John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, if the gentlelady will yield, I ask her, why would we be asking for special standing, we in the Congress? Why would we be asking for an expedited review? Can't the courts decide who gets either of those two special privileges to come to the front of the line?

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute because the speaker from Texas, Mr. Gohmert, a valuable member of Judiciary, a highly praised judge, and a supporter of gun rights too, incidentally ignores a decision that just came out of the federal court, just recently, within weeks, Parker v. Williams, which held that the second amendment renders the District's gun ban unconstitutional--which I was sorry to hear, but he probably wasn't--in that ``a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed.'' The court held that D.C. was a State for purposes of the Constitution's second amendment. Madam Speaker, I reserve the rest of my time. The gentlelady from Los Angeles, California, has come upon the floor. I know she wants to speak on this, and I recognize Maxine Waters from California for 3 minutes on this subject.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I reserve my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, we continue to reserve time.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I am proud to yield 1 minute to the most patient Member in the House of Representatives, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Al Green).

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I am proud to yield 1 full minute to Rush Holt of New Jersey.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio, Dennis Kucinich, a distinguished Member of this body.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 1 minute to my good friend from Virginia, James Moran.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I am proud to yield 1 minute to my friend the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney). (Mrs. MALONEY of New York asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson) for the purpose of a unanimous-consent request. (Ms. WATSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished former member of the Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the Speaker of the House.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Speaker, I will insert in the Record under yesterday's date, March 21, a CRS report handed to me by Eleanor Holmes Norton that validates the fact that the one man, one vote principle is not violated by the Utah creation of an at-large district. Madam Speaker, we have had a lot of predictions from Members of the Congress who may be on the Supreme Court someday. They predicted unconstitutionality and constitutionality. Let's leave it up to the Court. But, remember, those challenging on the basis of unconstitutionality have the burden. I close with this observation: The three recommendations we have had, a constitutional amendment; retrocession, giving D.C. back to Maryland; or statehood, are not going to work. I urge support for this measure before us today. CRS Report for Congress: Congressional Redistricting: The Constitutionality of Creating an At-Large District (L. Paige Whitaker, Legislative Attorney) Summary Among other provisions, H.R. 1433 (110th Cong.), the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2007, would expand the U.S. House of Representatives by two Members to a total of 437 Members. The first of these two new seats would be allocated to create a voting Member representing the District of Columbia, and the second seat would be assigned in accordance with 2000 census data and existing federal law, resulting in the addition of a fourth congressional seat in the state of Utah, which would be a temporary at-large district. This report is limited to discussing only the constitutionality of the creation of an at-large congressional district. While it is not without doubt, based on the authority granted to Congress under the Constitution to regulate congressional elections and relevant Supreme Court precedent, it appears that federal law establishing a temporary at-large congressional district would likely be upheld as constitutional. H.R. 1433 (110th Cong.), the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2007 Among other provisions, H.R. 1433 (110th Cong.), the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2007, would expand the U.S. House of Representatives by two Members to a total of 437 Members. It specifies that the first of these two new seats would be allocated to create a voting Member representing the District of Columbia, and that the second seat would be assigned in accordance with 2000 census data and existing federal law, which would currently result in the addition of a fourth congressional seat in the state of Utah. This report is limited to considering only the issue of the constitutionality of the creation of an at-large congressional district. H.R. 1433 (110th Cong.) was introduced on March 9, 2007, and supersedes H.R. 328, which was introduced earlier in the 110th Congress. On March 13, the House Government Oversight and Reform Committee reported H.R. 1433, by a vote of 24-5, and on March 15, the House Judiciary Committee reported the bill by a vote of 21-13. Brief Constitutional Analysis The U.S. Constitution provides the states with primary authority over congressional elections, but grants Congress the final authority over most aspects of such elections. This congressional power is at its most broad in the case of House elections, which have historically been decided by a system of popular voting. Article I, Sec. 4, cl. 1 provides that: The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators. The Supreme Court and lower courts have interpreted this language to mean that Congress has extensive power to regulate most elements of congressional elections, including a broad authority to protect the integrity of those elections. The Constitution does not specify how Members of the House are to be elected once they are apportioned to a state. Originally, most states having more than one Representative divided their territory into geographic districts, permitting only one Member of Congress to be elected from each district. Other states, however, allowed House candidates to run at- large or from multi-member districts or from some combination of the two. In those states employing single-member districts, however, the problem of gerrymandering, the practice of drawing district lines in order to maximize political party advantage, quickly arose. Accordingly, Congress began establishing standards for House districts. Congress first passed federal redistricting standards in 1842, when it added a requirement to the apportionment act of that year that Representatives ``should be elected by districts composed of contiguous territory equal in number to the number of Representatives to which each said state shall be entitled, no one district electing more than one Representative.'' (5 Stat. 491.) The Apportionment Act of 1872 added another requirement to those first set out in 1842, stating that districts should contain ``as nearly as practicable an equal number of inhabitants.'' (17 Stat. 492.) A further requirement of ``compact territory'' was added when the Apportionment Act of 1901 was adopted stating that districts must be made up of ``contiguous and compact territory and containing as nearly as practicable an equal number of inhabitants.'' (26 Stat. 736.) After 1929, there were no congressionally imposed standards governing congressional redistricting; in 1941, however, Congress enacted a law providing for various redistricting contingencies if states failed to redistrict after a census--including at-large representation. (55 Stat 761.) In 1967, Congress reimposed the requirement that Representatives must run from single-member districts, rather than running at-large. (81 Stat. 581.) Both the 1941 and 1967 laws are still in effect, codified at 2 U.S.C.Sec. Sec. 2a and 2c. In Branch v. Smith, the Supreme Court considered the operation and inherent tension between these two provisions. It does not appear, however, that the question of congressional authority was in serious dispute in this litigation. Rather, the Court noted in passing that the current statutory scheme governing apportionment of the House of Representatives was enacted in 1929 pursuant to congressional authority under the ``Times, Places and Manner'' provision of the Constitution. Consequently, it seems likely that Congress has broad authority, within specified constitutional parameters, to establish how Members' districts will be established, including the creation of at-large districts. It might be suggested that creating an at-large congressional district in a state could violate the ``one person, one vote'' standard established by the Supreme Court in Wesberry v. Sanders. In Wesberry, the Supreme Court first applied the one person, one vote standard in the context of evaluating the constitutionality of a Georgia congressional redistricting statute that created a district with two to three times as many residents as the state's other nine districts. In striking down the statute, the Court held that Article I, section 2, clause 1, providing that Representatives be chosen ``by the People of the several States'' and be ``apportioned among the several States . . . according to their respective Numbers,'' requires that ``as nearly as is practicable, one man's vote in a congressional is to be worth as much as another's.'' While it is not beyond dispute, it does not appear that the creation of an at-large district under the circumstances outlined in H.R. 1433 would be interpreted to create a conflict with the ``one person, one vote'' standard. Under H.R. 1433, each Utah voter would have the opportunity to vote both for a candidate to represent his or her congressional district as well as for a candidate to represent the state at-large. Each person's vote for an at-large candidate would be of equal worth. Further, each person's vote for an at-large candidate would not affect the value of his or her vote for a candidate representing a congressional district. Accordingly, all Utah residents' votes would have equal value, thereby arguably comporting with the one person, one vote principle. Based on the authority granted to Congress under the Constitution to regulate congressional elections and relevant Supreme Court precedent, it appears that a federal law establishing a temporary at-large congressional district would likely be upheld as constitutional.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I object.

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

Mr. CONYERS. This is the most startling double hypocrisy I have ever heard of on a bill of this magnitude. Very clever, whoever dreamed this up. The motion to recommit would deny everyone in this House the right to vote on whether citizens would gain the right to vote, and at the same time arm them with military-type weaponry that is being used in Iraq right now to destroy aircraft and bring down helicopters. We would also repeal the District's strong ban on handgun ammunition that can pierce body armor worn by police officers and other law enforcement officials at a time when security has become a top priority in the District, making military-style assault weapons readily available. Now, the most important person I have ever met in my life, with due respect to all the great people I have had the honor of working with as a Member of Congress, is Martin Luther King, Jr. If he is looking down on us now to see if we are working for justice and peace in our country, in our Capital and throughout the world, I am sure he would be as dismayed as I am by putting a gun control vote up for a motion to recommit. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Davis.

Mr. CONYERS. I thank the gentleman. I now turn to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia, Eleanor Holmes Norton, and recognize her at this time.

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

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 1433, the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2007.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Regular order, Madam Speaker.

Mr. CONYERS. Regular order, Madam Speaker.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the bipartisan Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007, along with Representatives Kirk, Frank, Shays, Baldwin, Ros-Lehtinen, Nadler and Bono. As of today there are more than 100 original cosponsors. This legislation will provide assistance to state and local law enforcement agencies and amend federal law to facilitate the investigation and prosecution of violent, bias-motivated crimes. Last Congress, this legislation passed with bipartisan support as H. Amdt 544 to the Child Safety Act (H.R. 3132) by a vote of 223-199. Bipartisan majorities also voted in favor of hate crime legislation in the 108th and 106th Congresses. The Hate Crimes Prevention Act has attracted the support of over 210 civil rights, education, religious, and civic organizations. Importantly, virtually every major law enforcement organization in the country has endorsed the bill--including the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the National District Attorneys Association, the National Sheriffs Association, the Police Executive Research Forum, and 31 state Attorneys General. Bias crimes are disturbingly prevalent and pose a significant threat to the full participation of all Americans in our democratic society. The FBI has the best national data on reported hate crime, though the program is voluntary. Since 1991, the FBI has documented over 113,000 hate crimes. For the year 2005, the most current data available, the FBI compiled reports from law enforcement agencies across the country identifying 7,163 bias-motivated criminal incidents that were directed against an individual because of their personal characteristics. Law enforcement agencies identified 8,795 victims arising from 8,373 separate criminal offenses. As in the past, racially-motivated bias accounted for more than half (54.7 percent) of all incidents. Religious bias accounted for 1,227 incidents (17.1 percent) and sexual orientation bias accounted for 1,017 incidents--(14.2 percent), followed by ethnicity/national origin bias with 944 incidents--(13.7 percent). While these numbers are disturbing, it is important to note that, for a variety of reasons, hate crimes are seriously under- reported. Despite the deep impact of hate violence on communities, current law limits federal jurisdiction over hate crimes to incidents directed against individuals on the basis of race, religion, color or national origin--but only when the victim is targeted because he/she is engaged in a federally protected activities, such as voting. Further, the statutes do not permit federal involvement in a range of cases where crimes are motivated by bias against the victim's perceived sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or disability. The federal government must have authority to be involved in investigating and prosecuting these crimes when state authorities cannot or will not do so. This legislation, which is identical to the version approved in the 109th Congress, will strengthen existing federal law in the same way that the Church Arson Prevention Act of 1996 helped federal prosecutors combat church arson: by addressing the unduly rigid jurisdictional requirements under federal law. The bill only applies to bias-motivated violent crimes and does not impinge public speech or writing in any way. In fact, the measure includes an explicit First Amendment free speech protection for the accused modeled on the existing Washington state hate crimes statute. State and local authorities currently prosecute the overwhelming majority of hate crimes and will continue to do so under this legislation. The federal government will continue to defer to state and local authorities in the vast majority of cases; the Attorney General or another high ranking Justice Department official must approve any prosecutions undertaken pursuant to this law, ensuring federal restraint. However, in appropriate circumstances, the federal government will be able to provide support for local prosecutions--an intergovernmental grant program created by this legislation will make Justice Department technical, forensic or prosecutorial assistance available. The legislation also authorizes the Attorney General to make grants to state and local law enforcement agencies that have incurred extraordinary expenses associated with the investigation and prosecution of hate crimes. The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007 is a constructive and measured response to a problem that continues to plague our nation. Hate crime statistics do not speak for themselves. Behind each of the statistics is an individual or community targeted for violence for no other reason than race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or disability. Law enforcement authorities and civic leaders have learned that a failure to address the problem of bias crime can cause a seemingly isolated incident to fester into widespread tension that can damage the social fabric of the wider community. This problem cuts across party lines, and I am glad to be joined by so many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in proposing this legislation today. These are crimes that shock and shame our national conscience and should be subject to comprehensive federal law enforcement assistance and prosecution.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of House Resolution 1227, the Gulf Coast Hurricane Housing Recovery Act of 2007. This resolution will improve flexibility for previously appropriated funds for hurricane recovery efforts on the Gulf Coast. In addition, the bill would free up for use $1.175 billion in funds previously made available to the State of Louisiana under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, but not being utilized by FEMA. The legislation also includes a number of provisions designed to preserve the supply of affordable rental housing and would authorize 4,500 new housing vouchers for the purpose of project-based assistance for supportive housing units for seniors, disabled persons, and the homeless. In addition, this bill would require HUD to provide a replacement voucher for every public housing and assisted housing unit that is not brought back on line. The House also adopted the Green Amendment which extends FEMA housing assistance until December 31, 2007 and then transfers eligible households to HUD's tenant-based rental assistance program. This amendment is of vital importance, because it addresses the looming September deadline and gives more than 12,000 families the assurance that they will not be displaced for a second time as they await the rebuilding of their housing. In effect, this bill provides an opportunity for our government to correct some of the injustices to the residents of the Gulf Coast for the: slow and sometimes mismanaged response of the Bush Administration. This bill helps those displaced residents begin to regain stability in their lives. A test of our government's commitment to these citizens occurred when the first flood waters and storm surges arrived. Unfortunately as the waters slowly receded, the government also moved slowly. It is in this aftermath, over 18 months later, that we finally begin to address the grave miscarriage of justice that occurred. The current status has former residents caught in a perpetual, vicious circle in that the storm damaged areas do not have enough schools, hospitals and services to support their return home. However, these resources are not available because there are not enough people in their neighborhoods to support having hospitals, schools and services. The lack of housing fuels this crisis and prevents many from returning to the area. Currently, fewer than 200,000 of the 454,000 pre-Katrina displaced residents have returned home. The survivors of Hurricane Katrina are not asking for a hand out, these survivors were not displaced through any fault of their own and we must immediately use our resources to help them return home. We must treat the survivors of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in the Gulf Coast region the same as we have treated survivors of other natural disasters. Though we have much work ahead to make the residents of the Gulf Coast whole, this is a very important first step.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, on November 7, 2006, the American people sent a clear message to Congress and the President: we must end the war in Iraq. In response, the administration announced it would escalate the conflict. Today we mark the fourth anniversary of President Bush's war of choice, and later this week, the House of Representatives will have to make a choice of its own: either endorse the President's open- ended commitment to the Iraq war or demand accountability and set a timeline for the phased redeployment of our troops. I am hopeful that Congress will pass a supplemental appropriations bill that will chart a new direction toward de-escalation, with a definitive date for disengagement. The occasion of this anniversary is an appropriate time to examine the impact of these last four years of war. As we begin the fifth year of the war, the price we have paid is high--with more than 3,000 U.S. troops dead, more than 20,000 U.S. troops wounded, and more than $400 billion of taxpayer dollars appropriated. The Iraq war is already longer than U.S. participation in World War II, World War I, the Korean War, or the Civil War. What do we have to show for these sacrifices? Contrary to the rosy scenario depicted by the administration, this war has not made us safer; on the contrary, it has made us more vulnerable than ever. A sizeable majority of foreign policy and military experts agree that the world is a more dangerous place for Americans now than it was before we invaded Iraq. The war has become the number one recruiting tool of terrorists, and our continuing occupation of Iraq has provided them with the best training camp they could ever hope to have--a place where they can practice and refine their methods while taking American lives. The war increasingly strains our military--now creating a genuine crisis in U.S. troop readiness and our ability to respond to new threats. Should disaster strike here at home or elsewhere in the world, we will be left virtually defenseless while our troops and equipment are bogged down in a bloody quagmire that threatens to drag on for many more years. House Democrats are bringing forward a plan that provides for a change in course on Iraq. Our plan will protect our troops on the battlefield and at home, require accountability from the Bush Administration and the Iraqi government, and set a responsible timeline for a phased redeployment of U.S. troops--with a date certain, by August 2008 at the latest, for U.S. combat troops to be redeployed from Iraq. While I would have preferred a plan that brought the troops home even sooner, I believe that this compromise proposal is the best approach Congress can take at this time. Adoption of the Democrats' plan would begin to answer the pleas of the American people--to turn away from the President's open-ended commitment to U.S. participation in this Iraqi civil war and instead provide a responsible, phased plan for requiring the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own future. Redeploying our armed forces does not mean ``cutting and running.'' On the contrary, we suggest continued and extensive involvement in the region through renewed diplomacy and reconstruction that is free from fraud and abuse. This sensible path is the only one that can truly lead us to victory.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Congressmen Al Green and Frank Pallone for arranging this Special Order hour. Today I rise to register my concern about the conditions at Walter Reed Army Medical Center and to show my support and dedication to increasing the quality of health care services, for our veterans as well as our men and women in uniform. The Nation has been horrified by the Washington Post's recent reports of the appalling conditions at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. Thanks to the diligent investigative reporting of Dana Priest and Anne Hull, we now know that our soldiers recovering in outpatient units are being forced to confront cockroaches, mice droppings and toxic black mold as they heal. Even worse, many become lost in an uncaring military bureaucracy that subjects them to long waits just to get their most basic needs addressed. The administration is now scrambling to control the damage from this scathing expose of its neglect of our wounded warriors. Almost as distressing as the conditions at Walter Reed is the fact that it took a report from the Washington Post to get the administration to address this unacceptable situation. We now know that our wounded warriors have been complaining about these problems for years, not just at Walter Reed but at military hospitals and outpatient facilities across the country. Their pleas, however, seem to have fallen on deaf ears. We owe a debt of gratitude to the reporters and editors at the Washington Post for uncovering this abominable situation and forcing this administration to act. Time and again, when those of us who oppose America's involvement in Iraq stand up and question why our brave men and women in uniform must fight and die in a war of choice, we are accused of ``not supporting the troops.'' But, Madam Speaker, supporting the troops is about more than lip service. The hypocrisy and irony of the situation at Walter Reed is scandalous and immoral. The same administration that hides behind the troops to avoid changing its policy in Iraq is guilty of abandoning the very men and women who must make the sacrifices required to carry out this failed policy. The sheer audacity of the administration's rhetoric in comparison with its actions is staggering. The administration trumpets its support for the troops but then, in the next moment, sends them into battle without the proper training and equipment. The administration says it supports the troops, but then falls short in providing them with a safe environment to heal the wounds they received while fighting so valiantly and selflessly for our country. Thousands of our brave men and women serving the administration's failed policy in Iraq have paid a heavy price. Since March of 2003, 23,677 service members have been wounded in Iraq. Our military and VA health care systems are ih crisis, apparently unprepared for the influx of casualties that war unavoidably creates. These health systems have been overwhelmed by troops returning from battle seeking health care and, in many instances, are unable to provide these men and women with the services they so desperately need. It is estimated that in the coming years over 700,000 veterans from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will enter the military and veterans health care system. Yet, because of Republican budget cuts, many of our brave soldiers are returning home with mental health ailments to discover that they will receive a third fewer psychiatric visits than they would have just 10 years ago. The number of soldiers navigating the bureaucracy of Walter Reed since 2001 has nearly doubled, yet the administration continues to move forward with the planned closing of the hospital. The president's budget continues to shortchange veterans' health care, providing an increase in fiscal year 2008 but then cutting the budget in fiscal years 2009 and 2010 to below the 2008 level and freezing the funding level thereafter. The administration's lack of planning for the war seems to include a total disregard for the service members who are returning home bearing the scars of the conflict. Mr. Speaker, our soldiers have done their duty. Now we must truly support them, not by blindly continuing a failed policy, but by getting them out of harm's way. We will continue to insist that our service members receive the health care they deserve. We will continue to hold oversight hearings about the conditions faced by our wounded service members and veterans at Walter Reed as well as at other military and veterans health facilities across the country. But the best way to support these brave young men and women is to begin a fully-funded withdrawal. Let's really support our troops by giving them the equipment and supplies they need to get out of Iraq safely in the next 6 months.