citizens and place it in the hands of the most powerful corporations and industries in this country. Whether it is by making it almost impossible for ordinary people to pursue their day in court through the important class action mechanism or threatening the privacy of asbestos victims, it is clear that H.R. 1927 does not have the interest of ordinary people in mind. And it raises a broader question of who, rightfully, should hold power in a representative democracy like ours, politically unaccountable corporations, who seek only to maximize their own profit, or the people who are supposed to be sovereign. We say it is the people. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment which would exempt from section 2(a) of the bill any claim for monetary relief under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VII prohibits discrimination in employment on the basis of race, color, sex, religion, or national origin. During the subcommittee hearing on H.R. 1927 in the Judiciary Committee, I expressed concern about the effect the bill's original language would have on civil rights claims. In particular, I was concerned that the bill applied to all class actions and that it restrictively defined ``injury'' to mean the alleged impact of a defendant's action on a plaintiff's body or property. Although the bill was revised in committee to delete this narrow definition of ``injury'' from H.R. 1927 and to limit the bill's scope to class actions seeking monetary relief for personal injury or economic loss, I remain concerned that significant categories of civil rights cases could still be effectively precluded by this bill. Plaintiffs in employment discrimination cases, cases that seek backpay and other monetary relief for economic loss resulting from an adverse employment decision, frequently pursue class actions because such employment cases tend to be the kind that are well-suited for class treatment. These cases often involve multiple victims who were subjected to the same discriminatory employment practice or policy. While damages awarded pursuant to a single plaintiff may not be large enough to deter the employer's alleged wrongdoing, aggregate damages awarded to plaintiffs as a result of a class action would have a deterrent effect. Unfortunately, the bill still requires class action plaintiffs to prove at the certification stage that every potential class member suffered the same type and same scope of injury, a requirement that is virtually impossible and cost prohibitive to meet. This onerous requirement would effectively deter employment discrimination plaintiffs from proceeding with any class actions. Moreover, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 already imposes significant constraints on the ability of plaintiffs to pursue class actions. Indeed, it was an employment discrimination case in Walmart v. Dukes that the Supreme Court gave what, in my view, was a cramped interpretation of rule 23's commonality requirement making it harder for employees claiming discrimination to proceed as a class. Because of my continuing concerns with the legislation's potential effects on this important category of civil rights cases, I urge the House to adopt my amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.