John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the End Racial Profiling Act of 2015, along with additional cosponsors. This legislation represents a comprehensive federal commitment to healing the rift caused by racial profiling and restoring public confidence in the criminal justice system at-large. This legislation is designed to enforce the constitutional right to equal protection of the laws by changing the policies and procedures underlying the practice of profiling. This legislation can be traced back to the data collection efforts of the late 1990's that were designed to determine whether racial profiling was a fact rather than an urban legend. Based upon the work around that legislation, by September 11, 2001, there was significant empirical evidence and wide agreement among Americans, including President Bush and Attorney General Ashcroft, that racial profiling was a tragic fact of life in the minority community and that the Federal government should take action to end the practice. Moreover, many in the law enforcement community have also acknowledged that singling out people for heightened scrutiny based on their race, ethnicity, religion, or national origin had eroded the trust in law enforcement necessary to appropriately serve and protect our communities. During our 112th Congress Judiciary Committee hearing on racial profiling, we approached the issue from the perspective of ``smart policing'' and what makes sense in a time of austerity for protecting public safety. I believe that it became clear during the hearing that enough agreement exists to allow us to re-open the bipartisan dialogue on racial profiling commenced by President Bush and Attorney General Ashcroft. Despite the fact that the majority of law enforcement officers perform their duties professionally and without bias--and we value their service highly--the specter of racial profiling has contaminated the relationship between the police and minority communities to such a degree that federal action is justified to begin addressing the issue. While the Department of Justice reissued a series of guidelines in December 2014 which were designed to end the practice of racial profiling by federal law enforcement agencies, these measures still do not reach the vast majority of racial profiling complaints arising from the routine activities of state and local law enforcement agencies. Further, the guidelines provide no enforcement mechanism or methods for identifying law enforcement agencies not in compliance and, therefore, fail to resolve the racial profiling problem nationwide. In this instance, there is no substitute for comprehensive federal anti- profiling legislation. The End Racial Profiling Act is designed to eliminate the well documented problem of racial, ethnic, religious, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity and national origin profiling. First, the bill provides a prohibition on racial profiling, enforceable by declaratory or injunctive relief. Second, the bill mandates that training on racial profiling issues as part of Federal law enforcement training, the collection of data on all routine or spontaneous investigatory activities that is to be submitted through a standardized form to the Department of Justice. Third, the Justice Department is authorized to provide grants for the development and implementation of best policing practices, such as early warning systems, technology integration, and other management protocols that discourage profiling. Finally, the Attorney General is required to provide periodic reports to assess the nature of any ongoing discriminatory profiling practices. Recent events in the wake of Ferguson, Missouri demonstrate that racial profiling remains a divisive issue in communities across the nation that strikes at the very foundation of our democracy. The deaths of Walter L. Scott--arising from a traffic stop--Michael Brown, Eric Garner, and Antonio Zambrano-Montes--all at the hands of police officers--highlight the links between the issues of race and reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct. Ultimately, these men are tragic examples of the risk of being victimized by a perception of criminality simply because of their race, ethnicity, religion or national origin. These individuals were denied the basic respect and equal treatment that is the right of every American. Decades ago, in the face of shocking violence, the passage of sweeping civil rights legislation made it clear that race should not affect the treatment of an individual American under the law. I believe that thousands of pedestrian and traffic stops of innocent minorities and needless killings or use of excessive force by the police call for a similar federal response. The practice of using race or other characteristics as a proxy for criminality by law enforcement seriously undermines the progress we have made toward achieving equality under the law. Please join me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, the ``Innovation Protection Act'' responds to the single most important problem facing our patent system today-- the diversion of patent fees. One of the most effective steps we can take in responding to abusive patent litigation is making sure poor quality patents are not issued to begin with. To do that we need to give our examiners the resources they need to review and analyze the hundreds of thousands of complex and interrelated patent applications they receive every year. The current finding mechanism has failed the patent system. It did not prevent the diversion of nearly $150 million in collected user fees in fiscal year 2013 due to the sequester. And this loss is on top of the estimated $1 billion in fees diverted over the last two decades. In essence, there is a tax on innovation in this country, and this legislation would repeal it. That is why I along with Representatives Collins, Nadler, Franks, Lofgren, Sensenbrenner, Deutch, Rohrabacher, and Jeffries introduced today the ``Innovation Protection Act.'' This critical bill will ensure that the USPTO retains all of the user fees it collects. Significant patent stakeholders, including the American Intellectual Property Law Association, BSA--The Software Alliance, the Coalition for 21st Century Patent Reform, the Intellectual Property Owners Association, and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers--USA, among others, support the legislation. This bill would create a permanent, reliable mechanism to protect the USPTO from the unpredictability of the annual appropriations cycle, which severely hinders USPTO's ability to engage in the kind of multi- year, business-like planning that is needed to manage our patent system. It would eliminate the tax on innovation. Therefore, a permanent funding mechanism is essential to encourage innovation and to ensure that our patent system remains the envy of the world.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge and celebrate the accomplishments of our friend and former colleague, Congressman Bob Kastenmeier, who passed away last week at the age of 91. Congressman Kastenmeier came to Congress in 1959 and was a loyal public servant, honorably representing Wisconsin's 2nd Congressional District for 32 years. His contribution to the House of Representatives, specifically the House Judiciary Committee, left a huge mark on the State of Wisconsin and the nation. Congressman Kastenmeier was a lifelong public servant. Prior to being elected to Congress, he served the state of Wisconsin as a Justice of the Peace for Jefferson and Dodge Counties. He was also a member of the United States Army during World War II where he rose to the rank of first lieutenant. However, even though he was willing to fight for the freedom and security of our country, Congressman Kastenmeier understood the horrors of war and courageously took a firm stance against the Vietnam War and the invasion of U.S. military troops in Iraq. During one of the country's darkest periods, Congressman Kastenmeier was a vocal supporter of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1968 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. He fought tirelessly to ensure the equality of all Americans and he led by example through his ability to successfully work with elected officials of all races, genders and political persuasions. For twenty years, he was the lead Democrat of the Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Administration of Justice. He authored many important copyright law reforms during that time and was a key sponsor of the Copyright Act of 1976, which remains the foundation of the nation's copyright law. He also led the United States into the community of nations through adherence to the Berne Convention. While a Member of the Judiciary Committee he was also involved in the impeachment hearings for Harry E. Claiborne, a judge for the United States District Court for Nevada, and President Nixon. Congressman Kastenmeier was a principled and progressive legislator who did not seek attention and was known to vote his conscience. However, his contributions have been recognized nationwide. The United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin honored our great colleague by naming the courthouse the ``Robert W. Kastenmeier United States Courthouse.'' Congressman Kastenmeier will be greatly missed, but he has left a legacy that will live forever. I am proud to have served with him and we are eternally grateful for his dedication, knowledge, and integrity. I am also proud that he was my friend. Our condolences go out to his family and friends around the world.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, on April 10th we celebrate the 225th anniversary of President George Washington signing into law the Patent Act of 1790. We honor the wisdom of our founding fathers in creating the first patent system to recognize by law the inherent right of an inventor to have protection over their inventions and innovations. Our Constitution grants Congress the power ``to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.'' With the creation of the Patent Act came the ability for Americans to be rightfully credited for the use of their talents to progress our nation. The United States Patent and Trademark Office has issued over nine million patents. These patents demonstrate the creativity and foresight of the American people and their outstanding contributions enhance lives worldwide. We celebrate the first Patent Act, and salute the men and women who have promoted the progress of science and arts to make America a technological, economic, and cultural leader among nations. I applaud the Patent and Trademark Office for its continued efforts to encourage innovation and strengthen the nation's competitiveness in the global economy. We must recognize the critical importance of intellectual property. It is critical that Congress continues to acknowledge the need for effective patents, trademarks, and copyrights while upholding the vision of our Nation's founders. Today, I urge my colleagues to join me in recognizing the Patent and Trademark Office-- the model for managing patent systems around the world--for its stewardship of the patent system and for inspiring independent inventors, entrepreneurs, and small businesses to be innovators.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, today I wish to recognize the efforts of eight individuals whose actions in 1971 helped uncover the illegal actions by some working on behalf of our own government to suppress the civil rights of many of our citizens. These eight individuals were members of a group who called themselves the Citizens' Commission to Investigate the FBI (the ``Citizens' Commission''). The Citizens' Commission was responsible for obtaining documents from the Media, Pennsylvania office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation that helped prompt the national debate about the intelligence community's domestic surveillance programs. The ensuing discussion ultimately led to the first congressional investigations of all intelligence agencies and to the establishment of the first congressional intelligence oversight committees. We know the names of six of these individuals: William C. Davidon, Keith Forsyth, Bonnie Raines, John C. Raines, Robert Williamson, and Judi Feingold. Two members of the Citizens' Commission whose actions are equally commendable and contributed just as significantly to the cause and legacy of the Citizens' Commission have chosen to remain in anonymity. On the evening of March 8, 1971, the members of the Citizens' Commission entered the satellite office of the FBI in Media, Pennsylvania, and left having taken nearly all of the documents they found within the office. In the following months, the members of the Citizens' Commission repeatedly mailed to reporters at several news publications documents detailing the contours of our intelligence agencies' programs that spied on American citizens and the vast length to which our civil rights had been violated for decades in the name of J. Edgar Hoover's desire to quell political dissent. These programs included COINTELPRO, or Counter Intelligence Program, a series of covert and often illegal programs conducted by the FBI targeted at disrupting domestic political organizations. It has been said that the intent of COINTELPRO was to accomplish its goals by destroying lives and ruining reputations. The revelations made by the Citizens' Commission sparked a national debate concerning these programs as well as the importance of civil and privacy rights to all Americans. The news reports generated by the documents that had been made public helped form the basis for creation of the congressional committees that investigated intelligence agencies in 1975. Hearings held by the Senate committee, known as the Church Committee for its chairman, the late Senator Frank Church of Idaho, revealed the wide scope and impact of J. Edgar Hoover's FBI on American life throughout his nearly half century as director of the Bureau. Testimony before the committee revealed that he had secretly used his power to destroy individuals and organizations whose opinions and purposes he disliked. He secretly punished civil rights and antiwar activists and also average Americans who expressed their dissent in letters to newspapers or by participating in demonstrations. In the Bureau's harassment operations--as opposed to law enforcement or intelligence gathering--officials of the FBI secretly operated as prosecutor, judge and jury against people Hoover regarded as subversive. Thousands of people in government and education lost their jobs as a result of unverified files created by FBI informers that were used against people who were not permitted to face their accusers. From the beginning of the Vietnam war, Hoover made himself the watchdog of dissent against the war--dissent by average Americans as well as Members of Congress who questioned war policy. In August 1964, when only two senators, Senator Ernest Gruening, Democrat from Alaska, and Senator Wayne Morse, Democrat from Oregon, opposed the Vietnam War authorization legislation--known as the Gulf of Tonkin resolution--the FBI director regarded their votes as subversive. Agents collected the names, and started files on people who sent telegrams to Senator Morse expressing support for his stand against the authorization bill. Two years after the resolution was passed, when Senator J. William Fullbright, Democrat from Arkansas, convened hearings to assess the progress of the war, Hoover placed Fullbright under surveillance to determine if he was a communist or dupe of communists. The Church Committee's extensive final report stated: ``Many of the techniques used would be intolerable in a democratic society even if all the targets had been involved in violent activity, but COINTELPRO went far beyond that. The unexpressed major premise of the programs was that a law enforcement agency has the duty to do whatever is necessary to combat perceived threats to the existing social and political order.'' The Church Committee further concluded, ``Too many people have been spied upon by too many government agencies, and too much information has been collected.'' As a result of the actions of the Citizens' Commission, the resulting national discussion about these issues led to important changes to our government's domestic surveillance operations. The FBI's policies and practices were evaluated and reformed with respect to how the agency addressed domestic security threats, and the Department of Justice instituted investigative guidelines on domestic intelligence gathering. Because of the important contribution the Citizens' Commission made to the public awareness and debate concerning domestic surveillance, national security, civil rights, and privacy, these eight individuals deserve our recognition as some of them have recently made their identity known. The identities of six of them and the impact of their non-violent act of resistance recently became known in the documentary film 1971, directed by Johanna Hamilton, and in the book The Burglary: The Discovery of J. Edgar Hoover's Secret FBI, written by Betty Medsger. While we continue to discuss the proper use of domestic surveillance techniques today, particularly as technology evolves in ways that could not have been foreseen during the 1970s, we must remain vigilant to abuses of power, even if done with the stated goal of protecting the public. May we strengthen our resolve to protect the rights these individuals cherished and helped preserve over forty years ago.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I was not present for rollcall vote No. 143. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Chair, I stand up to cheer for the Ellison- Grijalva Progressive Caucus budget and what it stands for, and especially for the full employment bill that is woven inside this very spectacular budget. With 20 million Americans unemployed or underemployed or have given up, we put a fraction of a percent of tax on Wall Street speculators and fees on big polluters to finance more than a trillion dollars in investments to repair our roads and bridges, upgrade energy systems, and prepare our young people to thrive as citizens and workers. This budget will create 8.4 million jobs by 2018. I came to Congress a number of decades ago to fight for Dr. Martin Luther King's priorities: jobs, justice, and peace. The Progressive Caucus does it.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, today, as ranking member and former chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, I join with my colleagues, Representative Sheila Jackson Lee, ranking member of the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations, and Representative Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott, the former chairman and ranking member of the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations, in expressing our appreciation for Ron LeGrand's years of service to the committee. Ron has enjoyed a distinguished career in service to our Nation. Prior to joining the staff of the committee, he worked for the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice, the House Select Committee on Narcotics, and the staff of Senator Joseph Biden on the Senate Judiciary Committee. In the private sector and in public service, Ron has dedicated himself to protecting the rights of those who have been victimized by crime. During his time with the committee, Ron worked tirelessly on the hard-fought reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, a historic law to assist victims of domestic violence and prevent future acts of domestic violence. He also worked on important legislation to protect seniors against those who would prey upon them. Ron's ability to build coalitions on both sides of the aisle and with outside stakeholders on human trafficking and drug legislation was critical to the passage of several important bills that have since become law. In recent years, Ron dedicated himself to the examination and reform of our criminal justice system, culminating with his work on the Over- criminalization Task Force. We appreciate his magnanimity, energy, and enthusiasm, which has helped immensely in generating a bipartisan desire to address this issue. In these and other legislative and oversight issues, Ron has displayed a high degree of professionalism and personal commitment, providing the members of the committee and staff with wise counsel. We thank Ron for years of selfless service and wish him the very best as he leaves public service to continue his efforts in fighting domestic violence through his new position at the National Network to End Domestic Violence. All of his colleagues will miss him dearly and continue to value his friendship into the future.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the Democracy Restoration Act of 2015. 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, 23 states have amended felony disenfranchisement policies in an effort to reduce their restrictiveness and expand voter eligibility. These reforms have resulted in an estimate of 800,000 citizens regaining their voting rights. Yet, despite these reforms, an estimated 5.85 million people continue to be ineligible to vote in Federal elections, including more than 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. 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. Mr. Speaker, I was not present for roll call votes # 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, and 118 because I was attending the funeral of community leader and former United Auto Workers vice president General Holiefield in Detroit. Had I been present, I would have voted AYE on roll call votes # 113, 114, 115, and 118 and NAY on roll call #116 and #117.

Mr. CONYERS

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

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 527, the Small Business Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act, threatens to substantially undermine agencies' abilities to effectively regulate areas such as consumer health and product safety, environmental protections, workplace safety, and financial industry misconduct. Under the guise of protecting small businesses from allegedly burdensome regulatory requirements, this bill is just another attempt to prevent regulatory agencies from promulgating regulations that promote and protect the health and safety of Americans, overwhelm regulatory agencies with unnecessary and costly analysis, and give well-financed businesses and antiregulatory organizations even more opportunities to thwart the rulemaking process. This explains why the administration has threatened to veto this legislation, stating that the bill would seriously undermine the ability of agencies to execute their statutory mandates and would impede the ability of agencies to provide the public with basic protections. It also explains why many of the Nation's leading consumer, labor, and environmental organizations have expressed similar concerns about this ``dangerous'' measure, including the AFL-CIO, the American Lung Association, the Consumer Federation of America, the Consumers Union, the Natural Resources Defense Council, Public Citizen, the United Auto Workers, and the National Women's Law Center. One of my principal concerns about this bill is that it could jeopardize America's health and safety. Our Federal agencies are charged with promulgating regulations that impact virtually every aspect of our lives, including the air we breathe, the water we drink, the food we eat, the cars we drive, and even the toys we give our children. Small businesses, like all businesses, provide services and goods that also affect our lives. It makes no difference to a victim who breathes contaminated air or who drinks poisoned water whether the hazards were caused by a small or a large business. The far-reaching legislation before us today would undermine the ability of Federal agencies to quickly respond to emergent health and safety concerns. Section 5 of the bill, for example, repeals the authority under the current law that allows an agency to waive or delay the initial analysis required under the Regulatory Flexibility Act in response to an emergency that makes timely compliance impracticable. So, if there is a widespread E. coli outbreak or an imminent environmental disaster that could be quickly addressed through regulation, this bill says: Don't worry. Don't rush. Let's have the Chief Counsel for Advocacy decide. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson).

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

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to continue our discussion on this side. Another problem with this bill, my colleagues, is that it will waste millions of taxpayer dollars by forcing agencies to redirect their scarce resources to meet the bill's burdensome compliance requirements. Section 6 of the bill, for example, would require agencies to review not only all rules currently in effect, but, in addition, all guidance documents in effect as of the bill's date of enactment. Now, we are talking about thousands of pages of regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations and several hundred thousand guidance documents. So, what is to be gained by that? Thus, it is no wonder that the Congressional Budget Office estimated that it would cost $45 million over a 5-year period to implement the new requirements imposed under a substantively similar bill considered in the last Congress. Rather than burdening agencies responsible for protecting our health and safety, we should be exploring constructive ways to help small business comply with these regulations. Finally, this bill will do little to help small businesses, while simultaneously giving corporate interests increased control over the rulemaking process. The bill's expansion in section 8 of judicial review to include challenges to the adequacy of regulatory flexibility analysis would open the door to endless litigation by well-funded antiregulatory business interests who could challenge agency compliance with the legislation's numerous vague, speculative, and cumbersome analytical and other requirements. I think we get the drift here, where they are going and where they are coming from. I share my colleagues' belief that small business plays an important role in our economy, but this bill does nothing to alleviate the burden, the purported burden on small entities of complying with Federal regulations. In fact, it includes no provision that offers assistance to small entities, whether through subsidies, government-guaranteed loans, preferential tax treatment for small firms, or fully funded compliance assistance offices. Instead, the bill merely aggrandizes the power of the professional lobbying class in Washington, creating opportunities for a well-funded business interest to intervene in the process. This is a very harmful bill that puts the health and safety of all Americans at risk, while adding nothing to the efficiency or cost- effectiveness of agency rulemaking. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to oppose this dangerous legislation. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chairman, my amendment would preserve the ability of agencies to quickly respond to emergencies that threaten America's health and safety by striking one of the most pernicious elements of this legislation. Section 5 of H.R. 527 contains one of the bill's most problematic provisions. As drafted, it could undermine the ability of agencies to quickly respond to emergent health and safety risks. So this section repeals the authority under current law that allows an agency to waive or delay the initial analysis required under the Regulatory Flexibility Act ``in response to an emergency that makes compliance or timely compliance impracticable.'' Rather than leave this critical exception under current law in place, section 5 replaces it with a provision empowering the Chief Counsel for Advocacy to issue regulations about how agencies, in general, should comply with the act, without any provision allowing agencies to respond to emergencies through expedited rulemakings. Thus, if there is a looming national pandemic or environmental disaster that could be avoided or mitigated through regulation, the bill prevents agencies from responding to such emergencies without first having to go through the arduous and time-consuming task of review and analysis. For example, last year, OSHA issued guidance to assist hospitals in preparing to provide inpatient care for Ebola patients. H.R. 527, however, would have significantly delayed this process. This is because the legislation broadly applies to both rules and interim guidance, requiring agencies to undertake a burdensome analysis and review process prior to issuing even interim guidance. And because H.R. 527 eliminates the emergency exception, there would have been no way for OSHA to quickly act in the face of a possible Ebola outbreak. This amendment would simply preserve the critical emergency exception under current law so that agencies can quickly respond to emergencies without being hampered or second-guessed by others. I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. So if there is a looming environmental disaster or a national pandemic like Ebola that could be mitigated through regulation, this bill says: ``Don't worry, don't rush. Let's have the Office of Advocacy decide.'' And what is this Office of Advocacy? Well, it is an office that is woefully ill-equipped to fulfill its current responsibilities. So I urge support for the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I inadvertently did not vote during Roll Call #64 on passage of H.R. 50, the Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act of 2015. Had I voted, I would have voted ``nay.'' personal explanation

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor one of the most prominent and important civil liberties and civil rights advocates of our time--my friend, Laura W. Murphy. Laura is the longest serving director of the Washington Legislative Office of the American Civil Liberties Union, and will be stepping down at the end of the month. It is my pleasure to honor her public service and to wish her well in her next chapter. Most recently, Laura was instrumental in advising Attorney General Eric Holder and the United States Sentencing Commission on ways to reduce overcrowding among federal prison populations. She worked closely with Attorney General Holder and leaders of the House and Senate in passing the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, a law that reduced the sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine, which ignited a movement to finally begin to end racial disparities in our criminal justice system. Among Laura's other profound legislative accomplishments was working closely with Congress and the White House to build support for essential and federally funded reproductive health services for servicemembers and their dependents in cases of rape and incest. This was among the few abortion rights victories of the last 40 years. Laura has been a leading voice in Washington, D.C. and throughout the country for freedom of speech, including her office's tireless efforts to preserve the First Amendment in the face of calls for a constitutional amendment that would lead to laws against so-called flag desecration, that would restrict internet free speech, and that would censor lyrics in rap and other music genres. She has been a tenacious advocate for checks and balances to prevent abuses by Intelligence agencies and finally rolling back the significant overreach of the USA Patriot Act. Her work on LGBT rights, mass incarceration and racial profiling, comprehensive immigration reform, privacy, reproductive rights, and voting rights has been peerless. Laura is a familiar face in Congress, and among the few people who can call both Representative Maxine Waters and Senator Mitch McConnell friends, an advocate who has shown the nation how to achieve bipartisan success in these hyper-partisan times. She has testified more than a dozen times before the House and Senate and is a frequent contributor to national dialogue on critical legislative issues. One of the ACLU's most prominent spokespersons, Laura is also an author, including book chapters on homeland security and the African American community's response to the 9/11 attacks. Repeatedly named among the most influential advocates in Washington, D.C. and frequently cited by the Washington Post, Laura has been an important voice for more than four decades, advising U.S. Presidents from Ronald Reagan to Barack Obama. We in Congress are losing not only a tireless advocate for civil liberties and civil rights, we are losing a dear friend, respected and admired by all who know her. I am hopeful that she will remain close at hand and active in the fight for basic American values. Those closest to her know that fighting for justice is in Laura's DNA--she is a direct descendent of one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, Philip Livingston. I urge you to join me in wishing Laura Murphy all the best, to congratulate her as she faces new adventures, and to thank her for her many years of service.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 7, the so-called No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act. Today, on the 42nd anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the majority is launching yet another attack on women's health and constitutionally protected right to choose whether to carry a pregnancy to term. Most importantly, this bill will make it virtually impossible for a woman to obtain abortion services even when paid for with purely private, non-Federal funds. Through its novel tax penalty provisions, H.R. 7 departs radically from existing law, taking away women's existing health care and placing their health and lives at risk. And despite the claims of its sponsors, H.R. 7 does not codify current law, and it is not about the regulation of Federal funds. There is no Federal funding of abortion due to the Hyde amendment, and the Affordable Care Act maintains that policy and law. For more than 30 years, Congress has prohibited Federal funding of abortion except in cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother, through provisions like the Hyde amendment in annual appropriations bills. Nothing in the Affordable Care Act changes this. Finally, H.R. 7 also eradicates the authority of the District of Columbia to make decisions about how appropriated funds are used for the health care of the District's citizens. So what is H.R. 7 really about? Plain and simple, it is an assault on women's health and freedom. It permanently blocks abortion coverage for low-income women, civil servants, D.C. residents, and the military. No committee has considered this legislation. Text was not even available until last night, when the Rules Committee met in a so-called emergency meeting. But the only emergency was the majority didn't have the votes to pass another mean-spirited, anti-choice bill so they are rushing to the floor with this bill in time for the anniversary of Roe v. Wade. Isn't it time to stop playing politics with women's lives and start governing? Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to oppose this egregious bill.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Chair and members of the committee, I oppose the Schock amendment for many of the numerous reasons that have already been stated by our colleagues, but I want to make sure that we are all perfectly clear on what is occurring on the House floor today. The majority is, unfortunately, playing politics with the lives, safety, and security of the American people. The ideologues are holding funding hostage for the Homeland Security Department here today. That is not right. They would rather deport DREAMers--the kids and their parents--rather than fund the Department of Homeland Security. In the wake of the recent Paris tragedy, we need to remain vigilant with smart enforcement policies that protect Americans. The Department of Homeland Security plays a central role in our fight against terror, and we must fully fund the efforts as soon as possible. We should not be attaching poison pill amendments to this important legislation. I urge all of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to really join us and govern with a sense of far more responsibility.

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

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chair, I am very disturbed by the nature of this Blackburn amendment because it would prevent the use of Federal funds or resources to consider or adjudicate any new, renewal, or any previously denied application for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, DACA, or any subsequently similar program. This amendment is similar to the same Blackburn bill that passed the House in August of 2014. This amendment clearly terminates the DACA program, the DREAMers, ladies and gentlemen, my colleagues. The amendment prevents new persons from applying for DACA and explicitly prohibits further efforts to renew deferred action under this amendment. Hundreds of thousands of young people who came forward, passed background checks, obtained DACA, and have since followed the law would be deportable at the end of their 2-year deferred action period. This is serious; it is dangerous. The amendment is anti-immigrant and antifamily. This is a vote to deport DREAMers. These applicants who have applied have positive impacts on both job growth and economy. The amendment would leave DACA applicants without work authorization and would expose many of them to deportation to a country that they don't even know. We should be passing legislation to keep DACA recipients in our country because they have a net impact on our communities. The amendment is one more of the same anti-immigrant-type rhetoric that has dominated conservatives and is further evidence that the majority is not interested in fixing our broken immigration system, but is only interested in penalizing members of our community who seek to work, go to school, and remain with their family. I reserve the balance of my time.