John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

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

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In 2014, in a unanimous ruling delivered by Chief Justice Roberts, the Supreme Court concluded that the police may not search a cell phone without first demonstrating probable cause. Citing an obvious Fourth Amendment interest--namely, the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure--in the vast amount of data we store on our personal devices, the Court wrote: ``The fact that technology now allows an individual to carry such information in his hand does not make the information any less worthy of the protection for which the Founders fought. Our answer to the question of what police must do before searching a cell phone seized incident to an arrest is accordingly simple--get a warrant.'' With that decision, the Court took a bold step toward reconciling the Fourth Amendment with the advent of modern communications technology. Today the House takes a similar step to reconcile our interests in privacy and due process with the realities of modern computing. We do so for the second time. H.R. 387, the Email Privacy Act, recognizes that the content of our communications, although often stored in digital format, remains worthy of Fourth Amendment protection. And to investigators and government agents who seek access to our email, our advice is rather simple: get a warrant. It is an idea whose time has long since come. So this bill will allow us to move to a clear, uniform standard for law enforcement agencies to access the content of our communications; namely, a warrant based on probable cause. H.R. 387 also codifies the right of the providers to give notice of this intrusion to their customers, except in certain exigent circumstances that must be also validated by the court. We should note the absence of a special carve-out from the warrant requirement for the civil agencies, like the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Internal Revenue Service. Last Congress, in the Judiciary Committee, we reached quick consensus that a civil carve-out of any kind is unworkable, unconstitutional, or maybe both. I would have preferred to keep the notice provisions of the original bill, which are absent from the version we reported from committee. In the digital world, no amount of due diligence necessarily tells us that the government accessed our electronic information. The government should have an obligation to provide us with some form of notice when intruding on a record of our most private conversations. I fully understand that not everyone shares this view, and I am willing to compromise, for now, in order to advance the important reforms that we will adopt today. I am proud of the work we have done. Last Congress, the House passed this legislation that has already been noted by 419-0. I hope that today we can send our colleagues in the Senate a similarly strong signal to pass this bill. This legislation is several years in the making, and it should not be delayed any further. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 387, the Email Privacy Act. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, when the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) was chairman of the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties Subcommittee in 2010, he held three hearings on various aspects of ECPA, including the need for a warrant requirement. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), a former member of the Judiciary Committee and the lead Democratic sponsor of this bill.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 40, a measure that would vacate an important rule issued by the Social Security Administration to help reduce gun violence. This resolution of disapproval is particularly problematic because, pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, it would not only invalidate this rule but prohibit the agency from adopting substantially the same rule in the future, even an improved version of the rule. How unusual. As we consider this resolution today, I ask my colleagues to consider, for just a moment, how we arrived at this point and, more precisely, what is at stake. In 1968, after a decade of assassinations and gun violence, Congress worked to pass the Gun Control Act. That law lists certain categories of individuals who are prohibited from purchasing and possessing firearms, including felons, fugitives, those who have renounced their citizenship, those who have been dishonorably discharged, and also those ``adjudicated mentally defective.'' Today, we don't commonly use that outdated and unfortunate terminology. Instead, we refer to the ``Federal mental health prohibitor,'' which remains an important--although challenging--feature of our Federal gun laws. Because it was common sense that we needed a system to help prevent guns from getting into the hands of those who were legally prohibited from possessing them, Congress took bipartisan action to enact the Brady Act in 1993. That statute established a National Instant Criminal Background Check System--some call it NICS--and it requires federally licensed gun dealers to conduct checks on prospective purchasers in order to verify that they are not prohibited on the basis of the statutory categories. Although unwisely limited only to sales conducted by licensed gun dealers, the NICS system is extremely beneficial as far as it goes. Critically, however, this background check system is only as good as the completeness of the records it includes. This fact was tragically underscored in 2007, when a student on the campus of Virginia Tech shot and killed 32 people. The shooter had a mental health record that was serious enough that it should have been reported to the system, but it was not. As a result, Congress enacted the bipartisan NICS Improvement Amendments Act that same year in order to provide incentives for States to do a better job of submitting disqualifying mental health records to the system. The law also requires Federal agencies to submit any such information that they have. While some States have done a great job of complying with the law, others have not, which remains a critical challenge. As we expect States to do more to comply, we must also ensure Federal agencies are doing their part. The rule under consideration, which was finalized last December after an extensive rulemaking process that considered more than 91,000 comments from the public, is intended to impact only a very narrow range of individuals whom the agency determines should be prohibited from possessing firearms under the statutory mental health prohibitor, which has been the law for decades. The rule applies only to those individuals who have a very severe, long-term mental disorder that makes them unable to do any kind of work in the American economy, including even part time or at very low wages. These individuals must have been determined through an evaluation of all of the evidence that they are not capable of managing their own benefits and must be assigned a representative payee. This designation is given only after an individual is notified orally and in writing at the outset of the process that the gun eligibility determination would be the result of the assignment of a representative payee. After the determination is made, the affected individuals may appeal the decision to the agency and then, ultimately, to a Federal court. Of course, we must avoid taking actions that would unfairly stigmatize individuals who suffer from mental illness or a disability. This is true in many respects, but, with regard to issues of public safety, we must recognize that people who suffer from mental illness should not be assumed to be dangerous. In fact, they are much more likely to be victims of crime than to be perpetrators. With those considerations in mind, my colleagues, it can be difficult to apply the mental health prohibitor, but, still, we must apply and enforce the law. If I were proposing such a rule, I cannot say whether this process would be exactly what I would recommend. We have not held hearings on this issue, and we have not had the chance to examine all appropriate considerations. I can say that the agency has undertaken a commendable effort in accordance with President Obama's directive to ensure that the NICS background check system has the information that it believes, after a thorough rulemaking process, corresponds to a longstanding category of firearms prohibition. Accordingly, we should not completely disregard the agency's efforts, and I urge my colleagues to strenuously oppose H.J. Res. 40. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas.

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

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Members of the House, we have some organizational support for opposing this resolution. The first is the AFL-CIO, one of our largest unions in the country. The second is the Consumer Federation of America, and then there is this great organization, Everytown for Gun Safety across the country. In addition, the Americans for Responsible Solutions organization is opposed to H.J. Res. 40. Finally, the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence is also opposed to this measure, as is the Consumer Federation of America. If Members believe this rule needs further refinement or that it does not afford adequate due process, then we should have the conversation with an eye toward improving the rule, but that is not what has been done. Unfortunately, this is what we are not discussing today. Instead, H.J. Res. 40 would invalidate all aspects of this rule and prohibit the agency from adopting substantially the same rule. We should not summarily dismiss this rule, which would undermine the effort to make the NICS more effective. If H.J. Res. 40 passes Congress and is signed into law, some individuals will be able to pass firearm background checks solely because Congress prevented relevant records from being submitted to the system. The Social Security Administration's rule is about making Americans safer from the scourge of gun violence and, unfortunately, believe me, H.J. Res. 40 would do the opposite. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I would like to emphasize several points additionally. The degree of impairment required for reporting to the NICS is extremely high, to the extent that someone is not capable of working at any job in the economy, no matter how basic. Someone receiving Social Security benefits as a retiree, even if they have mental impairment and have been assigned a representative payee, would not meet the criteria for reporting to the NICS because they are not receiving benefits because of disability. Further, the rule went into effect in January, but compliance is not required until December of this year. This would only impact claims going forward and will not involve retroactively assessing individuals already receiving Social Security disability payments based on mental impairment. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Judy Chu), my colleague, a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Members of the House, this is a very serious matter. This rule, and I have to emphasize this, does not run afoul of the Second Amendment. You can oppose this--well, let's put it like this: The Heller Court, in the Supreme Court case, said that ``nothing in the Court's opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill.'' I emphasize ``and the mentally ill.'' And it is in that sense that I join with the AFL-CIO, Consumer Federation of America, Everytown for Gun Safety, Americans for Responsible Solutions, the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, and many thoughtful citizens who support the Second Amendment in opposing the measure that is on the floor now. I urge Members to vote ``no.'' Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 7, the so-called ``No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act of 2017.'' The Majority marks the 44th anniversary of Roe v. Wade this week with its latest attempt to undo that decision's unequivocal recognition of a woman's constitutionally protected right to choose to terminate a pregnancy. We must recognize this bill for what it really is. H.R. 7 is yet another attack by the Majority on women's health, a goal it accomplishes in several respects. To begin with, H.R. 7 would make it virtually impossible for a woman to obtain abortion services even when paid for with purely private, non-Federal funds. It achieves this end by denying Affordable Care Act tax credits to income-eligible women and small business employers who choose insurance coverage that includes abortion. 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. Despite the claims of its sponsors, H.R. 7 does not merely codify current law, but, rather, goes well beyond it to deny women basic health care services. Moreover, to the extent it bans federal funding of abortion services, H.R. 7 is unnecessary, because such funding is already banned by the Hyde Amendment, and the Affordable Care Act maintains that ban. 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 the Hyde Amendment and similar measures in annual appropriations bills. Nothing in the Affordable Care Act changes this. That Act does not permit federal funding of abortion, and ensures that only private funds can be used to purchase abortion insurance coverage. There is absolutely no risk that public money will be used to pay for abortion services. So what is H.R. 7 really about? Plain and simple, it is part of the Majority's relentless war against women's health and constitutional freedoms. Members should understand that a vote for H.R. 7 is not a vote to codify existing law. It is, instead, a vote to attack women's health and equality. Finally, we should reject H.R. 7's permanent restriction on the District of Columbia's use of local funds that Congress has approved. H.R. 7 not only infringes women's constitutional rights, but also intrudes deeply into local government decision-making by the District. Women and families who live in the District should not be singled out for additional harm simply because of where they live. Last Congress, the Obama Administration ``strongly oppose[d]'' a substantially similar bill, saying the legislation ``would intrude on women's reproductive freedom and access to health care; increase the financial burden on many Americans; [and] unnecessarily restrict the private insurance choices that consumers have today.'' I agree wholeheartedly with that analysis and, accordingly, I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this dangerous bill.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, within hours of taking the oath as President of the United States, Donald Trump signaled that his much touted ``New Deal for Black America'' is just the same ``old deal'' of discrimination, voter suppression and establishment entitlement. In politics, as in life, actions always speak louder than words. And the speed of his repudiation of the inclusive agenda of the Obama administration shouts his intention to turn back the clock on civil rights for a broad swath of our nation. Since the Supreme Court suspended the application of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act in the Shelby County Case, African American communities around the nation have fought the passage of discriminatory voter identification laws as part of a scheme to suppress the vote. The states of Texas and North Carolina have been particular battlegrounds, where important victories were achieved in the federal courts. The work of civil rights advocacy groups received important support from the Voting Section of the DOJ Civil Rights Division in reversing some of the most aggressive state-passed voter suppression plans. As many have feared, the election of Trump threatens to produce a radical change in support for voting rights from the White House. Unlike even President George W. Bush, who signed the reauthorization of Section 5 of the VRA, Trump has exhibited an hostility to voting rights not seen since the Civil Rights era. By Friday afternoon, lawyers for the Department asked for a delay in the hearing scheduled for tomorrow on the Texas voter ID case, citing the change in presidential administrations. The motion noted that ``Because of the change in administration, the Department of Justice also experienced a transition in leadership, . . . and requires additional time to brief the new leadership of the Department on this case and the issues to be addressed at the hearing before making any representations to the Court.'' It is generally expected that DOJ will reverse course in the case. This case is a bellwether of what can be expected from a Trump DOJ on civil rights. Given the size of Texas and the precedential impact of the case, the stakes in this litigation could not be higher for the minority community. The voting law at issue in the case, known as SB 14, set strict requirements for permissible ID to vote. While it included such identification as a driver's license, passport and a concealed handgun license, it excluded identification like federal government or student IDs. In July, the Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit in New Orleans ruled that the law violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act because it disproportionately affected minorities. The Department of Justice had previously argued that the law violated the Voting Rights Act and was intended to directly impact the abilities of minorities to vote, as more than 600,000 minorities lacked the ID necessary under state law to vote. The belief that the Civil Rights Division will change position and will be under attack is well founded. Last Thursday, it was reported that the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, Violence Against Women Grants and the Legal Services Corporation would be target for elimination and the Civil Rights Division would have its funding cut as part of Trump plan for reducing the size of the federal government. Most troubling, it was also reported that John M. Gore, an attorney who led the legal teams on several key cases attacking civil rights, would be the head of DOJ' s Civil Rights Division as the Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights. Gore was one of the defense attorneys who argued in court on behalf of North Carolina's legally dubious and discriminatory anti-transgender bill HB2. The bill blocks transgender people from using public bathrooms that align with their gender identity. The bottom line here is that Gore was on the side of discrimination in the country's most high-profile LGBTQ rights case of the past year. (Many will recall that this legislation generated a huge economic backlash against the state, including the relocation of major sporting events). His record of being a legal champion for discriminatory causes appears to be a highlight of Gore's legal career. One of his main areas of expertise appears to be defending redistricting plans against claims of civil rights violations, with his online bio boasting of a number of successful such defenses. One of the most high-profile civil rights cases Gore has litigated in recent years is the Florida Purge case. This case brought many of us to the floor to denounce yet another attempt at voter suppression that was designed to alter the balance of state politics. The state of Florida was found to have violated the National Voter Registration Act with a systemic purge of voters it suspected of being non-citizens. As the New York Times wrote of Florida's voter restriction attempt: The program to identify and remove noncitizens from the rolls prompted a national outcry and several lawsuits in 2012 because it was riddled with mistakes and was being pushed through months before the election. A number of people on the lists, which were sent by the state to county election supervisors, were, in fact, citizens (including the two lead plaintiffs in the lawsuit). Just as we opposed the nomination of Sen. Jeff Sessions to serve as Attorney General, we must similarly build a record against John Gore to head the Civil Rights Division. We simply cannot entrust our legacy civil rights statutes to any person who has shown a lack of sensitivity and balance in protecting the interests of justice in our society. Though Trump's inaugural speech invoked an image of my home City of Detroit, I fear what his vision will mean for my community and vow to continue the struggle for jobs, justice and peace. He stated that ``the time for empty talk is over. Now arrives the hour of action.'' I take him at his word and his actions send an unmistakable message: His action is to appoint a defender of discrimination to head the Civil Rights Division. His action is to retreat from an agenda on Community Oriented Policing. His action is to undermine affordable healthcare. His action is to appoint cabinet officials who fail to represent the mosaic that is America. The Congressional Black Caucus took to this floor tonight to outline our response to the President's Inaugural Address & New Deal for African-Americans. While our views may not find much in common, I believe we can agree on this: the time for talk is indeed over and the hour for action has arrived. This caucus will not stand idly by while an administration attempts to turn back the clock. The greatness of America is found in its diversity, inclusiveness and empathy. That is why we are the beacon on the hill. Whether we fly, walk or crawl, we are committed to moving this nation forward and will not turn back.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I, along with Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York, Representative Elijah E. Cummings of Maryland, and Representative Janice D. Schakowsky of Illinois, would like to thank Heather Sawyer for a decade of service to the House of Representatives. Heather Sawyer is a brilliant legal mind and incredible litigator. Her calm, clear-eyed professionalism has been instrumental in protecting the rights of marginalized Americans, including Americans with disabilities, the LGBTQ community, people of color, and women. As a senior and trusted counsel, she helped to roll back the worst civil rights abuses of the post-9/11 era. Heather left the Georgetown Law Center to join the staff of the House Committee on the Judiciary in 2007. She was instrumental in working to pass the Americans with Disabilities Amendments Act to ensure that Americans with disabilities have the same protections as every other American. During her tenure on the Committee, she worked with Congressman Nadler to draft the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, which built upon the ADA framework to protect pregnant women who need simple accommodations to stay in the workplace throughout their pregnancies. Perhaps her most indelible legacy on the Judiciary Committee was her work on marriage equality. Heather worked with Congressman Nadler to draft and introduce the Respect for Marriage Act to overturn DOMA. She also helped draft the congressional amicus brief in the Windsor and Obergefell cases, the two landmark Supreme Court cases that paved the way for marriage equality in the United States. Heather has always been a true champion of women's rights. For the last year, Heather has served as the Staff Director and General Counsel for the Select Investigative Panel, where she worked tirelessly to protect the rights of women, health care providers, and researchers. She navigated the Panel through a difficult and polarized investigation, and astutely defended the facts and the truth. Heather's command of House procedures and rules helped to ensure that the views of the Democratic Members were represented at every step, and she was instrumental in the Panel's ultimate findings and report. She vigorously fought on behalf of women's right to access reproductive health care services, and her brilliant legal analysis and oversight acumen were invaluable to the Panel. Heather has never been afraid to go head to head with those who would threaten the rights enshrined in our Constitution. During the Bush Administration, Heather worked to expose illegal interrogation tactics and other human rights abuses. She helped Congressman Nadler write the State Secrets Protection Act and legislation to protect the privacy of electronic communications. Heather is a bright, strategic, and immensely skilled attorney who has never faced a challenge she could not meet. She dedicated more than two years of her public service as the Chief Counsel for the Select Committee on Benghazi. In that role, she fought to defend the truth, expose procedural excesses, and to provide serious and substantive recommendations to improve the safety and security of Americans serving our country overseas. The Members she has served, the staff who have worked beside her, and the institution as a whole are better because of Heather. On the most sensitive issues of the day, Heather worked side by side with Members of the Judiciary Committee to ensure that the government adhered to the Constitution and respected the basic human and legal rights of all people. Running through all of this work is Heather's uncompromising sense of justice. She simply will not shy away from a fight. Whether it was fighting against torture and the use of secret evidence, partisan attacks against Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on the Benghazi investigation, or anti-choice partisans who tried to intimidate doctors working on women's health issues. Heather is a true champion of civil rights and civil liberties and of the Constitution itself and it was truly an honor to work by her side for these many years. We wish her all the best in her future endeavors.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen), a senior member of our committee who has followed this matter very closely.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in opposition, of course, to H.R. 5, the so-called Regulatory Accountability Act. Under the guise of improving the regulatory process, H.R. 5 will, in truth, undermine that process and jeopardize the ability of government agencies to safeguard public health and safety, the environment, workplace safety, and consumer financial protections. It is not a pleasant picture. The ways in which this legislation accomplishes this result are almost too numerous to list here, but, of course, I will mention a few. For example, title I of the bill would impose more than 70 new analytical requirements that will add years to the rulemaking process. Is that what we want to do? I don't think so. Worse yet, many of these new requirements are intended to facilitate the ability of regulated entities--such as well-funded corporate interests--to intervene and derail regulatory protections they oppose. And it would function as a ``super-mandate,'' overriding critical laws that Congress specifically intended to prohibit agencies from considering costs when American lives are at stake. Additionally, the bill creates numerous procedural hurdles in the rulemaking process, further endangering American lives through years of delay and increasing the likelihood of regulatory capture. For example, H.R. 5 dramatically expands the use of formal rulemaking, a time- and resource-intensive process, requiring formal, trial-like hearings for certain rules. Formal rulemaking has long been roundly rejected for good cause as being excessively costly and ill- suited for complex policy issues. The administrative section of the American Bar Association noted that ``these provisions run directly contrary to a virtual consensus in the administrative law community that the Administrative Procedure Act formal rulemaking procedure is obsolete.'' I am also concerned that H.R. 5 would impose an arbitrary, one-size- fits-all, 6-month delay on virtually every new rule. Specifically, title V of the bill will prohibit agency rules from becoming effective until the information required by the bill has been available online for 6 months with only limited exception. Clearly, H.R. 5 fails to take into account a vast array of time- sensitive rules ranging from the mundane, such as the frequent United States Coast Guard bridge closings regulations, to those that protect public health and safety, such as forthcoming updates to the Lead and Copper Rule by the Environmental Protection Agency to reduce the lead in public drinking water. Finally, title II of H.R. 5 would eliminate judicial deference to agencies and require Federal courts to review all agency rulemakings and interpretations of statutes on a de novo basis. The unfortunate result of this requirement is that the bill would empower a generalist court to override the determinations of agency experts, regardless of the judge's technical knowledge and understanding of the underlying subject matter. By eliminating any deference to agencies, H.R. 5 would force agencies to adopt even more detailed factual records and explanations, which would further delay the finalization of critical lifesaving regulatory protections. The Supreme Court has recognized that Federal courts simply lack the subject-matter expertise of agencies, are politically unaccountable, and should not engage in making substantive determinations from the bench. It is ironic that those who have long decried judicial activism now support facilitating a greater role for the judiciary in agency rulemaking. These are only a few of the many serious concerns presented by H.R. 5, and, accordingly, I urge my colleagues to strongly oppose this dangerous legislation. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) who is a very active former member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings), the ranking member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

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

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