John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I offer the motion to recommit on behalf of myself and the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce). Our amendment would simply prohibit the issuance of credit cards to persons under age 21 unless a parent acts as co-signer or the minor can demonstrate an independent source to pay the debt. Right now, our credit card companies are sending millions of credit card solicitations to teenagers every year with sometimes $10,000 lines of credit. The credit cards offer these young people free gifts, toys, tee shirts. It is outrageous. Financial troubles caused by reckless lending to teens haunt some of them for the rest of their lives, costing them far more when they try to buy a car or home or take out future loans as they become responsible citizens. So this is not about fingerpointing. It is all our moral responsibility, our children's, ours as parents, Congress', and yes, even the credit card companies, too. This is a moral responsibility that none of us can shirk. So this commonsense amendment imposes a reasonable requirement on credit card companies that will help our young people immeasurably. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce), the ranking member of the Committee on Financial Services.

Mr. CONYERS. Yes, sir.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit the bill, H.R. 333, with instructions.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my demand for a recorded vote.

Mr. CONYERS. No, sir, it does not.

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

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the Democratic substitute is an effort to make a number of improvements to the bill and to modify and take the sting out of some of the most onerous provisions on lower income debtors and struggling small businesses. We had hoped that some of these, if not even most of the amendments, would have been accepted by the bill's supporters during the markup in the Committee on the Judiciary, but they have been all with great regularity rejected, and every amendment that we were able to offer was technical. No matter what happened, we were not able to get our message through. While the provisions in the amendment are too numerous to describe here, a few details illustrate the fact that we have a clarification of the deductibility of health care costs from the means tests. We correct an oversight in the bill that would directly impact on children, which allows parents to list the costs of caring for their dependent children as a monthly expense, but the costs of caring for foster children are not included at all. Parents who voluntary become foster parents will have a harder time making ends meet during bankruptcy than biological parents. Obviously, we do not think this was intended by even the Members of the House Committee on the Judiciary, and we wanted to correct it. We have other shortcomings that are dealt with. The bill says that for purposes of a means test, the medium income is based on Census figures, but that only occurs every 10 years. We need something a little more periodically adjusted, for example, by Consumer Price Index updates. Finally, the arbitrary nature of business banking provisions seems to be in order. A small business cannot complete its chapter 11 reorganization plan under the bill's very, very tough timetable. We have asked that we have a little bit more flexibility in that area. Small businesses are the place where more jobs are created in this country than anywhere else, and so it is very important that these and other mentioned remedies and corrections be included, which have been previously mentioned. I am hoping that the substitute amendment offered by myself and several of our colleagues would be accepted by the majority of the Members in the House. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I have a full page statement touting all of the excellent parts of the amendment of the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), but I think I will insert them in the Record instead and congratulate the gentlewoman and thank the chairman of the committee for joining in his support.

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

Mr. CONYERS. I beg to differ with my friend, the chairman, but the only change was page numbers. There were no substantive changes whatsoever; and if the gentleman knows of any, beside the one of which I complain, which was dropping a technical amendment, there were no other changes made outside of the pagination. So February 28, 2001, 3:29 p.m. It came after the fact, no notice. I think we are off to a not-good start here about how we are going to operate. We went before the committee, and I was asked before the Committee on Rules what is my priority for these amendments? And I said in the order in which they are numbered if there is some cutoff. How much time does the gentleman need? Well, as much as the generosity will extend.

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

Mr. CONYERS. We are now in this situation that it was subsequently struck after we went to the Committee on Rules. We are under the limitation of the Committee on Rules' determination of what is allowed to be brought to the floor. So what do we do now, assuming that you are sympathetic to this, to what was in it? By the way, it was also struck unilaterally. We never got any word that it was going to be struck. In the midst of the great atmosphere of bipartisanship which has been repeatedly urged upon us by the administration, we have a problem brewing that, if possible, I would like to try to extinguish. How do we do that? The gentleman could extend me some kind of a proposal that would lend us to be able to get this measure back in. By the way, I thought it was a technical amendment that the gentleman from California had accepted.

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

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Could I ask my friend the chairman why the Schiff provision was struck out after it had been put in, which led to the dilemma that we did not put it in, and so, therefore, it was subsequently struck out, and now we do not have it at all?

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

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, it was issued February 28, 2001, 3:29 p.m. Does the gentleman know what time we went into Committee on Rules yesterday? 2:00. So this came out afterward. Beside that, we were not notified, contrary to the practice that I understand that we operate under for technical amendments.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I proudly yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 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. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, at a time when our electoral system is in tatters, voter reform ignored, our campaign finance laws riddled with loopholes, our seniors in desperate need of prescription drug coverage, our minimum wage laws unadjusted for 6 years, the first major bill the Republican majority brings to this floor is bankruptcy. Not just any bankruptcy bill, a bill that massively tilts the playing field in favor of creditors and against the interests of ordinary consumers and workers. A bill opposed by every consumer group, by the bankruptcy judges and trustees themselves, by organized labor, by every major group concerned about seniors, women, children, victims of crime, this is the first bill we bring to the floor in the 107th Congress. To all of my friends on both sides of the aisle who tell me that this bill is balanced and fair, I have one response, read the bill and understand it. To those who argue the bill only punishes wealthy debtors or fraudulent debtors, check out how the bill give creditors massive new rights to bring threatening court motions against low-income debtors. Read how the bill permits credit card companies to reclaim common household goods which are of little value to them, but of every value to the debtor's family. Read how the bill makes it more difficult for people below the poverty line to keep their house or their car in bankruptcy. To those who allege the bill protects alimony and child support, I would ask them if they know that the bill creates major new categories of nondischargeable debt that compete directly against the collection of child support and alimony payments, Mr. Chairman; whether they are aware that the bill allows landlords to evict battered women without bankruptcy child support approval, even if the eviction poses a threat to the women's physical well-being; whether they are aware that the bill forces women and children involved in bankruptcy to file personal information with the court, which is then placed on-line where the whole world has direct access to it. To my modest efforts to correct the bill and the problems, we were ruled out of order. It was considered to be unworthy of debate in the House. To those who assert the bill cracks down on credit card abuse, I would ask them to look at the meaningless boilerplate requirements included in the bill to realize that the bill does absolutely nothing to discourage abusive underaged lending, nothing to discourage reckless lending to the developmentally disabled, yes, and nothing to regulate the practice of so-called subprime lending to persons with no means or little ability to repay their debts. Then some suggest the bill fixes the problem of homestead exemption abuse, I would suggest that rather than repeal or even cap the homestead exemption, the bill places only weak obstacles in its place. The bill does nothing to prevent the very worst abuses in the Bankruptcy Code, such as when financiers and criminals void tens of millions of dollars in debt, while they live high on the hog in their multimillion dollar mansions. They can still do it under this bill. Again, the majority would not even allow us an amendment to try to eliminate the abuse. To those who believe this bill streamlines and expedites business bankruptcies, look at title 4, which adds numerous new paperwork burdens, imposes arbitrary deadlines, and makes it far more likely that struggling businesses, especially small ones, will be forced to liquidate and terminate workers. And so it is amazing that Congress is taking these actions at a time when we are in the middle of an economic slowdown. It is like pouring gasoline on a fire of economic uncertainty. I am ashamed of this legislation. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to 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. It is especially appropriate that we take time during Black History Month to recognize the many African-American Members of Congress that have come before us. 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 struggled, in sometimes hostile environments, to serve our country. Special thanks go to my good friend Steny Hoyer and the Members of the House 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. General Leave

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to bring to the attention of the House an article written by one of our former colleagues, Joseph Kennedy, II. In an article which originally appeared in the Boston Globe, Mr. Kennedy takes note of the spectacular progress that Haiti has made towards democracy. He lauds their progress though they are one of the poorest countries in the world and have environment, water, and electricity problems. Additionally, the majority of Haitians are illiterate. He points out that America, though mighty, needs Haiti. He goes on to applaud the recently elected President, Jean-Bertraud Aristide and urges the U.S. to support his Presidency. I submit this article for your perusal and I too join Mr. Kennedy in his conclusion that the U.S. should and must help Haiti. I also laud Secretary Powell for his comments which appeared in an Associated Press article, where the Secretary called President Aristide's commitments to carry out governmental and political reforms, ``an appropriate road map.'' I would like to insert into the Congressional Record Mr. Kennedy's article which appeared in the Boston Globe on February 7, 2001. US Should Help Aristide Rebuild Haiti Today's inauguration of President Jean Bertrand Aristide serves to remind us of how far Haitian Democracy has come and how far the economy has to go in order to establish peace and prosperity in our Hemisphere's poorest nation. The average Haitian lives on less than $1 a day--the lowest in the Western Hemisphere. Malnutrition is three times the regional average. More than 65 percent of Haitians cannot read or write. The same percentage survive on subsistence slash-and- burn farming that strips the landscape. The legacy of deforestation has left the mountains countryside barren and the coastal waters muddy with topsoil runoff. Clean water and working sewage systems are largely inaccessible. In a country suffering from dangerous outbreaks of polio and drug-resistant tuberculosis, health care is a luxury. Housing in rural Haiti is crowded and inadequate. In the cardboard shacks and plastic villages of the urban slums, it's downright dangerous. Americans have an interest in keeping Haitians in Haiti. Those who take to rafts to risk ocean crossings either die along the way or end up as refugees on our shores. The United States also has an interest in stemming the flow of drugs coming from South America by way of Haiti. Some critics call Aristide a threat. In my work with him over the past decade, I have found him to be an honorable man who looks out for the poor and the vulnerable. It is time to end a debate based on rumor and focus instead on Aristide's commitment to use his new term of office to reform Haitian institutions, fix the worst aspects of the last elections, and reach out to the opposition. This commitment was made in a solemn agreement with the U.S. government last December. Haiti agreed to implement a number of important political, judicial, and economic reforms, including: Holding runoff elections to settle disputes over 10 Senate last May, establishing an electoral council with opposition parties, increasing cooperation with the United States to fight drug-trafficking and money- laundering, strengthening the judicial system and protecting human rights; and launching discussions with international financial institutions to craft strategies to achieve budgetary and economic reforms. President Bush and Secretary of State Colin Powell should accept the pact signed by the Clinton administration. In addition, opposition leaders ought to work with and not obstruct the Article administration. A key factor in raising the standard of living for ordinary Haitians is private-sector investments in Haiti. In the last year, Fusion Telecommunications, whose board I serve on, assisted the Haitian national phone company, Teleco. I was proud to help bring more than $1 million in private investment from Fusion into Haiti. Of course, there are hurdles investing in developing countries, but these challenges should not translate into abandonment, political or economic. The alternative to abandonment is engagement. We can help Haiti overcome its brutal history and enter a new period of peace and prosperity. It will not happen overnight, but without the commitment of the private and public sectors, it will not happen at all. Ten years ago, the poor of Port-au-Prince whitewashed their city walls, emblazoned them with the insignia of President Aristide's party, and cheered as their president-elect rode to his inauguration. The second Aristide government is poised to accept the world's help to build a new Haiti. Turning our backs will simply create a new crisis. The Haitian people posses vast resources of spirit and ingenuity. Unleashing their economic potential will build a stronger nation, create new partnerships in the region, and redeem the promise of democracy so long desired to Haiti.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following article ``King Assembly Presents Unique Perspectives on Civil Rights, Racism'' from the February Edition of Cranbrook Kingswood Crane-Clarion student newspaper, which follows, for inclusion in the Congressional Record. [From the Cranbrook Kingswood Crane-Clarion, February 2001] King Assembly Presents Unique Perspectives on Civil Rights, Racism (By Noah Peters) At the outset of the 2001 Martin Luther King, Jr. assembly, held January 24th at the Kingswood Gym, Cranbrook headmaster George Swope said that this year's assembly would focus less on the life of King and more on how King affected the lives of others. In essence, the assembly strove to inspire appreciation of Dr. King through personal introspection on the legacy, as opposed to being a history lesson. In that spirit, the program featured many unique segments. Among them was a piece, ``Who Am I?,'' featuring several students and staff reading short monologues as victims of prejudice against different kinds of people. For example, senior Mike Mahdi read one as an African-American who others think got his job based on his race, not merit; Maureen Briske, administrative assistant Kingswood Dean Fran Dagbovie, addressed prejudice and arrogance against secretarial workers; English teacher Chris MacDonald read the words of what a new and misunderstood teacher might feel. Others spoke as handicapped persons, foreign people, and various ethnic groups. The purpose was to show that racism and other forms of prejudice are still prevalent in the attitudes of the majority by citing examples of cases in which it occurs. ``Injustice everywhere'' was a major target of King's movement. Another segment featured a panel of speakers, mostly teachers, who shared their personal experiences concerning Dr. King and the civil rights era. The first speaker, Swope, talked of how he came to support civil rights after moving from an ``all-white Chicago suburb'' to a racially mixed boarding school. Next, Spanish teacher Richard Bowdy shared his experience of taking a date to hear Dr. King speak in high school, and made the point that, though Dr. King is generally looked on as a peaceful figure, he was very controversial in his day, ``committed to confrontation as much as he was committed to non-violence.'' After Bowdy spoke, English teacher Winniefred Anthonio spoke of her experience as an immigrant during the civil rights movement, and History Robert spoke about the theme of who each of us is. Lastly, Ida Tomlin, an administrator at the Cranbrook Institute of Science, related her experience dealing with discrimination as a youth in Meridian, Mississippi. The program concluded with Excerpts from ``Song of Myself,'' a film by senior Carlos Navarrete Patino featuring students reading from Whitman's poem, each in their own style. The talks were consistent with King's philosophy. As Tomlin put it, King once said, ``Very few people will rise to genius . . . [so] be the best of whoever you are.''

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentlelady from Ohio, Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones, for convening this critically important special order today. It is very appropriate that Members of the Congressional Black Caucus take this time to honor Black History Month, and more specifically, our nation's ongoing struggle to fulfill the promise of democracy. When I first ran for Congress in 1964, I ran on a platform of ``Jobs, Justice and Peace.'' I never thought at that time that the fundamental plank of justice, the right to vote, would remain the primary issue before us 37 years later. I never would have thought then that there would be cases of voter intimidation, disenfranchisement and confusing ballots in the 21st century. Like most Americans, I wanted to believe that our system of justice would do all that it could under current laws to ensure the right to vote, particularly the right of African Americans and other historically disenfranchised voters will be protected. Unfortunately this was not the case in the 2000 presidential election. Therefore I have joined with several of my colleagues in the Congress to begin the painstaking task of looking at reform of our system of voting from the top down and from the bottom up. So, as we celebrate the history of African-Americans, we should commit ourselves to fight harder for the future of all of America. This Congress and the current Administration, must make real, true election reform their top priority. Democratic Caucus Special Committee and Congressional Special Committee Today, Democratic Leader Gephardt announced the formation of a Democratic Caucus Special Committee on Election Reform, chaired by Congresswoman Maxine Waters, and Co-chaired by myself, Steny Hoyer and a number of our colleagues who have committed themselves to this task. The Democratic Caucus is committed to working on solutions, not rehashing the past. We are hopeful that Speaker Hastert will appoint a Congressional Special Committee soon and look forward to working with him and all of our Republican colleagues on a nonpartisan basis. national roundup of voter irregularities From reports that flawed felony voter ``purges'' may have erroneously disenfranchised thousands of African-American voters to allegations of voter irregularities across the nation, we agree that the razor-thin margin in the 2000 Presidential election illuminated serious flaws in our electoral system. Here are just a few of the problems encountered by voters in the past election: problems in florida The Problems in Florida are well known. From butterfly ballots that no one could understand, to police roadblocks near polling places, to overbroad felony voter purges, Florida showed the system is broken. the problem was not just in florida--it was nationwide In Georgia, ``Lines too long'' was the single most commonly heard complaint from voters. Citizens in some communities waited at the polls for two hours or more, and some metro Atlanta voters did not cast ballots until after 11:00 p.m.--a more than four-hour wait. Contributing factors in some polling places were poor layout, a shortage of well-trained poll workers, and a shortage of poll locations. In Louisiana, people who claimed that they were prevented from voting because their voter registration at local driver's license bureaus under the ``motor voter'' law never got processed. According to the Registrar of Voters, dozens of voters in Jefferson Parish alone found themselves with no designated precinct to go to. On the west bank of New Orleans, there were 75-100 calls from people who claimed to have changed their address, but were not in the Registrar's records. And in St. Tammany, Registrar of Voters M. Dwayne Wall said that approximately 100 people called because of apparent problems with the Department of Motor Vehicles registration process. In Missouri, it was contended that many registered voters were inaccurately stricken from the rolls after a mail canvass. They also allege that procedures for re-registering those ``inactive'' voters were too cumbersome, and that many polling places were understaffed or had no telephone contact with the board's downtown headquarters. And in my home state, voters complained that the polling places had undertrained administrators and long lines. stories of election day problems In New Orleans, voters were not allowed to vote because their voter registration at local driver's license bureaus under the state's motor voter law never got processed. Leslie Boudreaux moved from one precinct and registered. However, she was turned away at her polling place. In Portland, Maine, it appears that as many as 15,000 voters were illegally purged from voting rolls and were forced to wait in long lines at City Hall to register again and vote. One voter forced to stand in line, Shirley Lewellyn, said she was ``mad as hell'' about having to stand in a long registration line when she wanted to be with her husband, who was undergoing minor eye surgery. ``I've voted for 20 years at [my precinct], and when I went there this morning, they told me I wasn't on the list.'' In Columbia, South Carolina, some registered voters said they were turned away from the polls, while others said they were intimidated by poll workers and NAACP poll watchers were asked to leave poll sites. In Boston, Mass, a volunteer who was giving voters rides to the polls received a call from an amputee for a ride to the polls. The caller stated that he had attempted to vote at the polling place he had voted a year before and was turned away. The volunteer drove the man to four different poll sites and were turned away each time. Only at the last poll site were they told that the first poll site, the one the man had visited initially, was the correct one. there are solutions Most importantly, we must address the instances of voter intimidation, such as police checkpoints near polling places, and the widespread problem of overbroad felony voter purges. The best voting machines in the world won't do any good if they don't let legal voters vote. We should have more vigorous investigation and enforcement of civil rights laws and government aid to states should be contingent upon affirmative steps by states to comply with those laws. The most obvious problem for states and localities has been an inability or unwilliness to fund 21st Century election technology. The federal government needs to step in and provide assistance to states to replace old voting machines. But we need to help states do more than that. States need better trained poll workers and better educated voters. We need to ensure that polling places accessible to persons with disabilities. More than that, it is unthinkable in the year 2001 that we have not implemented technology that allows a seeing impaired person to cast an independent secret ballot. The federal government can provide financial assistance and encouragement in this area as well. We need to use federal dollars to encourage states to make democracy easier, by implementing same day registration procedures. And there is a ``data gap.'' No unbiased entity is testing voting machines. There has been no rigorous study of whether other innovations, such as an election day holiday, are needed. We need to study these issues very carefully and very quickly. In short, Congress needs to act and it needs to act soon before these incidents are repeated in the 2002 elections. Together we have fought to end voting disenfranchisement and secure racial justice in the electoral arena. Today, the fight continues. The voice of each American must be allowed to be heard in our democracy.