John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to announce the passing of Rosa Louise Parks yesterday evening, and I would like to announce that we have already prepared a Special Order immediately following the business tomorrow, and we invite all of the Members on both sides of the aisle to attend.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, may I ask for the Speaker to call for a moment of silence in memory of Rosa Louise Parks.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Well, it is this cold-blooded bottom-line economic business approach to health care that makes us rank number 37 among the nations in the world when they examine how this health care is being delivered. The fact of the matter is that you cannot ration health care if you want a strong nation. If you really need to go to the doctor, if you really need treatment now before it becomes worse or uncorrectable or fatal, as the gentleman suggests, we cannot send out an arbitrary amount of money because we are doing other things in the world or we are building new weapons of mass destruction or we are doing anything else. We have to have a health insurance system that is flexible to the needs of the people. And one of the first things that we would come to, I say to the gentleman, is that we are catching up to people who have needed ample health care for a long time. One of the great things about health insurance, at least our program, is that health insurance would be working in a preventive mode; that when you get sick and get well, you will then be treated and you will come back for annual checkups and you will actually reduce the cost of providing the American citizens with health care. So it is incredibly important that this debate start here and now. And I have been told that other Members of the Congress were talking about this subject today, so I will be anxiously reviewing their comments so that we can continue a broad discussion of this matter. Right now there are 45.8 million people with no insurance. They are not underinsured, they have none whatsoever. And then there are any number of million who have insurance but they are underinsured. They do not know that what they may go to see their doctor about is not covered in their plan until they find out the hard way. So I want everyone in our body to know that this is the beginning of a discussion that I am prepared to deal with on every issue, every aspect, because we want to make it clear that this is not just something for some group of people. This is going to benefit our economy. Goodness knows General Motors and Ford and Daimler Chrysler in Detroit all are struggling with the legacy costs that they have to carry because we have an employer-based system. And many of our automotive competitors have national health insurance systems, so they do not have to carry those additional costs. So this is the beginning of a discussion that we will welcome as many as would join in as we sort these issues out and move toward the time when America will enjoy a universal health coverage system that cares for everybody in this country, from shore to shore. And I want to thank the gentleman for participating in this discussion, and I yield back to him.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens) for his discussion, a very important one that I am very pleased to associate myself with. I rise to use this part of the Special Order to discuss the health care crisis in America, the uninsured, and the need for universal health care. It strikes me as unacceptable that America remains the only country among the developed nations that still does not have a universal health care system. It is time for this body, the Congress, to pass a universal health care bill now. The biggest problem in this country is that our health care is run like a business; and the profits of private health insurance companies, health maintenance organizations, and pharmaceutical companies are more important than whether or not working families and senior citizens and small businesses in this country and their employees have access to affordable and high-quality health care. So I rise to discuss this serious health care crisis and the fact that it can no longer be ignored. It is my belief that the time has come now for bold and decisive leadership by the Congress to address the growing crisis of the uninsured, the skyrocketing costs of private health insurance which is hurting working families, and non-working families all over this country. How many more horror stories must we read in the newspapers across the country, day after day, that painfully describe the plight of the uninsured and the underinsured before we act to pass universal health care legislation that guarantees once and for all that all of us, all Americans, regardless of income, employment, regional demographics, or race have access to the highest quality health care possible. Recently, in The New York Times, op-ed writers are reminding us and calling for national health insurance that covers everybody, everybody in, nobody out, as the best way to solve the crisis of the uninsured. In an October 17 New York time op-ed, which highlighted the plight of uninsured workers in America, that article pointed out that 9,000 Wal- Mart workers needed public insurance in Wisconsin alone. And the op-ed concluded with the notion that the problem of uninsured cries out for a Federal solution and that Washington lawmakers have done nothing to solve the larger problem, the crying need for national health insurance. Polls reveal that the majority of the American people support the concept of universal health care. The majority of American people support universal health care, yet we have failed to pass health care legislation. According to a recent Kaiser Foundation poll, 64 percent of Americans favor expanding Medicare to all Americans. A Pew Research Center for the People and the Press survey was conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates on July 14 through August 5 of 2003 nationwide. And cities across the country, Boston, Pittsburgh, New York, and Detroit, have sponsored universal health care hearings where hundreds of citizens are demanding from their Members of Congress that they fight for passage of universal health care legislation because they are tired of the high cost of private health insurance, and being uninsured, sick, or broke due to our profit health care system is no longer something that they can deal with. So on behalf of the 49 other Members of the House of Representatives, the gentleman from New York included, I am proud to say, we are happy to propose and set forth for examination and discussion House Resolution 676 that supports the idea and how we get to a national universal health insurance that allows everyone to be covered no matter where they are from, no matter what their illness. We want to put an end to a system which really is so threadbare that we cannot fix it up any more. There is no more mending that we can do. There are no more ways we can patch it up. We have now come to the point in time where not only the people but a number of our friends in the labor movement are supporting universal health care. Twelve international labor unions and individual local unions across the country now support single-payer universal health insurance. This includes the United Automobile Workers, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, the United Steelworkers of America, Service Employees International Union, SCIU, and the National Education Association.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am inclined to support the amendment as well, and I congratulate the gentleman.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I join in supporting the amendment because it ensures full funding for the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program. I commend the gentleman on his amendment.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I support after-care to prisoners enrolled in the RSAT program, but the problem with the amendment is that it contains the irrational requirement that the individuals must be drug-free in order to be eligible for a substance abuse program. Please. If they are drug- free, they will not have to use a substance abuse program. So this requirement in the well-intended amendment defeats the very purpose of a substance abuse program, which is to help drug-addicted individuals overcome drug abuse. For that reason, I cannot join in the support of it. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to accept the amendment.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The simple problem with the amendment, although well intended, is that it would also apply to some victims of domestic violence as well as the abusers. Victims sometimes have conviction records for minor domestic violence offenses because police who arrive at the scene of a dispute charge both parties with violent offenses, even though it may later become clear that one party is just a victim, not an abuser. In addition, battered immigrant women who are arrested sometimes receive bad legal advice and are often likely to take a plea offer even when they did nothing wrong. These victims should be exempted from the effects of this amendment; and because they are not, I reluctantly oppose the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I support the intent of the gentleman from Iowa's amendment, which is to ensure that persons who have been convicted of certain types of abuse be prevented from sponsoring the immigration of family members whom they may, in turn, abuse. However, while noble in its intent, this amendment is overly broad and could have serious, negative, unintended consequences on innocent immigrants, as it is currently drafted. First, the amendment makes no distinction as to the degree of the crime or rehabilitation of the offender. A person with a 30-year-old misdemeanor conviction of assault who has successfully completed a domestic violence rehabilitation program, has no further domestic violence convictions and has no other record of violent crime is barred from sponsoring family members just as an abuser with a string of domestic violence convictions culminating in the murder of his wife would be barred. Second, the amendment does not specify where the crime must have been committed. It may well require DHS to ask foreign governments to investigate and reveal the criminal histories of U.S. legal permanent residents and citizens who have lived in other countries and are now trying to sponsor a family member. This could include countries with long histories of politically motivated persecution or human rights abuses--such as Cuba, Sudan, or Iran--and inquire about the criminal history of one of their citizens who has received asylum or refugee status here due to persecution they suffered in that country. Not only might this lead to inaccurate information from untrustworthy governments, but it also may lead to reprisals against the family members of refugees who fled persecution by the foreign government. Third, this amendment will also apply to some victims of domestic violence as well as the abusers. Victims sometimes have conviction records for minor domestic violence offenses because police who arrive at the scene of a dispute charge both parties with violent offenses, even though it may later become clear that one party is just a victim, not an abuser. Furthermore, battered immigrant women who are arrested often receive bad legal advice and are often likely to take a plea offer, even when they did nothing wrong. These victims should be exempted from the effects of this amendment. The safety of immigrant victims can be enhanced by expanding their support system to include close family members. We should not bar victims of domestic violence from sponsoring their children, siblings and other close relatives. If this amendment passes as it is, it will do just that. Mr. Chairman, I am not encouraging opposition to the King amendment today. However, should the House adopt this amendment, I hope that the House Conferees will work with our colleagues in the other body to ensure that the unintended negative consequences of the amendment are mitigated, while still preserving the vision that is embodied within it. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, we are delighted to accept the amendment on this side.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, it is unfortunate that we on the committee can agree with everything, which should be being celebrated; but the one thing that is in disagreement creates the greatest amount of discussion. I regret that, but I think the manager's amendment has to be called into account because it would significantly weaken the bill's emphasis on domestic violence grant funding for communities of color, and I cannot allow this to happen without making the comments that I do. Let us understand that constitutional law is not some secret body of intelligence that is in the power of the members of the Committee on the Judiciary. This amendment, which is being taken out because it is thought to cause constitutional problems, is the same amendment that is supported by the National Network to End Domestic Violence, the Family Violence Prevention Fund, the National Coalition to End Domestic Violence, Break the Cycle, Legal Momentum, the NAACP, the YWCA and the Sisters of Color Ending Sexual Abuse. The bill that passed the House and Senate Committees on the Judiciary contain language ensuring that the minorities who are victims of domestic and sexual assault would receive adequate services. That the members of the Committee on the Judiciary agreed upon. This language was necessary because the bureaucrats at the Department of Justice were ignoring communities of color when considering grants from domestic violence, rape prevention and other organizations. Now this was unfortunately removed, but under current law since the Supreme Court's decision in Adarand and its decision in Grutter, specific set-asides that are race-based have been subject to strict scrutiny. There are no such set asides or quotas in the bill that passed the Committee on the Judiciary. The same provision has passed in the Senate, and we have lists of constitutional scholars to attest to the fact that this language does not require the distribution of money on the basis of race or ethnicity. I urge my colleagues in a sense of fairness, not making political points, that we reject the manager's amendment. I rise in strong opposition to the Managers' amendment because it would significantly weaken the bill's emphasis on domestic violence grant funding for communities of color. This is why the amendment is opposed by the groups that are working so hard to prevent rape and sexual assault--the National Network to End Domestic Violence; the Family Violence Prevention Fund; the National Coalition to End Domestic Violence; Legal Momentum; the NAACP; and the Sisters of Color Ending Sexual Assault. The bill that passed both the House and Senate Judiciary Committees contains language ensuring that minorities who are victims of domestic violence and sexual assault would receive adequate services. The Members of the Judiciary Committee agreed--on a bipartisan basis--that this language was necessary because the bureaucrats at the Department of Justice were ignoring communities of color when considering grants from domestic violence, rape prevention and other organizations. This is a serious problem because we know that people of color are far less likely than other groups to report incidents of rape and sexual assault. The only way we can reach out to these individuals is by supporting these non-traditional groups. Unfortunately, between the Judiciary Committee and the floor, this provision--which has been in the bill since its introduction--suddenly became controversial. Out of the blue, the Administration has attempted to argue that there might, possibly be a constitutional problem with this provision. Under current law, since the Supreme Court's decision in Adarand v. Pena and Grutter v. Bollinger, specific set asides that are race-based have been subject to strict scrutiny. Clearly, there are no such set asides or quotas in the bill that passed the Judiciary Committee. The bill simply requires states to ``describe how they will address the needs of racial and ethnic minorities and other underserved populations'' and ``to recognize and meaningfully respond to the needs of racial and ethnic minorities and other underserved populations'' and to ensure that each gets their fair share. There is no set aside. There is no quota. Considering the needs of certain communities in no way violates the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause, and I would hope that the Members of this body would agree with that very common sense notion. We have consulted with outside and independent constitutional experts and have confirmed that the Administration's last minute arguments do not pass the legal laugh test. For example, an esteemed constitutional scholar at the University of Texas, Professor Douglas Laycock, said the language does not require distribution of money on the basis of race or ethnicity, but rather requires states to be alert and ensure that underserved racial and ethnic populations are not subject to discrimination. ``A state cannot be confident that funds are being administered and awarded in a nondiscriminatory way unless it examines the treatment of racial and ethnic minorities. That is all these provisions require.'' We have also received a letter from several other law professors who are experts in the field, including Professor Joan Meier of the George Washington University Law School, Professor Julie Goldscheid of the City University of New York School of Law, Professor Sally Goldfarb of Rutgers University School of Law, and Professor Martha Davis of the Northeastern School of Law. These professors authoritatively state that ``referencing `racial and ethnic minorities' meets the standard most recently laid out by the Supreme Court in Grutter v. Bollinger. [T]he Federal Government has a compelling interest in assuring that racial and ethnic minorities receive due consideration in the receipt of services, or grants flowing from the Violence Against Women Act. H.R. 3402 does not create quotas or unduly favor racial and ethnic minorities for government benefits. It simply urges that grantors give due consideration to their needs and interests.'' Let me close by noting that in the last several weeks, some have raised questions about the Administration's and Congress' sensitivity to issues of race. In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, many openly wondered whether it was the race of the victims of the Hurricane that led to a sluggish federal response. The Nation watched and asked why we had left so many people of color behind. Today, we have a chance to respond to this issue, by telling people of color and other minorities that if you are raped or assaulted, we will do our best to make sure that you have support and counseling. We will do our best to make sure that you are not victimized twice--first by the assailant, and second by the federal bureaucracy. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join with me in supporting the common sense idea of supporting these victims of rape and violence and vote down the Manager's amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Larsen).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Crime.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank him for yielding to me because the position that we have adopted that we are being set back by the manager's amendment is agreed to by the women against violence organizations, the civil rights organizations. And we have numerous letters, one from the chair of the National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence Against Women, which plainly go into the details of the fact that in no way are we trying to establish quotas or favoritism to any one particular group whatsoever. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Immigration of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the legislation beginning by commending the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary who has worked very hard with me on the bill. In the past few years, we have dealt with the Department of Justice, which has oftentimes become increasingly resistant to congressional oversight, either refusing to answer questions or answering them so vaguely that we are not sure what the answer really is. Fortunately, together we worked to address our concerns with the Department of Justice and arrived at the bill before us today. The bill provides funding for the various offices within the department. In this regard, I would like to note that it gives the Office of the Inspector General over $70 million for its responsibilities. Why is that important? Because in the past few years, the Office of Inspector General has been particularly diligent in overseeing the Department's war on terrorism, issuing reports on the 9/ 11 detainees and pushing the Department to change how its procedures are used for handling terrorism suspects. In addition, the bill reauthorizes the COPS office. That is the Community Oriented Policing Services. Now, we all know that this Clinton administration program has been increasingly vital in crime prevention and crime solving, and that is why COPS has received the praise of the Fraternal Order of the Police, the largest law enforcement organization in the country. Local policing is the backbone in our war on terrorism as community offices are more likely to know the witnesses and more likely to be trusted by the community residents who have information about potential attacks. This bill provides them over $1 billion per year for this program. An important piece of legislation before us is the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994. I am particularly proud of it for this is the third time we have worked on this bill and each time we make dramatic improvements by using new vehicles to tackle the issue. Building on the work from previous years, the Act reauthorizes some of the most current programs that have been enormously effective, including the ``STOP'' program, which provides State formula grants that help fund collaboration efforts between police and prosecutors and victims services providers, including legal assistance for victims. However, there is a grave concern about this measure before us that I must speak to. We worked very hard during negotiations on this bill to recognize the obstacles that some racial and ethnic minorities and their organizations face in the mainstream system. We specifically included language that allows programs to target communities of color. This language does not give any preferences to minorities nor does it impose any quotas. And we have all been there on quotas. It does not do that. It simply requires the Department of Justice to describe how they will address the needs of racial and ethnic minorities and other underserved populations, and to recognize and meaningfully respond to the needs of these racial and ethnic minorities and other underserved populations. That is all, and to ensure each gets their fair share. The bill that passed the Committee on the Judiciary had this language included. However, late last night I was informed that the majority had decided to strike this important language in a manager's amendment. I am very sorry to learn of this news. For while I support the underlying bill and stress the importance of reauthorizing the Department of Justice programs contained in it, I seriously regret this advance that was included in the language that has been stricken. I think it is a tragedy. I think it is a serious misunderstanding of what the law is now. Everybody on the Committee on the Judiciary knows how to avoid quotas and certainly not to give preferences to minorities. This measure was included in our bill because it was important that they begin to get a fair share of proceeds that were being allotted under the bill. It was not to secure anything like a quota, and the bill to me deserves our support. I stress the importance of reauthorizing the Department of Justice programs contained in it. I have a very serious problem with the manager's amendment, and will not support that effort. I rise in support of this legislation. I first would like to commend Chairman Sensenbrenner for reasserting the Judiciary Committee's jurisdiction over the Department of Justice with this bill. In the past few years, the Department has become increasingly resistant to congressional oversight, either refusing to answer questions or answering them vaguely at best. Fortunately, we worked together to address our concerns with the Department and arrived at the bill before us today. In general, the bill provides funding for the various offices within the Department. In this regard, I would like to note that it gives the Office of the Inspector General over $70 million for its responsibilities. In the past few years, the OIG has been diligent in overseeing the Department's war on terrorism, issuing reports on 9/11 detainees and pushing the Department to change how its procedures for handling terrorism suspects. The bill reauthorizes the Community Oriented Policing Services, COPS, office. We all know that this Clinton Administration program has been increasingly vital in crime prevention and crime solving. That is why COPS has received the praise of the Fraternal Order of Police, the largest law enforcement organization in the country. Local policing also is the backbone in our war on terrorism, as community officers are more likely to know the witnesses and more likely to be trusted by community residents who have information about potential attacks. This bill provides over $1 billion per year for this program. An important piece of the bill is the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994. This is the third time we have worked on this bill, and each time we make dramatic improvements by using new vehicles to tackle the issue. Building on work from previous years, the Act reauthorizes some of the current programs that have proven enormously effective, including the STOP program--which provides State formula grants that help fund collaboration efforts between police and prosecutors and victim services providers--and legal assistance for victims. I do have one grave concern about this bill that must be addressed. We worked very hard during negotiations on this bill to recognize the obstacles that some racial and ethnic minorities face in the mainstream system. We specifically included language that allows programs to target communities of color. This language does not give any preferences to minorities, nor does it impose any quotas. It simply requires the Department of Justice to ``describe how they will address the needs of racial and ethnic minorities and other underserved populations'' and ``to recognize and meaningfully respond the needs of racial and ethnic minorities and other underserved populations'' and to ensure that each gets their fair share. The bill passed the Judiciary Committee with this language included. However, late last night I was informed that the majority had decided to strike this important language in a Managers' Amendment. While I support the underlying bill and stress the importance of reauthorizing the Department of Justice programs contained in it, I have serious problems with the Managers' Amendment and will not support that effort. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) for yielding me this time and for managing the bill so ably. Well, here we are again, as we take this issue up for a fourth time; and I am again disappointed to say that we are not here for a love of this country or the time-honored Pledge that celebrates it, but to take yet another stab at our independent judiciary. Because the Ninth Circuit did not bend to the resolve of Congress and because the Supreme Court skirted the first amendment claims in the Newdow I decision, Members of this House have introduced this resolution in an attempt to strong-arm judges and manipulate the Supreme Court appointment process. How sad. So I respectfully take issue with this resolution. While my reverence for the Pledge of Allegiance is unending, my patience with this sort of political maneuvering has long run out. This resolution is a vehicle simply for a conservative litmus test for new judges, particularly Supreme Court Judges, as we currently face both a vacancy and a confirmation of a new Justice. This resolution was introduced the day after Newdow II, September 14 it was reported; and opponents immediately put it to use in the confirmation process. One conservative group used the case as a vehicle to endorse the confirmation of Judge John Roberts as Chief Justice and to bash Carter-appointed District Court Judge Lawrence Karlton as a judicial activist, even though he was bound by a prior ruling of the Ninth Circuit on the merits. Moreover, the gentleman from South Carolina, Senator Lindsey Graham, deliberately invoked the Pledge ruling at the Roberts confirmation hearings. All of this comes on the heels of our prior Pledge resolution in 2003 that directed the President to appoint and the Senate to confirm circuit judges who would supposedly ``interpret the Constitution consistent with the Constitution's text.'' Today is the next step. We urge the Supreme Court to accept an appeal to resolve the conflict between the circuit courts over the constitutionality of the Pledge. While drafters have tried to use the most subtle phrase possible in this series of resolutions, their intent is clear: the resolutions demand the promotion of judges who fall in line with a specific series of conservative ideals and a specific result on the merits. Our judiciary was meant to be independent. Our Founding Fathers created three distinct branches of government to ensure that no single body could write, interpret, and enforce the laws all at the same time. Today's resolution is part of a series that overreaches the bounds between the legislature and the judiciary and attempts to make puppets of our judges. Our judges should be impartial arbiters, which they cannot be if they are manipulated by the Congress. Further, the Model Code of Judicial Conduct reveals that no candidate for a judgeship ``make pledges or promises or conduct in office other than the faithful and impartial performance of the duties of the office,'' nor ``make statements that commit or appear to commit the candidate with respect to cases, controversies or issues that are likely to come before the court.'' So not only do these resolutions make a mockery of our judicial system, they also, my colleagues, subject our judges to potential ethical violations. While I may disagree with the Newdow decisions, I disagree even more with attempts to influence the constitutional interpretation by politicizing judicial appointments. I respect the Pledge of Allegiance so much that I resent that it is being used as a tool for political jockeying and partisanship. Our Pledge simply deserves better.