John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

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

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I wanted to thank the author of the bill, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), who was last seen leaving the floor, and I want to yield him some time because I do not think this is going to take long. What we were doing for many years on need-based educational aid assistance was passing temporary exemptions to the antitrust act. It worked fine. And now we have decided to permanentize it, thanks to the efforts of the gentleman from Massachusetts and as well as the gentleman from Texas. It is a great piece of legislation, and it represented probably the most vigorous high point of antitrust enforcement during the Bush, Senior, administration on record. I rise in support of H.R. 768, the ``Need-Based Educational Aid Act of 2001.'' This bipartisan bill would make permanent an exemption in the antitrust laws that permits schools to agree to award financial aid on a need-blind basis and to use common principles of needs analysis in making their determinations. The exemption also allows for agreement on the use of a common aid application form and the exchange of the student's financial information through a third party. In 1992, Congress passed a similar temporary exemption, which was extended in 1994, and again extended in 1997. The exemption passed in 1997 expires later this year. During the almost ten years of its operation, we have been able to witness and evaluate the exemption, and we have found that it has worked well. The need-based financial aid system serves important social goals that the antitrust laws do not adequately address--such as making financial aid available to the broadest number of students solely on the basis of demonstrated need. Without it, the schools would be required to compete, through financial aid awards, for the very top students. The result would be that the very top students would get all of the aid available, which would be more than they need. The rest of the applicant pool would get less or none at all. Ultimately, such a system would undermine the principles of need-based aid and need-blind admissions which are so important to achieving educational equality. No student who is otherwise qualified ought to be denied the opportunity to go to one of the Nation's most prestigious schools because of the financial situation of his or her family. H.R. 768 will help protect need-based aid and need-blind admissions and preserve that opportunity. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) for any comments he would like to make.

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

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to add that the previous speaker went to Harvard, and the cosponsor of the bill went to Yale, and so their contributions are very important, and they did not participate in any of this funding.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2001, along with Representatives Gephardt, Skelton, Frank, Baldwin, Morella, Kolbe, Foley, Shays and Kelly. As of today there are 180 orginal cosponsors. In the year 2001, there are still too many messages to African- Americans and other minorities that we are not full participants in American democracy. Decrepit voting machinery in African-American communities disenfranchises our voters. Racial profiling continues unabated. Discrimination continues. There have been over 50,000 hate crimes reported in the last five years, and nearly 8,000 reported last year alone. The gruesome, hateful murders of James Byrd and Matthew Shepard stand as symbols of the incidence of hate violence that has worsened since their deaths. Hate crimes don't only visit unspeakable violence on the immediate victims, but also send a message of a desired apartheid that its sponsors want to violently enforce. Today, organized hate and supremacist groups operate with greater sophistication, and across state lines. While many of these crimes do and should get prosecuted at the state and local levels, many do not. Some local governments lack the resources to track interstate hate groups that perpetrate them. In other places, there may even be a lack of will. Ten states, for example, have no hate crime laws on the books, and another 21 have anemic hate crime laws. If enacted, this legislation would give the federal government the jurisdictional tools necessary to assist local law enforcement in fighting the scourge of hate violence. In instances where state and local governments do not have the capacity to prosecute such crimes, the legislation creates a federal backstop--the ability for the local U.S. attorney to ensure that justice will be done, deterring hate violence regardless of whether the victim happens to be engaged in a ``federally protected'' activity. And even in those cases, federal prosecution can only proceed if approved by the Attorney General. Our primary desire is to see these crimes prosecuted by state and local governments more effectively. That's why the bill authorizes funds to support state investigative and prosecutorial efforts. The bill is not and should not be partisan. There should be unanimous agreement that there will be ``zero-tolerance'' for the hate. This bill takes the first step in that direction.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Progressive Caucus Alternative Budget. Already this Congress, our colleagues on the other side, have shown that they simply do not share the priorities of America's hard working families. They wish to gamble our savings and the surplus we have worked so hard to create, on a risky tax cut that benefits the wealthiest 1 percent of America. To pay for their tax cut, our colleagues have targeted for budget cuts important domestic programs such as child care, low income housing, and much needed environmental protections. The Progressive Caucus Budget provides for programs that are important to all of America's families: new school construction, one hundred thousand new teachers, one hundred thousand new school counselors, a Medicare prescription drug program, and affordable housing so that every family may achieve the American dream of owning their own home. It addresses our energy concerns and the debt we owe to our veterans. It provides for our priorities of strengthening and extending Social Security and Medicare. It also provides $2.5 billion for upgrading election procedures and voting technology. In doing so, the Progressive Caucus Budget addresses one of the most important issues to come out of the past election, assuring the American people that their elections are fair, free, and that everyone has the opportunity and ability to cast their vote. None of the other budgets we will consider today set aside any funding to address this issue, so critical to the integrity of our democracy. Antiquated voting technology in primarily minority communities casts a pall over our elections this past November. We must do everything in our power, to prove to ourselves and the world, that America is the cradle and the bastion of democracy. It is our duty as Members to foster and sustain America's faith in the very essence of democracy, the act of casting a vote. It is one of my highest priorities, to insure the integrity of the democratic process and I applaud the Progressive Caucus for making it their priority as well.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Con. Res. 43, legislation to authorize printing of a revised and updated version of the book ``Black Americans in Congress, 1870-1989.'' This volume is an important chronicle of the history of the United States Congress, and the diversity that has made up this Congress for over one hundred years. The printing of an updated version of ``Black Americans in Congress'' will serve as an educational and historical reference for all Americans. We must never forget that there were Black Members of this Congress in 1870, just five years after the end of slavery. We must not hesitate to teach our children that there were, at one time, Members of Congress who had barely secured their own right to vote. As we continue to work towards the promise of our democratic system, it becomes even more relevant to recognize those past Members of Congress who struggle, in sometimes hostile environments, to serve our country. Special thanks go to my good friend Steny Hoyer and the Members of the Administration Committee who have shown such leadership on this important issue. As a founding member and Dean of the Congressional Black Caucus, I encourage the House to pass this resolution.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, ``Bipartisanship.'' ``The rule of law.'' A judiciary that ``looks and feels like the diverse country'' we are. All ideas that then-Governor Bush's campaign promised to deliver on during the fall campaign. Many believe that these slogans were just that: Bromides intended as camouflage, as feel-good dressing for a right wing agenda far outside the political mainstream. President Bush's actions with the federal judiciary in just the past week--when the White House may believe that everyone is distracted with the tax cutting plan for the rich--may in fact prove just how far out of touch with the mainstream, and its own campaign rhetoric, this administration really is. First, the White House has floated a balloon that it's considering abandoning the long-standing practice of soliciting comments from the ABA for judicial nominees. This could be the clearest signal that ideology and a crass desire to politicize the judiciary--rather than judicial competence--will be touchstone for Bush nominations to the federal judiciary. And then today, the Bush administration has announced that it would rescind nominations for the federal bench made by the Clinton Administration. Among the casualties, African American judges who bore the stamp of enthusiastic approval from the ABA and from Republicans. Judges such as Roger Gregory, who had support of two Republican senators in Virginia, and who would represent the first African American appointment on the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals. Judge Gregory was appointed to the court in a recess appointment after the Republican Senate would not schedule a confirmation vote. Both actions speak loudly to African Americans. They portend a plan by this Bush White House to politicize the judiciary. They both turn the clock backwards. Today's Detroit News has the following article which is on point. [From the Detroit News, Mar. 20, 2001] Bush Withdraws Mich. Judicial Nominees (By Jesse J. Holland) Washington.--President Bush on Monday dumped former President Clinton's last judicial nominees, including two Michigan women nominated for the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals who never got a hearing. Michigan Court of Appeals Judge Helene White waited for a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing for four years--longer than any other judicial nominee in history. And Detroit attorney Kathleen McCree Lewis, a partner in the Dykema Gossett law firm who often argues cases before the 6th Circuit, was nominated in September 1999 but never had a hearing. ``I'm very disappointed,'' she said. ``I knew it could happen, but because there had been statements about bipartisanship, it was my hope that it wouldn't.'' Bush officially withdrew 62 executive and judicial nominations. Besides Michigan, the 6th Circuit includes Ohio, Tennessee and Kentucky. ``Both of these nominees were not only very qualified and widely respected, but would have been excellent members of the federal bench,'' said Rep. Debbie Stabenow, D-Lansing. ``While the President has continued to talk about the need to reach out to Democrats and foster greater bipartisanship in Washington, it's time he needs to follow-up his words with bipartisan deeds.'' Stabenow and Sen. Carl Levin, D-Detroit, had been pushing for a hearing for the two Michigan nominees. ``Some of these individuals will be considered for positions in the Bush administration,'' White House spokesman Scott McClellan said. ``No one should be considered ruled in or out at this point.'' The decision to withdraw the Clinton judicial nominees comes as Bush starts to look at filling the remaining vacancies with his own nominees. White House counsel Albert Gonzales and Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft met with top officials from the American Bar Association on Monday to discuss the nomination process. A committee of senior administration officials led by Gonzales has interviewed more than 50 candidates in a drive to fill nearly 100 vacancies with judges who share Bush's conservative philosophy.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman), our ranking member on the Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield the remaining time to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of the bill. I am willing to support the bill as described by the gentleman from Wisconsin with the understanding that section 3 pertaining to disaster litigation would expand Federal court jurisdiction in a very narrowly defined category of cases in order to improve the manageability of complex litigation. My support of the bill does not in any way serve as a precedent for support of broader expansion of diversity jurisdiction that can be found in the class action reform bill which I do not support. Section 3 of the bill expands Federal court jurisdiction for single accidents involving at least 25 people having damages in excess of $150,000 per claim and establishes new Federal procedures in these narrowly defined cases for selection of venue, service of process and issuance of subpoenas. I agree and thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for making the kinds of concessions that have made this measure more palatable. As introduced in the Congress, this bill includes an additional safeguard to the limited expansion of Federal court jurisdiction. A United States District Court may not hear any case in which a ``substantial majority'' of plaintiffs and the primary defendants are all citizens of the same State and in which the claims asserted are governed primarily by the laws of that same State, another provision that the gentleman from Wisconsin provided us that we agreed to. It is my understanding that under the bill, mass tort injuries that involve the same injury over and over again like asbestos cases, breast implant cases, would be excluded, and that the type of cases that would be included would be plane, train, bus, boat accidents, environmental spills, many of which may already be brought in Federal court. So while I have traditionally opposed having Federal courts decide State tort issues and disfavor the expansion of the jurisdiction of the already overloaded district courts, I will support the bill because unlike the class-action bill, it only expands Federal court jurisdiction in a much narrower class of actions, with the objective of judicial expedience. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) in support of these technical corrections to antitrust law. The gentleman has described them adequately. There are six noncontroversial changes. We are in total support. And I might add that we have had a very bipartisan experience in the Committee on the Judiciary during the period of time that we have been working on bills together, so I am happy to join with the chairman in support of the measure. I am pleased to join the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) in support of H.R. 809, the ``Antitrust Technical Corrections Act of 2001.'' The Chairman and I have worked together on this bill, and we have consulted with the Department of Justice Antitrust Division and the Federal Trade Commission Bureau of Competition to ensure that the technical changes made in the bill will improve the efficiency of our antitrust laws. When the gentleman from Wisconsin and I met at the beginning of this Congress, he spoke about creating a more bi-partisan approach on the Judiciary Committee. I am gratified that his conciliatory words were followed up by deeds, and I hope that this is the kind of cooperative relationship we can look forward to throughout the 107th Congress. To briefly summarize, H.R. 809 makes six non-controversial changes in our antitrust laws to repeal some out-dated provisions of the law, to clarify that our antitrust laws apply to the District of Columbia and to the Territories, and to make some needed grammatical and organizational changes. The bill will permit depositions taken in Sherman Act equity cases brought by the government to be conducted in private--just as they are in all other types of cases. It also repeals a little-known and little- used provision that prohibits vessels from passing through the Panama Canal if the vessel's owner is violating the antitrust laws. With the return of the Canal to Panama in 1999, it is appropriate to repeal this outdated provision. H.R. 809 also clarifies that Sherman Act's prohibitions on restraint of trade and monopolization apply to conduct occurring in the District of Columbia and the various territories of the United States. It also repeals a redundant jurisdiction and venue provision in Section 77 of the Wilson Tariff Act. Finally, the bill makes two minor grammatical and organizational changes to the antitrust laws. Again, I want to thank the chairman for his bi-partisan approach on this legislation, and I urge its passage.

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

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in total unanimous support for the comma 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. I support the bill. It has been described very adequately by the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary. I might remind our colleagues that we passed the bill by voice vote twice under suspension of the rules. It is an important measure because it implements the provisions of the 1989 Madrid Protocol, which creates a low-cost and efficient system for registering marks internationally. The most important aspect of the Protocol is that it allows entities to file for mark protection with all member countries through one fee and one application. And so this international concept is an important one as we expand the understanding of the principles of copyright, trademark, and patent law around the world. I am very happy to join in support with the chairman of the committee. 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 California (Mr. Berman), ranking member of the Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and 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 the amendment, and so do all of the Members on our side. This is noncontroversial. We support the chairman's description. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of federal employees, who after ten years of studies, scientific evidence and millions of injuries, have taken the evidence and acted to protect the public interest. I rise in support of the findings of the studies initiated by my Republican Colleagues, which found not once, not twice, but in three separate studies, that Musculoskeletal Disorders, which injure nearly 2 million people annually, are caused by ergonomics hazards in the workplace. I rise in support of the employees in my state and district who have suffered workplace injuries, and who have continued to suffer without the protection of an ergonomics standard which has been found to prevent those injuries. I rise to applaud the Clinton Administration's efforts to protect worker safety and the enactment OSHA's most significant rule to date. Unfortunately, this legislation is just another attempt by the Republican Party to eliminate the gains that the Clinton Administration gave to American workers. If I were to tell you that 1,600 children were being injured at their schools every day, if 1,600 people were injured every day in car accidents, if 1,600 people a day were injured in any other fashion, we would have a national crisis on our hands. But when OSHA, the Department of Labor, the Centers for Disease Control, and three separate studies, find that 1,600 workers are injured so severely on the job every day, that they need time off of work, we not only turn our back on workers, but we attempt, for the first time ever, to rescind a rule issued by federal agencies. These 1600 injuries are preventable, my friends! These injuries are estimated to cost 20 billion dollars annually in workers compensation, while the actual cost to the economy is nearly 50 billion dollars. These injuries result in lost wages for working families and lost productivity for struggling small businesses. And it's preventable! I also rise today in strong opposition to the method by which this legislation has come to the House Floor. The Congressional Review Act has never before been used to review a rule that our agencies have issued. It's never before been used. Ever. The Congressional Review Act is an extremist tool, a part of the Contract with America, and it's being used to tie the hand of our federal agencies, and of future Congresses, and to end any chance of ever protecting workers from preventable injuries. The method by which this bill has come to the House floor today, has left both sides unable to amend the legislation, bypassing long established House procedures, including review by the appropriate committee's. It's been rushed through by people long opposed to OSHA's ergonomics rule, and will result in permanent debilitating injuries to employees, and in billions of dollars of damage to our economy. I encourage all of my colleagues to take a close look at the studies which opponents to this rule commissioned. They prove conclusively that ergonomic practices can prevent injuries and help improve the quality of life of all working Americans. I strongly discourage establishing this dangerous precedent, and ask that they vote against the Disapproval Resolution for the Ergonomics Rule.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, it was in the Committee on Rules that we were asked how much time and how many amendments we would like; and as I recall it, we got one amendment and certainly not in the priority which was listed. So this is a very unhappy situation. The version before the House is not the version that was submitted to the Committee on Rules, and the majority dropped the amendment after the Committee on Rules met or the Committee on Rules did or the leadership did or somebody did to ensure that an important provision was eliminated that would ensure that children and single parents do not suffer unduly in bankruptcy. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I regretfully announce that I will not be able to support the gentleman's amendment.

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