John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 1 minute to Danny Davis, the distinguished Member of Congress from Illinois.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, it is now time for us to hear the Delegate from the District of Columbia. I am honored to yield to Eleanor Holmes Norton 5 minutes.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time remaining on our side. I begin by commending my colleagues in the Congress on the debate that has occurred today. It has been civil, it has been honest, and the disagreements, both constitutionally and otherwise, have been very clearly spread upon the record. And why is that so? Well, because we had the same debate 27 days ago. That is why. We have all been through this for every argument, for every constitutional expert opinion that is regularly volunteered. And, look, I have articulated my belief that a measure that we are debating is unconstitutional as frequently as anybody on the other side. I don't know what our collective batting averages of being accurate are, but that is for the courts to decide, and I think that we all agree to that. The District of Columbia residents want no more than what the Founding Fathers wanted. And, by the way, for those who wonder why we didn't make them a State right off the bat, at that time there may have been 150 people living in this swampy area that is now known as D.C. We didn't have anybody to make citizens. So join me, join us in this historic moment and pass the bill. It is high time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to commend my friend from Texas (Mr. Smith). His arguments are cogent and our relationship on the committee is excellent. But I must comment as to the argument that our bill allows the District of Columbia to have both a Representative and a Delegate. We fully intend to repeal the Delegate part of it by separate statute as soon as we get the bill that will allow the District to have a Representative. We have had lots of debate, and he has quoted Professor Turley, who has made the most extreme statement, his personal beliefs. And we invited him as a panelist, but he has been profoundly in the minority on a number of other issues as well. So I do not regard his opinion as having any more or less importance or significance than any of the other constitutional experts that we heard. Now, here is the problem. We would, if this motion to recommit were passed, provide for two things: expedited review of this matter and standing to all Members of Congress to challenge the constitutionality of the bill before us. Four hundred thirty-five Members would be granted standing. Why? Are there not enough constitutional lawyers and supporters and opponents on both sides to take care of this matter, rather than to have the Supreme Court filled with Members of Congress wanting to vent probably very repetitious views? This is a motion based on an amendment which has been debated and defeated in the Judiciary Committee when we considered an earlier version of this bill only weeks ago. Now, I recognize and appreciate that the motion is being offered in good faith to amend the bill. However, as I have stated before, it is my concern that this recommit motion will do far more harm than it could ever cause good. I am concerned that the motion puts Congress down on record as believing that the bill is constitutionally weak. It is not, and therefore, I cannot support a motion to recommit that would make this concession. Nothing could be further from the truth. We have had hearings on top of hearings from everyone who claimed to be a constitutional expert on this subject anywhere in the Judiciary Committee. We have heard from everybody on both sides of the aisle over the last several Congresses, and based on the record, there is ample precedent for the Congress, using the District clause as authority for this legislation as they have for taxes, for diversity, for labor and numerous other matters. Clearly, this bill falls within the general line of authority. Now, concerning expedited judicial review in this motion, the courts are perfectly capable of handling the issue. There are judicial standards for dealing with expedited review, namely, when there is a showing of irreparable harm. Nobody has mentioned that as a reason for having expedited review. Irreparable harm coming and giving the Delegate of this District the right to vote? We have statutes on the books that cover this very issue already. We did not provide expedited review of such controversial laws as the PATRIOT Act, parts of which have actually been held, subsequently, unconstitutional. Yet, the issue was readily dealt with by the courts. The courts will readily deal with this issue as well. And I am strongly opposed to the idea of Congress passing laws that confer unique standing on themselves or special rights to intervene in pending lawsuits. You can always become amicus curiae, and so for those reasons and others, I urge that this motion to recommit be turned down.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, to subcommittee Chairman Bobby Scott we owe a debt of gratitude, as well as to subcommittee Ranking Member Coble and, of course, the author of this bill, Elton Gallegly, who through the years has persevered to make us finally come to this day. I guess we should also thank about 303 Members of the House of Representatives that have stuck with us and supported this legislation all this time. My congratulations to all of you. I never thought that a measure that was not considered as grave and large as some of the issues that come before the House Judiciary Committee would meet with so much encouragement and support to get us to this day. I congratulate the House of Representatives and the leadership on both sides. I join, of course, in this measure and would like to make this point: this legislation includes a special provision clarifying the fact that it only supersedes State law in the case of a direct or irreconcilable conflict. The Humane Society is with us. The American Veterinary Medical Association is with us. The National Association of Sheriffs is with us, and hundreds and hundreds of local law enforcement agencies in every State of the Union have all come out in support of this basic, commonsense, long overdue legislation. I thank those who have worked so tirelessly across the years to bring us to this day where this bill has now come before the floor. I'm pleased to join the growing list of supporters, including the 30 or so Members of the Judiciary Committee, that have decided to lend their support to this measure. For far too long, the sponsors of abusive animal fighting events (including cockfight and dog fight promoters) have been permitted to freely engage in such activities without any real fear of prosecution. Fortunately, the bill before us seeks to change that. First, the legislation provides up to the three years in jail for people who transport animals in interstate commerce with the purpose of participating in an animal fighting venture. Current law only treats such offenses as a mere misdemeanor. However, research has shown us that simple misdemeanor criminal penalties don't provide enough of a meaningful deterrent, especially when thousands of dollars are wagered on a single dog or cock fight. Second, the legislation makes it unlawful to sell or ship instruments in interstate commerce that are designed to be attached to the leg of a bird for use in an animal fighting venture. Razor sharp knives, commonly known as ``slashers'', are oftentimes attached to the legs of a bird to make cockfights even more violent. This provision would prohibit such activity, and subject any violators to a term of imprisonment of up to three years in jail. Finally, the legislation includes a special provision clarifying that this measure only supersedes state law in the case of a direct or irreconcilable conflict. The Humane Society, the American Veterinary Medical Association, the National Sheriffs Association, and nearly 400 local law enforcement agencies covering all 50 states have all come out in support of this legislation. I strongly urge my colleagues to lend their support to this bipartisan, commonsense measure as well.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 580) to amend chapter 35 of title 28, United States Code, to provide for a 120-day limit to the term of a United States attorney appointed on an interim basis by the Attorney General, 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, the measure before us today has been introduced by the gentleman from California, a ranking member of the committee and a subcommittee Chair, Howard Berman. It is intended to restore the historical checks and balances to the process by which interim U.S. Attorneys are appointed. It will repair a breach in the law that has been a major contributing factor in the recent termination of eight able and experienced United States Attorneys and their replacement with interim appointments. It has gathered much attention across this Nation, and not just in government and legal circles. The full circumstances surrounding these terminations are still coming to light, but what we know is already very troubling. The reports about these terminations are particularly troubling in that the United States Attorneys are among the most powerful government officials we have. They have the power to seek convictions and bring the full weight of the United States Government against any citizen or company that they deem important and eligible for prosecution. They can negotiate plea agreements. They can send people to prison for years and years. And frequently, the mere disclosure of a criminal investigation can destroy reputations and careers. These are awesome powers. And so we on the Judiciary Committee consider it absolutely essential that the American people have full confidence in those entrusted to exercise these powers and that they do so with complete integrity and free from political influence of any kind. The committee's investigation into these troubling circumstances is continuing. The longer time goes on, the more we know; and the more we know, the more we are troubled about what has been going on in the Department of Justice. It has already become abundantly clear that the gaping vulnerability in the law, which has placed the independence and integrity of our prosecutorial system in jeopardy, needs to be repaired as quickly as possible; and that is what we are here to do today. What helped bring these troubling circumstances about, what helped make it possible for high-level Justice Department and White House officials to even entertain the notion that they could, as appears to be the case, target certain U.S. Attorneys for an unprecedented mid- course purge was an obscure provision adequately and anonymously slipped into the USA PATRIOT Reauthorization Act conference report in March of 2006. Without any debate, let alone the benefit of a single hearing in either body, this provision, added at the behest of the Justice Department's top political appointees to significantly enhance the power to appoint interim U.S. Attorneys without having to subject their appointments to customary safeguard of Senate confirmation. It was a middle-of-the-night insertion, and we are here to correct that. Indeed, the administration's plan to exploit the new provision to bypass the Senate confirmation process is now well documented. As bluntly explained by internal e-mails we received, and they now number in the hundreds, although we get them late on Friday nights, by the Attorney General's then-chief of staff, for example, discussing their plan to install the former Republican National Committee political operative, the new provision would enable them to ``give far less deference to home State Senators and thereby get our preferred person appointed and do it far faster and more efficiently at less political cost to the White House.'' This is outrageous. The Senate has already acted. The time is now. We need to move as rapidly as we can to correct this very serious error that casts a question upon the integrity of a very, very important part of our government, the Department of Justice. Speaker, the bill before us today, introduced by my friend Howard Berman, will restore the historical checks and balances to the process by which interim U.S. Attorneys are appointed. It will repair a breach in the law that has been a major contributing factor in the recent termination of eight able and experienced United States Attorneys and their replacement with interim appointments. The full circumstances surrounding these terminations are still coming to light, but what we know already is very troubling. In one instance, the primary apparent qualification for the President's chosen replacement was that he had been an aggressive political operative at the Republican National Committee, thereby putting himself on Karl Rove's A list. In several other instances, the U.S. Attorney was in the midst of a sensitive public corruption investigation, and there were reportedly complaints from Republicans that the investigation was being pursued too aggressively against a fellow Republican, or was not being pursued aggressively enough against a Democrat. The reports about these terminations are particularly troubling in that U.S. Attorneys are among our most powerful government officials. They not only have power to seek convictions and negotiate plea agreements that can send people to prison for years. The mere disclosure of a criminal investigation can destroy reputations and careers. These are awesome powers, and it is absolutely essential that the American people can have full confidence those entrusted to exercise these powers do so with complete integrity and free from improper political influence. The Committee's investigation into these troubling circumstances is continuing, and we will know more, and we will leave extended discussion of them for another day. But it has already become abundantly clear that the gaping vulnerability in the law, which has placed the independence and integrity of our prosecutorial system in jeopardy, needs to be repaired as quickly as possible. And that is what we are here to do today. What helped bring these troubling circumstances about--what helped make it possible for high-level Justice Department and White House officials to even entertain the notion that they could, as appears to be the case, target certain U.S. Attorneys for an unprecedented mid- course purge--was an obscure provision quietly and anonymously slipped into the USA PATRIOT Reauthorization Act conference report in March 2006. Without any I debate, let alone the benefit of a single hearing in either body, this provision was added at the behest of the Justice Department's top political appointees, to significantly enhance their power to appoint interim U.S. Attorneys, without having to subject the appointments to the customary safeguard of Senate confirmation. Indeed, the Administration's deliberate plan to exploit the new provision to bypass the Senate confirmation process is now well documented. As bluntly explained in an internal e-mail by the Attorney General's then chief of staff, for example, discussing their plan to install the former RNC political operative, the new provision would enable them to ``give far less deference to home-State Senators and thereby get (1) our preferred person appointed and (2) do it far faster and more efficiently, at less political cost to the White House.'' Traditionally--since the Civil War--whenever a U.S. Attorney left office, and until the Senate could confirm a replacement, the local federal district court has appointed someone to fill the position on an interim basis. This was a neutral means of ensuring that permanent appointments remained the shared responsibility of the President and the Senate--to encourage the President to send a nomination to the Senate promptly, and to encourage the Senate to act promptly on the nomination. In 1986, at the request of Attorney General Ed Meese, the law was modified to authorize the Attorney General to make short-term interim U.S. Attorney appointments, for up to 120 days. But if a permanent U.S. Attorney had not been confirmed by the end of that 120 days, the district court retained authority to make the appointment for the remainder of the interim period. This procedure, codified in 28 U.S.C. Sec. 546, preserved the incentives on the Executive and Legislative Branches to work together on the nomination and confirmation of a permanent replacement. That balanced approach was unceremoniously jettisoned a year ago, and with it respect for the Senate's role in ensuring that the President's power to hire and fire U.S. Attorneys at will was not abused at the expense of prosecutorial integrity. The stealth provision in the 2006 USA PATRIOT Reauthorization Act completely removed the district court as a backstop in the interim appointment process, turning over sole power to the Attorney General, to unilaterally make interim appointments, for an unlimited time, with no obligation to involve the Senate, or the Judicial Branch, or anyone else. H.R. 580 will restore the checks and balances that have historically provided a critical safeguard against politicization of U.S. Attorneys. First, it repeals the 2006 change to section 546, keeping the Attorney General's interim appointment role, but limiting it to 120 days, as it was before. Second, the bill clarifies that section 546 is the only way to make interim U.S. Attorney appointments. This additional change has become necessary in light of indications, documented by the Congressional Research Service, that the Justice Department has used, and could again use, the Federal Vacancies Reform Act to evade the intent of a tightened section 546. Mr. Speaker, this bill is an important step in restoring legal safeguards against abuse of Executive power to politicize core government functions that need to be above political calculations in their execution. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds only to say, Mr. Howard Coble, I recognize you as a sincere and experienced and valued member of this committee, and I appreciate the circumstances that you are in this evening. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the subcommittee chairwoman, Linda Sanchez of California, and I thank her for the excellent job that she has done.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I recognize Howard Berman, the senior member on the Judiciary Committee, and thank him for his authorship of the measure that brings us to the floor this evening. I yield to him 5 minutes.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on either side?

Mr. CONYERS. I recognize the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) for 1 minute.

Mr. CONYERS. The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) is recognized for 2 minutes. (Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas, Sheila Jackson-Lee, 1 minute. (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, the American people must have full confidence in the integrity and the independence of the United States Attorneys in charge of Federal prosecutions throughout the country, in every State. While they owe the President their appointments, once they are in their jobs their enforcement decisions must be unquestionably above politics; and that is why we are here today. Senate confirmation is required for each one of them in an open and public process, and it is a critical safeguard against politicization of our prosecutorial system. This safeguard has been severely compromised by the secret change that has been referred to, and this bill restores the safeguards. I ask my colleagues to fully support this measure on both sides of the aisle.

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

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, in accordance with clause 2(a) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, I respectfully submit the rules of the Committee on the Judiciary for printing in the Congressional Record. The Committee on the Judiciary adopted these rules by voice vote, a quorum being present, at our organizational meeting on January 24, 2007. Committee on the Judiciary, Rules of Procedure, One Hundred Tenth Congress, Adopted January 24, 2007 Rule I. The Rules of the House of Representatives are the rules of the Committee on the Judiciary and its Subcommittees with the following specific additions thereto. rule ii. committee meetings (a) The regular meeting day of the Committee on the Judiciary for the conduct of its business shall be on Wednesday of each week while the House is in session. (b) Additional meetings may be called by the Chairman and a regular meeting of the Committee may be dispensed with when, in the judgment of the Chairman, there is no need therefor. (c) At least 24 hours (excluding Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays when the House is not in session) before each scheduled Committee or Subcommittee meeting, each Member of the Committee or Subcommittee shall be furnished a list of the bill(s) and subject(s) to be considered and/or acted upon at the meeting. Bills or subjects not listed shall be subject to a point of order unless their consideration is agreed to by a two-thirds vote of the Committee or Subcommittee. (d) In an emergency that does not reasonably allow for 24 hours' notice, the Chairman may waive the 24-hour notice requirement with the agreement of the Ranking Minority Member. (e) Committee and Subcommittee meetings for the transaction of business, i.e. meetings other than those held for the purpose of taking testimony, shall be open to the public except when the Committee or Subcommittee determines by majority vote to close the meeting because disclosure of matters to be considered would endanger national security, would compromise sensitive law enforcement information, or would tend to defame, degrade or incriminate any person or otherwise would violate any law or rule of the House. (f) Every motion made to the Committee and entertained by the Chairman shall be reduced to writing upon demand of any Member, and a copy made available to each Member present. (g) For purposes of taking any action at a meeting of the full Committee or any Subcommittee thereof, a quorum shall be constituted by the presence of not less than one-third of the Members of the Committee or subcommittee, except that a full majority of the Members of the Committee or Subcommittee shall constitute a quorum for purposes of reporting a measure or recommendation from the Committee or Subcommittee, closing a meeting to the public, or authorizing the issuance of a subpoena. (h)(1) Subject to subparagraph (2), the Chairman may postpone further proceedings when a record vote is ordered on the question of approving any measure or matter or adopting an amendment. The Chairman may resume proceedings on a postponed request at any time. (2) In exercising postponement authority under subparagraph (1), the Chairman shall take all reasonable steps necessary to notify Members on the resumption of proceedings on any postponed record vote. (3) When proceedings resume on a postponed question, notwithstanding any intervening order for the previous question, an underlying proposition shall remain subject to further debate or amendment to the same extent as when the question was postponed. (i) Transcripts of markups shall be recorded and may be published in the same manner as hearings before the Committee. (j) Without further action of the Committee, the Chairman is directed to offer a motion under clause 1 of rule XXII of the Rules of the House of Representatives whenever the Chairman considers it appropriate. rule iii. hearings (a) The Committee Chairman or any Subcommittee chairman shall make public announcement of the date, place, and subject matter of any hearing to be conducted by it on any measure or matter at least one week before the commencement of that hearing. If the Chairman of the Committee, or Subcommittee, with the concurrence of the Ranking Minority Member, determines there is good cause to begin the hearing sooner, or if the Committee or Subcommittee so determines by majority vote, a quorum being present for the transaction of business, the Chairman or Subcommittee chairman shall make the announcement at the earliest possible date. (b) Committee and Subcommittee hearings shall be open to the public except when the Committee or Subcommittee determines by majority vote to close the meeting because disclosure of matters to be considered would endanger national security, would compromise sensitive law enforcement infor- mation, or would tend to defame, degrade or incriminate any person or otherwise would violate any law or rule of the House. (c) For purposes of taking testimony and receiving evidence before the Committee or any Subcommittee, a quorum shall be constituted by the presence of two Members. (d) In the course of any hearing each Member shall be allowed five minutes for the interrogation of a witness until such time as each Member who so desires has had an opportunity to question the witness. (e) The transcripts of those hearings conducted by the Committee which are decided to be printed shall be published in verbatim form, with the material requested for the record inserted at that place requested, or at the end of the record, as appropriate. Individuals, including Members of Congress, whose comments are to be published as part of a Committee document shall be given the opportunity to verify the accuracy of the transcription in advance of publication. Any requests by those Members, staff or witnesses to correct any errors other than errors in the transcription, or disputed errors in transcription, shall be appended to the record, and the appropriate place where the change is requested will be footnoted. Prior to approval by the Chairman of hearings conducted jointly with another congressional Committee, a memorandum of understanding shall be prepared which incorporates an agreement for the publication of the verbatim transcript. Rule IV. Broadcasting Whenever a hearing or meeting conducted by the Committee or any Subcommittee is open to the public, those proceedings shall be open to coverage by television, radio and still photography except when the hearing or meeting is closed pursuant to the Committee Rules of Procedure. Rule V. Standing Subcommittees (a) The full Committee shall have jurisdiction over the following subject matters: antitrust law, tort liability, including medical malpractice and product liability, legal reform generally, and such other matters as determined by the Chairman. (b) There shall be five standing Subcommittees of the Committee on the Judiciary, with jurisdictions as follows: (1) Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property: copyright, patent and trademark law, information technology, administration of U.S. courts, Federal Rules of Evidence, Civil and Appellate Procedure, judicial ethics, other appropriate matters as referred by the Chairman, and relevant oversight. (2) Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties: constitutional amendments, constitutional rights, federal civil rights laws, ethics in government, other appropriate matters as referred by the Chairman, and relevant oversight. (3) Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law: bankruptcy and commercial law, bankruptcy judgeships, administrative law, independent counsel, state taxation affecting interstate commerce, interstate compacts, other appropriate matters as referred by the Chairman, and relevant oversight. (4) Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security: Federal Criminal Code, drug enforcement, sentencing, parole and pardons, terrorism, internal and homeland security, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, prisons, criminal law enforcement, other appropriate matters as referred by the Chairman, and relevant oversight. (5) Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law: immigration and naturalization, border security, admission of refugees, treaties, conventions and international agreements, claims against the United States, federal charters of incorporation, private immigration and claims bills, non-border enforcement, other appropriate matters as referred by the Chairman, and relevant oversight. (c) The Chairman of the Committee and Ranking Minority Member thereof shall be ex officio Members, but not voting Members, of each Subcommittee to which such Chairman or Ranking Minority Member has not been assigned by resolution of the Committee. Ex officio Members shall not be counted as present for purposes of constituting a quorum at any hearing or meeting of such Subcommittee. Rule VI. Powers and Duties of Subcommittees Each Subcommittee is authorized to meet, hold hearings, receive evidence, and report to the full Committee on all matters referred to it or under its jurisdiction. Subcommittee chairmen shall set dates for hearings and meetings of their respective Subcommittees after consultation with the Chairman and other Subcommittee chairmen with a view toward avoiding simultaneous scheduling of full Committee and Subcommittee meetings or hearings whenever possible. Rule VII. Non-Legislative Reports No report of the Committee or Subcommittee which does not accompany a measure or matter for consideration by the House shall be published unless all Members of the Committee or Subcommittee issuing the report shall have been apprised of such report and given the opportunity to give notice of intention to file supplemental, additional, or dissenting views as part of the report. In no case shall the time in which to file such views be less than three calendar days (excluding Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays when the House is not in session). Rule VIII. Committee Records The records of the Committee at the National Archives and Records Administration shall be made available for public use according to the Rules of the House. The Chairman shall notify the Ranking Minority Member of any decision to withhold a record otherwise available, and the matter shall be presented to the Committee for a determination on the written request of any Member of the Committee. Rule IX. Official Committee Website The Chairman shall maintain an official website on behalf of the Committee for the purpose of furthering the Committee's legislative and oversight responsibilities, including communicating information about the Committee's activities to Committee Members and other Members of the House. The Ranking Member is authorized to maintain a similar official website on behalf of the Committee Minority for the same purpose, including communicating information about the activities of the Minority to Committee Members and other Members of the House.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1591, the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health and Iraq Accountability Act. This legislation will support our troops and veterans, hold the Bush Administration and Iraqi government accountable and bring our soldiers home by August 2008 or sooner. It will also provide emergency funding for critical programs that have suffered from years of neglect. This supplemental appropriations bill provides emergency funding for critical programs that have long been underfunded by the Republicans. It includes $750 million to correct the funding shortfall in the State Children's Health Insurance program so that hundreds of thousands of children will not lose their health care. It provides $2.9 billion for Katrina relief and recovery. The bill also includes $2.6 billion for homeland security needs left unaddressed by Congressional Republicans, as well as $1.7 billion to remedy the unconscionable state of our military and veterans' health care systems. All of these issues are emergencies in their own right and rise to the level of inclusion in this emergency supplemental spending bill. The U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health and Iraq Accountability Act requires the Iraqi government to meet the security, political and economic benchmarks established by the President in his address of January 10th, including improvements in the performance of the Iraqi security forces, a greater commitment by the Iraqi government to national reconciliation, and reductions in the levels of sectarian violence in Iraq. If the Iraqi government is unable to meet these benchmarks by July 7 of this year, redeployment of U.S. troops from Iraq would begin immediately and must be completed by January of 2008. If the benchmarks are met, the latest possible starting date for redeployment would be March 1 of next year, with complete withdrawal by August 31. The bill ensures that our troops have the tools and resources they need to do the job they have been asked to do. It prohibits the deployment of troops who are not fully trained, equipped and protected according to current Department of Defense standards. The President can only deploy unprepared troops if he certifies, in writing, to Congress, that deploying those troops in the national interest. The bill also provides funding so the Veterans Administration can meet the obligations of a new generation of veterans, particularly by ensuring that they will have the medical care they need. I have been an outspoken opponent of military action against Iraq since the day the administration started beating the war drums. My preference would have been to vote for a stronger bill that would bring our troops home even sooner than this one. I am disappointed that the bill includes waivers to allow the President to send less than fully- equipped troops into battle. I am also unhappy that the provision requiring the president to get Congressional approval for an attack on Iran was removed from the bill. I have additional concerns about the section of the bill that allows an unspecified number of U.S. troops to remain in Iraq after the August 2008 deadline to train Iraqis and fight terrorism. However, I support this legislation in spite of these deficiencies because I believe it is an affirmative step towards our ultimate goal of ending the war. This bill is not everything that I would have liked, but it represents a critical turning point. No longer will this body uncritically hand over billions of dollars for the President to wage endless war. For the first time, Congress is considering binding legislation that sets a date certain for the end of the Iraq war. I will not help the Republicans defeat it. The President and most Congressional Republicans ask that we continue to fund this war with ``no strings attached.'' But the United States cannot afford an open-ended commitment to a war without end. It is the responsibility of this Congress to devise a means to end the U.S. combat role in Iraq so that we can reclaim our position of leadership in the world and direct our resources back towards urgent needs here at home. I believe that this bill moves us towards these goals in an effective and responsible way.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 260, I call up the bill (H.R. 1433) to provide for the treatment of the District of Columbia as a Congressional district for purposes of representation in the House of Representatives, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. This is an historic moment indeed. I am honored to lead the floor management of a bill that we have been waiting so long to debate and hopefully move forward from the House of Representatives. This is an important moment in American history. We must now act to discontinue the disenfranchisement of citizens in the Nation's Capital. We must act to complete the important unfinished business of our democracy. All of you here are all too familiar with the struggle for D.C. voting rights. I remember Chairman Emanuel Celler, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, when the House gave the District a vote in 1967. I remember Delegate Walter Fauntroy's and Senator Ed Brooke's pursuit of the District's representation in 1978. I have now had the privilege of working with the distinguished gentlewoman, the Delegate from the District of Columbia, Eleanor Holmes Norton, a tireless, relentless, brilliant advocate of the effort that brings us here today. Right now we are attempting to resolve what could not be resolved before, through the bipartisan efforts of so many. Mr. Davis of Virginia, Mr. Cannon of Utah, Mr. Matheson and Mr. Bishop have gotten us this far today, but I would be remiss if I did not name the former chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Jim Sensenbrenner, who helped bring us so close to passage of this legislation in the last Congress. I thank all of you for the important work that has led us to this great and wonderful day. Now, the bill before us today has a novel proposal, but it is one that we have seen before. We are now here today to finish the important work on this measure that we almost completed when we adjourned the last Congress. We are here today to finish the job. As the only democracy in the world where citizens living in the capital city are denied their representation in the National Legislature, we come here to repair this obvious defect. Nearly 600,000 people who call the District of Columbia home, who pay taxes, who fight and die in the military, do not have a vote in the Congress. They do not have a vote in the Congress. That is what brings us here today. I am talking about people like one of its citizens, Andy Shallal, a local business owner and an Iraqi American. Thousands of American soldiers, including District residents, have given their lives in fighting for democracy in Iraq. Because of their sacrifice, Andy can vote for the national legislature in Iraq but is denied a vote for his own Member of Congress in Washington, District of Columbia. So District residents like Andy and all those who share the responsibilities of U.S. citizenship deserve voting representation in this Congress, and I believe that most in this body agree with me. I believe that H.R. 1433 is a sound policy response to this inequity. While some have raised questions and we have debated, we have had constitutional scholars from across the country join us in analyzing the way that we have put this measure together. I am totally and confidently satisfied that we have a bill that passes constitutional muster. We have a bill that can finally end the disenfranchisement of District residents. The legislation relies obviously on Article I, section 8, clause 17, which provides Congress with the authority to give the District a vote. The Supreme Court has held that Congress's exclusive authority over the District is ``national in the highest sense.'' The D.C. Circuit Court has held that the Congress has ``extraordinary and plenary power'' over the District. The District of Columbia Court of Appeals has found the District Clause to be ``sweeping and inclusive in character.'' Distinguished conservatives, we emphasize that this is not a partisan measure. Thoughtful scholars like Viet Dinh, judges and scholars like Ken Starr, whom I have never cited or quoted before now, and our former colleague Jack Kemp, just to name a few, agree that the Congress has the power through simple legislation to give the District of Columbia a vote. We have used the District Clause to treat the District like a State repeatedly: for diversity jurisdiction, for 11th amendment immunity, for alcohol regulation, for interstate transportation, for apprentice labor, for the collection of State income taxes, the list goes on and on. Surely, we cannot say that we cannot give them, the District residents, a vote in the same way that we have handled so many other matters. I am confident that we can pair the District of Columbia with Utah and give Utah an at-large seat. Article I, section 4 gives Congress ultimate authority over Federal elections. The one person, one vote principle will be left intact. No vote will be compromised or diluted. None of their vote will be lost, nor will it be expanded. Utah voters will be given an equal opportunity to elect an at-large Representative on a temporary basis and a District Representative. This fight has been long, 200 years too long. We can debate this issue to no end, but at the end of the day, if District residents remain disenfranchised, we ought to be ashamed. We have a sound, bipartisan proposal before us, and I am happy to entertain the discussion on both sides of the aisle that will proceed at this time. I want to thank those of our Republican colleagues in the House who have already seen fit to make it clear that they, too, will be joining with us to make this a bipartisan solution to an old problem. I am proud to think and hope that D.C. disenfranchisement will come to an end. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds, and I include for the Record the 25 legal scholars of constitutional authority who have already weighed in on this bill, plus the former elected officials and former Senators and Members of Congress and Presidential appointees that have all examined this with great care and find that it is not constitutionally defective. DC Vote, Washington, DC, March 12, 2007. 25 Legal Scholars Support Constitutionality of DC Voting Rights Dear Representative: DC residents pay federal income taxes, serve on juries and die in wars to defend American democracy, but they do not have voting representation in the Congress. This lack of representation is inconsistent with our nation's core democratic principles. Justice Hugo Black put it well in Wesberry v. Sanders in 1964: ``No right is more precious in a free country than that of having a voice in the election of those who make the laws under which, as good citizens, we must live. Other rights, even the most basic, are illusory if the right to vote is undermined.'' Congress is currently considering granting voting rights to Americans living in Washington, DC. Lawmakers have been faced with questions about the constitutionality of extending the right to vote to residents of a ``non-state.'' As law professors and scholars, we would like to address these questions and put to rest any concerns about the constitutionality of extending the right of representation to residents of the District. While the language of the Constitution literally requires that House members be elected ``by the People of the Several states,'' Congress has not always applied this language so literally. For example, the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act allows U.S. citizens living abroad to vote in congressional elections in their last state of residence--even if they are no longer citizens there, pay any taxes there, or have any intent to return. To fully protect the interests of people living in the capital, the Framers gave Congress extremely broad authority over all matters relating to the federal district under Article I, Sec. 8, clause 17 (the ``District Clause''). Courts have ruled that this clause gives Congress ``extraordinary and plenary power'' over DC and have upheld congressional treatment of DC as a ``state'' for purposes of diversity jurisdiction and interstate commerce, among other things. Article III provides that courts may hear cases ``between citizens of different states'' (diversity jurisdiction). The Supreme Court initially ruled that under this language, DC residents could not sue residents of other states. But in 1940, Congress began treating DC as a state for this purpose--a law upheld in D.C. v. Tidewater Transfer Co. (1949). The Constitution also allows Congress to regulate commerce ``among the several states,'' which, literally, would exclude DC. But Congress' authority to treat DC as a ``state'' for Commerce Clause purposes was upheld in Stoughtenburg v. Hennick (1889). We believe, under the same analysis of the Constitution, that Congress has the power through ``simple'' legislation to provide voting representation in Congress for DC residents. Sincerely, Sheryll D. Cashin, Georgetown University Law Center; Viet D. Dinh, Georgetown University Law Center; Charles J. Ogletree, Harvard Law School; Jamin Raskin, American University Washington College of Law; Samuel R. Bagenstos, Washington University Law School; Brian L. Baker, San Joaquin College of Law; William W. Bratton, Georgetown University Law Center; Richard Pierre Claude, University of Maryland; Sherman Cohn, Georgetown University Law Center; Peter Edelman, Georgetown University Law Center; James Forman Jr., Georgetown University Law Center; David A. Gantz, The University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law. Michael Gottesman, Georgetown University Law Center; Michael Greenberger, University of Maryland; Pat King, Georgetown University Law Center; Charles R. Lawrence III, Georgetown University Law Center; Paul Steven Miller, University of Washington School of Law; James Oldham, Georgetown University Law Center; Christopher L. Peterson University of Florida, Levin College of Law; Robert Pitofsky, Georgetown University Law Center; David Schultz, University of Minnesota; Girardeau A. Spann, Georgetown University Law Center; Ronald S. Sullivan Jr., Yale Law School; Roger Wilkins, George Mason University; Wendy Williams, Georgetown University Law Center.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to point out that a constitutional amendment could take 10 years, who knows, to have a part of a State ceded back. The three methods that have been suggested by the former chairman of Judiciary Committee, who has worked very hard on this, are, in effect, impractical. Madam Speaker, I am pleased now to recognize the chairman of the Constitutional Subcommittee on the Judiciary, Mr. Nadler, who has done extraordinary work in this regard, 5 minutes.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds. I refer the former attorney general of the State of California to the list we have right now about 10 decisions in which reviews, under the constitutional authority, D.C. as a State. Madam Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 5 minutes to the distinguished lady, a member of the committee and who has served with great distinction on the House Judiciary Committee for constitutional questions, Sheila Jackson-Lee of Houston, Texas.