John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 35 seconds. I want to give Chairman Sensenbrenner the benefit of the presumption of a doubt about this section 215 business. What happens in the report is it makes it easier to get library and other records under section 215 by creating a presumption that records of anyone to come into contact with a suspected terrorist even accidentally, innocently, is relevant to an investigation. Madam Speaker, what he has done is he has moved a part of section 215 to another part of the bill, and that is why it does not operate that way. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), a ranking subcommittee member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Speaker, I thank Leader Pelosi for her very succinct and moving comments. At the close of this debate, I will offer a motion to recommit the conference report with instructions to recede to the Senate bill in its entirety. Not that the Senate bill is perfect, but it does a far better job at protecting civil liberties than the conference report by requiring that the documents and things collected through section 215 have some connection to a suspected terrorist and providing meaningful judicial review of uses of that authority. What is wrong with that? The conference report makes sensitive and personal records even easier to get by making every innocent connection with a suspected terrorist presumptively relevant to a terrorist investigation. Now, the Senate bill also lacks a number of controversial and wholly unrelated provisions tacked on to the end of this bill. It does not have a lot of Christmas tree in it. Some 143 of the 216 pages of this bill have absolutely nothing to do with the PATRIOT Act. The chairman repeatedly admonished committee Democrats that we were not permitted to consider matters falling outside of the 16 expiring provisions of the PATRIOT Act, but on the floor and in conference, this bill became a Christmas tree for random drug laws, Presidential succession amendments and Federal employee benefit changes. Some have argued that we must pass this bill now because it is the end of the session and it is so urgent. The House Republican leadership waited 3 months to appoint conferees. Where was the urgency then? The PATRIOT Act does not need to expire if this bill fails in the House or the Senate, which it should. My bill, H.R. 4506, extends the PATRIOT Act for 3 months so that conferees may go back and make a truly bipartisan and bicameral bill. Sunsets were a small step in the right direction but do not address the underlying problems. They are not a solution for bad law. We should instead be fixing the problems of the PATRIOT Act. Sunsets will be of no relief to those who will have their constitutional rights violated in the next 4 years and should prevent no one from voting against this bill and in favor of the motion. This measure before us, this conference report, is neither bipartisan nor bicameral. In fact, not a single Democrat in the House or in the other body would sign it. No one on this side has signed the conference report. It is the conservative House bill with window dressing. We should not let in the government sneak-and-peek provision for at least 30 days. The Senate bill and Federal courts allow a 7-day delay unless good cause is shown. And listen to these non-PATRIOT add-ons; it is a virtual Christmas tree: It alters the Presidential line of succession, criminalizes peaceful protest behavior, changes employment qualifications and benefits for Federal employees and expands the death penalty for non-terror related offenses. The Senate sticks to the real issues, so join me in a motion to recommit the conference report with instructions to recede to the Senate bill in its entirety. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I am delighted to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), a subcommittee ranking member.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I am delighted to yield 1 minute to our leader, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).

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

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am now delighted to turn to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps) to help us wind down on this Special Order in honor of the Dean of the Congress.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted now to recognize a Member of the House Committee on the Judiciary, the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to yield to the gentlelady from Illinois, Jan Schakowsky.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank so much Ms. Jackson-Lee for her very moving tribute.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to call upon the gentleman from Texas (Gene Green).

Mr. CONYERS. If it pleases the House, I would like to invite the object of our affection this evening and through the last few weeks to make a closing comment, and I would yield now to the Dean of the House of Representatives, the honorable John Dingell.

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you so much. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted now to turn to the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Frank Pallone, and recognize him at this time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Levin for his comments. I now am pleased to yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I have over 15 persons including myself who have asked to be included in this Special Order, that is, celebrating the 50th year of service of the Dean of the House of Representatives John Dingell of Michigan; and I am very pleased and honored to lead this discussion. I would encourage all of the Members to share this time as expeditiously as they can and insert the rest of their materials or remarks into the Record. Let me begin, Mr. Speaker, by pointing out that the first Member of Congress I ever met in my life was John Dingell, namely, because he was my Congressman. Further, our relationship and family went back before because my father knew John Dingell's father. Further, we shared contiguous districts across the entire span of my service, and many of our constituents were mutual and frequently, according to the whims of the Michigan legislature the lines that changed from time to time, and frequently my constituents became his as his became mine. This is a particularly moving event for me because it did not take long for me to realize that one of the more formidable legislators of the 20th century was the same person who worked so hard for my family as his constituents and for the congressional district he represented, but more for all of the citizens of this country. The legislative prowess and the ability with which he exercised his leadership as chairman of a major committee and the many different and important pieces of legislation have been recounted already tonight and at other events. But I merely want to say that John Dingell is the Renaissance man of the 20th century in the Congress, the man for all issues, the leader for all challenges, and the person who has created a friendship and a relationship with, as far as I can tell, every single Member of the House of Representatives who has served with him during these 50 years. So this celebration is absolutely in order. The fact that it has been so widely recognized and so movingly responded to, not only by Members of Congress but by those across the country, it is no easy task to win the admiration and love of the labor movement and yet retain the respect of the corporate economic system leaders of this great country. And so it is with great pleasure that I begin this recounting of our memories, of our relationships, of our legislative successes with the Dean of the Congress. And it seems fairly clear to most of us that he will soon be able to exceed the staying power of those several Members who exceeded him in 50 years of service. I am, of course, one of those looking happily and proudly toward that day when that occurs. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Markey for his statement. I now yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to yield to Carolyn Maloney of New York in this very moving tribute.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted now to turn to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui) to express her congratulations in this tribute.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of my Special Order today.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his statement. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the ranking member of his committee.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation to extend the PATRIOT Act for three months so that conferees may go back to the bargaining table and produce a conference report that is truly bipartisan and bicameral. The conference report scheduled for debate this week completely ignores the many concerns expressed by Democrats and Republicans, civil libertarians both left and right, prosecutors and defenders, librarians, gun owners and religious groups. It is in fact facing a bipartisan filibuster in the Senate. That is why Senator Leahy and I are introducing a 3-month extension of the PATRIOT Act. It will allow the government uninterrupted use of these authorities until the Congress can agree on reasonable checks and balances that will make sure the war on terror doesn't become a war against innocent Americans.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, today's actions are a shameful disservice both to our soldiers in Iraq and to Americans here at home. Republicans are denying the Nation an open debate on the war in Iraq. On tonight's agenda, the Republicans not only have replaced Mr. Murtha's resolution on Iraq with H.R. 571, a perversion of the Murtha Resolution that Representative Hunter introduced, and which in no way conveys the sentiment of Representative Murtha's proposal. They also have had the temerity to characterize it as a ``Democratic proposal.'' Representative Murtha's Resolution states that, ``The deployment of U.S. forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress, is hereby terminated and the forces are to be redeployed at the earliest practicable date.'' It also provides for deploying a contingency capability outside of Iraq, and requires America to pursue security and stability in Iraq through diplomacy. The Republican legislation contains none of this language. I am a member of the ``Out of Iraq Caucus'' because I believe we should bring our troops home from Iraq as soon as practicably possible, as does Representative Murtha. The citizens of this country deserve to have a true floor debate on why this is right and on how best to do it. Then their Representatives owe them an up or down vote on this issue. Mr. Murtha's speech should open serious hearings on the issue, followed by extensive debate on our policy in Iraq. Mr. Speaker, to paraphrase FDR: Tonight it's clear that the only thing the Bush White House has to fear is public debate itself. It is the height of hypocrisy for the Republican leadership to schedule a sudden, strait-jacketed mini-debate and vote on their version of Mr. Murtha's resolution. To understand this hypocrisy its necessary to put their deceit in context. The House Majority Leadership has consistently refused to allow the House to debate H.J. Res. 55, an earlier bill offered by 63 House members in a bipartisan fashion. It would require the President to set forth a plan for withdrawal from Iraq and to begin to implement it next fall. The Republican Leadership has stonewalled efforts to have this bill considered in committee and brought to the Floor for consideration. They have forced us to employ the parliamentary last resort of filing a discharge petition, in order to force the Leadership to let us debate H.J. Res. 55. The issue before the House at this point is not even the merits of that resolution. Instead, it is preservation of the basic democratic process and the ability of the public to hear debate on the most pressing issue facing this country. Now, in a 180 degree reversal, the Leadership suddenly wants an abbreviated debate on our policy for ending President Bush's disaster in Iraq. Why this bizarre turn-around, Mr. Speaker? The answer is simple. Mr. Murtha, the Ranking Member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee yesterday struck fear in the Leadership and the White House with his statement of plain truths. Because of his stature in this body, the gentlemen from Pennsylvania, with that single speech, shredded the White House's defense of its flawed policies. Until now, the President and Vice President have relied on questioning the patriotism of their critics on Iraq. They have hidden behind the claim that--any critics of their war do not support our troops and do not respect our troops' sacrifices. They have repeated that outrageous mantra over and over, most disgracefully in President Bush's remarks on Veterans Day. Those false claims to discredit critics were demolished in one stroke by Mr. Murtha's statement. The White House knows full well: that there is no more patriotic Member of this House, that there is no Member who loves our troops more, that there is no Member who has supported our troops more, and that there is no Member who has served in our military more bravely than Mr. Murtha. The White House political spinners also realize that the American people are disgusted when attacks on a patriot like Mr. Murtha are made by elected officials in the White House who sought to evade military service in time of war. So now they resort to this sleazy tactic. They pretend to have the Nation consider the issues raised by Mr. Murtha's candid analysis, but in reality they seek to sweep those powerful remarks under the rug. Then they will pretend that the Congress has seriously considered the tragic issues of life and death and claim that this steam-rollered vote reflects the fully-informed, considered opinion of our constituents. That's nonsense. This is a disgrace to the House, and more important, it's a disgrace to all that our men and women in Iraq are fighting and dying for. The American people and our soldiers deserve better than this cheap trick. To those across the aisle who want to prevent the American people from learning the awful truths about Iraq and who seek to stifle real national debate, there is only one thing to say: ``Shame on you.'' Mr. Hunter's charade should be defeated.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, one hundred and forty years ago, this Nation established the foundation with which it could advance freedom and equality for all of its people. On December 6, 1865, the required 27 of the then 36 states ratified the 13th Amendment of the United States Constitution. The 13th Amendment states that ``neither slavery nor involuntary servitude . . . shall exist within the United States.'' This profound declaration completed the abolition of slavery which had begun with President Abraham Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation of 1863. The 13th Amendment marked the official end of the institution of slavery and signified a turning point in America. The 13th Amendment is the very bedrock on which all of our civil rights laws and protections stand. The 13th Amendment led to the 14th Amendment of 1868 which provides equal protection under the law to all citizens and clarified that African Americans are citizens. Today, the 13th Amendment has led to the Voting Rights Act of 1965--a protection that we are now in the process of re-authorizing. As we commemorate the 140th anniversary of the 13th Amendment, we must appreciate the principles that the 13th Amendment has advanced-- these principles of freedom and equality. However, on this anniversary, this nation must pledge to eradicate from society those ills that hinder us from continuing the legacy of the 13th Amendment. Today, 1 in 9 African Americans cannot find a job; 1 in 5 African Americans is uninsured; and 1 in 4 African Americans lives in poverty. These statistics are simply unacceptable. Let us mark the 140th anniversary of the 13th Amendment with a commitment to eliminate these social and economic inequalities.