John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), who serves both on the Homeland Security Committee and Judiciary Committee with great skill.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott). Mr. Scott is a former member of the Judiciary Committee. He is now the ranking member on the Education and the Workforce Committee.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. There is no doubt that there is so much passion involved in this with the bill's supporters; but, as legislators, I would like to urge that one carefully and thoughtfully consider the long-term interests of our country. For the foregoing reasons, I am pleased to indicate that the scholars and others who will be voting to sustain the President's veto are Michael Mukasey, the former Attorney General under George W. Bush; Stephen Hadley, the former National Security Adviser for that President; Richard Clarke, the former White House counterterrorism adviser for Bill Clinton and George W. Bush; and Thomas Pickering, the former United States Ambassador to the United Nations. They all agree that we must be considerate of the long-term interests of our own country. For the foregoing reasons and those stated by the national security experts, the international law scholars, and the President of the United States, I find that I must vote to sustain the President's veto. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, in the fifty plus years since the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., articulated the dream of a generation, this nation has seen inspiring progress toward the ideal of equality under the law. Nowhere has this progress been more dramatic than in the arena of voting rights. The passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 heralded a new era of political opportunity for African-Americans not seen since Reconstruction. At the state and local level, Section 5 of the Act--which required jurisdictions with a history of voting discrimination to obtain advanced approval for voting changes--was especially important in leveling the playing field by shifting notice requirements and the burden of proof to jurisdictions with a history of discrimination, rather than relying on traditional litigation which would have taken years and countless costs to root out patterns of discrimination in voting. More than any other provision of the Act, Section 5 can be credited with the sustained progress to voting equality. The Supreme Court, in its 5-4 Shelby County v. Holder decision from 2013, has suspended implementation of the Section 5 pre-clearance program by invalidating the formula used to designate covered jurisdictions. This decision has seriously undermined the nation's progress toward equal voting rights by allowing discriminatory voting measures to evade streamlined review and requiring minority voters to engage in costly protracted litigation. In the wake of a divided Supreme Court, many former Section 5 covered states have enacted harsh ``second generation'' obstacles to voting rights, such as restrictive voter ID laws, limits on early voting and voter registration, and bans on ex-offenders from being able to regain their voting rights. Most of these voter suppression measures have a disproportionate impact on minorities, seniors, young people, and other historically-disadvantaged individuals. Not surprisingly, an ever increasing number of voters on election day are plagued by long lines at the polls, confusing voter rules, and restrictions intended to deter them from voting. Literally days after Supreme Court issued the Shelby County ruling, formerly covered jurisdictions enacted discriminatory voting practices that would have been blocked by Section 5 or not even attempted passage of legislation. Texas implemented its restrictive photo ID law, which had been previously blocked by Section 5. The North Carolina state legislature passed a law that imposed a strict photo ID requirement, significantly cut back on early voting, and reduced the window for voter registration. Alabama moved ahead with its law requiring strict photo ID to vote. And Mississippi officials moved to enforce its photo ID law, which the state submitted for preclearance but was never allowed to implement. In 2013 and 2014, at least 10 of the 15 states that had been covered in whole or in part by Section 5 introduced new restrictive legislation that would make it harder for minority voters to cast a ballot. These have passed in two states: Virginia (stricter photo ID requirement and increased restrictions on third-party voter registration) and North Carolina (the above-discussed omnibus bill, which included the ID requirement, early voting cutbacks, and the elimination of same-day voter registration). Further, seven other formerly covered states also passed restrictive legislation in 2011 and 2012, prior to the Shelby County decision in anticipation of victory. Section 5's loss perhaps has been felt most acutely at the local level. The great majority of voting law changes that were blocked as discriminatory under the Voting Rights Act were enacted at the local level: counties, municipalities, and other state sub-jurisdictions. We have witnessed local jurisdictions step into the void left by Section 5 to pass all manner of discriminatory voting procedures: discriminatory local redistricting plans; closing polling places and DMV's in minority communities and changing election dates, just to name a few. Though Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act is still available to challenge these discriminatory practices, the time and expense of litigation leaves these practices in place to do years of damage and places a substantial burden on the rights of minority voters. It took years of litigation to roll back the challenged practices mentioned earlier in Texas and North Carolina. We will enter a Presidential election without Section 5 protection for the first time in 50 years. The danger to our democratic process cannot be overstated. Already, we have heard political candidates discussing voting intimidation tactics and we must focus on the status of federal observers under the law. As a staunch proponent, and a remaining member of Congress who voted for the Act in 1965, I joined Representative Sensenbrenner to introduce H.R. 885, the Voting Rights Amendment Act, which is designed to restore the vitality and effectiveness of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Though we have made progress in the courts over the past several weeks in overturning some of these voter suppression measures, the states and some localities have been quick to re-enact substitute measures. This tactic was the very reason for the enactment of Section 5 in the first place and evidence of the need for reauthorizing legislation. In addressing these calculated voter suppression tactics, we cannot forget those who have lost their voting rights and have no voice in government. Currently, nearly 4 million of disqualified voters are not in prison, but on probation or parole. Nearly 3 million of the disenfranchised have completed their entire sentence, including probation and parole. I believe that such prohibitions on voting undermine the fundamental rights of people with felony convictions. To correct this injustice, I have introduced H.R. 1459, the Democracy Restoration Act which declares the right of a U.S. citizen to vote in any election for federal office shall not be denied because that individual has been convicted of a criminal offense. Just as the Brennan Center has observed in their report on voting rights post-Shelby County, ``For all the real progress Section 5 facilitated, the nation and its voters now lack a critical tool to protect those earned advances. Bad laws with lasting, harmful consequences now lack a review mechanism, the method of fighting these laws is now limited to costly and time-intensive litigation, and the public has lost the one centralized means to track the thousands of changes annually that affect Americans' right to vote.'' Just as Congress ignored political headwinds and set partisan differences aside five decades ago to prohibit discriminatory voting practices, this Congress must again muster the political courage to enact legislation to protect the voting rights of all Americans.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. H.R. 3438 would stay the enforcement of any rule imposing an annual cost to the economy in excess of $1 billion, pending judicial review. Now, do you suspect what that might do? It would have a pernicious impact on rulemaking and the ability of agencies to respond to critical health and safety issues. In essence, the bill would encourage anyone who wants to delay a significant rule from going into effect to simply seek a judicial review of the rule. Please, we all know that the judicial review process can take months--sometimes years--to finalize, especially if the appellate process reaches the United States Supreme Court. So rather than ensuring predictability and streamlining the rulemaking process, this bill would have the completely opposite impact by making the process less predictable and more time-consuming. Equally important, H.R. 3438 has absolutely no health or safety emergency exceptions. If anything, this bill would empower the very entities that caused a serious health or safety risk to delay and maybe even derail legitimate efforts by regulatory agencies to respond to such threats. As with other bills proposed by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, this legislation myopically focuses only on the cost of a proposed rule while ignoring the rule's benefits, which often exceed its costs by many multiples. In closing, there is broad agreement among experts in the administrative law field that our Nation's regulatory system is already too cumbersome and slow-moving. Now, in addition to the Administrative Procedure Act's procedural mechanisms which are designed to ensure an open and fair rulemaking system, Congress has passed various additional Federal laws that impose further rulemaking requirements, and rulemaking agencies must also comply with a number of executive orders issued over the past several decades that have created additional layers of analytical and procedural requirements. The result of this dense web of existing requirements is a complex, time-consuming rulemaking process. In response to the explosion of analytical requirements imposed on the rulemaking process, the American Bar Association as well as many administrative law experts have urged Congress to exercise restraint and assess the usefulness of existing requirements before considering sweeping legislation. Imposing new analytical and procedural requirements on the administrative system also carries real human and economic costs. As Professor Weissman, the president of Public Citizen, has observed, the cost of regulatory delay is ``far more severe than generic inefficiency. Lengthy delay costs money and lives; it permits ongoing ecologic destruction and the infliction of needless injury; and it enables fraudsters and wrongdoers to perpetuate their misdeeds.'' Rather than alleviating these problems, H.R. 3438 would clearly exacerbate them. Accordingly, I must urge Members to oppose this ill- conceived legislation. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, there is broad opposition to H.R. 3438. In the context of a veto threat, the Obama administration notes in its Statement of Administration Policy that H.R. 3438 would ``promote unwarranted litigation, introduce harmful delay, and, in many cases, thwart implementation of statutory mandates and execution of duly enacted laws,'' and would also ``increase business uncertainty and undermine much-needed protections for the American public, including critical rules that provide financial reform and protect public health, food safety, and the environment.'' The Coalition for Sensible Safeguards, which includes more than 150 diverse labor, consumer, public health, food safety, financial reform, faith, environmental, and scientific integrity groups representing millions of Americans, strongly opposes H.R. 3438, stating that it ``will make the single biggest problem in our current regulatory process, namely, excessive and out of control regulatory delays, even worse.'' Other leading consumer and public interest groups strongly oppose this misguided legislation, noting that, ``like numerous other anti- regulatory bills,'' H.R. 3438 ``further tilts the regulatory process in favor of corporate special interests by creating more opportunities for the manipulation and abuse of the process to their benefit and at the expense of protecting consumers, working families, and other vulnerable communities.'' Indeed, this bill is no different than the many other antiregulatory bills considered this Congress. It is a dangerous solution to a problem that is nonexistent. Accordingly, I urge each and every one of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to resist this and oppose H.R. 3438. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2315. A large and broad coalition of 11 large labor and tax organizations all oppose this bill because it is an attempt to impose standardized criteria for a uniform framework for the tax treatment of out-of-state residents, would cause certain States to lose massive State income tax revenues, and would facilitate tax liability avoidance through manipulation by employers and employees alike. It achieves this flawed result in several ways. To begin with, rather than promoting uniformity, H.R. 2315 would have a significant adverse impact on income tax revenues for certain States. According to the Congressional Budget Office, for example, as the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) will explain, New York could lose between $50 million and $125 million annually if this measure were signed into law. Other States that would also be adversely impacted and affected include Illinois, Massachusetts, and California. As a result of the lost revenues from nonresident taxpayers, these States would be forced to make up these losses by shifting the tax burden to resident taxpayers. It may even cause these States to cut government services, such as funding for education and critical infrastructure improvements. Another problem with H.R. 2315 is that it essentially provides a roadmap for State income tax liability avoidance. By allowing an employer to rely on an employee's determination of the time he or she is expected to spend working in another State during the year, the bill prevents the employer from withholding an employee's State income taxes to a nonresident State. This would be the result even if the employer is aware that the employee has been working in a State for more than 30 days, as long as that State cannot prove that the employee committed fraud in making his annual determination and the employer knew it. Rather than proceeding with this flawed bill, I urge my colleagues to pass a fair and uniform framework to allow States to collect taxes owed on remote sales. By staying silent since the Supreme Court's 1992 Quill decision, the Congress has failed to ensure that States have the authority to collect sales and use tax on Internet purchases. I am disappointed that, rather than moving the bipartisan eFairness legislation that our communities need, we are considering this measure instead. For these concerns and other reasons, I hope that you will join me in opposing H.R. 2315.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, jazz artist Jimmy Owens will be honored this year by the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation (CBCF) at the Jazz Forum and Concert during the 46th Annual Legislative Conference (ALC). Mr. Owens, an internationally renowned trumpet and flugelhorn player, composer and educator, will also perform at the concert, which will take place on Thursday, September 15, 2016, at the Walter E. Washington Convention Center, in Washington, D.C. Mr. Owens will receive the 2016 CBCF ALC Jazz Legacy Award for his contributions to jazz and world culture. I am pleased to share the following details of Mr. Owens distinguished career as they appear in his own biography. Jimmy Owens was born in New York City on December 9, 1943. He began his trumpet studies at the age of fourteen with Donald Byrd and later studied composition with Henry Brant. He graduated from the High School of Music and Art and received a Master of Education degree from the University of Massachusetts. At age fifteen, Jimmy played with the Newport Youth Jazz Band and later played with Lionel Hampton, Hank Crawford, Charles Mingus, Max Roach, Duke Ellington, and Billy Taylor among others. He has over forty-five years of experience as a Jazz trumpeter, composer, arranger, lecturer, and music education consultant. His experience covers a wide range of international musical achievement, which includes extensive work as a studio musician, soloist, bandleader, and composer of orchestral compositions, movie scores, and ballets. In January 2012, Jimmy was the recipient of the A. B. Spellman Jazz Award for advocacy from the National Endowment for the Arts. In January 2008, Jimmy was the recipient of the Benny Golson Jazz Master Award at Howard University. In 2007, he produced and released a new CD on his own label Jay-Oh Jazz Recordings, a division of Jay-Oh Productions, Inc., called Peaceful Walking, with a fine rhythm section from Italy. As one reviewer said: ``This terrific quartet is a platform for Jimmy Owens to display his writing, arranging, and playing prowess--which he does with precision.'' He also appeared on Gerald Wilson's CD Monterey Moods [2007]. This was his third appearance on a Wilson CD in recent years. He was a sideman in the critically acclaimed In My Time [2005] and New York New Sound, Gerald Wilson's 2003 Grammy nominated CD. In 2004, he also appeared on One More--Music of Thad Jones (2004). Jimmy is an active and important member of the Jazz education community. He sits on the boards of the Jazz Foundation and was on the Board of Local 802 AFM from 1998 through 2009. His expertise and knowledge is often called upon for issues relating to health and pension benefits for Jazz artists or to share his first-hand experiences about being in the bands of several Jazz Masters. Jimmy is one of the few trumpeters of his generation who played as a sideman with such extraordinary Jazz leaders as Lionel Hampton, Hank Crawford, Charles Mingus, Max Roach, Duke Ellington, Billy Taylor, and the Thad Jones/Mel Lewis Band, among others. As a result, he can share unique musical and personal recollections of performing in some of the most exciting bands in the history of Jazz music. His anecdotes are priceless: being chosen by Willie Ruff to play a trumpet tribute to Cootie Williams, Sweets Edison, Roy Eldridge and Dizzy Gillespie at the historic 1972 inaugural Ellington Fellowship Concert at Yale; sitting in with Miles Davis at the age of fifteen; participating in the 20th anniversary musical celebration of Senegal's independence in 1980. In addition to all of this, he's also led his own group, Jimmy Owens Plus . . . since the 1970s playing at festivals and in concert halls all over the world. While Jimmy is known as a hard bop player, and it's true, it hardly covers the breadth and scope of his musical skills. Throughout his long career, Jimmy has consistently emphasized in both his performances and recordings a deep understanding of the blues as well as beautiful and articulate emotional projection on ballads. As a reviewer stated in All About Jazz regarding Jimmy's performance on One More: The Summary-- Music of Thad Jones, Vol 2 (2006), an all-star recording on which Jimmy appeared--``Jimmy Owens . . . proves that he's better than ever, whether employing a breathy, vocal quality (Little Pixie), a smooth flugelhorn sound (Three in One), or brilliant and elliptical Jones-like melodic ideas (Rejoice).'' Most recently, Jimmy recorded Jimmy Owens' The Monk Project choosing a stellar group of musicians, including Kenny Barron, Kenny Davis, Winard Harper, Wycliffe Gordon, Marcus Strickland, and Howard Johnson, which was released in January 2012 to critical acclaim. As Rob Young wrote in Urban Flux: ``Owens intelligently approaches each composition with stamina and respect to these ten daunting masterpieces. On the opener, Bright Mississippi, it is evident Owens tonality is clearly poignant as his horn vibrates through and through the intricate passage with precision. This explosive gem sets the tempo to remind us that he [Owens] is more than capable to form this collection of standards in a way that hasn't been done before.'' Mr. Speaker, it was Jimmy Owens who challenged me to bring Jazz into the legislative arena, for consideration as a national asset that must be preserved and promoted. Jimmy Owens is a living national jazz treasure of international acclaim and I urge all members to join me in commending him for his magnificent contributions.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, tenor/soprano saxophonist, composer, arranger, and educator James Allen Ford, professionally known as Joe Ford, one of the most accomplished and inventive musicians in Jazz, will be honored this year by the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation, at the Jazz Issue Forum and Concert that will take place during the 46th Annual Legislative Conference. Mr. Ford will perform at the concert with the Washington Renaissance Orchestra, which will take place on Thursday, September 15th, 2016, at the Walter E. Washington Convention Center, in Washington, DC. Ford will also receive the 2016 CBCF ALC Jazz Legacy Award for his four decades of contributions to Jazz and world culture. Born on May 7, 1947 in Buffalo, New York, Ford began playing piano at age of seven and switched to the saxophone four years later, eventually studying with Makanda Ken McIntyre, Jackie McLean and Frank Foster. He also studied percussion with drummer Joe Chambers. He played in a number of local funk bands and campus groups in high school, and at Central State University in Ohio, where he received his BA in Music Education in 1968. After graduation, Ford returned to Buffalo and worked as a music teacher, directing a school band and chorus, and played piano with local bands, and national groups including The Miracles. In 1973, Ford was the co-leader and co-producer of Buffalo's influential John Coltrane/Miles-Davis-influenced Birthright jazz ensemble, with tenor saxophonist Paul Gresham, and drummer Nasar Abadey. The group released two critically acclaimed albums for Freelance Records: Free Spirits and Breath of Life. Ford also played with the Buffalo Jazz Ensemble, a group that featured members of the fusion group, Spyro Gyra. Invited by McCoy Tyner to join his group, Ford moved to New York City, and was a key member of that band, which extended and elaborated on John Coltrane's innovations. Two of the seven albums Ford recorded with Tyner's Big Band--The Turning Point and Journey--won Grammy awards for Best Large Jazz Ensemble Performance in 1992 and 1994. Ford released his first solo recording Today's Night in 1993, and recorded over eighty albums as a sideman with a wide variety of jazz artists including Jimmy Owens, Abdullah Ibrahim, Idris Muhammad, Malachi Thompson and Freddy Cole. Ford joined Jerry Gonzalez's pioneering Fort Apache Band in 1990: an ensemble of Puerto Ricans and African-Americans, who enriched the linkages between jazz and Afro-Latin rhythms. Ford composed the title tracks for their recordings, Crossroads, Pensativo and Firedance, which garnered three Grammy nominations from 1994 to 1996. In late nineties, Ford led two groups, The Black Art Sax Quartet, and a big band entitled The Thing. Ford was inducted in the Buffalo Hall of Fame in 2004, and he currently performs with Nasar Abadey and SUPERNOVA. Mr. Speaker, Joe Ford is a living jazz treasure and I urge all members to join me in commending him for his magnificent contribution to American and world culture.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, Jazzmobile, the world's first not-for- profit organization solely devoted to jazz, will be honored this year by the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation (CBCF), at the Jazz Issue Forum and Concert that will take place during the 46th Annual Legislative Conference (ALC). The Jazzmobile All-Stars will perform at the concert, which will take place on Thursday, September 15th, 2016, at the Walter E. Washington Convention Center, in Washington, DC. Robin Bell-Stevens, Director of Jazzmobile, and Kim Taylor-Thompson, daughter of Jazzmobile founder, Dr. Billy Taylor, will accept the 2016 CBCF ALC Jazz Legacy Award on behalf of the organization, for their five decades of contributions to Jazz and world culture. Jazzmobile began in 1964, when Harlem was besieged by racial unrest. It was in that turbulent time that the great jazz pianist and educator, Dr. William ``Billy'' Taylor, had an idea to use Jazz as a culturally enriching antidote to the urban blight that inner-city children were exposed to. Drawing on the New Orleans street parade tradition, Dr. Taylor--along with arts patron Daphne Arnstein, founder of the Harlem Cultural Council--turned an unused float into a floating Jazz stage, and took Jazz directly to the youth, who, because they could not afford to hear the music in clubs, were not exposed to it in school, and did not hear it on the radio, were now able to hear the music for free in their neighborhoods. Designated as a major cultural institution by the New York State Council on the Arts in 1977, and a recipient of the Emergency School Aid Act, Jazzmobile applied the principles of jazz improvisation and the arts to underserved children so they can have positive means of self-expression and cultural pride. To date, Jazzmobile has presented Jazz to all of New York's five boroughs, with over four million people attending their free concerts. They also provide lecture demonstrations, clinics, symposiums, workshops, a vocal competition, and their Summerfest mini-festival. Throughout their five decades, some of the greatest musicians in jazz performed, worked and studied with Jazzmobile including, Dizzy Gillespie, Duke Ellington, Herbie Hancock, Horace Silver, Jimmy Owens and Wynton Marsalis, to name a select few. Jazzmobile has received a number of awards including, the National Jazz Museum in Harlem & Great Harlem Chamber of Commerce's Award for Excellence, The Conspicuous Service Award from the New York State Council on the Arts, The New York City Arts and Business Council's Encore Awards, Citibank's Community Service Award, the New York City Service Award, and several citations from Mayors Edward Koch, David Dinkins and Michael Bloomberg. But Jazzmobile's greatest achievement is that it serves as the model for thousands of jazz-based organizations, from Pittsburgh's Manchester Craftsman's Guild, San Francisco's SF JAZZ Center, to Jazz at Lincoln Center in New York City. Mr. Speaker, Jazzmobile is a living jazz treasure and I urge all members to join me in commending this organization for their magnificent contribution to American and world culture.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, as a founding member of the Congressional Black Caucus, I believe that the week of our Annual Legislative Conference is an appropriate time to reflect on the progress we have made as a group and the challenges we face in articulating a vision for a more free and fair America. When 13 of us first gathered in 1969 as a ``Democratic Select Committee,'' we had ambitions of using our collective voices to advance a political agenda for black America in response to expected retrenchment from the incoming Nixon administration. Two years later, on the motion of Rep. Charlie Rangel, we became the Congressional Black Caucus. In that time, the Caucus has gone from being on Nixon's ``original enemies list'' to the conscience of the Congress. Our membership has grown from 13 to 46 and our alumnae include numerous cabinet members and a President of the United States. In looking back 45 years, the Caucus can point to many victories in the areas of voting rights, economic empowerment, education and healthcare. These victories were not just for black Americans, but all Americans in search of justice and equality before the law. However, in reflecting on the history of the Caucus, we must be honest about the uneven nature of politics. Many of the challenges we faced in 1971 still burden the African-American community today. Black Americans are still disproportionately poor, under-educated, unemployed and incarcerated. Daily we confront the political challenges of how to ensure that the rising economic tide lifts the boats in our communities. The more surprising challenge faced by the Caucus is mounted by those who would turn back the clock on some of our hardest won victories: namely those who would suppress our voting rights as a means of defeating a progressive agenda for equality. We beware of those who want to make ``America great again,'' harkening back to a past where Jim Crow and discrimination ruled the day. This politics of division is one of our main challenges as a Caucus. Our nation once again finds itself at odds over the issue of race relations, most clearly illustrated by the issue of police accountability. A recent ABC poll found that a majority of Americans surveyed believed that race relations are bad and getting worse. With the election of the first African-American President, this is clearly not what we hoped for in this new millennium. As the former Chairman and now Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee, I have dedicated my career to 3 goals to jobs, justice and peace. After decades of community complaints about police brutality, I chaired hearings in Los Angeles, New York City, and even Dallas which built the record for passage of marquee legislation like the 1994 ``Pattern and Practice'' statute, which gives the Department of Justice the authority to investigate law enforcement discrimination and abuse in cities like Ferguson and Baltimore. The loss of lives in Baton Rouge, suburban St. Paul and Dallas, has left the nation in shock, as seemingly every day the media brings us news of violence borne of hate and intolerance. Modern technology and the advent of social media have made us all witnesses, just like the marches in Selma and Birmingham, making it impossible to dismiss them as fiction or some else's problem. We live these injustices first hand. Vivid images of police abuse galvanized our national resolve to pass civil rights legislation, like the Voting Rights Act, and is putting all politicians on notice that simmering community unrest with the police has reached a turning point. Today, we represent communities that are increasingly unified, unafraid, and unwilling to wait. We have a growing coalition of allies. Some white, some Hispanic, some Asian, and some who serve as police and who want their badges to mean something more. The daily reminders of injustice have forced us to measure the distance between Dr. Kings' Dream and our own reality--but they also give us the resolve to close it for good. Last year, the Judiciary Committee held a hearing on 21st Century Policing Strategies to begin addressing these issues at the Federal level. I also re-introduced both the End Racial Profiling Act and the Law Enforcement Trust and Integrity Act around the same time. The Republican Chairman of the Judiciary Committee and I are currently negotiating a version of the Law Enforcement Trust and Integrity Act and during the August recess, we joined together to form a bipartisan Congressional working group--including three Caucus members--with a focus on finding common ground between police and the communities they are sworn to protect and serve. The profound support for criminal justice reform I have seen from Members of the CBC and all sides of the political spectrum from across our country is something we need to build upon. It's not the only solution, but one of them. As a Caucus, our work is far from done. We can't bring back Alton Sterling, Philando Castile, Tamir Rice, Eric Garner, or the hundreds of black men and women who've lost their lives to excessive force. And we can't bring back the officers in Dallas and Baton Rouge or others who've been killed while protecting their communities. But at a time when we face so much that challenges our faith and tries to break our spirit, we must dedicate ourselves in our 45th year to engaging the difficult issues to make lasting change in our communities. History shows that Members of the Congressional Black Caucus have overcome great challenges. Now we have within us and beside us, an intentionally peaceful and unified community that is now better able to confront today's challenges than ever before.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from New York, a senior member of the committee with whom I have worked for many years, for yielding. Mr. Speaker, the September 11, 2001, terrorist attack on the United States was the deadliest foreign attack on American soil in our Nation's history. Its impact has been immeasurable, as evidenced by the fact that we are still grappling with the cultural and policy implications stemming from the events of that day. And, 15 years on, most Americans continue to feel its searing emotional impact, particularly as the anniversary date approaches this Sunday. This is especially true for those who lost loved ones or were injured as a result of this horrific attack. They deserve our deepest sympathy and our help. So it is in this vein that we consider S. 2040, the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, which, among other things, amends the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 to create a new exception to the act's general grant of foreign sovereign immunity. The Judiciary Committee held a hearing on this bill last July, at which the bill's supporters presented compelling and sympathetic arguments in favor of ensuring that the 9/11 families have access to a well-deserved day in court. At the same time, however, the administration and others raised a number of concerns about the bill's potential impact that we should keep in mind. First, the administration, some allied nations, and others, assert that the enactment of S. 2040 may lead to retaliation by other countries against the United States, given the breadth of our interests and the expansive reach of our global activities. Secondly, they assert that the bill will hamper cooperation from other nations because they may become more reluctant to share sensitive intelligence, in light of the greater risk that such information may be revealed in litigation. Moreover, they raise the concern that the bill, effectively, would allow private litigants rather than the government to determine foreign and national security policy questions like which states are sponsors of terrorism. Because of the moral imperative of enacting legislation and the seriousness of the concerns raised, I remain hopeful that we can continue to work with the administration to resolve these issues so that legislation can be signed into law by the President. I also want to acknowledge Representatives Peter King and, particularly, Jerrold Nadler, and Senators John Cornyn and Charles Schumer for their tireless leadership and efforts to achieve congressional passage of this measure. There is no doubt as to the passion they bring for advocating for victims of the September 11, 2001, attacks--a passion that I, and many others, share.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), who has been working on this issue for such a long time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

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

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the bipartisanship of this bill and the emotional but clear discussion that has gone on in support of it. Because of the importance of enacting legislation of this importance and the recognition of the concerns raised, I know that we can continue to work with the administration to resolve these issues so that this measure can be signed into law by the President of the United States. I thank everyone who has participated. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Georgia is much appreciated in the clarity of his analysis and his commitment for us to use, if we can, the right terminology when we are approaching these subjects, because this bill would prohibit the enforcement or negotiation of any settlement agreement requiring donations to remediate harms that are not directly and proximately caused by a party's unlawful conduct. My opposition to this measure, to begin with, is that the bill will prohibit the use of various types of settlement agreements that have been successfully used to remedy various harms caused by reckless corporate actors. For example, these settlement agreements have been utilized to facilitate an effective response to predatory and fraudulent mortgage lending activities that nearly caused the economic collapse of our Nation. In fact, settlement agreements with two of these culpable financial institutions--Bank of America and Citigroup--required a donation of less than 1 percent of the overall settlement amount to help affected consumers. H.R. 5063 is a dangerous measure that would undermine the ability of civil enforcement agencies to hold wrongdoers accountable and to provide complete relief to victims. A broad coalition of public interest organizations, including the Americans for Financial Reform, Public Citizen, the National Fair Housing Alliance, and the National Urban League, notes that this bill is a gift to lawbreakers that comes at the expense of families and communities that are impacted by injuries that cannot be addressed by direct restitution. The National Council of La Raza, which is the largest national Hispanic civil rights and advocacy organization in our country, similarly notes that H.R. 5063 is a far-reaching and misguided solution to a nonexistent problem. I urge my colleagues to look at this bill clearly and to oppose this flawed legislation. I thank the leader of this measure on the floor today, the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would exempt from the legislation settlement agreements that provide payments to third parties as general relief for violations of title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VII prohibits discrimination in employment on the basis of race, color, sex, religion, or national origin. Plaintiffs in employment discrimination cases typically seek payment and other relief for economic losses that result from unlawful employer conduct. These cases often involve multiple victims who are subjected to the same widespread discriminatory employment practice or policy that violate the Civil Rights Act. They also tend to affect the interests of persons who are not parties to the civil action or who are otherwise unlikely to receive compensation for unlawful conduct. Given the often systemic nature of discriminatory conduct, settlement agreements should be able to provide relief for non-identifiable victims through such means as requiring payments to address generalized harm or to prevent future discriminatory acts. Examples include workplace monitoring and training programs. Nevertheless, H.R. 5063 would prohibit these types of payment remedies unless they provide restitution for actual harm directly and proximately caused by the party making the payment. At last month's hearing on the bill, Professor David Uhlmann of the University of Michigan Law School testified that this requirement would potentially preclude all third-party payments and settlement agreements other than restitution to identifiable victims. The majority's own witness, our former colleague, Daniel Lungren, who previously served as California State Attorney General, concurred. He observed that the bill prohibits the United States Government from entering into a settlement agreement that requires a defendant to donate to an organization or individual who is not a party to the litigation. I am concerned that the bill's broad and ill-defined prohibition would effectively deter civil enforcement agencies from providing general relief in discrimination cases, would discourage courts from enforcing these settlements, and would invite costly and needless litigation concerning these provisions. Accordingly, my amendment would accept payments to remediate generalized harms in settlement agreements in this important category of civil rights cases. I am indebted to and thank my colleagues: the gentleman from Georgia, who is leading this opposition to the measure--the ranking member of the Committee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law--as well as the gentleman from New York, Congressman Meeks, for co- sponsoring this amendment. I urge its support. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.