John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased now to yield as much time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. CONYERS. Will the gentlewoman yield?

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

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Frankel).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. I just want the gentlewoman to know that her recollection of the years before, where we have come from a more narrow focus, more punitive, and we now are seeing a newer strategy that is far more useful, far more successful than before. And I want to congratulate her for her perseverance and determination that we will still get it even better under control through our looking carefully at the results of our activities. I thank the gentlewoman.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Members of the Committee, we have had a very interesting and important discussion. As an original cosponsor of H.R. 5046, we see more clearly how it will provide critical grants to prevent and treat opioid abuse and addictions, and, most importantly, because it will help save lives. So, in closing, I want to commend my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee in particular for their work on this measure, starting with our chairman, Mr. Goodlatte, and our subcommittee chairman, Jim Sensenbrenner, for his extraordinary leadership in crafting this important bill, and, of course, our gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) for her continuing vigilance to improve our approaches towards dealing with this opioid abuse and addiction challenge. This bill before us has the power to fortify America's fight against the opioid epidemic. I am extremely proud to not only support it, but I urge all of my colleagues to join with me. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, it is with a heavy heart that I rise today to pay tribute to the life of my sister-in-law, Gulinda Louise Esters-Smiley, who passed away on April 28, 2016. Gulinda was born on August 21, 1963 in River Rouge, Michigan to the union of the late Robert Harris and Alice Esters. She was the eldest of seven children and affectionately called ``G'' by family and friends who will always cherish her memory. Gulinda transitioned from this life at peace surrounded by her family with a smile on her face knowing she was loved. For more than 19 years she worked for Detroit Diesel. She also worked at Orchards Children Services where she cared for the well-being of children. Gulinda married Tyrone Smiley on May 22, 1992, they had one daughter, Dominique Alexis Smiley. She also raised Darryl, Jr., Tyrone, Tyeshia, Tyrell and Tyeese. Gulinda had an infectious smile, she was the go to person for all the teenagers in the family especially my son John, III and Tyrell. Gulinda leaves to cherish her memory: her husband Tyrone; her children Darryl and Dominique; her mother Alice (Delbert); mother-in- law Ada; her siblings Monica (John), Robert, Michael (Peaches), Reginald (Sherry), Ervin, Kimberly (Kevin); brother-in-laws Lewis and Joe of Detroit; sister-in-laws Ada and Christine (Rodney); grandchildren Zyrell, Tyrell and Terell along with a host of other relatives and friends. I urge my colleagues to join me in honoring the life of my sister-in- law, Gulinda Louise Esters-Smiley--a beloved Wife, Mom, Sister, Daughter, Friend, Grandma, Auntie, Cousin, Co-Worker, Protector, Angel and GodMom.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Members of the House, I rise in support of H.R. 2137, the Federal Law Enforcement Self-Defense and Protection Act. This bill would authorize Federal law enforcement officers to carry their government-issued firearms during government shutdowns and administrative furloughs that result from lapses in appropriations. Essentially, this measure would help ensure that those who protect us are able to continue to do so even during an official furlough. The ability of our Federal law enforcement officers to respond to critical incidents should not be impeded, particularly when violent crimes are committed in their presence. H.R. 2137 does not expand Federal law enforcement officers' authority to carry firearms. The bill merely authorizes these officers to continue to carry their federally issued firearms as if a furlough had not occurred. This legislation recognizes the very real threat of harm that many of our officers face, particularly special agents, on a regular basis--a threat that does not simply disappear because of a government shutdown. In 2012, for example, more than 1,800 Federal law enforcement officers were assaulted and, of those, approximately 200 sustained serious injuries. Even when off duty, Federal law enforcement officers remain the target of assault. For example, between 2011 and 2014, 27 law enforcement officers were killed while they were off duty. Although this legislation only concerns Federal officers, I want to take a moment to recognize the State, local, and Federal officers who have sacrificed their lives in serving our communities. This week, law enforcement officers throughout the United States have come to Washington to show their support for our fallen officers during National Police Week. In the spirit of National Police Week, it is vitally important that our Federal officers are able to protect people in our communities, themselves, and their family members from the continuing threats they encounter. Given the fact that H.R. 2137 facilitates this critical goal, I am eager to support this bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like, first, for everyone to know that we here in the Congress are working to address the current heroin epidemic. We know that illegal drugs continue to present a public health crisis that impacts individuals and families in communities across the United States. S. 32 attempts to address the illegal importation of the drugs coming into the United States by amending section 959 of the Controlled Substances Act. We have a bit of a problem here, but no one has worked on this longer or harder than Ms. Sheila Jackson Lee. It is in that spirit that I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that we must stop the flow of illegal drugs coming into the United States from foreign countries. I want to commend our colleagues who have worked with Ms. Jackson Lee on this, and I want to commend the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Goodlatte, as well for dealing with this very important subject. Mr. Speaker, we must avoid subjecting more people to mandatory minimum sentences. As a matter of principle, I oppose mandatory minimum sentences because they are unjust and unwise. The flaws in mandatory minimum sentencing have led to extraordinary injustices, prison overcrowding, and excessive cost to taxpayers. They have been shown to have a disparate impact on minorities. While I am committed to combating the importation of illegal drugs in this country, I must oppose the expansion of mandatory minimum sentences, which is what S. 32 would do. In the Judiciary Committee markup, I offered an amendment to limit the scope of the changes that would be made by this bill to the leaders or organizers of the drug organizations, in other words, the real kingpins. Whether or not it is the intent of this bill to target low-level offenders, too often it is precisely these individuals who are easier to arrest, easier to convict, and subject to mandatory penalties. Now, while I understand that we are today considering a Senate-passed bill, I maintain that we should take the time to address this issue. This bill's expansion of those convicted under the statute should be limited to kingpins, those to whom mandatory minimum penalties were originally intended to apply in the first place. So, accordingly, I sincerely ask my colleagues to vote against this bill so that we may address this concern.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, in closing, without question, illegal drugs imported into the United States have harmed our citizens and our communities in innumerable ways. It is critical that appropriate steps be taken to address this problem. Although S. 32 is a well-intentioned effort to do so, I believe that this bill should be amended to address a concern related to mandatory minimum sentencing. On this basis, I oppose the bill in its current form. I urge my colleagues to join me and the ranking subcommittee member of the Judiciary Committee from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee, in supporting this bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5048, the Good Samaritan Assessment Act. This legislation is part of a series of bills the House is considering this week in an effort to address the growing public health crisis in our Nation that is being caused by a surge in heroin use and abuse of other opioid drugs. Without question, abuse of opioid drugs can have serious long-term effects, including physical and functional changes to the brain affecting impulse, reward, and motivation. But opioid abuse can have a more immediate and serious consequence. An overdose can threaten the life of the victim. In recent years, heroin and prescription opioid drug overdoses have risen sharply in the United States. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, drug overdose deaths more than doubled between 1999 and 2014. In 2014 alone, more than 47,000 people died from drug overdoses, the highest of any previous year. Fortunately, many of these tragic deaths can be prevented through the administration of an opioid reversal drug such as naloxone. But to be effective in saving lives, these drugs must be administered on an emergency basis. First responders answering emergency calls or caregivers who are treating drug users are frequently in the best position to administer a lifesaving reversal drug in time to be effective. An overdose victim's family and friends as well as other drug users are often the first people to be aware that an individual is suffering a drug overdose. Nevertheless, these individuals can hesitate or even fail to call 911 out of fear that they may be prosecuted or otherwise held liable if something goes wrong. Similarly, first responders and other potential caregivers may hesitate or fail to administer emergency medical treatment for fear of possible adverse consequences. To alleviate such concerns and help ensure that overdose victims receive timely medical treatment, the Office of National Drug Control Policy has been working with States and municipalities to enact so- called Good Samaritan laws. These laws are intended to protect from civil or criminal liability first responders, caregivers, and others who call for emergency assistance in overdose cases or administer opioid reversal drugs. Currently, 35 States and the District of Columbia now have at least some form of a Good Samaritan or a 911 drug immunity law, but the protections afforded by these laws vary significantly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. H.R. 5048 directs the Government Accountability Office to study and report to the appropriate committees of Congress on the efforts of the Office of National Drug Control Policy to expand Good Samaritan protections. In addition, the study would examine any law that exempts from civil or criminal liability individuals who contact emergency service providers in response to a drug overdose or who administer opioid reversal drugs to overdose victims. The report must also include a compilation of Good Samaritan laws currently in effect. The analysis and data required to be generated by H.R. 5048 will greatly assist Congress in understanding the various policies adopted by the States. Accordingly, I sincerely urge my colleagues to support H.R. 5048. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Ladies and gentlemen, H.R. 5048 will help to provide valuable information that will assist comprehensive efforts needed to combat the growing scourge of opioid abuse that is affecting millions of Americans and help reduce the tragic loss of life resulting from drug overdoses. Accordingly, I urge support of the passage of H.R. 5048. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of H.R. 5052, the Opioid Program Evaluation Act, otherwise known as the OPEN Act. The OPEN Act is part of a comprehensive, bipartisan series of proposals being considered by Congress to combat the opioid abuse epidemic that is afflicting millions of Americans. For example, the Comprehensive Opioid Abuse Reduction Act will provide critical funding assistance to States so that they can create and implement a wide variety of strategies, including alternatives to incarceration, that are designed to reduce opioid abuse. These grant programs have tremendous promise, as they will enable criminal justice agencies to focus on what is likely to be the most effective solutions based on their specific, individual needs. Jurisdictions, for example, may choose to implement the Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion approach established with success in Seattle and which is beginning to be used in other cities. The Comprehensive Opioid Abuse Reduction Act would also assist with the provision of medication-assisted treatment and help first responders prevent deaths by allowing them to obtain and administer drugs that revive overdose victims. Strategies like these are worthy of our continued support. At the same time, it is important that we track the actual results of these programs so that we can objectively determine the most successful strategies for combating opioid abuse and adjust our efforts and resource allocation accordingly. The OPEN Act is a commonsense measure that will provide a meaningful way to assist the effectiveness of these grants. Under this act, the Departments of Justice and Health and Human Services will identify outcomes achieved by activities funded under these grant programs. The OPEN Act requires these agencies to develop the metrics by which the achievement of such outcomes can be objectively analyzed. Those outcomes and metrics will, in turn, be studied by the National Academy of Sciences or other independent evaluators and reported on to Congress. Armed with this information, Congress will then be able to assess the success of the programs funded by these grants. I, therefore, support H.R. 5052 and commend it without reservation to my colleagues. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished minority whip of the Congress and the coauthor of this measure.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I want to say to my colleagues I deeply appreciate the observations and perceptions on both sides of the aisle in dealing with this subject. The approaches to dealing with opioid abuse should be based on evidence of their effectiveness and ability to save lives. The OPEN Act will provide the information necessary to properly make that evaluation. Accordingly, I sincerely urge my colleagues to support H.R. 5052. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Members of the House, I rise in strong support of S. 125, the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program. This bill, which would provide matching grants to State, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies so that they can purchase bullet- resistant vests for their officers, is important for several reasons. To begin with, S. 125 will facilitate the provision of critical protection to law enforcement officers, who often risk their lives while serving our communities. While some of the approximately 800,000 law enforcement officers throughout the United States do have some form of bullet-resistant armor, far too many of these brave men and women are not afforded the same protection due to State and local budget constraints. Since its inception, the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program has assisted State and local law enforcement agencies in obtaining the necessary protection equipment to safeguard the lives of their officers. To date, this program has provided more than 1 million officers with lifesaving vests. During the past 30 years, bullet- resistant vests have saved the lives of more than 3,000 law enforcement officers. The timeliness of this bill provides a perfect opportunity to acknowledge National Police Week. Right now, thousands of law enforcement officers are in Washington, D.C., to honor their fellow officers who paid the ultimate sacrifice. Each year, the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial holds a vigil to recognize the newly engraved names of officers who died while serving and protecting the people in our communities. We must do everything in our power to protect those who protect us. The Bulletproof Vest Program will help prevent the deaths of officers, and we hope that even fewer names will have to be added to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial. The bill is critical because it provides up to 50 percent of the costs for an officer's new armor vest. The officer's department, in turn, pays the remaining costs. Importantly, small police departments that service areas with less than 100,000 residents receive priority funding under this measure. Finally, S. 125 responds to the critical concern that bullet- resistant vests--to achieve their intended goals of protecting an officer from life-threatening gunshots--must meet certain standards. To this end, the bill requires a law enforcement agency to purchase body armor that meets strict performance standards set by the National Institute of Justice. Additionally, the agency must have a policy that encourages officers to wear their vests while on duty. And, the agency must ensure that these vests properly fit female officers as well. For all of these reasons, I strongly support S. 125. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume for my closing remarks. First, I would like to recognize the distinguished Senator from Vermont, Patrick Leahy, as being very, very influential in developing the measure before us under discussion now. In closing, I note that we expect our law enforcement officers to protect those who are unable to protect themselves. But to do so, however, we must ensure that these brave men and women are themselves protected. In 2012, for example, armor-resistant vests were credited with saving the lives of 33 law enforcement officers in 20 different States. Fourteen of those vests were purchased with the help of Bulletproof Vest Partnership Program funds. In my home district in Michigan, the police departments for Highland Park, Melvindale, Romulus City, Wayne County, and others have received funds through this important program. While some of the approximately 800,000 law enforcement officers throughout our country do have some form of bullet-resistant armor, far too many of these brave men and women are not afforded the same protection due to State and local budget constraints. It is with great pleasure and privilege that I assure every Member of the House that S. 125 will ensure that this program continues to provide such vitally needed assistance. I urge support for this measure. I yield back the balance of my time.