John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I would like all of my colleagues to recognize that, during our observation of National Police Week, we are reminded again of the importance of ensuring that law enforcement officers are safe so they can carry out their duties effectively. These kinds of ``enhancement'' bills like H.R. 115 do nothing to invest in officer wellness or to address the everyday challenges faced by police officers or first responders. Moreover, they are redundant, especially because there are laws that protect police officers and first responders from violence in all 50 States. Rather than advancing a bill that amounts to an empty gesture, that is damaging, at best, this Congress should focus on real reform measures that will protect law enforcement, first responders, and their communities. Providing duplicative protections to law enforcement simply cannot counterbalance the impact of fundamentally flawed death penalty legislation. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter addressed to Mr. Goodlatte and myself, and I want to read the first paragraph of it. ``Dear Chairman Goodlatte and Ranking Member Conyers: ``We are current and former law enforcement leaders and officers from jurisdictions across the country. We ask you to oppose H.R. 115, the Thin Blue Line Act. We do so because we believe this bill will do little to protect the lives of police and first responders and will drive away resources proven to be effective at protecting law enforcement and preventing and solving crime.'' April 26, 2017. Re Law Enforcement Opposition to H.R. 115. Hon. Bob Goodlatte, Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC. Hon. John Conyers, Jr., Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Goodlatte and Ranking Member Conyers: We are current and former law enforcement leaders and officers from jurisdictions across the country. We ask you to oppose H.R. 115, the Thin Blue Line Act. We do so because we believe this bill will do little to protect the lives of police and first responders and will drive away resources proven to be effective at protecting law enforcement and preventing and solving crime. We are all too familiar with the risks that local, state, and federal law enforcement and first responders take each day to prevent, investigate, and prosecute crime. In fact; some of us have served alongside colleagues who were killed in the line of duty. We understand the impulse to threaten those who have murdered our fellow officers with the death penalty, and some of us have experienced that desire directly. But we also know that the death penalty, as it currently operates, is poor public policy. It is ineffective, expensive, and can make irrevocable mistakes. It is also used disparately and often on vulnerable populations, which undermines our ability to create effective and trusted relationships with those in the community on whose support our success depends. That is why, while some of us may philosophically support the death penalty, we all oppose its expansion in practice--even under the auspices of supporting law enforcement. Each of us understands that it takes many and varied resources to keep our communities safe. We need strong partnerships with local government and the communities we serve. We need well-functioning and modern systems to collect, store and process police activities, crime data, and evidence. We need equipment to protect and assist officers as they perform their duties. One tool virtually never seen on our list of needs is the death penalty. In short, we believe H.R. 115 is an unnecessary expansion of an already flawed and ineffective policy. We encourage you to oppose this bill and instead support measures that promote the overall health, safety, and welfare of law enforcement and the communities we have been sworn to protect. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, James Abbott, Chief, West Orange (NJ) Police Department (1997-Present). John Breckenridge, Officer, Manchester (NH) Police Department (ret.). James Davidsaver, Emergency Management Director, Lancaster County, Nebraska; former captain, Lincoln (NE) Police Department. Neill Franklin, Baltimore Police Department (2000-2010); Maryland State Police (1976-1999). Gerald Galloway, Chief, Southern Pines (NC) Police Department (1988-2005); Past President, North Carolina Chiefs of Police Association; former Executive Committee member,

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today also in strong support of S. 419, the Public Safety Officers' Benefits Improvement Act, a bill which was just passed by the Senate yesterday. Each day, public safety officers put their lives on the line for the greater good of those whom they have taken an oath to serve and protect. Unfortunately, for some of these brave men and women, the ultimate sacrifice is made, and they will die while in the line of duty. The Public Safety Officers' Benefits program, which is administered by the Justice Department's Bureau of Justice Assistance, was established in 1976 to provide certain benefits to the families of these officers as well as to officers who are disabled as a result of their service. The death benefit is provided to eligible survivors of public safety officers whose deaths are a direct and proximate result of a traumatic injury sustained in the line of duty or death from certain heart attacks, strokes, and vascular ruptures sustained while on duty. An education benefit is provided to spouses and children of public safety officers killed or disabled while on duty. The program provides disability benefits to officers catastrophically injured in the line of duty. Mr. Speaker, I support S. 419 because it will significantly improve in several respects how benefits claims of fallen and injured officers are processed under the Public Safety Officers' Benefits program. To begin with, the bill responds to the fact that, all too often, these officers and their families, after experiencing a loss of life or traumatic injury, must then endure months, sometimes years, of uncertainty and delay concerning their benefit claims. S. 419 requires the Bureau to give substantial weight to evidence and facts presented by a Federal, State, or local agency when determining eligibility for death or disability benefits. In addition, the measure authorizes the Bureau of Justice Assistance to establish rules based on standards for the Benefits program. These two requirements will help facilitate and expedite the Benefits program claims processed and, thereby, reduce the backlog of families awaiting a decision on their benefit claims. S. 419 also increases transparency of the Bureau's claims processing. It requires, for example, the Bureau to publish and update a report with information on the status of pending claims regarding death, disability, and educational claims submitted, which will increase transparency. As we all know, transparency often leads to accountability, and this bill will make the Bureau of Justice Assistance and the Department of Justice more accountable to the families of fallen and traumatically injured officers, Congress, and the public as well. By requiring that updates or pending benefit claims be posted on public websites, Congress and the public will be able to evaluate the performance of the Bureau in timely processing pending claims. Finally, S. 419 will help ensure that families, who are the ultimate victims of those who sacrifice their lives for our protection, are not deprived of benefits they are due under the Public Safety Officers' Benefits program. We all have a responsibility to take care of surviving family members when a first responder is tragically killed or injured in the line of duty. This bill is a step in the right direction of ensuring that families are not overly burdened and that the public is aware of how the Bureau and the Justice Department are handling claims submitted by family members. Mr. Speaker, the sacrifice of these first responders should not be taken for granted, and their families should not be unduly burdened when applying for benefits under the Public Safety Officers' Benefits program. Accordingly, I support S. 419. I urge my colleagues to do the same. Mr. Speaker, it is particularly significant to note that S. 419 is being considered in the midst of National Police Week, a period dedicated to honor our Nation's fallen law enforcement heroes. President John Kennedy, by proclamation signed in 1962, designated May 15 as Peace Officers Memorial Day and the week in which that date falls as National Police Week. S. 419 memorializes our commitment to public safety officers, who daily risk their lives for us, by removing barriers that prevent beneficiaries under the Benefits program from obtaining the benefits they so justly deserve. Families of our first responders deserve timely consideration of benefit claims when their loved ones give the ultimate sacrifice. Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to support this measure so that it may be sent to the President for signature. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2266, the Bankruptcy Judgeship Act of 2017, which would make 14 temporary bankruptcy judgeships permanent and authorize four additional bankruptcy judgeships. I introduced this bipartisan legislation together with the support of Judiciary Committee Chairman Goodlatte, along with Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law Subcommittee Chairman Marino and Ranking Member Cicilline. H.R. 2266 warrants the support from my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for several reasons. To begin with, this measure reflects the recommendations of the Judicial Conference of the United States with respect to the judicial resource needs of our Nation's bankruptcy courts. These recommendations are themselves based on a comprehensive survey of all judicial circuits. This analysis consists of two components. The first is premised on a case-weight formula devised by the Federal Judicial Center that is intended to provide a more accurate and useful measure of judicial workload than a mere count of case filings. The second component considers a broad array of other factors, including the nature of a court's caseload, filing trends, demographic considerations, geographic issues, and economic aspects, among other items. Taken together, the resulting analysis provides a reliable basis upon which Congress may assess the necessity of authorizing additional judgeships and extending temporary judgeships. In addition, H.R. 2266 addresses an immediate need. All of the temporary judgeships addressed in H.R. 2266 will lapse as of May 25, which is just a week away. Once a temporary judgeship lapses, any ensuing vacancy may not be filled, which presents a serious concern. As the Judicial Conference warns, these bankruptcy courts would ``face a serious and, in many cases, debilitating workload crisis if their temporary judgeships were to expire.'' This is particularly true with respect to the Eastern District of Michigan, which has a weighted caseload well in excess of the minimum necessary to trigger additional judicial resources. Although Congress has previously extended temporary bankruptcy judgeships from time to time, some have also lapsed as a result of Congress' failure to timely act. So to avoid future lapses in judicial resources, my legislation converts 14 of these temporary judgeships to permanent status. Finally, I am pleased to report that H.R. 2266 pays for all of these judgeships without having to require consumer debtors to bear that expense. The cost of this legislation is offset by increasing the quarterly fees that the largest 10 percent of chapter 11 debtors pay to the United States Trustee System Fund, a proposal initially made by the Obama administration as part of the President's budget request for 2017. Specifically, the fee increase would apply only to chapter 11 debtors that have quarterly disbursements in excess of $1 million and only during the period when the fund has less than $200 million. For all of these various reasons, I support this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Delaware (Ms. Blunt Rochester).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I am pleased to note that H.R. 2266 is supported by the American Bar Association, the Federal Bar Association, the American College of Bankruptcy, and the National Conference of Bankruptcy Judges. I want to also express appreciation to our Judiciary chairman, Mr. Goodlatte, to Chairman Marino and Ranking Member Cicilline, as well as their staffs, for their cooperative efforts in working with me on this bipartisan legislation. Mr. Speaker, given the time-sensitive nature of the temporary judgeships addressed by H.R. 2266 and the immediate need for additional bankruptcy judgeships to be authorized, it is my hope that our colleagues in the Senate will expeditiously consider this important legislation. I urge all of the Members here to support this measure. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I have been here for five decades, and I can't recall a time when we have debated something so obviously harmful to seniors and working people in this country. This bill strips health care from 24 million people. It requires seniors to pay sometimes 100 percent or more of their income in premiums. This legislation drastically and dramatically cuts Medicaid, directly contradicting President Trump's claim not to. In Michigan, half of all children rely on Medicaid. In my district alone, 56,000 people will lose coverage, including 16,000 children and 3,200 seniors. Let's be clear. If we pass this bill, people will die. Health care is a right and not a privilege.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, the Emergency Financial Manager Reform Act of 2017 is intended to ensure that state-appointed emergency financial managers for municipalities in fiscal distress do not violate Constitutional protections, ensure public health and safety, and are accountable stewards of taxpayer funds. The bill responds to problems presented when unaccountable emergency financial managers usurp local elected officials and unilaterally make decisions that jeopardize public health and safety. The bill accomplishes these objectives by authorizing the U.S. Attorney General to withhold ten percent of the funds that would otherwise be allocated to a state under the Edward Byrne Justice Assistance Grant Program (Byrne-JAG), which provides funding to states for law enforcement purposes, if the U.S. Attorney General determines that the state appointed an emergency financial manager who fails to meet any of the criteria as specified in the bill. These criteria, for example, include a requirement that the appropriate state official submit a certification to the U.S. Attorney General stating that the appointment of an emergency financial manager has neither the purpose nor the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color. Another condition specifies that the emergency financial manager receive prior approval from the governor of the state and the appropriate local elected officials before making decisions affecting public health or safety. A further condition protects the rights of employees under collective bargaining agreements from being impaired in violation of the U.S. Constitution. Section-by-Section Explanation of the Bill Section 1. Short Title. Section 1 sets forth the short title of the bill as the Emergency Financial Manager Reform Act of 2017. Section 2. Findings. Section 2 of the bill sets forth a series of congressional findings explaining why this legislation is necessary. Section 3. Safeguards Regarding State Appointment of an Emergency Financial Manager. Subsection (a) of section 3 authorizes the U.S. Attorney General to withhold ten percent of funds that would otherwise be allocated to a state under the Byrne-JAG grant program for the following fiscal year if the state has appointed an emergency financial manager and any of the following criteria are not met: (1) The emergency financial manager is appointed and the chief legal officer or other appropriate state official has not prior thereto submitted a certification to the U.S. Attorney General that such appointment has neither the purpose nor the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color and the U.S. Attorney General has not interposed an objection within 60 days following the submission of such certification. (2) The emergency financial manager is authorized to make decisions affecting public health or safety of the residents of a local government unit without receiving prior approval from the governor of the state and the appropriate local elected officials. (3) The emergency financial manager fails to have adequate oversight to ensure against conflicts of interest, mismanagement, and abuse of discretion by the emergency financial manager. The bill, in section 4, defines adequate oversight to mean that a monthly, publically-available report accounting for all financial activities of the emergency financial manager, including possible conflicts of interest, mismanagement, and abuses of discretion. This report must be reviewed and approved by the governor. In addition, adequate oversight means that there must be an independent, state- approved, and publically-available annual audit of the emergency financial manager's duty-related activities. (4) The emergency financial manager is authorized to reject, modify, or terminate an existing collective bargaining agreement without mutual consent of all parties to such agreement. (5) The emergency financial manager is authorized to reject, modify, or terminate an existing contract without mutual consent of all parties to such contract or such rejection, modification, or termination is approved by an federal bankruptcy court. Subsection (b) provides that the amount of funding not allocated under subsection (a) is to be reallocated to other states that are not subject to any reduction under subsection (a). Section 4. Definitions. Section 4 defines various terms used in the bill.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize my brothers of Kappa Alpha Psi Fraternity, Incorporated, during the annual James ``Biff'' Carter Kappas on the Capitol Hill Legislative Policy Conference. I knew Biff Carter personally. Each year, Kappas from all over the country flock to Capitol Hill to raise awareness around the key issues that are affecting our communities. These men are leaders in religious, business, legal, academia, and community service institutions, as well as others. Mr. Speaker, I have committed my life to public service for over 52 years. I have been honored to serve my constituents in this esteemed body. But one of my proudest moments in public service is when I committed myself to a life of honorable achievement in every field of human endeavor--the day I joined Kappa Alpha Psi Fraternity, Incorporated. Today I am proud as I see brothers in their red blazers walk these hallowed Halls, bringing their professional expertise and wisdom gained through experience and passion for their communities to Washington, D.C., the Nation, and the world.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Brady), ranking member of the House Administration Committee.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1695, the Register of Copyrights Selection and Accountability Act. As lead Democratic cosponsor of this bipartisan, bicameral legislation, I am pleased that this bill passed out of our Judiciary Committee--thanks to Chairman Goodlatte and many others--by a vote of 27-1. This legislation represents sound public policy that will strengthen the copyright system. To begin with, it has evolved directly from the bipartisan copyright review process that Chairman Goodlatte initiated way back in 2013. Over the course of that highly deliberative process, the Judiciary Committee held no less than 20 hearings and heard from over 100 witnesses on how to update the copyright laws for the 21st century. H.R. 1695 is the product of more than 4 years of outreach efforts with a wide range of interested parties who very much want to see, like all of us, a Copyright Office that is responsible to all stakeholders in the copyright ecosystem. This bill is also the product of bicameral collaboration with our Senate colleagues, including the Judiciary Committee Chairman Grassley, the Ranking Member Feinstein, and Senator Leahy. As a result of this inclusive process, the strong bipartisan consensus emerged from the Copyright Office that needs to be more accountable to Congress, and that it should have greater independence. That Office has a long and distinguished history of serving as an adviser to Congress on copyright measures, and it is only reasonable that Congress play a significant role in deciding who leads that important agency. H.R. 1695 also elevates the stature of the Register and makes the position directly accountable to Congress, which will help ensure a strong and vibrant copyright system that fuels our economy, creates jobs, and promotes a diverse range of views. Today, core copyright businesses annually contribute more than $1.2 trillion to our Nation's economy and generate foreign sales of almost $180 billion. These businesses are also tremendous job creators, creating more than 5 million workers. That is why the bill is strongly supported by several unions, including the AFL-CIO, the Screen Actors Guild, the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists, as well as the Directors Guild of America. H.R. 1695 is also supported by a broad range of other stakeholders, including: the American Intellectual Property Law Association; the Intellectual Property Owners Association; and various coalitions of creators, such as the Content Creators Coalition (c3), CreativeFuture, and the Copyright Alliance. Individual creators like Jeff Friday, the founder and CEO of Film Life and the producer of the American Black Film Festival also are in strong support of the bill. Finally, H.R. 1695 will enable Congress to ensure that the Copyright Office is led by a well-qualified individual by requiring the Register to be confirmed by the Senate. This individual must be responsive to the Congress and the public, as well as all the stakeholders in the copyright community. In fact, an amendment offered by our distinguished colleague from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), that was accepted during the Judiciary Committee markup of the bill, will further strengthen the selection process by establishing an even larger role for Congress in choosing candidates for the position. Accordingly, I urge total support for H.R. 1695, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), a senior member of the committee who has done an amazing job.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), a senior member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardenas).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson), a distinguished member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chair, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutch).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chair, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Judy Chu).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chair, it is my pleasure to yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), one of the most influential members of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time to close. Ladies and gentlemen, in closing, I want to point out that it is particularly appropriate that we are considering H.R. 1695 on World Intellectual Property Day, a day dedicated to acknowledging the critical role that intellectual property rights play in encouraging creativity and innovation. First established in 2001, World Intellectual Property Day encourages engagement among governments, private industry, and the public about the importance of intellectual property promotion and protection. H.R. 1695 goes a long way in achieving those goals. Accordingly, I thank my colleagues for their support, and I urge that this bill be passed. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

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

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I just want everyone to know that I rise in support of this amendment. As we discovered through the Judiciary Committee's comprehensive copyright review process, the Copyright Office needs significant upgrades to its technology; so the gentleman's amendment would ensure that the Register has someone on her staff with the knowledge and skills necessary to bring the Copyright Office information technology system into the 21st century. It is a useful amendment. It will help modernize the Copyright Office, and I appreciate the gentleman from Florida for offering it. I urge total support for the amendment.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. This amendment makes clear that nothing in the bill would impact the Library of Congress' mandatory deposit requirement. For over 100 years, the Library has built its world-class collection, in large part, through the mandatory deposit requirement. So H.R. 1695 is a very narrow bill that only changes how the Register of Copyrights is selected. I think it is helpful, and I congratulate the gentlewoman for this very creative amendment. I urge my colleagues to support it.