John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

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

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chair, members of the committee and the House Representatives, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 4768, the Separation of Powers Restoration Act. By eliminating judicial deference to agency determinations, the bill would make the already ossified rulemaking process even more time consuming and costly, threatening the ability of Federal regulatory agencies to protect public health and safety. This is true for several reasons. Ironically, for a bill that purports to restore separation of powers, H.R. 4768 actually raises separation of power concerns. It is ironic, but accurate. Congress makes the laws and agencies implement them while the courts are supposed to interpret the law. The Supreme Court has long recognized that Congress may constitutionally delegate its authority to agencies through statutes to promulgate rules to implement the law it passes, with democratic accountability stemming from the fact that Congress can always rescind or narrow the scope of that delegation. We specifically entrust these agencies, not the courts, with broad policymaking authority. Yet, by removing constraints on judicial review of agency action, H.R. 4768 would empower generalist and unelected courts to nullify agency action solely on policy grounds, substituting the administrative record with their own policy preferences. Such authority would go beyond the traditional bounds of the judicial role, as the Federal courts themselves have thus far recognized through their deference to agencies. H.R. 4768 would upend the careful and longstanding balance among the three branches of government, all in the name of serving anti- regulatory corporate interests. In addition, this measure would encourage judicial activism. By eliminating judicial deference, the bill would effectively empower the courts to make public policy from the bench, even though they may lack the specialized expertise and democratic accountability that agencies possess, through delegated authority from and oversight by the American people's elected representatives. Although the Supreme Court has had numerous opportunities to expand judicial review of rulemaking, thankfully, the Court has rejected this approach in recognition of the fact that generalist courts simply lack the subject-matter expertise of agencies, are politically unaccountable, and should not engage in making substantive determinations from the bench. It is somewhat ironic that some who have long decried ``judicial activism'' would now support facilitating a greater role for the judiciary in agency rulemaking. Finally, H.R. 4768 would result in regulatory paralysis and, thereby, undermine public health and safety. Regulations are the result of years--very often many years--of careful deliberation and expert analysis. Typically, after an agency first proposes a rulemaking, it must solicit public comment. The agency then analyzes this input and, after further deliberation, promulgates a final rule. Additionally, for certain rules, agencies must undergo further procedures such as conducting a cost-benefit analysis and a separate analysis of the rule's potential impact on small businesses. This is a time-consuming process that some believe is already too inflexible. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 4768, the Separation of Powers Restoration Act of 2016. By eliminating judicial deference to agency determinations, the bill would make the already ossified rulemaking process even more time- consuming and costly, threatening the ability of federal regulatory agencies to protect public health and safety. This is true for several reasons. Ironically, for a bill that purports to ``restore'' separation of powers, H.R. 4768 actually raises separation of power concerns. Congress makes the laws and agencies implement them, while the courts are supposed to interpret the law. The Supreme Court has long recognized that Congress may constitutionally delegate its authority to agencies through statutes to promulgate rules to implement the laws it passes, with democratic accountability stemming from the fact that Congress can always rescind or narrow the scope of that delegation. We specifically entrust these agencies, not the courts, with broad policymaking authority. Yet, by removing constraints on judicial review of agency action, H.R. 4768 would empower generalist and unelected courts to nullify agency action solely on policy grounds, substituting the administrative record with their own policy preferences. Such authority would go beyond the traditional bounds of the judicial role, as the federal courts themselves have thus far recognized through their deference to agencies. H.R. 4768 would upend the careful and longstanding balance among the three branches of government, all in the name of serving anti- regulatory corporate interests. In addition, H.R. 4768 would encourage judicial activism. By eliminating judicial deference, the bill would effectively empower the courts to make public policy from the bench even though they may lack the specialized expertise and democratic accountability that agencies possess, through delegated authority from and oversight by the American people's elected representatives. Although the Supreme Court has had numerous opportunities to expand judicial review of rulemaking, thankfully the Court has rejected this approach in recognition of the fact that generalist courts simply lack the subject-matter expertise of agencies, are politically unaccountable, and should not engage in making substantive determinations from the bench. It is somewhat ironic that some who have long decried ``judicial activism'' would now support facilitating a greater role for the judiciary in agency rulemaking. Finally, H.R. 4768 would result in regulatory paralysis and thereby undermine public health and safety. Regulations are the result of years--very often many years--of careful deliberation and expert analysis. Typically, after an agency first proposes a rulemaking, it must solicit public comment. The agency then analyzes this input and, after further deliberation, promulgates a final rule. Additionally, for certain rules, agencies must undergo further procedures, such as conducting a cost-benefit analysis and a separate analysis of the rule's potential impact on small businesses. This is a time-consuming process that some believe is already too inflexible. According to a new report issued just last month by Pubic Citizen, the time it takes for agencies to issue regulations has grown to unprecedented lengths. So far this year, for example, economically significant regulations have taken an average of 3.8 years to complete, which is nearly an entire presidential term. In recognition of the fact that agencies spend years formulating rules and have the specialized substantive expertise to do so, the courts have long applied the rule of judicial deference. Essentially, this means that the court, in reviewing a rulemaking, will not substitute its policy preferences for that of the agency. Yet, H.R. 4768 would overturn this longstanding practice and, in its stead, require federal courts to review all agency rulemakings and interpretations of statutes on a de novo basis. In effect, the bill would empower a judge to ignore the determinations of agency experts and to substitute his or her judgment, without regard to the judge's technical knowledge or understanding of the underlying subject matter. By eliminating judicial deference, the bill will force agencies to adopt even more detailed factual records and explanations, which would further delay the finalization of what might be critical life-saving regulations. And, worst of all it will further encourage some well-funded corporate interests to engage in dilatory litigation challenging agency action in order to derail regulations. As it is, large corporate interests--devoted only to maximizing profits--already have an unfair advantage in their ability to weaken regulatory standards by burying an agency with paperwork demands and litigation. Rather than giving more opportunities for corporate interests to derail rulemakings, we should be evaluating ways to ensure that the voices of the general public have a greater role in the rulemaking process. We are talking about regulations that protect the quality of the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the food we consume. Slowing down the rulemaking process means that rules intended to protect the health and safety of American citizens will take longer to promulgate and become effective, thereby putting us all at possible risk. Given these concerns and others presented by the bill, I accordingly must oppose H.R. 4768 and I urge my colleagues to vote against this seriously flawed measure.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from Georgia. Members of the House, I am not alone in opposing H.R. 4768. In recognition of the many serious concerns presented by it, the Coalition for Sensible Safeguards, an alliance of more than 150--150--consumer, labor, research, faith, and other public interest groups, strongly opposes this legislation. These are, in effect, the good guys: Public Citizen, the AFL-CIO, the Service Employees International Union, the United Steelworkers, the Center for Progressive Reform, the Consumers Union, the Consumer Federation of America, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Sierra Club, and many, many more. In addition, leading administrative law scholars also oppose H.R. 4768 because it will further delay the rulemaking process and because it presents separation of powers concerns. Like me, these organizations and scholars know that this bill will weaken the regulatory system by supplanting agency expertise and congressional authority with judicial activism. In closing, I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing H.R. 4768, a bill that, without a doubt, would undermine public health and safety and undermine our regulatory safety net. Mr. Chairman, I thank Mr. Johnson for the great job he has done here on the floor and ask him to close this debate.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, the crisis of opioid abuse and addiction clearly requires our immediate attention. I believe that that is now happening. I am grateful for the tireless work of my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee. I thank Chairman Goodlatte; Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations Subcommittee chairman, Jim Sensenbrenner; Crime Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations Subcommittee ranking member, Sheila Jackson Lee; and their staffs. And I also congratulate Congresswoman Suzan DelBene, who worked so hard to ensure this bill would find promising approaches to opioid abuse that were pioneered in her district. Finally, I wish to thank the ranking member, Frank Pallone of the Energy and Commerce Committee, and his staff for their assistance and coordination in this effort. Our work has focused on the need to address an urgent crisis. In my State of Michigan, there were 1,745 drug overdoses in the year 2014, and more than half of those overdose deaths were caused by opioids and heroin. Each day, 78 Americans die from an opioid overdose. Fortunately, we now have a better way of addressing issues of addiction, and we know that incarceration is not the answer. For instance, the Judiciary Committee's Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations Subcommittee held a hearing last year that examined, among other things, the promising use of the Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion approach employed in cities such as Seattle, Washington, and Santa Fe, New Mexico. We know that there are effective ways to get addicts to treatment and to quickly provide them with needed services that address their addiction and prevent recidivism, and we know that evidence-based treatment and alternatives to incarceration work. Title II of this bill reflects much of this approach in the grant program, as reported by the Judiciary Committee and passed by the House in May of this year. While I have supported this effort, I have also supported alternative approaches that provide separate grant programs for many of these worthy purposes. Regardless of which approach we take, we must do more than simply authorize funding. We must provide real dollars that are urgently needed by those fighting this crisis, and I am disappointed that this bill does not do this.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to join with all the voices that we hear today to speak to the urgent need to address the problem of gun violence in this country. We need to consider not only mass shootings, but the daily toll of gun violence that afflicts all of our communities. In 1 year, on average, 108,000 Americans are shot in murders, assaults, suicides and suicide attempts, accidents, and police action. Approximately 32,500 of these individuals die. Nearly 12,000 are murdered--more than 31 Americans every day. We know what will work to reduce deaths. We must act to expand background checks to close the private sale loophole and make sure those checks prevent the sale of guns to terrorists. We should come together to vote on the two bills and reduce gun violence.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank our leader on this side, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky). Members of the House, I urge support for this amendment which will help the Libya War Powers amendment, which will help to ensure that Congress can carry out its constitutional duty to authorize war. This amendment is the same language that is already included in the bill regarding military action in Syria, and it has the same rationale: Congress must be consulted when our troops are being sent into harm's way. This amendment may not block the Obama administration from taking action against al Qaeda or ISIS in Libya, but it will require that the administration come to Congress if it seeks to send our troops into Libya for any other purpose. When our country engaged in military intervention in Libya in 2011 without congressional approval, the result was that Libya became mired in a bloody civil war. This mistake could have been avoided with congressional debate. This underscores the wisdom of our constitutional Founders, who wanted robust congressional debate before we commit troops to combat in situations where we have not been attacked. Now there is growing talk that the United States may have to support the internationally recognized government in Libya, whose legitimacy is challenged by other elements in Libya. So I urge passage of this amendment to ensure that Congress has an opportunity to weigh in on the rule of our Armed Forces in the Libyan turmoil going forward. If Congress wants to have a say, we must speak out before military action has commenced. I urge you to do so today by passing my amendment.

Mr. CONYERS

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

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I urge the support of every Member in this body for this amendment to block the transfer of American-made cluster bombs to Saudi Arabia. This amendment is endorsed by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, as well as Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and a number of other organizations. American-manufactured cluster bombs are currently being used by the Saudi-led coalition that is bombing Yemen. That campaign has caused the deaths of over 900 children, 3,000 civilians, and has forced 2.8 million people from their homes. In violation of American law, the Saudis have used cluster bombs in civilian areas, endangering innocent civilians and threatening agriculture and other industries in Yemen. Since the United States is supplying cluster bombs to the Saudis, and is a member of the coalition led by the Saudis, the United States could be held responsible for careless Saudi actions in this widely criticized bombing campaign. The Obama administration recently took unilateral action to stop the sale of some cluster bombs to the Saudis. This amendment would put that prohibition into law, and make it more transparent and accountable. I urge my colleagues to pass this reasonable amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky).

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

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

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in remembrance of Gordie Howe, who passed away on June 10, 2016, at the age of 88. Our thoughts and prayers are with his family, friends, and fans across the country. Born on March 31, 1928, he grew up in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan before coming to Detroit, where he made his National Hockey League debut on October 16, 1946, scoring in his first game at the age of 18. Gordie Howe, or as he was known to a generation and beyond, ``Mr. Hockey'', was the embodiment of the National Hockey League, and an ambassador from Detroit to the rest of the country and to the world. I speak here for Detroit, for the Red Wings, and for the entire NHL, when I say that we will miss him dearly. Gordie Howe, a 23-time All-Star, was unmatched on the ice, and in his twenty-five seasons with the Red Wings, he led the city of Detroit to four Stanley Cups, winning numerous distinctions along the way. He was also instrumental in the conception of what would become the National Hockey League Players' Association. But Gordie Howe was so much more than a man with a hockey stick; he was a force for good off the ice as well. Gordie, whose wife Colleen ``Mrs. Hockey'' Howe, suffered from Pick's Disease, was heavily involved in the search for a cure to degenerative brain diseases, founding the Gordie and Colleen Howe Fund for Alzheimers, in partnership with the University of Toronto Baycrest. Mr. Speaker, on June 10, we lost one of the greats. For almost half of his adult life, Gordie Howe represented the city of Detroit with distinction and class, and his legacy will live on long after we are gone, on the banners hanging in Joe Louis Arena, at the charities he championed in retirement, and in the hearts of millions of hockey fans across the continent.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in remembrance of Marc Stepp, who passed away on June 3rd, 2016, at the age of 93. Our thoughts and prayers are with his family and friends. Born on January 31st, 1923, in Versailles, Kentucky, he grew up in Evansville, Indiana before coming to Detroit. He was a graduate of the University of Detroit and a U.S. Army veteran. Marc now rests as a legend of the labor movement--one of the greatest friends to working people that our nation has ever known. I speak here for Detroit, for the members of the United Automobile Workers Union, and the people whose lives he has touched, when I say that we will miss him dearly. I stand before you today as the Dean of the Congress because when I was a young man, Marc Stepp stood up for me. He provided me crucial guidance, support, and advice as I sought elected office, and throughout my career he has inspired me to fight harder with his own dedication to securing jobs, justice, and peace for all people. The first African American to lead negotiations with a major Detroit automaker, the second African American member of the United Automobile Workers International Board, and an organizer who fought alongside my father to secure collective bargaining at the major automakers, Marc helped create the reality of an American middle class. Countless workers owed their jobs and the lives and families those jobs made possible to his efforts. His work to save Chrysler in the late 1970s and early 1980s preserved a proud American manufacture who might have otherwise faded away. Marc's legacy of advocacy though was not limited to collective bargaining alone. He helped shape movements to secure healthcare for the disadvantaged by establishing the Community Health Association, to elevate our discourse on race as part of the NAACP, and to end apartheid in South Africa. Indeed, some twenty years after helping me get elected to Congress, he helped get me arrested protesting apartheid in front of South Africa's Washington, D.C. embassy--a fight that would be won ten years later when Nelson Mandela became President of South Africa. The legacy Marc Stepp leaves us goes beyond the wages and conditions he secured and the rights he helped ensure for all. He will remain an example of how to live our lives for generations. He will continue to influence the fight for jobs, justice, and peace through those who he inspired and influenced. He may be gone but he will not be forgotten. I am thankful for his service and his friendship, as are all who knew him and called him friend.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today, with my colleague Congresswoman Barbara Lee, to pay tribute to Attorney Michael Ratner, a fearless champion for justice and peace, who passed away on Wednesday, May 11, 2016 at the age of 72. For nearly half a century, the talented and tenacious Michael Ratner brought cases with the Center for Constitutional Rights in U.S. courts related to war, torture, and other human rights violations. Throughout his decades of legal service, he was and remains a giant in the field on Constitutional law and the law of war. He was born in Cleveland on June 13, 1943. His father, Harry, was a Jewish immigrant from Russia, and his mother, the former Anne Spott, helped resettle refugees after World War II, during which numerous family members of the couple were killed. After graduating in 1966 from Brandeis University, Michael Ratner earned his juris doctorate from Columbia Law School. He took a year off of law school to work for the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund on a Baltimore school desegregation case. He then clerked in Manhattan for Judge Constance Baker Motley, the first African American woman to serve on the federal bench. In 1971, Ratner joined the Center for Constitutional Rights, a nonprofit organization headquartered in Manhattan. From 1984 to 1990, he served as the Center's legal director and became the Center's president in 2002 serving until 2014. He was also president of the National Lawyers Guild and of the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights. Ratner brought cases for war crimes and other human rights violations all over the world. Seeking to hold Bush administration officials accountable for torture, he filed cases under the Universal Jurisdiction principle in international courts, including in Germany, Spain, Canada, Switzerland, and France. Ratner also oversaw litigation that successfully challenged New York City's stop-and-frisk policing tactic. Under his leadership, the Center for Constitutional Rights was the first human rights organization to stand up for the human rights of Guantanamo detainees. Ratner was a founding member of the Guantanamo Bay Bar Association which grew to include more than 500 attorneys. This Association provided pro bono representation to prisoners at Guantanamo--one of the largest mass defense efforts in U.S. history. Michael acted as counsel in the landmark case Rasul v. Bush, which was the first successful Guantanamo case in the United States Supreme Court. He is survived by his wife, Karen Ranucci, a video producer; his children, Jake and Ana; his sister Ellen and his brother Bruce. Mr. Speaker, we ask that all our colleagues join us in honoring the life and work of Attorney Michael Ratner. He will truly be missed, but he will live on through the work of the countless social justice lawyers and activists he inspired.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chair, I rise today because Puerto Rico is confronting a catastrophe. The spiral of recession, emigration, debt, and austerity has left the island in dire straits. Puerto Rico faces immediate default on a large portion of its debt and the island might have to halt emergency services if it cannot obtain further credit. This crisis has been developing for a long time, but the problem has grown increasingly unworkable over the past year while this Congress has done nothing. The potential humanitarian consequences of continuing to do nothing have convinced me that despite my grave concerns about what I consider a mere half-measure, I must support PROMESA, the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act (H.R. 5278). Puerto Rico's problems go beyond short-term debt service. Federal changes to their unique tax structure have helped push the territory into recession for a decade, which in turn has driven massive emigration elsewhere, which harms their ability to attract investment and fair financing, which has only further imperiled the Island's fiscal situation. It is the very definition of an austerity driven destructive cycle. Correcting its course is no easy task, but Puerto Rico can succeed if they receive two necessary things: time and support. First, an immediate stay on debt collection and payments that would allow time to develop a negotiated resolution, or absent that a bankruptcy process that treats creditors equitably. All creditors should expect to shoulder some of the pain, but nobody should take unfair losses--least of all the pensioners who can least afford an unequal burden. Second, an economic development plan that reflects Puerto Rico's unique challenges, like emigration to the mainland, which hinder the island's ability to rebuild its tax base and attract new investment. Alternative energy programs and tax incentives should be supported to encourage a more self-sufficient economy. Public health efforts should be directed to the island in order to evaluate growing problems that disproportionately affect Puerto Rico, such as Zika. PROMESA, while well intentioned, simply may not fully address the magnitude of Puerto Rico's problems. Without an adequate commitment to improving economic stability on the island, talented residents will continue emigrating elsewhere, industry will further wither because of substandard public services, and local fiscal problems will likely escalate. Further, the ridiculous riders that potentially undercut wage and overtime protections--as well as environmental regulations-- represent a cynical effort to take advantage of the Island's desperate situation. It is a shameful reminder that many in this body see Puerto Rico as a colony unworthy of the privileges we enjoy on the mainland. I am voting for PROMESA despite my serious concerns because I hope against hope that it will be improved in the Senate. A real recovery strategy--one that gives residents, workers, and pensioners a viable future--is what Puerto Rico needs and deserves.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of a man who was a three-time heavyweight champion of the world, a victor at the Supreme Court of the United States, and one of the most remarkable men of the 20th Century--a man who truly earned his title: The Greatest. Muhammad Ali was born Cassius Marcellus Clay Jr. in Louisville, Kentucky on January, 17, 1942. By age 18, he was the Light Heavyweight Gold Medalist at the 1960 Olympics. In 1964, he won the heavyweight world title. He would go on to hold that title--off-and-on--for another 15 years. But Muhammad Ali was not merely one of the greatest fighters in history--he was also a champion of justice in a country struggling to find its way. Like Detroit's own great champion, Joe Louis, he was a lightning rod for controversy. His success angered those who disagreed with the simple principle that a person's worth was never lessened by the color of their skin. He showed courage when he stood up for civil rights at a time when it was dangerous to do so. He never backed down, never allowed his voice to be silenced because of his faith or his race. He was an example for countless men, women, and children who needed one. Beyond his work in the ring and as part of the civil rights movement, Muhammad Ali was also an advocate for peace. He grew into his faith in a way that shows that Islam is a religion of peace and America is a place of tolerance when--at great personal cost--he spoke out against the Vietnam War. As a conscientious objector, he was stripped of his title and unable to fight for three years during his prime. Convicted of refusing to report for military service, he appealed to the United States Supreme Court, where he won a unanimous (8-0) opinion reversing his conviction. A champion boxer, a champion for civil rights, and a champion of peace--it is not possible to overstate Muhammad Ali's achievements. He was quite simply, The Greatest. We will mourn his memory going forward, and we will remember him for his work. Most of all, we will continue to draw strength and inspiration from a man who knew the true meaning of being a Champion.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Members of the House, I rise in support of the House amendment to S. 524, the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act. Before starting out on the merits of the legislation, I want to commend the Judiciary Committee chairman, Mr. Goodlatte, for shepherding our committee's five bills to House passage. I also commend the subcommittee chairman, Mr. Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin, for authoring the legislation that is largely responsible for bringing us together today. I also want to recognize the leadership of the Crime Subcommittee ranking member, Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas, who was an original cosponsor of the primary Judiciary Committee bill and who has helped us find common ground in addressing the issue of drug addiction and treatment. This week the House considered and passed a wide range of bills aimed at combating the devastating impact of drug abuse and addiction that is afflicting communities all across our Nation. We must take this action because our Nation is in the midst of a major public health crisis caused by an epidemic of prescription and opioid abuse. It is a crisis that affects Americans of all ages, of all races, and of all income levels. It has devastated communities across the United States. It affects families, the workplace, and also our Nation's economy. Drug overdoses are now the leading cause of injury-related deaths in our Nation. In my State of Michigan, for example, there were 1,745 drug overdose deaths in 2014, and more than half of those overdose deaths were attributed to opioids and heroin. In fact, 78 Americans die from an opioid overdose every single day. Without question, this is a crisis that cries out for immediate relief. Fortunately, there may be effective solutions. For example, several States have undertaken various innovative measures to better respond to the rapid increase of individuals who are addicted to prescription opioids and heroin and to prevent individuals from dying as a result of drug overdose. As I mentioned only yesterday during debate with respect to our consideration of H.R. 5046, which has been incorporated into the House amendment to S. 524, this measure would fund new, innovative ways to address the nationwide epidemic of opioid drug abuse addiction. These innovations include, for instance, the Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion approach, which has been utilized with great success in two cities of which I know--in Seattle and in Santa Fe. Programs such as this diversion approach underscore the fact that we cannot arrest our way out of opioid abuse addiction. Treating addicts as criminals only makes matters worse for them and also for the rest of us. The diversion approach, which reduces, by the way, recidivism by 60 percent, is just one example of innovation at the State and local levels that we must encourage through increased funding assistance, and it is more evidence that treatment alternatives to incarceration work. The funding authorized under this measure would establish a competitive grant program to provide funds to State and local governments to continue and improve their efforts to protect Americans from the dangers of opioid abuse and heroin use; and it will help ensure that addicts have access to the services that are provided. These funds would support such initiatives as providing treatment alternatives to incarceration; fostering better collaboration between State criminal justice agencies and state substance abuse systems; providing first responders with the ability to purchase naloxone and to receive training on how to administer this lifesaving drug; establishing medication-assisted treatment programs by criminal justice agencies; in addition, investigating more of the illegal distribution methods of opioids; creating Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs; addressing juvenile opioid abuse, which is, unfortunately, increasing; and establishing comprehensive opioid abuse response programs. The House amendment to S. 524 also includes a number of important provisions that have been added pursuant to a series of amendments that were passed by the House only yesterday. In sum, these additional provisions expand the range of allowed purpose areas under the new program to more fully address the range of problems and solutions that are presented by opioid abuse. Whether we provide separate, new grant programs for each of these approaches or whether we consolidate them into one grant program, it is critical that we change our ways of addressing addiction. The scourge of drug abuse and its overwhelming impact on our communities requires us to address this problem not only immediately, but effectively. I thank all of the committees and individuals who have participated in this effort. Accordingly, I support House amendment S. 524. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I support the House amendment to S. 524 because it will help address our Nation's crisis of opioid abuse and heroin use. My support for this legislation is based, in part, on the fact that it includes H.R. 5046, which is legislation that I have worked on with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, that would provide critical grants to States and local governments, intended to prevent and treat opioid abuse addiction. Most importantly, I support this legislation because it would help save lives. The House amendment to S. 524 provides a comprehensive approach to the opioid substance abuse public health emergency that is currently ravaging our Nation. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support this measure. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

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

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Judge Damon J. Keith's outstanding career and service to the United States as we celebrate the Washington premiere of the documentary Walk With Me: The Trials of Damon J. Keith. Judge Keith has a long and distinguished record and this documentary honors his legacy by chronicling some of his most notable accomplishments. From an early age, Judge Keith excelled in and out of the classroom. He graduated from Northwestern High School in Detroit, where he ran track. He went on to become the first in his family to earn a college degree when he graduated from West Virginia State College in 1943. After serving in the U.S. Army for three years, he continued his education and earned his law degree from Howard University Law School in 1949. In 1967, Judge Keith became the second African American to sit on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan after being appointed by President Lyndon Johnson. He served as a Judge for the Eastern District from 1967 to 1977, and was named Chief Judge in 1975. During the decade he served the District Court, Judge Keith delivered a series of key civil rights rulings including: Davis v. School District of the City of Pontiac (1970) (school desegregation); Stamps v. Detroit Edison Co. (1973) and Baker v. City of Detroit (1979) (employment discrimination and affirmative action); and Garrett v. City of Hamtramck (1971) and Zuch v. Hussey (1975) (housing discrimination). He was unanimously affirmed by the United States Supreme Court in the landmark civil liberties case U.S. v. Sinclair (1971), known as the ``Keith decision,'' which found that wiretap surveillance absent a court order in domestic security cases to be unconstitutional, contributing to the passage of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). In 1977, President Jimmy Carter appointed Judge Keith to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, where he served for 18 years until he took senior status in 1995. During the 1980's, he chaired the Sixth Circuit and Judicial Conference Committees commemorating the Bicentennial of the Constitution. In the wake of post-September 11 civil liberty challenges, Circuit Judge Keith, ruled in Detroit Free Press v. Ashcroft (2002) that the absolute closure of deportation hearings in ``9-11 special interest'' cases was unconstitutional, thereby ensuring openness in government proceedings. Judge Keith is widely revered, having received numerous honors and awards, including: the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People's highest award, the Springarn Medal, in 1974; the American Bar Association's Thurgood Marshall Award in 1997; the Edward J. Devitt Award for Distinguished Service to Justice in 1998, presented by a panel comprised of a United States Supreme Court Justice, a federal circuit court judge, and a federal district court judge; and honorary degrees from Harvard University, Yale University, Georgetown University, the University of Michigan, Tuskegee University, and over thirty other institutions. Throughout his career, Judge Keith has consistently stood as a defender of the Constitution and civil rights of all people. On the occasion of the Washington premiere of the documentary Walk With Me: The Trials of Damon J. Keith, I applaud his many accomplishments. I am glad that Judge Keith's story is being shared and that many more people will have the opportunity to learn of his contributions to our Nation.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Chairwoman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am pleased to rise in support of H.R. 5046, the Comprehensive Opioid Abuse Reduction Act. H.R. 5046 is an important complement to a wide range of legislation being considered in the House this week that is aimed at combating the devastating impact of drug abuse and addiction that is afflicting communities across our Nation. We are, in fact, in the midst of a major public health crisis caused by prescription and opioid abuse. It is a crisis that affects Americans of all ages, races, and income levels in our cities, suburbs, and rural areas across the United States. Drug overdoses are now the leading cause of death in our Nation. In my State of Michigan, for example, there were 1,745 drug overdose deaths in 2014, and more than half of these overdose deaths were attributed to opioids and heroin. In fact, 78 Americans die from an opioid overdose every single day. I am very familiar with the devastation heroin can exact over people and their communities. Heroin took a deadly toll on Detroit in the 1970s and is now threatening to take hold of a new generation of addicts. Armed with lessons learned from that era and the crack epidemic of the 1980s, we are wiser and more capable. This time we can and must do more to respond to this crisis. Fortunately, a number of States have undertaken various innovative measures to better respond to the rapid increase of individuals addicted to prescription opioids and heroin and to prevent individuals from dying as a result of drug overdose. For instance, the Judiciary Committee's Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations Subcommittee held a hearing last year that examined, among other things, the promising use of the law enforcement- assisted diversion approach employed in cities such as Seattle and Santa Fe. We have learned that there are successful ways to get addicts to treatment and to quickly provide them with needed services that address their addiction and prevent recidivism. We know that evidence-based treatment and treatment alternatives to incarceration work. The Comprehensive Opioid Addiction Recovery Act, as authorized by H.R. 5046, would establish a competitive grant program to provide funds to State and local governments to continue and improve their efforts to protect Americans from the dangers of opioid and heroin abuse and to make sure that addicts have access to the services that are provided. Funds from the new grant program could be used for the following purposes: treatment alternatives to incarceration, collaboration between State criminal justice agencies and State substance abuse systems, for first responders to purchase and be trained in the use of naloxone, medication-assisted treatment programs by criminal justice agencies, investigating the legal distribution of opioids, prescription drug monitoring programs, addressing juvenile opioid abuse, and for comprehensive opioid abuse response programs. Our communities need our assistance in meeting the threat of opioid abuse, and this bill before us will fund innovative approaches to the problem such as the LEAD program developed in Seattle that I mentioned earlier. H.R. 5046 would go a long way toward providing that critical help, and so, accordingly, I support this bill. I urge all my colleagues to give it their support as well. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Chairwoman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations of the Committee on the Judiciary, who has done tremendous work on this subject.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Chair, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 2 minutes.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan), who is very concerned about this issue.