John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. I am talking about the other dozen organizations outside the AMA that I named. Why are they opposed to the bill?

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would ask the gentleman, what about the other dozen organizations? Does the gentleman have any reason to think why they would be opposed to this legislation?

Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Ohio's presentation. Could he explain to me why over a dozen of the medical organizations and associations that I have cited have all come out against this measure? What is the gentleman's answer to their statements?

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), the ranking member of the subcommittee, for managing the bill, and I would like to welcome everyone back to yet another debate since 1995 on partial-birth abortion. We have lost track of how many times this has come to the floor, been to the committee, been to the subcommittee, and is here again. I will spare my colleagues the list of issues, but in the last 2 days, before we go on our summer recess, of legislation that is waiting by the American people to be dealt with, why and how this measure got to the floor is one of the great mysteries of the national legislative process, but we are here again, and so we have to go through this again. It does not matter to some that the great weight of medical opinion is against this legislation that would ban partial-birth abortion, which is, by the way, very rarely used, and that is why the American Medical Association is not in support of this legislation. It is also why the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists are opposed to the bill. It is also why the American Public Health Association, the American Nurses Association, the American Medical Women's Association, the California Medical Association, the Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health, the American College of Nurse Practitioners, the American Medical Students Association, the Association of Reproductive Health Professionals, the Association of Schools of Public Health, the Association of Women's Psychiatrists, the National Asian Women's Health Organization, the National Association of Nurse Practitioners and Reproductive Health, the National Black Women's Health Project, the National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health, and the Rhode Island Medical Society are all against this bill. They do not understand medicine or the procedures that are debated here? Maybe. They are inhumane or insensitive to their responsibilities as medical doctors? Maybe. But I doubt that seriously. This measure is now being brought during the 7th year for an infinite number of times and the result always comes out the same. It is important, because there is going to be maybe some debate on it. We went through this before, but the American Medical Association has stated that they are not in support of this bill. I have a letter here to that effect and would be happy to show it to anyone who is not convinced or needs more encouragement about this matter. It is important that we realize that there is one major reason that this bill is not supported by these medical associations, and that is that the measure contains no protection for the woman, the mother. There is no exception for the fact that this procedure may save the life of the mother. There is no consideration about that in this legislation. And so, therefore, these medical institutions and associations cannot support this legislation, and the legislators, for reasons known only to themselves that promote the bill, will not put this provision in the bill. Now, only last week when this bill came up in the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentlewoman from Wisconsin introduced an amendment to cure this defect that has been repeated by the Supreme Court every time this measure goes to the Supreme Court. It has been repeated by circuit courts wherever the cases have occurred; it has been repeated in State courts wherever it has occurred; that unless there is an exception to this ban for the safety and the health of the mother, this bill cannot stand muster. Even if it passes the House and the Senate, the Supreme Court still will tell us the same thing; that we must have an exception for the life and health and safety of the mother, or this provision is not valid. Now, is that so difficult to understand? It has been repeated for years. It has been stated in nonlegal, simple English, and yet the authors of this bill consistently refuse, as of last week they refused, as of today, if we could amend it, and we cannot, they would refuse. Even if we went to conference and we asked to put it in, I presume they would continue to refuse. Why, I cannot offer my colleagues any logical reasons. But, Mr. Speaker, since there is no chance of this ever becoming law, I wonder why, if my colleagues want it into law so badly, they do not accede to the existing court decisions that have never varied on protecting the mother's life in the event a partial-birth abortion would save an endangered mother's life. And so I urge once again that the majority of the Members of this body reject the measure that is before us.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, let's roll! Earlier today this distinguished body of lawmakers passed H.R. 3917, a measure which acknowledged the bravery of the passengers of Flight 93. As you know, on September 11, 2001, Flight 93 was captured by terrorists who intended to use that aircraft as a weapon of mass destruction. They failed because the American people resisted and said, ``Let's roll!'' The terrorists that took over Flight 93 were selfish individuals acting without morality, accountability, or shame. Their actions attempted to rob Americans of their security and cast a dark cloud over the future. When faced with that crisis, the passengers of Flight 93 declared, ``Let's Roll!'' Well Mr. Speaker, we are once again faced with the actions of selfish individuals that are acting without morality, accountability, or shame. These individuals have managed to rob the American people of their financial security, thereby casting a dark cloud over the future. This time corporate greed, as opposed to an aircraft, is the weapon of mass destruction. We cannot stand by idly while the U.S. economy is robbed for personal gain, American lives are destroyed, investor confidence plummets, and a dark cloud is placed over the retirement plans of millions. Mr. Speaker, let's roll! Among other things, corporate executives have overstated the profits of their companies by billions of dollars. This fraud has caused stock prices to plummet and wiped out the savings of hardworking Americans that invested in these companies as they prepared for retirement. Why would a company find it so easy to overstate their profits? How is it possible to tell such a monumental lie and get away with it? If the average citizen were to overstate their income, the Internal Revenue Service would come after them looking for its share; many Americans have discovered that the IRS can be a relentless creditor. That fact alone is enough to keep the average American honest. However, our biggest corporations and corporate executives are not concerned. They have been allowed to self-regulate, thereby evading tax laws and creating a work ethic that is devoid of ethics and thrives on greed. Big businesses have not been concerned with their overstatement of profits because they were not making the requisite tax payments and did not believe they would be caught. Consequently, they felt free to lie and evade tax laws without shame or remorse. These companies are apparently indifferent to the public needs that tax revenue is needed to support. They do not seem to care if the elderly are not able to receive prescription drugs and good health care; they do not seem to care if roads and sidewalks are poorly maintained; they do not seem to care if highways and bridges are overcrowded; and they do not seem to care if public schools are understaffed and inadequately supplied. One reason they probably do not seem to care is because they have the tacit assistance of key leadership in the Republican party as they short change the national purse and rob the American public. For example, last year the President urged, and Republicans passed, a so-called tax cut that in reality gave each American a three hundred- dollar advance that had to be repaid on April 15th, but created even more opportunities for corporations to reduce their tax bill thereby pocketing billions of dollars that could have helped to keep the U.S. economy thriving. It is the big corporations that received real reductions. For those that assert that the American people saved a few dollars, you need only check the balance of pension plans nationwide to realize that the public was indeed taxed in a very big way! Conversely, when faced with the possibility of paying taxes big corporations have been able to merely shift company assets to offshore tax havens where U.S. tax laws do not apply. Democrats in the House have proposed legislation that would put an end to such corporate abuses but the Republican leadership refused to take up these issues. Consequently, Americans get ripped off three times. They are robbed of their pension and retirement funds, and the US economy is robbed of corporate tax revenue and the shortfall is made-up by robbing social security funds. Well the stuff is hitting the fan. Now that the extent of corporate fraud is coming to light, now that Americans have seen their 401K plans disappear, now that the ``Kenny Boys'' of corporate America have been able to cast a cloud over the future of millions of hard-working Americans, the public is once again ready to resist and declare, ``Let's roll'' . . . Republicans, however, are urging baby steps. The Senate passed a strong bill, S. 2673 ``The Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act'' (the Sarbanes Bill) by a unanimous vote of 97-0. This bill is a bill for those that are tired of being robbed by corporate America and are ready to roll. Among other things, by defining new corporate crimes, creating independent oversight, protecting whistle blowers, banning insider loans, extending the statute of limitations, and holding CEO's personally accountable, the Sarbanes bill sends a clear message to big business that further abuses will not be tolerated. Democrats in the House, including myself have been pushing for similar reforms, but the Republican leadership in the House is afraid to roll. It's true that Republicans in the House have requested longer criminal penalties, but those penalties apply to a shorter range of crimes. They have not embraced new laws against destroying documents or tampering with evidence; they have not embraced new laws which would extend the statute of limitations for bringing cases of corporate fraud; they have not embraced measures that would end conflicts of interest and require greater accountability; they have not embraced measures that would protect whistle blowers and give honest Americans a chance to come forward without fear of retaliation. All they have done is request more years for a narrow range of crimes and they do this with the knowledge that the Attorney General has not bought any criminal charges, against any CEO involved in any of the numerous fraud cases that have surfaced. Millions have suffered because of corporate fraud and the Attorney General is merely watching from the sidelines. Mr. Speaker I urge this Congress to raise the bar on corporate accountability, and deal a strong blow against corporate fraud. This is a real crisis, we cannot afford to merely give a superficial finger wag as the ``Kenny Boys'' of corporate America ride off into the sunset with rich indifference. Millions of Americans are struggling to replace their future after being robbed by corporate greed. If my Republican colleagues in the House really want to restore investor confidence and protect the financial security of the American people, the solution is clear, we can not take baby steps . . . Let's roll!

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, over the past few months, we have seen one revelation after another about the conflicts of interest rampant among figures of the Bush Administration, from the President and Vice President, themselves, to senior officials in key agencies. We have had a veritable cornucopia of conflicts. Almost every day, the media has uncovered a new one. It reminds me of a prophetic invitation made by John Mitchell, President Nixon's first Attorney General. Before we learned the scope of Watergate, Mitchell asked the American people to: Watch What We Do--Not What We Say Well we watched what Mr. Mitchell did, as he requested. And John Mitchell went to jail. His advice seems particularly pertinent these days. Practically every senior official of the Bush Administration has made pious speeches about the importance of business ethics, professional integrity and scrupulous avoidance of conflict of interest. That's what they have said. But when we examine what they have done, the chasm between their sermons and their actions is striking. That sharp contrast angers ordinary citizens who have been laid off, or seen their nest egg investments evaporate, or their pensions become worthless. Why should they be angry? Let me count the ways. Deputy Attorney General Larry Thompson The head of the President's so-called ``Swat Team'' on corporate crime is Deputy Attorney General Larry Thompson. He already has rejected my call, months ago, for him to recuse himself from the Department's decisions in the Enron scandal. I did so because Thompson had received benefits from--and might be receiving a pension from--a law firm that has substantially represented Enron. That raised a serious possibility that he could not vigorously pursue the case against Enron. At the least, I asked him to explain his decision if he did not recuse himself. Now Thompson has pledged to the public that he will hunt down corporate criminals ``with vigor and aggressive manner.'' Yet Thompson was on the board of Providian Financial Corporation and chaired its compliance and audit committee, at a time when--to put it very charitably--Providian was not only unscrupulously enticing and exploiting the poorest class of debtors, but also inflating earnings by excessive charges and by shady lender practices that violated federal and state consumer protection rules. Thompson's spokesman has claimed that he only learned of these practices when regulators made inquiries. His spokesman actually claimed that Thompson was owed applause for helping to settle the claims. Well I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker, but if he was chairman of Providian's compliance committee and was unaware his corporation was badly out of compliance, then I have to wonder if he's fit to manage the Department of Justice. It's bad enough for someone with the sensitivities Thompson should have, that Providian's growth relied on pursuing customers with poor credit card histories, who have difficulty obtaining further credit, misled them into accepting excessive interest rates and hidden charges, and denied the customary grace period for delinquent credit card payments. Apparently, Thompson, and other executive insiders, dumped large blocks of stock knowing that the reported revenues were overstated because of these unlawful practices. And worse still--just like the Enron officials Thompson is supposed to be investigating--the Providian executives sold their company stock while recommending purchase of large holdings of that stock to the employees 401 K plan. It is true that Thompson would have had to sell his shares in the company in connection with his nomination; but there is no suggestion yet that he was going to act any differently than his Providian colleagues, even before his nomination. Army Secretary Thomas White Thomas White was Vice President of Enron's Energy Services Unit, one of the company's components engaged in its most egregious accounting practices. In 1981, between June and October he unloaded over $12 million worth of Enron stock. Investigators are assessing whether he violated insider trading laws. In addition he first hid the full number of contacts he had with Enron officials after he had assumed federal office. Then he admitted to having 84 phone calls with company officials in his first 10 months as Army Secretary. He also failed to comply with the ethics laws in divesting himself in a timely manner of all of his Enron shares and options. As in Larry Thompson's case, if White's dubious claims are true that he was unaware of the corporation's phony accounting, it is hard to have confidence in his ability to manage operations and procurement involving billions of dollars. In sum, I cannot put his offensive situation any better than a New York Times Editorial that said: ``Army Secretary Thomas White has repeatedly pledged that, if questions stemming from his ties to Enron became too much of a distraction, he would resign. They now have and he should.'' President Bush The numerous serious questions raised about President's Bush's relationship with Harken Energy while he served on its board have been widely reported in the press. These principally include the circumstances under which he received several loans to purchase company stock; and under which he sold stock with knowledge of negative business news that was about to be made public. Obviously such serious charges require a thorough airing. In the meanwhile, the public will have to make its own judgment as to whether the President's corporate experience makes it inappropriate for him to so sternly lecture the private sector on the importance of the highest ethical standards for American business. Vice President Cheney A major Securities and Exchange Commission investigation is underway of oil services giant Halliburton Corporation. Among other activities at issue are Halliburton accounting practices, which were parallel to those of other corporations now under current public scrutiny. Vice President Cheney was not merely a vice president or division chief at Halliburton, Mr. Speaker, he was the CEO. He was in charge. Polls have shown that 53 percent of the American people believe he is either lying or hiding something about his involvement in Halliburton's questionable corporate practices. This is hardly surprising since the Nation is already suspicious about Mr. Cheney's refusal to make public his secret meetings with oil industry executives lobbying his energy policy task force behind the scenes. Yet the Vice President refuses to disclose his records regarding his role in these Halliburton transactions. He won't even talk about this troubling matter, even though there is no law, regulation or rule that he has been able to cite that would prevent him from doing so. The Vice President says that whenever the SEC asks him for information, he will cooperate fully. . . But that raises a catch 22 problem because the head of the SEC, Chairman Harvey Pitt, himself has two conflicts of interest that are equally serious Harvey Pitt First, as is now widely known, Mr. Pitt for years was private lapdog of almost every major accounting firm and numerous banking clients. His bona fides to conduct vigorous investigation of past wrongdoing and oversight of future conduct are highly suspect. This is especially disturbing because his one year ``probation period'' under the Ethics Law is about to end. He then will be free even to participate in cases involving his former clients. To be sure, in recent weeks, Chairman Pitt has missed no opportunity to proclaim how tough he plans to be on corporate criminals. But last fall, he was telling people that what the private sector needed was a ``kinder, gentler SEC.'' This year he strongly lobbied for the far weaker Oxley bill to regulate corporate misbehavior, rather than the tough Sarbanes bill that passed the Senate unanimously last week. Second, it will not be credible to the American public that Mr. Pitt will really pull out all the stops to investigate wrongdoing by the Halliburton and Harken corporations and ``let the chips fall where they may'' regarding any culpable involvement of the President or the Vice President. As James Madison sagely advised over two hundred years ago, ``If men were angels,'' we would need no government watchdogs. Even if we were convinced that Mr. Pitt is an honorable man, none of us are angels. It is too much to expect that he will supervise investigations which may involve his bosses, President Bush and Vice President Cheney, without being influenced one iota by their relationship to him. The inherent conflict is just too great. Therefore, I call on Chairman Pitt to appoint a widely respected Special Counsel to the SEC, clearly independent of Pitt's chain of command authority, to conduct those investigations, as well as any investigation involving Pitt's former clients. Should he and the Department of Justice determine he lacks full authority to do so, then I call on them to present to the House and Senate the necessary legislation to provide that authority, so that we may enact it expeditiously. Mr. Speaker, I agree with President Bush and the other outspoken Administration officials that it is essential to restore public confidence in American corporate ethics, investor markets and the operation of our free market system. Appointing a Special Counsel for the SEC to pursue these sensitive cases will help us start to do so right away.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to our distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, the manager on the other side still has twice as much time left as we do.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, the manager on the other side has twice as much time remaining as I do.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee). (Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, the other side now has 12 minutes remaining and I have 9. I would recommend that they continue to carry on the debate.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, no, what we are dealing with is document retention. We deal with audit review, statute of limitations, whistleblower protection, and sentencing enhancement. If the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) is confused on this, there may be some other Members that are not clear on this. We are talking about document retention, statute of limitations, whistleblower protection, and sentencing enhancement only. We are not reducing any time for shredding or anything else.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, all we want to do is add these four recommendations to the two bills. We are not diluting anything. There is no dilution in here. I just want the gentleman to understand what is going to conference and what it is we are giving instructions on.

Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to myself. Mr. Speaker, I must say to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) the conference is on the Sarbanes bill and the Oxley bill. This motion to instruct in no way changes anything in either of the two bills, and it merely adds some items in the unanimously reported Sarbanes bill.

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

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

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Financial Services.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This motion to instruct conferees would be to ask the acceptance of four antifraud measures contained in the Senate measure that were not included in yesterday's suspension bill. These provisions relate to document retention, statute of limitations, whistleblower protection, and sentencing enhancement. All of these were contained in the same measure in the other body that enjoyed a 97 to 0 vote last week. First, we would ensure that auditors maintain their audit review and other work papers for a period of 5 years after the conclusion of an audit review. This will make sure that evidence of potential accounting fraud is retained for future investigation. In addition, the motion would give defrauded investors more time to seek relief. Under current law, defrauded investors have a year from the date on which the alleged violation was discovered or 3 years after the date on which the alleged violation occurred; but because these types of wrongs are often successfully concealed for years, the other body increased the time period to 2 years after the date on which the alleged violation was discovered or 5 years after the date on which the alleged violation occurred. And this motion to instruct carries that provision. In addition, we protect corporate whistleblowers. In the other body that measure was contained in the Grassley amendment, which extended whistleblower protections to corporate employees, thereby protecting them from retaliation in cases of fraud and other acts of corporate misconduct. Those like Sharon Watkins should be afforded the same protections as government whistleblowers. The last provision in the motion to instruct would provide for strong sentencing enhancements. In the other body the bill included the Leahy- Hatch sentencing enhancements when a securities fraud endangers the solvency of a corporation and for egregious obstruction of justice cases where countless documents are shredded or destroyed. Now, the Enron scandal broke in November 2001. Since then, our stock market and the economy as well have been devastated by a wave of scandals: Arthur Andersen, Global Crossing, Xerox, MCI, Merck, Quest and others. Tens of billions of hard-earned pension and retirement dollars have evaporated while those at the top of the corporate ladder have cashed out their options. During this period of time, no person, not a single individual, has faced a single indictment from the Department of Justice. My instructions will give the Department the tools that they need to protect our investors and bring some of these people who have escaped, so far, to justice. It is my hope that we will get the support that is needed to instruct our conferees in this fashion. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.