John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

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

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

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, 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. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 712, the Sunshine in Regulatory Decrees and Settlements Act. This measure is comprised of three bills, each of which, from my perspective, is thoroughly flawed. To begin with, title I of this bill, consisting of the text of the Sunshine and Regulatory Decrees and Settlements Act of 2015, has a simple goal: to discourage the use of settlement agreements and consent decrees and to thereby prevent critical Federal regulatory actions from being implemented. Title I accomplishes this goal by giving opponents of regulation multiple opportunities to stifle rulemaking. With respect to a civil action enforcing an agency's responsibility to undertake a regulatory action, such as to promulgate a rulemaking, title I essentially authorizes any third party who is affected by such regulatory action to intervene in that civil action, subject to rebuttal; to participate in settlement negotiations; and to submit public comments about a proposed consent decree or settlement agreement that agencies would then be required to respond to. In addition, title I mandates that agencies provide for public comment on a proposed consent decree, and it requires agencies to respond to all such comments before the consent decree can be entered in court. As a result, an agency would be forced to go through two public comment periods, one for the consent decree and one for the rulemaking that results from the consent decree, doubling the agency's effort and time before a regulation could be finalized. Like nearly all of the anti-regulatory bills we have considered to date over the last two Congresses, this measure piles on procedural requirements for agencies and courts. By delaying regulatory protections, title I jeopardizes public health and safety. This explains why a broad consortium of more than 150 organizations strenuously opposes this measure. These organizations include the Natural Resources Defense Council, the American Civil Liberties Union, the NAACP, the Sierra Club, and Earthjustice, among other groups. Title II of H.R. 712 consists of the text of H.R. 1759, the All Economic Regulations are Transparent Act of 2015, or the ALERT Act of 2015. This measure would impose an arbitrary 6-month delay before virtually any new rule could go into effect with only limited exceptions. Clearly, the bill fails to take into account a vast array of time- sensitive rules, ranging from the mundane, such as the many United States Coast Guard bridge closing regulations, to particularly critical regulations that protect public health and safety. Another troubling aspect of title II is that it specifically prohibits the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs--the executive branch agency charged with policymaking for Federal regulatory agencies--from taking into account the benefits of regulations when providing total cost estimates for proposed and final rules. Thus, a regulation that costs only $1 but that results in $1 billion in benefits would only be reported as costing $1. Such a misleading and unbalanced report could hardly promote transparency. Finally, title III, consisting of H.R. 690, the Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act of 2015, would require a notice of proposed rulemaking that is published in the Federal Register to include an Internet link to a plain language, 100-word summary of the rule. As with the other provisions in H.R. 712, title III creates a further opportunity for opponents of regulation to slow down a proposed rulemaking, and rather than promoting transparency, title III could engender confusion about the substance of such rulemaking. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson).

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

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).

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

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am ready to close, and I yield myself the balance of my time. Members, H.R. 712, the Sunshine for Regulatory Decrees and Settlements Act, would establish a 6-month moratorium on new regulations, with limited exception, significantly delaying the rulemaking process by which agencies ensure that Americans are protected from serious harm, such as dirty air and water and unsafe products and reckless behavior by large financial institutions. Not surprisingly, the White House has already issued a strong veto threat. The administration warns that H.R. 712 would undermine critical public health and safety protections, introduce needless complexity and uncertainty in agency decisionmaking, and interfere with agency performance statutory mandates. There is simply no basis to support this ill-conceived legislation. Accordingly, I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in opposing H.R. 712. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Members, my colleagues, I rise, I am sorry to say, in strong opposition to H.R. 1155, the so-called SCRUB Act, because it threatens to drown agencies in additional layers of red tape and makes it nearly impossible to establish any new rule, no matter how pressing, or to issue any guidance on existing rules. Under this bill, an agency must treat every regulation the same, regardless of the urgency of the situation or the subject matter of the regulation. H.R. 1155 achieves this result in several respects. First, the bill would establish a regulatory CutGo process, forcing agencies to prioritize between existing protections and responding to new threats to our health and safety. This draconian, one-size-fits-all retrospective review process would obligate an agency to determine the costs of a new regulation and eliminate an existing regulation in order to pay for it. Next, the SCRUB Act is a dangerous solution in search of a problem. In principle, retrospective review of existing regulations is certainly not a bad idea. It is hard to argue against the notion that agencies should periodically assess whether the rules they promulgated are as good as they can be or whether they are even necessary in light of changed circumstances. However, each agency already conducts oversight through retrospective review of agency rules, narrowing the delegations of authority to agencies, controlling agency appropriations, and conducting oversight of agency activity. And finally, we must acknowledge that the real intent of this legislation is to hobble the ability of the agencies to regulate. Proponents of this legislation rely on unsubstantiated rhetoric that regulations inhibit economic development. Supporters of so-called regulatory ``reform'' measures like the SCRUB Act claim that regulation imposes such costs on businesses that it stifles economic growth and job creation. In support of this contention, they repeatedly cite a widely debunked study by economists Mark and Nicole Crain that claims Federal regulation imposes an annual cost of $1.75 trillion on business. The Crain study, however, has been extensively criticized for exaggerating the costs of Federal rulemaking on small businesses. In recognition of these concerns, the Coalition for Sensible Safeguards, an alliance of more than 150 consumer, labor, research, faith, and other public interest groups, strongly oppose this legislation. In addition, the White House has released a Statement of Administration Policy that threatens to veto this legislation. Accordingly, I sincerely urge my colleagues to join with me in opposing H.R. 1155. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4246, the ``National Guard and Reservist Debt Relief Extension Act of 2015.'' It has been ten years since President Bush signed into law the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act, a bill that made numerous amendments to the Bankruptcy Code, many of which pertained to consumer debtors. In particular, the Act established a means test mechanism-- purportedly intended to determine a debtor's ability to repay debts-- that requires a presumption of abuse if the debtor has income in excess of specified thresholds. H.R. 4246 would continue the current exemption from this presumption for certain qualifying National Guard members and reserve component members of the Armed Services. This exemption, which was first enacted in 2008 on a bipartisan basis, is due to expire in just a few days on December 19th. H.R. 4246 recognizes that some of those who serve in the military encounter financial difficulties during or in the wake of their service and that they merit relief from the additional proof requirements of the means test. In fact, servicemembers are often targeted by unscrupulous lenders. As reported by the Wall Street Journal earlier this year, payday lenders prey on service members and their families at twice the rate that they use to target civilians. These short-term, high-interest loans are often used to provide small amounts of money to pay for unexpected or emergency expenditures or to obtain advances on tax refunds. Yet, as a result of excessive interest rates, these loans can quickly balloon into overwhelming debt obligations. According to the Journal, some servicemembers have paid as much as 600 percent to 700 percent for the life of their loans, or even four times the amount of the original loan. In 2013, about 11 percent of enlisted personnel in the active duty military obtained payday loans, which included vehicle title loans, pawnshop loans, and other high-interest loans. So, at least for those servicemembers who seek bankruptcy protection in response to financial distress, H.R. 4246 ensures that they are exempted from the presumption of abuse if he or she is on active duty or is performing a homeland defense activity for a specified period. I commend the gentleman from Tennessee, Steve Cohen, for his leadership on this legislation and for his enduring commitment to our Nation's servicemembers. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in supporting H.R. 4246.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, the ``Bankruptcy Judgeship Act of 2015,'' authorizes 6 additional permanent bankruptcy judgeships and converts 16 temporary bankruptcy judgeships to permanent status, based on recommendation of the Judicial Conference of the United States. With respect to the 6 additional permanent bankruptcy judgeships, they are authorized pursuant to section 3 of the bill as follows: 2 for the District of Delaware; 2 for the Eastern District of Michigan; and 2 for the Middle District of Florida. With respect to the 16 conversions, they are authorized pursuant to section 2 of the bill for the following districts: 5 for the District of Delaware; 2 for the Southern District of Florida; 3 for the District of Maryland; 1 for the Eastern District of Michigan; 1 for the District of Nevada; 1 for the Eastern District of North Carolina; 2 for the District of Puerto Rico; 1 for the Western District of Tennessee; and 1 for the Eastern District of Virginia. This legislation responds to a serious need. Since the last time additional bankruptcy judgeships were authorized, which was 10 years ago, the 6 districts that would be authorized additional judicial resources by this bill have experienced a 55 percent increase in weighted filings, according to the Judicial Conference. All 16 of the temporary bankruptcy judgeships that the bill converts to permanent status are set to lapse as of May 25, 2017. As the Conference observes, ``These bankruptcy courts would face a serious and, in many cases, debilitating workload crisis if their temporary judgeships were to expire.'' The need for these additional judicial resources is based on a comprehensive analysis performed by the Judicial Conference based on a formal survey of all judicial circuits conducted pursuant to section 152(b)(2) of title 28 of the United States Code. Criteria considered include the workload of each court, case filing statistics, and geographic factors, among other matters.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, as much as any Member in this body, I appreciate the unique situation our Nation is in as we struggle to effectively combat terrorism, while adhering to our Nation's commitment to freedom and liberty. I fully recognize and appreciate that the bill before us today represents an effort to craft a more bipartisan response to recent terrorist incidents, particularly when compared to the seriously flawed refugee bill that this body voted on only several weeks ago. I commend the office for including many commonsense improvements to the Visa Waiver Program that will improve the system in a neutral and nondiscriminatory manner. However, I believe that provisions in the legislation restricting the use of the Visa Waiver Program to individuals who have traveled to Syria or Iraq or are dual nationals of these or other covered nations are discriminatory. I understand that these individuals are not banned from traveling to our Nation and are simply subject to increased questioning and scrutiny before they can travel here. However, history has shown us that arbitrary across-the-board judgments based on broad characteristics such as these do nothing to enhance our security and only cast a cloud of suspicion over entire communities here in our country. Equally problematic is the provision's overbreadth. It contains no exceptions for journalists, researchers, human rights investigators, or other professionals. This will make it harder, not easier, to document and respond to human rights violations and other abuses. I also believe the provision should have included a sunset date so that we can assess its efficacy. I am further concerned that the new requirement will result in our partner nations placing new limits on travel by United States citizens to their own countries. It is because of these problems that numerous civil rights and civil liberties groups have expressed serious concerns or outright opposition to the overall legislation, including the American Civil Liberties Union, the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, the NAACP, the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, the American Immigration Lawyers Association, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the Arab-American Civil Rights League, Human Rights Watch, and the League of United Latin American Citizens, among others. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record letters from those groups. December 8, 2015. Re: Visa Waiver Improvement and Terrorism Travel Prevention Act of 2015, H.R. 158 U.S. Senate, House of Representatives. Dear Legislator: The Arab-American Civil Rights League (``ACRL'') writes with grave concern regarding H.R. 158, the Visa Waiver Improvement and Terrorism Travel Prevention Act of 2015 (``HR 158''). HR 158 would amend the Visa Waiver Program by mandating that individuals who have traveled to Syria or Iraq in the past five years be barred from participation in the Visa Waiver Program. The ACRL strongly opposes such legislation on the grounds that it is both discriminatory and ineffective--an ill-conceived legislative backlash to recent tragedies. HR 158's blanket ban upon persons who have visited the countries of Iraq and Syria in the past five years will only harm those who have legitimate reasons to visit the United States, and will not effectively deter or prevent terrorists and criminals from seeking to enter this country and do us harm. Simply put, nefarious individuals seeking to enter the United States to commit illegal acts of terror, will not be dissuaded by federal law. It is nothing less than absurd to think that an individual trying to enter the United States to commit acts of terror will abide by our laws. On the other hand, HR 158 will ban individuals who have visited Syria and Iraq for legitimate reasons in the last five years, for no other reason than their physical presence in said countries. Consider the types of individuals that would be banned: journalists, members of the clergy, family visitors, and myriad others. HR 158 targets and punishes entire swathes of people who have done nothing wrong, while failing to effectively target those who seek to harm this country. In all essence, HR 158 presumes that there are no reasons for people to visit Syria and Iraq, and that anyone who has been to those two countries should be suspected of terrorism. Far from enhancing our safety and security, HR 158 will only further isolate and alienate people of Arab, Middle Eastern, and South Asian descent. In this sense, HR 158 is a victory for the terrorists, whose true goal is to disrupt our society through acts of shocking violence and barbarism. Far from playing into their hands, we should reaffirm our national commitment to liberty, and continue to embrace pluralism. At our core, we remain a nation of many cultures, ethnicities, and faiths, and are far stronger when we defend our core values and refuse to act in fear. Federal policy must be carefully drafted and deliberated given its wide- ranging scope and effect. As we have seen in the past with other pieces of national security legislation, such legislative acts can lead to slippery slopes. We at the ACRL urge you to oppose HR 158, and specifically its mandatory exclusion provisions, because they are ineffective, ill- conceived, and un-American. Respectfully submitted, Arab-American Civil Rights League (ACRL).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, while there are many positive aspects to the legislation, I believe, in the end, we cannot countenance anything in our laws that judges individuals based on their nationality rather than their character.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a resolution honoring the achievements of Berry Gordy, Jr. and his musical legacy, Motown Records. By establishing the Motown record label in 1959 in Detroit, MI, Mr. Gordy cultivated the careers of musical legends such as Smokey Robinson, Michael Jackson, Diana Ross, Stevie Wonder, and many, many more. Not only did the music of Motown advance its way to the top of the charts and the front of the music scene with timeless hits such as ``Please Mr. Postman'' and ``Ain't No Mountain High Enough,'' but it also communicated across race barriers and touched people regardless of the color of their skin. In a racially divided and politically charged time, Motown Records, under the leadership of Mr. Gordy, was the first to integrate an all-white sales department and produce music beloved by all. Mr. Gordy's accomplishments are reflected in his numerous awards and recognitions including his induction into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, his autobiography ``To Be Loved: The Music, the Magic, the Memories of Motown,'' and the Broadway success of ``Motown The Musical.'' Decades after its inception, Motown is remembered as one of the most significant creative outlets of the 20th century, and the music it fostered continues to entertain and inspire us all. Thanks to Mr. Gordy, Motown created a uniquely American sound and defined the American experience for generations. Through this resolution, we recognize and thank Mr. Gordy for creating a timeless musical sound, for being a force of positive social change, and for his countless contributions to American culture.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor one of the nation's most dedicated civil rights activists, Ron Scott, who sadly passed away Sunday, November 29, 2015. During his many invaluable years of public service, Ron Scott was the consummate advocate for social and economic justice, inspiring others through his tremendous work ethic and undying spirit for activism. In particular, he has been in the vanguard of the movement to hold law enforcement accountable for acts of police misconduct. For twenty years, he was a leading and outspoken critic of the use of force by Detroit police officers. An original founder of the Detroit chapter of the Black Panthers, he created the Detroit Coalition Against Police Brutality in 1996. In 2003, as a leader of the Coalition, he advocated for the city of Detroit to enter into a consent decree with the Department of Justice to reform the Detroit Police Department following years of police misconduct. In 2014, when Detroit's Board of Police Commissioners, the civilian led police oversight board, lost its powers due the city's pending bankruptcy, he used his credibility as a longtime voice against police misconduct to argue for the commission's restoration. In September, the Detroit City Council voted to restore the commission's powers, which will return in December. Ron Scott fought for civil and human rights and dreamed of a time when people would be judged and treated with dignity and respect. His counsel to me was truly invaluable and he has been such a frequent panelist at Congressional Black Caucus Annual Legislative Conferences that it is difficult to imagine these efforts without his presence. Those personally close to him will miss him deeply, but I believe that his legacy of determined, reasoned and consistent advocacy on behalf of those who are voiceless will continue to be remembered and inspire our work to bring justice and peace to the world.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Chair, during rollcall vote No. 662 on H.R. 8, I mistakenly recorded my vote as ``no'' when I should have voted ``yes.'' Amendment No. 24 Offered by Mr. Polis

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, sixty years ago today, Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat on a bus in Montgomery, Alabama. Through a simple act of civil disobedience, she inspired a movement, gained worldwide acclaim, and secured a place in American history. However, on that cold morning in Montgomery, Mrs. Parks was not creating a legacy--she simply saw a wrong and wanted to right it. She showed us that any person can make a difference if they have the strength of their convictions. By simply sitting down on the bus, she turned an ordinary act into something extraordinary, and inspired thousands in Montgomery--and later across America--to do the same. But Mrs. Parks is more than just a figure to be revered--she is an example to be upheld. And on days like today, we must ask ourselves whether we honor her with our actions as well as our words. Because of the work of Mrs. Parks and her contemporaries, our nation is an undeniably different place than it was sixty years ago. Jim Crow is no longer the law of the South. Segregation is no longer legally mandated. An African-American is President and the Congressional Black Caucus counts 43 members. But there are still too many wrongs that need righting. The current African-American unemployment rate, 9.2%, is twice that of white workers, 4.4%. During the first half of this year, black Americans killed by the police were more than twice as likely to be unarmed as white Americans killed by police. Black children are suspended and expelled from school at three times the rate of white children. Black churches--a longtime refuge for our community--are still the target of violent extremists. In the face of such injustice, we must be compelled--as Rosa Parks and countless others were in their time--to act. We know that this will not be an easy fight. We know we must prepare for great sacrifice. There will be violence visited upon us--like the shooting of Black Lives Matter protesters in Minneapolis this past week. But the price we pay will bring about change--painfully slow at times--that we can pass on to the next generation. We are seeing this in places like South Carolina, where Walter Scott's killer is facing trial. We are seeing it in Chicago, where the police chief is out and Laquan McDonald's killer is being prosecuted. We are seeing it at the U.S. Department of Justice where troubling police practices are receiving deserved scrutiny. We are even seeing it here in Congress, where bipartisan reforms are underway that will address some of the racial disparities in our criminal justice system. I am humbled to have worked with Mrs. Parks for more than 20 years, and I am fortunate to have been her friend for many more. Today, as we honor the actions that brought her global recognition, I hope we do so in kind--with actions worthy of her memory.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), a distinguished member of the House Judiciary Committee.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), ranking member on the Homeland Security Committee.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker and Members, the so-called American SAFE Act purports to make us safer. But as the administration has so correctly observed, this measure would provide no meaningful additional security for the American people. Worse yet, it would effectively deny refugee status for Syrians and Iraqis who are themselves victims of terrorism in their own homelands. H.R. 4038 is a terribly flawed and inhumane bill for many reasons. To begin with, while ensuring the safety of all Americans should be our top priority, H.R. 4038 does nothing to achieve this goal. This measure sets unreasonable clearance standards that the Department of Homeland Security simply cannot meet. Refugees seeking to come to our shores are already subject to the highest level of vetting, more than any other traveler or immigrant to the United States. This extensive screening process is performed by the Department of Homeland Security, the State Department, in conjunction with the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and other law enforcement and intelligence agencies. The process utilizes methodical and exhaustive background checks that often take up to 24 months, on average, to complete, and even longer, in some cases. We must keep in mind that our Nation was founded by immigrants and has historically welcomed refugees when there is suffering around the globe. Whether it is an earthquake in Haiti, a tsunami in Asia, or 4 years of civil war in Syria, with no end in sight, the world looks always to the United States. We provide protections for refugees and asylum seekers, especially women and children. Nevertheless, in the wake of the September 11 attacks on our shores and the tragic November 13 terrorist attacks in Paris, we must be vigilant, particularly in the midst of a global refugee crisis. H.R. 4038, however, is an extreme over-reaction to these latest security concerns. Rather than shutting our doors to these desperate men and women and children who are risking their lives to escape death and torture in their own homelands, we should work to utilize our immense resources and good intentions of our citizens to welcome them. Finally, Congress needs to do its part by properly funding refugee resettlement as well as funding our Federal agencies so they have the necessary personnel and programs to complete security checks that we already have in place. Instead of slamming our doors to the world's most vulnerable, we should be considering legislation to strengthen and expand refugee programs. Unfortunately, the bill before us today is not a serious effort to legislate, and it will not make us safer. It is a knee-jerk reaction, as evidenced by the fact that this measure was introduced just 2 days ago, and has not been the subject of a single hearing or any meaningful review by our committee. Rather than betraying our values, we must continue to focus on the most effective tools to keep us safe, while also providing refuge for the world's most vulnerable. Accordingly, I urge all of my colleagues to oppose H.R. 4038. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), one who has worked harder on this issue than anyone I know.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), a distinguished member of the House Judiciary Committee.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott). (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)