John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Yes. That is very good. Mr. Speaker, this is a very poor process, as everybody on the floor has already noted. This is totally against tradition, to attempt to move this measure of bankruptcy into a measure that has already been passed into law. This is incredible. Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fact, I will ask for the assistance of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher), and will need, at the appropriate time, to be asking the Speaker for an exercise of discretion to substitute him for me as a conferee on the following issues with regard to enhanced consumer protection, priority child support provisions, general and small business bankruptcy provisions, municipal bankruptcy provisions, data bankruptcy, and several other items. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Speaker to keep that in mind at the appropriate time. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Not merely. What else?

Mr. CONYERS. I could give the gentleman the answer as well, but the question is, is this bill before us merely a vehicle to enact the bankruptcy provisions?

Mr. CONYERS. I am, for an answer.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, yes or no, please.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would say to my friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania; they are there are two different questions involved. We cannot roll one into the other and say, let us go on. We want to talk about what is happening procedurally on this bill. We are dealing with a bill that has already been passed into law in which there is an attempt now to patently misuse the legislative process. Enough time on that. Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the State Department authorization has already been enacted. Is this bill, therefore, merely being used as a vehicle to enact bankruptcy, the bankruptcy provisions? Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas), the ranking member of the subcommittee; the chair of the subcommittee.

Mr. CONYERS. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker. Is it not traditional that at least the other side of the aisle would get half the time, 30 minutes? Is that not traditional here?

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas, (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

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

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining?

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

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, on April 11, 2000, the House passed H.R. 3767, the Visa Waiver Permanent Program Act, which included an amendment I offered during the Judiciary Committee markup. My amendment prohibits the use of visa refusal rates to disqualify countries from the visa waiver program when visa refusals are based on the discriminatory practices of the adjudicating Consulate. The amendment as passed by both the committee and the House ensures that Consulates and Embassies abroad adjudicate visa applications based on the merits of the applications, and not on the basis of ``race, sex, sexual orientation, or disability.'' Unfortunately, this bill's Senate counterpart has been held up in large part because of opposition to my amendment by the senior Senator from North Carolina and others in the Senate majority. In an effort to reach a compromise, the Senate bill retains my amendment, except for the prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. In addition, the Senate amendment provides that: No court shall have jurisdiction under [the Conyers' amendment] to review any visa refusal or the Secretary's computation of the visa refusal rate. I would have preferred that these changes not have been made, but, given the lateness in the session and the importance of the visa waiver program being extended, I am willing to support the legislation before us. The impetus for the amendment was U.S. District Court Judge Stanley Sporkin's decisive findings in the case of Olden versus Albright in December 1997 that the U.S. Consulate General in Sao Paulo, Brazil, based its nonimmigrant visa determinations in large part on the applicants' race, ethnicity or national origin. For example, Korean and Chinese nationals were rarely issued visas unless they were older and had previously received a visa. According to the Consular Section Head, ``Filipinos and Nigerians have high fraud rates, and their applications should be viewed with extreme suspicion, while British and Japanese citizens rarely overstay, and generally require less scrutiny.'' Further, identifying cities ``known for fraud'' (most with predominantly black populations), the Consulate's manual stated that ``anyone born in these locations is suspect unless older, well- traveled, etc.'' Judge Sporkin correctly stated: The principle that government must not discriminate against particular individuals because of the color of their skin or the place of their birth means that the use of generalizations based on these factors is unfair and unjustified. When, as in the Olsen case, that discriminatory profiling is occurring and where it occurs at the Federal level, it is particularly important that Congress act to prevent further discrimination. Notwithstanding the Senate's revision to the bill, the final language makes it clear to the U.S. Consulates and Embassies abroad that it is a violation of U.S. law for visa refusals to occur based on generalizations that by their very nature are not applicable to the individual application. The revised language continues to ensure that Embassies and Consulates adjudicate visas based on the merits of the applications, and not on the basis of irrelevant and harmful discriminatory stereotypes. Further, the Olson decision continues to stand for the legal proposition that the use of generalizations based on race, sex, and disability (as well as sexual orientation, nationality, place of birth, and place of residence) is unfair, unjustified, and contrary to law. The amendment added in the Senate will have no practical legal effect and I understand from my Senate colleagues that it is merely a symbolic gesture. Nonetheless, court stripping provisions, whether symbolic or not, is contrary to our democratic principles. I hesitate before supporting another bill out of this Congress that removes the ability of immigrants to have administrative determinations reviewed by a court. It seems to me ironic that our Republican friends demanded only a short while ago that Elian Gonzalez be afforded the right of judicial review. These demands must also have been only symbolic. The bill passed by the Senate also includes a new title III to permit INTELSAT's foreign employees to maintain their nonimmigrant status notwithstanding the organization's privatization. At the present time, INTELSAT's foreign employees are in a visa status based on their employment by an international organization. After INTELSAT privatizes, its current employees will no longer be eligible to maintain their current visa status without this change in the law. the purpose of title III is not to give INTELSAT an unfair advantage with regard to its hiring practices as compared with its competitors. Let me just clarify my understanding of two references within Title III. First, in sections 301(a)(1) and (a)(2), the phrase ``separate entity of INTELSAT'' is intended to address the situation in which, between passage of this bill and privatization, INTELSAT establishes a new separated entity as a shell company in anticipation of privatization. It is not our intent for an employee of INTELSAT who, post- privatization, becomes an employee of a separated entity that pre-dates this legislation (e.g., New Skies Satellites N.V.) to retain his or her nonimmigrant status. Second, in sections 301(a)(1) and (a)(2), the phrase ``the date of privatization'' means either the date that INTELSAT privatizes or April 1, 2001, whichever is earlier. The ORBIT Act specifies April 1, 2001 as the date by which INTELSAT must privatize, without regard to whether INTELSAT is granted an extension, pursuant to Section 621(5) of the ORBIT Act, to conduct an initial public offering. Finally, I would like to thank the Travel Industry Association, and in particular its president, Bill Norman, for their exemplary work on ensuring the final passage of this bill. The Visa Waiver Permanent Program Act is too important to our business and tourism industries to delay it any longer. I therefore urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald). (Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 45 seconds to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) and thank her for the excellent work that she has done on this bill. (Mrs. MALONEY of New York asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 45 seconds to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones). (Mrs. JONES of Ohio asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey). (Mrs. LOWEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), as I will the other seven Members that are waiting to come up under Judiciary time. (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi). (Ms. PELOSI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I rise with some reluctance to support the conference report because I wanted a clean bill concerning the Trafficking Victims and Violence Against Women's Act, both of which passed the House with strong bipartisan support. So the bill continues funding for important Violence Against Women Act programs such as enforcement and prosecution grants to combat violence against women, the National Domestic Violence Hotline, battered women's shelters and services. But it also takes important preliminary steps to address dating violence. Now, we would not be here without the organizations that work with us in the Congress, and I just wanted to get into the Record: NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund, the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, the National Task Force to End Domestic Violence, and the Feminists Majority. Now, the legislation, I must say, does not go far enough on VAWA, and we are going to continue this struggle. It leaves out many critical programs that were in the House-passed bill. For example, we have not allowed the provisions to more adequately fund rape prevention and education programs, civil legal assistance and STOP grants. There is less money allocated to victims services. The conference falls short. But the bill does the special-interest bidding for alcohol wholesalers and effectively allows the shutdown of e-commerce by wineries. What, I ask, does this have to do with the victims of sex trafficking? Answer: nothing. Mr. Speaker, I rise with some reluctance to support the Conference Report. I had hoped that we would be voting on a clean bill concerning the Trafficking Victims and Violence Against Women Act, both of which passed the Houses with strong bipartisan support. Unfortunately, something dire happened on the way to the altar. Whenever the Republican majority wants to pass legislation to protect women, they will only do it half way. On the one hand, the bill before us continues funding for important VAWA programs such as law enforcement and prosecution grants to combat violence against women, the National Domestic Violence Hotline, battered women's shelters and services. The bill also takes important preliminary steps to address dating violence. For these positive things, I would like to particularly note the hard work of Leslie Orloff, Janice Kaguyutan, Pat Reuss and Jackie Payne of the NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund, Julie Fulcher of the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence and all the people at the National Task Force to End Domestic Violence. On the other hand, I must report that the legislation does not go far enough on VAWA, leaving out many of the critical programs in the House passed bill. For example, the Majority refused to include the more generous House VAWA provisions to more adequately fund rape prevention and education programs, civil legal assistance and STOP grants. I am also disturbed that less money is allocated to victims' services, the scope of civil legal assistance to be offered is narrowed and the types of organizations that qualify to provide assistance is limited. The conference report also falls short with regard to the victims of sex trafficking. The bill still contains a 5,000 cap on the number of victims eligible to receive a ``T'' visa, despite the House's motion to instruct the conferees to remove the cap. Moreover, parents of victims are not eligible for derivative immigration status despite clear evidence that the traffickers will threaten to injure or kill the parents living abroad to prevent the victim from assisting in a criminal prosecution. If this weren't enough, this bill does the special interest bidding for the alcohol wholesalers, effectively allowing the shut down of e- commerce by wineries. What, I ask, does this special interest legislation have to do with victims of sex trafficking. Nothing. It's just a vehicle to do a special favor for that special interest. And the bill incorporates Aimee's law which the National Governors' Association and National Conference of State Legislatures both conclude ``is onerous, impractical, and unworkable.'' Chalk it up for another bill that aborts the legislative process. The Judiciary Committee has had plenty of time to make such a proposal workable for governors, but the Committee has failed again to do so. Finally, I must note that this process is an example of how legislation should not be conducted. On almost every provision, House Democrats were given take it or leave proposals from the Republicans, and there was virtually no deliberation by the members. That's a pretty bad show. So, I will vote yes today, but I would hope we could do a better job of protecting battered women and victims of sex trafficking in the future.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I yield to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon), my distinguished colleague on the Committee on the Judiciary, for an explanation and a discussion of the purpose of the bill that he offers.

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

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman from California (Chairman Dreier). The gentleman reminds me that I have been discussing with the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) about how, in the next term, if we are fortunate enough to come back to Congress elected by our constituents, that we really begin to work on a larger plan that coordinates all of the efforts that some employers are engaged in; that the Department of Labor should certainly be working very hard at; that the Department of Education, for example, should be doing more. But I am still looking for, and I am willing to create with interested Members in the Congress, the omnibus inclusive program that really gets at the problem of the training, which, as we know, has the start in the very first grades. You cannot bring in a technical program for people who have not been prepared for the course studies.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), a member of the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment.

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