John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, before yielding to the gentlewoman from California, I would just like to respond to the comments that I have heard. Never before has a President of the United States had the exclusive power to interpret the Geneva Conventions and publish what he has interpreted in the Record. And never before has a President had the power to eliminate judicial review of executive acts as significant as detention and domestic surveillance. And that can't be squared with the principles of transparency and the rule of law. I would refer all of my colleagues to 62 professors of law, not lawyers, professors of law, who have explained why section 83 and section 6 are very problematic and are going to lead us right back into the court, because for 5 long years after the 9/11 tragedy, not a single detainee has been brought to justice because this administration insists on unilaterally pursuing secret, unconstitutional strategies that cannot pass judicial muster. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren), member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. The last reason for the many that have been brought forward as to why this legislation is dangerous and unwise is that it endangers our troops because it has the effect of lowering the standards set forth in the Geneva Conventions. By allowing the President to unilaterally interpret the Geneva Conventions and then exempting his interpretations from any scrutiny, we are creating a massive loophole to this time- honored treaty and endangering our own troops. As the head of Army intelligence, Lieutenant General Kimmons warned us, no good intelligence is going to come from abusive practices. I think history tells us that. And if you don't believe him, just ask Maher Arar, an innocent Canadian national, who was sent by our Nation, I am sorry to report, to Syria where he was tortured. This legislation decimates separation of powers by retroactively cutting off habeas corpus. Let us not approve this legislation in the House of Representatives this evening. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia, a member of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Scott.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff), who has worked diligently on this issue, 2 minutes.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), a distinguished member of the Committee on the Judiciary, 2 minutes.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), an excellent member of the Committee on the Judiciary, 2 minutes.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a letter dated September 27 from the American Civil Liberties Union and 41 other organizations. September 27, 2006. Dear Representative: We are writing to strongly encourage you to reject the ``compromise'' Military Commissions Act of 2006 and to vote no on final passage of the bill. More than anything else, the bill compromises America's commitment to fairness and the rule of law. For the last five years the United States has repeatedly operated in a manner that betrays our Nation's commitment to law. The U.S. has held prisoners in secret prisons without any due process or even access to the Red Cross and has placed other prisoners in Guantanamo Bay in a transparent effort to avoid judicial oversight and the application of U.S. treaty obligations. The Federal government has operated under legal theories which dozens of former senior officers have warned endanger U.S. personnel in the field and has produced legal interpretations of the meaning of ``torture'' and ``cruel, inhuman and degrading'' treatment which had to be abandoned when revealed to the public. Interrogation practices were approved by the Department of Defense which former Bush Administration appointee and General Counsel of the Navy Alberto Mora described as ``clearly abusive, and . . . clearly contrary to everything we were ever taught about American values.'' According to media reports the CIA has used a variety of interrogation techniques which the United States has previously prosecuted as war crimes and routinely denounces as torture when they are used by other governments. Instead of finally coming to grips with this situation and creating a framework for detaining, interrogating and prosecuting alleged terrorists which comports with the best traditions of American justice, the proposed legislation will mostly perpetuate the current problems. Worse, it would seek to eliminate any accountability for violations of the law in the past and prevent future judicial oversight. While we appreciate the efforts various members of Congress have made to address these problems, the ``compromise'' falls far short of an acceptable outcome. The serious problems with this legislation are many and this letter will not attempt to catalogue them all. Indeed, because the legislation has only just been made available, many of the serious flaws in this long, complex bill are only now coming to light. For instance, the bill contains a new, very expansive definition of enemy combatant. This definition violates traditional understandings of the laws of war and runs directly counter to President Bush's pledge to develop a common understanding of such issues with U.S. allies. Because the proposed definition of combatant is so broad, the language may also have potential consequences for U.S. civilians. For instance, it may mean that adversaries of the United States will use the definition to define civilian employees and contractors providing support to U.S. combat forces, such as providing food, to be ``combatants'' and therefore legitimate subjects for attack. Yet, there has been no opportunity to consider and debate the implications of this definition, or other parts of the bill such as the definitions of rape and sexual abuse. We strongly oppose the provisions in the bill that strip individuals who are detained by the United States of the ability to challenge the factual and legal basis of their detention. Habeas corpus is necessary to avoid wrongful deprivations of liberty and to ensure that executive detentions are not grounded in torture or other abuse. We are deeply concerned that many provisions in the bill will cast serious doubt on the fairness of the military commission proceedings and undermine the credibility of the convictions as a result. For instance, we are deeply concerned about the provisions that permit the use of evidence obtained through coercion. Provisions in the bill which purport to permit a defendant to see all of the evidence against him also appear to contain serious flaws. We believe that any good faith interpretation of the definitions of ``cruel, inhuman and degrading'' treatment in the bill would prohibit abusive interrogation techniques such as waterboarding, hypothermia, prolonged sleep deprivation, stress positions, assaults, threats and other similar techniques because they clearly cause serious mental and physical suffering. However, given the history of the last few years we also believe that the Congress must take additional steps to remove any chance that the provisions of the bill could be exploited to justify using these and similar techniques in the future. Again, this letter is not an attempt to catalogue all of the flaws in the legislation. There is no reason why this legislation needs to be rushed to passage. In particular, there is no substantive reason why this legislation should be packaged together with legislation unrelated to military commissions or interrogation in an effort to rush the bill through the Congress. Trials of the alleged ``high value'' detainees are reportedly years away from beginning. We urge the Congress to take more time to consider the implications of this legislation for the safety of American personnel, for U.S. efforts to build strong alliances in the effort to defeat terrorists and for the traditional U.S. commitment to the rule of law. Unless these serious problems are corrected, we urge you to vote no. Sincerely, Physicians for Human Rights. Center for National Security Studies. Amnesty International USA. Human Rights Watch. Human Rights First. American Civil Liberties Union. Open Society Policy Center. Center for American Progress Action Fund. The Episcopal Church. Jewish Council for Public Affairs. National Religious Campaign Against Torture. Presbyterian Church (USA), Washington Office. Friends Committee on Nat'l Legislation. Maine Council of Churches. Pennsylvania Council of Churches. Wisconsin Council of Churches. Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law School. Center for Constitutional Rights. Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Center for Human Rights. The Bill of Rights Defense Committee. Unitarian Universalist Service Committee. Leadership Conference of Women Religious. Center for Human Rights and Global Justice, NYU School of Law. The Shalom Center. Washington Region Religious Campaign Against Torture. The Center for Justice and Accountability. Center of Concern. Justice, Peace & Integrity of Creation Missionary Oblates. Rabbis for Human Rights--North America. Humanist Chaplaincy at Harvard University. No2Torture. Maryland Christians for Justice and Peace. American Library Association. Churches Center for Theology and Public Policy. Disciples Justice Action Network (Disciples of Christ). Equal Partners in Faith. Christians for Justice Action (United Church of Christ). Reclaiming the Prophetic Voice. Baptist Peace Fellowship of North America. Pax Christi USA: National Catholic Peace Movement. Fellowship of Reconciliation. Maryknoll Office for Global Concerns. Mr. Speaker, I turn now to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), a former member of the committee, 1 minute.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, the very first amendment to the constitution provides that ``Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.'' This protects a right--freedom of religion--that is fundamental in any democratic and free society. Since the bill of rights was approved in 1791, several additional measures have been taken to safeguard this right. For example, the Civil Rights Act of 1871, now known as Section 1983, and the Civil Rights Attorney's Fee Award Act of 1976, now know as Section 1988, were enacted to provide all citizens with the means to protect all constitutional rights. Today, the Majority would have this Congress take a step back from these critical protections. I oppose the legislation before us because it is unprecedented, it treats religious minorities unfairly, and it will interfere with meritorious claims. First, H.R. 2679 is unprecedented. For the first time in our history, Congress will be singling out one area of constitutional protections under the Bill of Rights and prevent its full enforcement. The Congressional Research Service reports, ``[Section 1983] has not been substantially altered since 1871.'' Under this legislation citizens challenging Establishment Clause violations will no longer have the ability to recover attorneys' fees. Remedies will be limited to injunctive and declaratory relief. On the heels of the Voting Rights Act reauthorization, I am troubled that we would take up legislation that would limit a person's ability to enforce his or her constitutional rights. The VRA reauthorization expanded a plaintiff's ability to obtain expert witness fees. This bill eliminates attorneys' fees and relegates those who seek to enforce their constitutional rights against state sanctioned religion to second class status. Second, H.R. 2679 treats religious minorities unfairly. Despite its name, this bill does not encourage the expression of religion. Rather, this bill leaves religious minorities without protection by promoting government sanctioned religion. This Nation was founded on the principle of religious freedom, and the Establishment Clause forbids the government from forcing one religious viewpoint on all Americans. In 2005 in McCreary County, Kentucky v. ACLU, Sandra Day O'Connor explained, ``Voluntary religious belief and expression may be threatened when government takes the mantle of religion upon itself.'' H.R. 2679 cripples the First Amendment and religious minorities will pay the price. Third, H.R. 2679 will deter meritorious claims. It is a fact of life in our society that bringing complex civil actions against the government is expensive. Since this bill would deny attorney's fees to a prevailing plaintiff, numerous suits challenging Establishment Clause violations will not be brought. The point of Section 1988 is to provide victims with limited means an opportunity to have their day in court. Unfortunately, H.R. 2679 will prevent a victim from protecting his or her constitutional rights against a defendant with large resources, such as the government. It is interesting that so many religious groups strongly oppose this measure. These groups include the Baptist Joint Committee, American Jewish Congress, and the Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations. The Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, Lawyers' Committee, Alliance for Justice, Human Rights Campaign, and People for the American Way are also among the numerous organizations that also oppose this bill. Please vote ``no'' on this legislation, which will cause great harm to the concept of freedom of religion in this country.

Mr. CONYERS

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

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in disagreement with this bill, the Private Property Rights Implementation Act, just as I have done in the 105th and 106th Congresses. I also call to the attention of the Members of the House that this bill is different from the Kelo Supreme Court decision that dealt with eminent domain, another, to me, unhappy decision which I was not overjoyed about. But this bill does little more than single out developers and corporations for a special fast track into the Federal court. In November of last year, I was proud to join with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to protect property owners from takings in the name of ``economic development.'' Such takings did not constitute public uses and were found to be totally inconsistent with the fifth amendment to our Constitution. But today my friends on the other side of the aisle are arguing that the bill we are taking up today, 4772, is another effort to protect property owners. They say the bill simply makes it easier for property owners to have their day in court, in Federal court, that is. H.R. 4772 will permit land developers to forum shop between State and Federal courts when they pursue regulatory takings claims against the government. And, unfortunately, instead of advancing our constitutional principles, this bill undermines longstanding interpretations of the fifth amendment. The Supreme Court has ruled on two different occasions, in Williamson County and in San Remo, that landowners must pursue remedies for just compensation from the State in a State court. This bill goes directly against that concept. The Court has confirmed that a Federal court cannot properly consider a takings claim unless or until a landowner has been denied an adequate remedy. To do otherwise would make cases unconstitutionally ripe for Federal review and also limit a Federal court's ability to abstain from State questions. Unfortunately, that is exactly what H.R. 4772 will do. It will allow regulatory takings claims into Federal courts prematurely. With the threat of Federal litigation, States and localities will be restricted in their land use decisions. For example, it will be harder for jurisdictions to protect against groundwater contamination or waste dumps or adult bookstores. This is a serious proposition, and once again I think the committee is moving in the wrong direction to bring it to the floor at this time. Most disturbingly, this bill elevates the rights of property owners over all other categories of persons with constitutional claims. Are the rights of real estate developers more important than the rights of other Americans? It is simply not true that there is anything special or unique about real property takings that warrants special protections for developers. This is unfortunate legislation which undermines equal justice under law, which, to me, is the very cornerstone of our legal system. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the ranking member of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

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

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on the Constitution.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) who has studied this issue very carefully.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of the time. There has been one other mischaracterization made that should be corrected here, because it has been said on the other side more than once that the plaintiff in these kinds of cases is required to stay in the State courts and that we are now moving him up in line with others, but there are many circumstances that require the exhaustion of a State court remedy before you can come into the Federal court. For example, the termination of parental rights requires an exhaustion of State rights. The detention and violation of the sixth amendment right to counsel requires an exhaustion of the State rights before you move into the Federal court. Confinement for juvenile offenders in violation of the eighth amendment requires the same thing, so does denial of Medicaid benefits in violation of first amendment religious protections. What we see here is the most incredible use of determining who goes into Federal court and who can go in quickly and easily, and we do not think that developers have done anything to justify that. So in the name of all the local lawmakers, in the name of those who have any respect for the rights of States in these matters, who respect the traditions that have been well-established in the law for determining how we deal with these claims, we urge a ``no'' vote on H.R. 4772.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Maryland, who has put so much of his time and intelligence into an examination of H.R. 5092, which is called the ``Modernization and Reform Act.'' This bill is taken up as the reported incidence of gun violence continues to rise. It is truly unfortunate that some would advance a proposal such as this, because this measure only threatens to make a troubling situation even more problematic. Earlier this month, the Department of Justice told us that criminal gun violence grew by nearly 50 percent between the years 2004 and 2005. And up until now, what has been the majority's response to this growing epidemic? Well, simply to take up a bill that will only lead to an additional increase in the number of illegal firearms that on a daily basis constantly go on our streets and communities. The measure before us, ladies and gentlemen, promises to all but eliminate the ATF's current authority to revoke the Federal firearms licenses of corrupt dealers. If enacted, it would make it virtually impossible for ATF to shut down rogue gun dealers by elevating current burden of proof requirements beyond that of any other major industry. So let us understand: This is not about going after honest firearms dealers, which constitute the majority of those in the trade. It is not about that. This is about giving a break to the rogue dealers. This is what is a bit disturbing, because we create in this proposal two vague classifications of gun laws: the serious and the non-serious. It allows for license revocation only for serious violations. But it, unfortunately, defines these violations in such a way that enforcement would be extremely rare. It excludes many violations that are, in fact, quite dangerous, such as when a gun dealer has numerous weapons lost from its inventory with no record of sale. The bill would require Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms to automatically stay or postpone the imposition of a fine, a suspension or revocation pending completion of an administration hearing, no matter how egregious the violation. This standard strongly favors the violator and should be changed so that the alleged violator is required to prove the likelihood of the success of his challenge, as is the current practice for most civil proceedings. Keeping dangerous firearms out of the hands of violent criminals continues to be one of the most pressing concerns of our Nation. I know somebody besides me is going to talk about the newly released data that shows a total of 3,012 children and teens were killed by gunfire in the United States in one year. That roughly comes out to approximately one child every 3 hours, eight children every day, and more than 50 children every week. This is what we are legislating under a suspension of the rules. I predict that this suspension is in big trouble, because more and more people are listening to the remarks of the gentleman from Maryland, who has made it clear that most of the community that enforces gun laws is against this. Now, let's look at it globally. American children are more often at risk from firearm-related injuries and fatalities than any other industrialized nation on the planet. Firearms were reportedly used to kill 19 young people in Great Britain, 57 in Germany, 153 in France, and a staggering 5,285 children in the United States. As a concerned Member of Congress who serves on this committee, we need to do more to protect our children, and not less. To protect our children and adequately address such problems, we must empower the ATF with the necessary tools and resources to properly police unscrupulous firearms dealers. That is what this measure is about. Unfortunately, the proposals contained therein have taken us in the opposite direction. So I conclude by pointing out why I join in opposition to this measure. Because the International Brotherhood of Police Officers is against this measure, because the International Association of Chiefs of Police is opposed to this measure, because the Major Cities Chiefs of Police is opposed to this measure, and because the Attorney General of California and two former directors of the Bureau are opposed to this measure. So I urge my colleagues to let common sense prevail and let the interests of our citizens trump the rogue dealers who have a mysterious way of keeping losing weapons in their inventory with no record of sale. We are on to them. We know what it means. Nobody here is that naive. So here, ladies and gentlemen, is going to be a very important test, and I hope that the majority of those that will vote on this measure will join me in causing a defeat in the suspension of this measure, H.R. 5092. September 18, 2006. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representative: The Major Cities Chiefs write to express our strong opposition to H.R. 5092, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) ``Modernization and Reform'' Act. This legislation would have a devastating effect on the ability of law enforcement to stem the flow of firearms from lawbreaking gun dealers to violent criminals. H.R. 5092 would make it virtually impossible for ATF to revoke the licenses of gun dealers who violate federal law. Instead, ATF would be limited to imposing minimal fines and temporary suspensions, but only if it met a new, extraordinary burden of proof that would make even these meager sanctions incredibly rare. If H.R. 5092 is enacted into law, ATF's ability to stop corrupt gun dealers from supplying firearms to the criminal market will be crippled. For example, H.R. 5092 redefines violations of many of our nation's gun laws as only ``minor'' violations. License revocation would be prohibited for these so-called ``minor'' violations, no matter how many times a dealer violated these federal laws or how egregious those violations may be. Included as ``minor'' violations are what are, in fact, serious violations such as a dealer's failure to account for large numbers of firearms missing from its inventory. A dealer may claim that hundreds or thousands of weapons have been ``lost,'' preventing ATF from completing a trace of any such guns recovered at crime scenes. Missing firearms also frequently indicate ``off-the-book'' sales to gun traffickers or felons. Yet H.R. 5092 would remove ATF's power to revoke the licenses of these gun dealers, greatly jeopardizing ATF's ability to enforce federal gun laws and our ability to use crime gun traces to protect our communities from illegal guns. Another dangerous provision of H.R. 5092 would allow gun dealers whose licenses have been revoked for violations of federal law to continue operating for 60 days after revocation. ATF would have no discretion to waive this 60-day sales period, even if it found that a dealer posed a dire threat to public safety. The idea that ATF would be required by law to allow a lawbreaking gun dealer to continue selling guns for 60 days after its license has been revoked simply makes no sense. It is not hard to see the devastating effect that H.R. 5092 would have on law enforcement around the country. Crime gun data compiled by ATF shows that just 1% of our nation's gun dealers supply nearly 60% of all crime guns. If ATF is unable to revoke the licenses of corrupt gun dealers, our communities will continue to be flooded with firearms from these irresponsible gun sellers. It is imperative that ATF have the power to stop the flow of guns from, lawbreaking gun dealers to violent criminals in our cities. We urge you to stand up for law enforcement and oppose H.R. 5092. Thank you. Sincerely, Harold L. Hurtt, President, Major Cities Chiefs.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to control the remainder of the legislation under suspension.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of the legislation. It is a collection of a number of bills, a majority of which have passed favorably through the Subcommittee on Courts with little or no controversy. There are five titles: the Pay Adjustment for Federal Judges; the Courts and Intellectual Property Legislation; the Jurisdiction of Federal Circuit over Patent Cases; the Diversity Jurisdiction of Federal Courts; and, finally, the Multidistrict Litigation in the Lexecon case before the Supreme Court. The most important is the pay adjustment for Federal judges, because we provide a cost-of-living pay adjustment for 2007. The Federal judges do not receive such COLAs unless Congress provides specific statutory authorization each year. It is my hope that some day we will make it automatic. Members of the Federal judiciary deserve this raise. We have a number of Federal judges who are forced to turn back their appointment because the salary is inadequate to their basic needs. We appreciate the hardworking men and women who serve; and to me, this is an important part of the constitutional democracy that we have formed here, and we must do everything to ensure that we attract and retain the highest quality of judges. Now, these members of the judiciary are called to duty by a sense of honor, and the judges already make far less than most of them could earn in private firms. And while this pay disparity will exist, Congress should at least ensure that judicial pay does not effectively shrink. And so the failure to give judges a COLA would constitute in effect such a reduction in pay. Title II contains a number of measures. We respond in part to the devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina by permitting the Patent and Trademark Office director to extend deadlines during emergencies. Section 202 is a resolution honoring the 25th anniversary of the Bayh-Dole Act, and that is Senator Bayh, Sr., who formerly served from the great State of Indiana. And this measure enhanced public and private partnerships for the commercialization of inventions. Section 203 of the bill requires that each Federal or State court recognize out-of-state notarial acts that meet the following two conditions that are indicated in the measure. Title III of the bill clarifies the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals has exclusive jurisdiction to hear patent appeals, and that I think is extremely important. The goal of title III is to maintain the integrity of the patent system. Title IV amends the laws governing diversity jurisdiction. And this is an important and critical area. And then finally we have the Multidistrict Litigation, which has been passed several times, but never acted on by the other body. This title would overturn the Supreme Court case called the Lexecon decision. While I have supported this legislation in the past, I have consistently noted several concerns that I hope will be able to be addressed in our discussions that I anticipate with the Senate. I urge my colleagues to support this measure before the House on the suspension calendar. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the Copyright Royalty Technical Corrections Act is just that. It is a major accomplishment of the Subcommittee on Courts and makes a number of technical corrections. Two substantive improvements I would bring to the floor's attention at this point: It clarifies the decisions of the new copyright tribunal will serve as precedent for later decisions, establishes consistency for written statements to the tribunal, and provides for fee waivers for those claiming royalties in excess of $1,000. The other major substantive change resolves the ambiguity about when partial payments or distributions of royalties to content owners are allowed. This measure before us would permit Copyright Royalty Judges, upon the motion of a claimant and after publication of a request for responses, to make a partial distribution of cable and satellite royalty fees at any time after the filing of claims for distribution if no eligible claimant has stated a reasonable objection. I think the committee is in accord with this bill. I urge that Members of the House support this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I support House passage of this measure, H.R. 683, as amended and passed by the Senate. An almost identical version of this bill passed this Congress with a roll call vote of 411-8 and subsequently passed the other Chamber as amended by unanimous consent. The measure makes a number of changes to the Federal Trademark Dilution Act of 1995. The primary change amends the required standard of proof so that owners of famous trademarks can maintain protection of their trademark before actual harm occurs to the mark. In addition, the bill clearly codifies the cause of action of dilution by tarnishment in order to prevent harm to a trademark owner's reputation, resulting, for example, from a disparaging usage of a same or similar mark by others. Finally, this measure narrows the scope of what may be considered a famous mark by elucidating the specific factors necessary to meet the definition of a famous trademark. There was support, I think it was unanimous for this measure, in the Judiciary Committee. I am happy to urge its favorable vote under the suspension of the rules proceedings today. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am happy to rise in support of this legislation because immigration is one of the basic foundations of the Nation, and the contributions of immigrants are too many to be counted. This legislation recognizes these principles, and in addition, authorizes the Homeland Security Secretary to dispense $5,000 to public and private nonprofit entities to host naturalization ceremonies. This purpose originally was authorized as a part of the 1996 immigration law, and I believe it deserves reauthorization. I join with the chairman of the committee in urging our colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the bill

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

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), the ranking member of the Homeland Security Committee.

Mr. CONYERS. Yes, ma'am.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, thank you. That was for your benefit. Now, let me ask you another question. Were there Judiciary hearings, even though you are not a custodian of the record? Well, I can answer that one for you. I think you ought to listen to the Madam Speaker a little bit more. You cannot speak on the floor. I know you have been here a while. You cannot interrupt a speaker unless you are yielded to. And I would----