John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Sadly, Mr. Speaker, our Nation's judiciary has been the repeated targets of death threats and sometimes even violent acts. In 2005, for example, the family members of a Federal judge in Chicago were murdered. Two weeks later, a State judge, court reporter, and a sheriff's deputy were killed in an Atlanta courthouse. And so it is these acts of violence in the judiciary that bring us together. Along with others, we have begun on the Judiciary Committee to realize the need for legislation that will perhaps try to deal more effectively with these concerns of safety in the courts. So I am pleased that the gentleman from Virginia, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime, Bobby Scott; and Judge Louie Gohmert of Texas, a distinguished member of the committee, have joined with me in this effort. What we seek to do is improve the security for court officers and the safeguards of judges and their families. We achieve this objective by making several revisions in the current law. First, we make the current redaction authority of Federal judges under the Ethics and Government Act permanent. What this provision will do is prevent would-be aggrieved litigants and others who might use a Federal judge's personal information to determine how they might threaten him or her or a family member of the court. Another thing we do in this legislation is authorize an additional $120 million for the United States Marshals Service over the course of the next 6 years. These monies will enable the service to increase ongoing investigations and expand protective services that are currently provided to the Federal judiciary. This is a long overdue item, and we were glad that we reached authorizing agreement on it. The bill also makes it a Federal offense to publish the personal information of a judge, law enforcement officer, or witness with the intent to cause some act of intimidation or harassment, or to commit a crime of violence. This measure authorizes $100 million over the course of the next 5 fiscal years to create and expand the witness protection programs to assist witnesses and victims of crime. It has taken a couple years to put these various pieces together in the bill, and we think that time for its passage is immediate, if not overdue, and I urge my colleagues to give favorable consideration to this very commonsense proposal. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume for these closing remarks. I agree with Howard Coble, the gentleman from North Carolina, that our Nation's court system and those who work there must function in a safe and professional environment, and that is what we are improving in this measure. We have worked together in great harmony and cooperation, and the measure helps in a substantial way to promote better security for our judiciary and other court personnel, and I urge our colleagues to support the passage of this critical measure.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1979) to require any Federal or State court to recognize any notarization made by a notary public licensed by a State other than the State where the court is located when such notarization, as amended.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, this measure is a commonsense requirement with respect to the process of notarizing documents that occur in every State, every city, every county. And what we do in H.R. 1979 is simply to require Federal and State courts to recognize documents lawfully notarized in any State of the Union when interstate commerce is, in fact, involved. As we all know, notary publics play a critical role in ensuring that the signer of a document is, indeed, who he or she claims to be and that the person has willingly and without coercion signed the document. By performing these two tasks, the notary public serves as an indispensable first line of defense against fraudulent acts and other manipulations of contracts and other documents. Although the purpose of notarizations is the same across our Nation, each State has, in the course of time, established its own laws governing the recognition of notarized documents. And some things are required in some places, and other things are required in others. And so the lack of consistent technical rules and the resultant formalities make it unnecessarily difficult for courts to recognize out-of-State notarizations. Some places impose certain technical requirements, such as dictating that the ink seals must be used, while others require embossers. Some States demand very particular language in the acknowledgment certificate and will, accordingly, reject out-of-State notarizations that lack the same language that they require in their State. And there are many other little details that create snafus, create problems in accepting documents that have been notarized and may be different in some small technical way. These inconsistencies, of course, do not further the goals of notarization. In fact, this problem has led to the bill that we have before us. And I'm very pleased to thank the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt) and Mr. Artur Davis, also of Alabama, Mr. Braley of Iowa, who have all together introduced this measure. And so what we're seeing here is that we propose to grant relief to these kinds of snafus that occur in accepting out-of-State notarizations. H.R. 1979 is supported by the National Notary Association, countless numbers of notary publics in many States, the academics that follow this arcane area of the law, and we think that they are correct, that we're making an important revision in how notarized documents are recognized by the courts, all courts. And it's in that spirit that I introduce or urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1979. I'll reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I commend the author of this bill, Mr. Aderholt, and always I am pleased to come to the floor with the floor manager on the Republican side, Mr. Coble. And I only want to underscore the fact that communications interstate are so common and frequent that this is a long overdue and important improvement in the relations of legal documents between the citizens of the several States. So I am proud to sign off with you and join in urging that this matter be unanimously supported by the distinguished House of Representatives. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2286) to amend title 18, United States Code, and the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure with respect to bail bond forfeitures.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous matter on this bill under consideration.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Members of the Congress, of the House here, the bail bond system in our country is under considerable pressure. Some would even say that it is broken. The reason is that Federal courts increasingly use bail bonds to ensure that a defendant appear in court but it also is used to make sure that a defendant complies with other requirements while awaiting trial. As a result of a combination of these factors, there have been critical problems that have developed. When you merge the use of bail bonds, there is presented a greater risk of forfeiture, and, thereby, this has made it much more difficult, especially for those with limited means to obtain these bonds. Frequently, the amount of the bond goes up, sometimes a great deal. Now, historically, of course, the sole purpose of a bail bond was to ensure that a defendant appears in court. When a bail bond is also used to guarantee compliance with collateral conditions of release, a court may direct the bond to be forfeited should the defendant violate any of these conditions, even if the defendant appears in court. This, of course, heightens the risk of forfeiture and makes it now virtually impossible for many persons to obtain these bonds, because the cost of the bond goes up. Also, merging the traditional purpose of bail bonds with other conditions of release creates a perverse situation where, ironically, there are less incentives for the defendants who violate these conditions to then appear in court. As a result, thousands of defendants are failing to come to court, which increases the expense and effort by Federal law enforcement officers to secure their presence. Also, family members and friends of the defendant, who pledge their homes, put the house up for capital, life savings or other assets, are at greater risk of losing their property as well. So, fewer family members and friends feel that they can afford to take the risk of assisting and procuring a bond. Now, while wealthy defendants can use their own assets for collateral and gain pretrial release, those less-wealthy defendants are incarcerated before trial even when there is little or no risk of flight or threat to the public. Remanding a defendant into pretrial detention when he or she is neither a flight risk nor a danger to society also creates an undue financial burden on our Nation's prison system. It's also highly unfair to an accused who, of course, thus far, has not been convicted yet of anything. So, hence, the Bail Bond Fairness Act. What this measure does is attempt to address the problem by restoring the historical purpose of bail bonds; namely, that they be used solely to ensure the defendant's physical presence before a court. Under this measure, a Federal judge has the authority to declare a bail bond forfeited only under the circumstances of where the defendant actually fails to appear in court as ordered, and not simply because the defendant has violated some collateral condition of release. So I urge my colleagues to support this bill and am very pleased to commend the leaders and members of the subcommittee on crime for helping us bring this measure forward in such an expeditious manner. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. I commend the ranking member, Mr. Forbes, for his good work on this measure. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the subcommittee chairman on crime, another gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to one of the authors of this measure, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Wexler).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support the bill. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2286 restores the use of bail bonds to the traditional purpose of ensuring that a defendant appears in court as directed. It removes the risk that a defendant's family and friends will forfeit their homes, savings, or other assets even though the defendant appears, just because of failure to comply with some unrelated collateral condition. And perhaps most importantly, it will increase the appropriate availability of bail bonds to all, not just the wealthy. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

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

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1281) to amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit certain deceptive practices in Federal elections, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join the lead sponsors, the gentleman from Illinois, Rahm Emanuel; the gentleman from New Jersey, Rush Holt; the gentleman from California, Xavier Becerra; the gentleman from California, Mike Honda; and the gentleman from Minnesota, Keith Ellison, with more than 50 other cosponsors of this important legislation to protect the right to vote. Obviously there is no more important issue that comes before this Congress than protecting the right to vote. It is the cornerstone right of our democracy. Without it, all other rights and privileges enjoyed by us are in jeopardy. Protecting this right, however, has not been an easy task. Historically, it was not until passage of the 1965 Voting Rights Act that we began to accord the highest meaning to that right. Less than 40 years later, however, we endured the debacle of the Florida 2000 presidential election. And the problems continue. In the most recent midterm and presidential elections, we learned of numerous incidents in which deceptive practices were used to thwart and frustrate citizens from exercising the right to vote. Some voters were, believe it or not, told to vote on the wrong day. Wednesday is not the right day to vote in congressional or presidential elections. Others were told that they could not vote without paying outstanding parking tickets. Others were told that they would be imprisoned if they voted without paying overdue utility bills. Ultimately, eligible voters were misled, deceived and disenfranchised in a number of other ways. It is our collective intent in the Judiciary Committee to end this practice, and we are here talking about seriously protecting the right to vote. I believe every Member of the House of Representatives cares deeply about this issue, and that is why we must pass the measure under consideration, for this bill explicitly prohibits deceptive practices, provides voters with greater Federal protection and increases the penalty for voter intimidation and misinformation in campaigns. What makes me proud of this measure is that so many of our organizational friends in the voting rights community and the civil rights community as well have joined us in support of this legislation. Among them are the People For the American Way, the very historic Lawyers Committee For Civil Rights Under Law, the NAACP, the ACLU, the Jewish Council For Public Affairs, and the New York City Bar itself. This is not an entire solution for reforming and improving the election process. Among other things, we also need to reduce our reliance on unverifiable electronic voting machines, which undermine accountability and our citizens' confidence in election results. We also need to ensure a fair allocation of voting machines in polling places, as well as a unified system of educating those who work the polls as to the rules and procedures. We should make election day a national holiday, so no one has to choose between their responsibilities as citizens and their responsibilities to their employers. But this legislation is an important step and one that we should take today. Let's face it: If we allow the infrastructure of our democracy to remain frazzled and to decay, our citizens will rightly lose confidence in the legitimacy of the voting process, and we should work to keep that from ever happening. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to join with all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this measure. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Rahm Emanuel, whose genius brought this measure into existence. He thought long and hard about this before we all got on board.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure now to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), the coauthor of this bill, who has worked in this area with the Committee on the Judiciary across the years. I have been very pleased about his work in trying to create an effective paper trail and other voter rights initiatives, and I am so happy that he is with us today.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I merely want to close by thanking the distinguished ranking member on the Crime Subcommittee, Randy Forbes, for the excellent work that he performs all the time, but especially on this bill. I want no misunderstanding about our appreciation of this bill being about prohibiting deceptive practices against eligible voters. This is not a measure that deals with prosecuting ineligible voters unless they try to deceive eligible voters. The issue of voter fraud is a very serious one, well publicized, and it is the intention of the Chair of the committee that the Subcommittee on Crime hold hearings on this subject because we think it is an important one that needs to be examined very clearly. But today, we move forward from the 15th amendment in the Constitution, we move forward from the Voter Rights Act of 1965 that has been amended several times, and we now come to a specific set of practices that have been very detrimental in coercing and intimidating and confusing many voters. I am so pleased that this committee at this day and time is prepared to deal with preventing voters from being disenfranchised by being misled on their way to polling. It has been documented and we are directly prohibiting these kinds of tactics and we are turning many of them from a misdemeanor into a felony. I congratulate all the members of the Committee on the Judiciary and particularly the sponsors of this piece of legislation, and urge support of the bill.

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

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. I thank my chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime. Mr. Speaker, today is a very important day. What we're doing is recalling a difficult period in American history to understand the combined climate at that time that coexisted with fear and violence during the civil rights era. And so we have the Emmett Till Unsolved Civil Rights Crime Act. The first thing I want to do is try to recapture, for the moment, all those who were not in the Judiciary Committee the day of the testimony, because it moved both Republicans and Democrats and visitors when we had Myrlie Evers, the widow of Medgar Evers, who was himself a victim of the violence that marked the civil rights era, talking to us about Emmett Till and how this youngster's life was taken. And it was one of those moments in judiciary history that we were all electrified by the ability of our witnesses to recapture this moment in our history. It was a remarkable hearing. I commend the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) and others, including the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, Lamar Smith, and also I lift up the name of Steve King of Iowa. Everybody was moved by this determination that at this point in American history we are now moving forward at a pace that may not always be recognized, faster than we think. And the reason I say that is that we are now going back into history to make the corrections that law enforcement could have and should have made at that earlier time. So it is to me a very powerful determination of the Committee on the Judiciary to bring H.R. 923 to the floor for the expedited action that is required this morning.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), and I yield him such time as he may consume.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, in recognizing the gentleman from Georgia, John Lewis, I can't help but observe that the difference between this crime, the Emmett Till crime of 52 years ago, and today is that passionately held beliefs about justice and fairness could cost you your life. There are only a few people left in America today who put their lives on the line knowingly in this struggle for justice, and the one in this body, the 110th Congress, is none other than John Lewis of Georgia, and I yield him as much time as he may consume. Mr. LEWIS OF Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my good friend, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, (Mr. Conyers) for those kind words. Mr. Speaker, I am so pleased the Emmett Till Unsolved Civil Rights Crime Act is being considered today before the full House of Representatives. I would like to thank the lead cosponsor of this bill, my good friend, Representative Kenny Hulshof from Missouri, and my good friends in the United States Senate, Senator Chris Dodd of Connecticut, and Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont for their distinguished support in this effort. Again, I must thank Chairman Conyers for all of his help and for all of his support in bringing this bill before us today. Also, Subcommittee Chairs Scott and Nadler for coordinating a powerful hearing on this legislation. Mr. Speaker, the time has come for the sake of history, for the sake of justice, for the sake of closure, the 110th Congress must pass this legislation. On August 28, 1955, almost 52 years ago, a 14-year-old boy from Chicago, a young African American boy, was visiting his uncle in Money, Mississippi. He was pulled from his bed in the darkness of night. He was beaten until he could hardly be recognized. He was shot in the head, and his body was dumped in the Tallahatchie River, all because somebody said he had been fresh with a white woman. Several years later, an intelligent and dignified NACP leader named Medgar Evers was gunned down in front of his home in Mississippi in June of 1963. Some historians said it was the injustice of these unsolved two murders that began the mass movement in the American South that we call the modern-day civil rights movement. Who can forget the NAACP leader and his wife, Harry and Harriette Moore, who were killed by a bomb on Christmas night as they celebrated their 25th wedding anniversary in 1951 in Florida? Who can forget the two black couples lynched about 60 miles east of Atlanta in 1946, or the death of Lemuel Penn, a lieutenant colonel in the United States Army Reserve from Washington, D.C., who was a veteran trying to get home from Fort Benning, Georgia for a little rest. He was killed in 1964 as members of the KKK drove by him on a highway. Who can forget Viola Liuzzo, shot down in Alabama in 1965, from the hometown of our chairman, Chairman Conyers from Detroit, trying to bring nonviolent activists back to their home after the Selma-to- Montgomery march? There are hundreds, maybe even thousands, of these crimes that were never brought to justice. There are murderers who have walked free for decades while the families of victims cry out for justice. Passing this bill is the least we can do. And we must do something to right these wrongs. I will never forget the three civil rights workers, three young men I knew, Andy Goodman, James Chaney and Mickey Schwerner. They came to Mississippi with a simple mission, to register as many black voters as possible. They were stopped, arrested, taken to jail. Later that night, June 21, 1964, they were taken from jail by the sheriff and his deputy, turned over to the Klan, where they were beaten, shot and killed. They didn't die in Vietnam. They didn't die in Eastern Europe. They died right here in the United States. They died in Philadelphia, Mississippi. Viola Liuzzo didn't die on a road or some street in Baghdad, she died right there in Alabama on Highway 80. Lemuel Penn, Medgar Evers, Emmett Till and countless others didn't die in the Middle East; they died right here in our own country fighting for simple justice. Mr. Speaker, we have an obligation, we have a mission, we have a mandate. The blood of hundreds of innocent men and women is calling out to us. Then, no one came to their aid. But today we can help make it right. Let us move to close this dark chapter in our history. Let us try to wash away the stains on our democracy. So I call on all of my colleagues to pass this legislation and pass it today. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following letters of support for H.R. 923, the Emmett Till Unsolved Civil Rights Crimes Act. Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Washington, DC, June 18, 2007. Hon. Nancy Pelosi, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Madam Speaker: I am writing on behalf of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law to express our strong support for H.R. 923/S. 535, the Emmett Till Unsolved Civil Rights Crime Act. The bill, sponsored by Congressman John Lewis of Georgia, will give the U.S. Department of Justice the funding and tools necessary to investigate and prosecute civil rights era murders. Ever since our founding by President John F. Kennedy in 1963, the Lawyers' Committee has sought to attain equal justice under law for all Americans, and the Unsolved Civil Rights Crime Act is an important step in continuing that mission. We are hopeful that the House of Representatives will pass the bill this week, as June 21 represents an incredibly symbolic day in the history of the civil rights movement. On that date in 1964, KKK member Edgar Ray Killen assembled a mob to hunt down three civil rights workers in Mississippi. The victims' names were James Chaney, Andrew Goodman, and Michael Schwerner. Those young men sacrificed their lives in pursuit of equal rights for all Americans, yet their killer roamed free for decades until a court finally convicted him on June 21, 2005. We urge Congress to mark this important anniversary by passing H.R. 923. The bill assigns offices within the Justice Department the specific responsibility of investigating and prosecuting civil rights murders before 1970. Then, civil rights murder cases that went to trial often ended in hung juries. However, today, different attitudes and improved race relations could result in color-blind justice, and technological advancements could allow prosecutors to present more persuasive evidence at trial. To this end, H.R. 923 will provide the Justice Department with $11.5 million in funds to carry out their duties, a sum publicly supported by a D.O.J. representative at a recent House subcommittee hearing. At that same hearing, Myrlie Evers-Williams, the widow of slain civil rights worker Medgar Evers, spoke in support of the bill. Her husband was assassinated in 1963, and three decades later, a jury convicted 74 year-old Byron de la Beckwith of the murder, proof that justice knows no time limitations. Although the Lawyers' Committee and Americans-at-large are thankful that the Evers family and others have received some level of closure, we know that countless American families are still waiting to see justice served. Just last week, a federal jury convicted James Ford Seale of two counts of kidnapping in relation to the 1964 murders of two African- American teenagers. Passage of the Emmett Till Unsolved Crimes Act will help the Justice Department investigate and prosecute cases similar to the Killen, Seale, and De la Beckwith trials. With your support of this measure, aging murderers who have subverted our legal system for decades could finally face a court of law. The long-grieving families of numerous victims could hope to see closure. Perhaps most importantly, this bill could assist the United States government in upholding justice, no matter how long overdue. Again, we urge you to mark this important anniversary by scheduling a floor vote on H.R. 923/S. 535 this week. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions regarding this request. Sincerely, John G. Brittain, Chief Counsel.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining?

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to yield to the articulate gentlelady from Texas, Sheila Jackson-Lee, a distinguished member of the committee, as much time as she may consume. (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)