John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, my motion to recommit would narrow the bill so that it does not interfere with the actions by local governments of certain specific actions; namely, four: One, this bill should not interfere with the actions by local governments to protect the public from prostitution and illegal drugs. Two, we should not interfere with actions by local governments to control adult bookstores and the distribution of pornography. Three, we should not interfere with the actions of local governments to protect against illegal groundwater contamination or the operation of an illegal waste dump. Nor, four, should we interfere with local governments that try to prevent actions that arise from a voter initiative or a referendum to limit out of control development. We want to prevent local governments from being precluded from actions that arise from a voter initiative or referendum to limit out of control development. Now, which Member among us wants to make it more difficult for local governments to take action to limit illegal drug use or prostitution? The people this bill protects are not just innocent landowners, they are also purveyors of pornography and common criminals who are misusing their property. So I believe that, in these cases, local communities should be able to enact reasonable land use policies that protect their citizens. For example, this motion to recommit would help the City of Minneapolis, which successfully fought a court battle with the owners of a sauna in which numerous prostitution arrests had occurred. The sauna owners challenged the City's order to shut it as a taking of property. The City was able to defend itself in State court; but under this bill, this would have become a Federal court fight, far more expensive for the City to defend if they could have afforded it. The same thing happened similarly in Miami where the City closed a motel with a history of repeated illegal drug activity and prostitution. The owner of the motel challenged the City's action under a taking. But the Florida State court denied their claim. But under this measure, H.R. 2372, the City would have been forced to defend the case before a Federal judge having far less of an understanding of the needs of local citizens. So join me and others and many organizations that support these views. Vote yes on a common sense motion to recommit this bill, and bring it out as one that would be far more acceptable to far more local governments.

Mr. CONYERS. Yes, I am, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. CONYERS

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

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I say to the gentleman from Ohio that, as the one who made that amendment, I would like him to know that we have a modification of Lautenberg which allows 24-hour, 1-day, clearance for gun checks. And then for the 5 percent who cannot check in the 1-day, we have a 2-day period. Now does that take away anybody's rights?

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

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) for the great work she is doing in bringing this motion to instruct, because this is the simplest level we can arrive at. I have never heard of a motion to instruct that had no substantive purpose whatsoever except to ask the conferees to meet. This must be a record of some sort. And this is an absurd and morbid game that the National Rifle Association is playing, to accuse the President of being dishonest about gun safety legislation. Nobody wants it more than the President. We have met with him time and time again. We know that that is true. The tired old tactics of delaying and distracting cannot hide one essential truth: we want an open and public debate of these issues. The President says have a conference. Matter of fact, there are more conservatives on the committee than there are liberals. So we will take whatever happens. But do not tell the American people that for 8 months we are not going to do anything whatsoever. The NRA fears the debate. And that fact alone speaks volumes. When an organization is scared to take this debate out into the open, who is really lying? The NRA claimed at one point that they pioneered criminal background checks. Do not make me laugh. I was here. They fought the Brady bill tooth and nail. So who is really lying? They say they support gun show and background checks, but they offer bills that would exclude events where hundreds of guns are sold from any background checks. And by the way, the biggest gun shows in America are in California, where they check very carefully the purchases that are done there. So we beg our colleagues to support the motion to instruct.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to thank the gentleman for agreeing on the importance of safety locks on handguns. The overriding debate here is whether or not we will ask the conference to resume its sitting.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the Law Enforcement Trust and Integrity Act of 2000, along with additional cosponsors. This legislation is supported by both police and civil rights organizations around the country and is aimed at curbing outrages like the Los Angeles Rampart Division perjury scandal and tragedies such as the Amadou Diallo shooting. Unlike past measures, the Law Enforcement Trust and Integrity Act of 2000 takes a comprehensive approach at addressing the issue of police accountability and building trust between police departments and their communities. The purpose of the legislation is to build trust between law enforcement entities, officials and the people they serve. Specifically, the legislation provides incentives for local police organizations to voluntarily adopt performance-based standards to ensure that incidents of misconduct will be minimized through appropriate management, training and oversight protocols and that if such incidents occur, that they will be properly investigated. The bill also provides police officers--the vast majority of whom are decent people who are concerned about their communities--with the tools necessary to work with their communities and to enhance their professional growth and education. Specifically, our bill makes 12 concrete steps toward improving law enforcement management and misconduct prosecution tools and has the support of a broad range of legal, community-based and law enforcement groups, including: the NAACP; Urban League; LULAC; NCLR; National Asian Pacific Legal Consortium; National Lawyer's Guild; ACLU; NOBLE; National Black Police Association; and the United Methodist Church. 1. Accreditation of Local Law Enforcement Agencies--Authorizes the Department of Justice to work cooperatively with independent accreditation, law enforcement and community-based organizations to further develop and refine accreditation standards that can serve as models for police departments around the country in trying to balance proper law enforcement with respect for liberties. This section also authorizes the Attorney General to make grants to law enforcement agencies for the purpose of developing such standards and obtaining appropriate certification. 2. Law Enforcement Agency Development Programs--Authorizes the Attorney General to make grants to States and local governments to develop pilot programs such as civilian review boards, early warning and detection programs which have been proven effective in many jurisdictions. 3. Administrative Due Process Procedures--Requires the Attorney General to study the prevalence and impact of any law, rule or procedure which interferes with prompt and thorough investigations of abuse. 4. Enhanced Funding of Civil Rights Division--Authorizes appropriations for expenses for ongoing investigations of pattern-and- practice-of-abuse investigations pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 14141, and authorizes appropriations for expenses related to programs managed by the Community Relations Service. 5. Enhanced Authority in Pattern and Practice Investigations--Amends 42 U.S.C. 14141 to provide private cause of actions, but limits the provision only to declaratory and injunctive relief when there is a pattern and practice of discrimination. 6. Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law--Amends section 242 of Title 18 of the United States Code to provide the needed statutory clarification requested by the Department of Justice to expressly define excessive use of force and non-consensual sexual conduct as deprivations of rights under color of law. 7. Study of Deaths in Custody--Amends section 20101(b) of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C.A. 13701) to require assurances that States will follow guidelines established by the Attorney General for reporting deaths in custody. 8. National Task Force on Law Enforcement Oversight--Requires the Department of Justice to establish a task force to coordinate the investigation, prosecution and enforcement efforts of federal, state and local governments in cases related to law enforcement misconduct. 9. Immigration Enforcement Review Commission--Creates a commission to investigate civil rights complaints against the INS and Customs Services, with authority to make policy and disciplinary recommendations. 10. Federal Data Collection on Racial Profiling--Requires the Justice, Treasury and Interior Departments to collect data concerning the personal characteristics (race, ethnicity and gender) of individuals targeted for investigation (e.g., detention, traffic stop or warrantless search) by federal law enforcement agencies and requires the Justice Department to prepare a ``master report'' analyzing the findings and recommending improved policies and procedures. 11. Whistleblower Protection--The bill establishes civil and criminal penalties for retaliation against law enforcement officers who in good faith disclose, initiate or advocate on behalf of a civilian complainant in actions alleging police misconduct and creates private cause of action for retaliation. 12. Sexual Abuse in Correctional Facilities--Amends chapter 109A of title 18 to increase penalties and expand jurisdiction for sexual abuse offenses in correctional facilities. The catalogue of high-profile incidents of police misconduct grows with each passing day. With the Rampart perjury scandal, Amadou Diallo shooting and Abner Louima assault, it should now be clear to all members, and the nation at-large, that police misconduct is an issue that we must address in a bipartisan manner. The energies of Congress should be focused on the adoption of legislative priorities that address the substance of law enforcement management and strengthen the current battery of tools available to sanction misconduct. As a Congress we have been enthusiastic about supporting programs designed to get officers on the street. We must be just as willing to support programs designed to train and manage them after they get there. The current national climate requires decisive action to implement solutions. This legislation initiates the reforms necessary to restore public trust and accountability to law enforcement.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Traficant/ Martinez amendment to H.R. 3846, the ``Minimum Wage Increase'' bill. This amendment would provide for a real minimum wage increase of $1 over two years, which is so necessary for American workers. By combining the minimum wage bill with H.R. 3081, a bill that gives $122 billion in tax breaks to the wealthiest taxpayers, instead of allowing a clean vote on real minimum wage reform, the Republican leadership has shown that they only want to pay lip service to this vital pay raise for America's low-wage workers. Even though the minimum wage was raised to $5.15/hour in 1996, you certainly can't raise a family on that salary. At present, a single person, male or female, working full time, earning the minimum wage and supporting a family of three, takes in $10,700 a year, placing them well below the poverty line. In Detroit, an astounding 43% of the population lives below that poverty line. Raising the minimum wage is extremely important because we have to continue to redress the damage inflicted during the 1980's, when American workers lost 25% of their purchasing power. From 1990 to 1995, this trend continued and they lost a further 12%. If we really wanted to match the purchasing power of the minimum wage in 1968, when it reached its peak, the minimum wage today would be $7.40/hour across the board. I joined Representative David Bonior earlier this year in introducing a bill to raise the minimum wage to $6.15/hour. The increase would occur in fifty cent increments over two years. This would be an important first step towards addressing the fundamental economic injustice resulting from the stagnant wages during the Reagan-Bush era. The amendment before the House today would provide this real pay increase which has been delayed so long to working Americans for far too long. An increase in the minimum wage would benefit 300,000 people in my state of Michigan alone. Most of those who earn the minimum wage are women, and 40% of them are the sole breadwinners of the family. The 12 million people who earn the minimum wage across the country are the people who prepare our food, care for our elderly and our children. Remember an increase in the minimum wage will not only help close the increasing gap between the rich and the poor, but will benefit all Americans. Extra buying power will be injected into small businesses, family stores, and restaurants, stimulating the economy at the local level and the state level. Through increasing the earnings of so many families American children will learn the value of hard work-- that it really pays to work hard. Many of my colleagues from across the aisle have suggested that an increase in the minimum wage will cost jobs. However numerous studies have proven that increasing the minimum wage will not cost jobs and the buoyancy of the American economy ensures this fact. Since the last minimum wage hike in 1996, unemployment has fallen to its lowest (official) rate in 25 years, inflation has dropped from 2.5 to 1.7% and the American economy continues to grow, creating jobs at a historic high of 250,000 per month. Americans appreciate the raise too: three polls taken during 1998 by the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times all showed that 76% to 78% approve the wage increase. I urge my colleagues to join with me in supporting the Trafficant/ Martinez amendment for a real minimum wage increase. The American people deserve a living wage.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, amazingly, today yet another tragic shooting claimed another promising life. Not far from my district, near Flint in Mount Morris Township, a six- year-old girl was shot and killed by a classmate. A first grader had a gun and shot a classmate. These tragedies go on every day. Thirteen children a day are killed by gun violence. Over 5,000 children are killed every year because of guns falling into the wrong hands. This madness must end. But, because the Republican leadership insists on pandering to the extreme right wing who thinks that one reasonable gun safety law is one too many, the insanity goes on. The gun safety conference has not met since August of 1999. Today, I am writing for the fifth time to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde to urge the Republican Leadership to stop stalling and call a conference meeting. It is starting to hit close to home for every Member of this House, Mr. Speaker. How many more senseless killings will it take before the Republican Leadership acts? How many more promising young lives do we have to lose? Quit stalling. Close the gun show loophole. Require child safety locks. Ban the importation of high capacity ammunition clips.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to start off, Mr. Chairman, by letting everyone know how much I think of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran). He is a good friend of mine. I suppose, in the final analysis, he has added a marginal benefit to the bill. What he has done is say that the government, that is, the Federal system and the States, should not be caught by the strictures of this bill, and we should allow them to move forward and be able to bring lawsuits in some range not encumbered by the limitations that we are placing on everybody else. In other words, a citizen or private environmental groups are not affected by the Moran Amendment. The governments are going to be given an exclusion, Federal and State, but not individual citizens and environmental suits. That is what we are trying to do in the environmental sector of improving our society. We are trying to encourage citizens and environmental organizations which are not within the purview of this bill. For example, the bill would continue to wipe out incentives for private citizens to enforce environmental laws by bringing private and whistleblower acts under the Clean Water Act. They would be caught by this bill, even with the Moran Amendment. That is why my praise for the gentleman from Virginia is so limited this afternoon. I really hate to go through this long list of things that are not accomplished by the Moran Amendment. Yet, it is a modest improvement, but it does not help anybody bringing a whistleblower action. It will not help any citizen suing under the Clean Water Act, the Solid Waste Disposal Act, the Clean Air Act, the Superfund, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Toxic Substance Control Act, the Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act. Those and other cases brought by citizens or environmental organizations, these people will wave the Moran Amendment to their dismay when they find out that it only applies to State and local governments. Another problem with the amendment is that it fails to deal with the problems of the bill's overturning a wide variety of joint and several liability standards designed to deter misconduct. Now, in this area, the bill does not do anything for anybody. At least the gentleman is treating the citizens and the government fairly. This is a particular problem in the context, again, of environmental claims, which are frequently brought by State and Federal governments, as well as private individuals. There are numerous Federal environmental statutes which provide for joint and several liability for noneconomic damages by perpetrators, and are not carved out from the bill's protection. These include the Clean Water Act, the National Marine Sanctuaries Act, the Park System Resource Protection Act, and other measures that would be overturned by this legislation with the Moran amendment. I cannot vote for an amendment that continues to protect corporations from oil spills which destroy natural sanctuaries and which damage our natural parks. So what can I say? The only way to truly fix this problem is to limit the bill's provisions to product liability cases as an amendment offered by myself and another gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), which our amendment would do.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I offered amendment No. 4.

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

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), a member of the committee.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), a distinguished member of the Committee on the Judiciary who has worked very hard on the measure.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute, because the author of this bill, the gentleman from California (Mr. Rogan), knows what I know, namely, that the 70,000 gun dealers in this country are happy to assume that they would enjoy the protection of H.R. 2366's restriction on the liability of product sellers. We had this amendment debated in Judiciary. The bill attempts to exempt some legal theories that apply to the negligent sale of firearms, such as negligent entrustment and negligence per se. But there are many numerous other theories that have been successfully used against firearm retailers and proprietors of gun clubs or target ranges to recover damages caused by the sale or rental of a firearm. This is a cover for gun dealers against lawsuits that are coming up that are using theories such as public nuisance, negligent marketing, and unfair and fraudulent business practices. We cannot give the gun dealers a free ride in this bill.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), a distinguished member of the Committee on the Judiciary. (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute to discuss this lawyer's discussion that the gentleman from Arkansas has been having with other lawyers who think this is a fine bill. Well, maybe some of them do, but the fact of the matter is that as this measure stands now, we are going to eliminate joint and several liability for non-economic damages, and this is going to have a very harmful effect on the victims. You do not have to be a lawyer to figure that out. That is what the bill accomplishes, whether lawyers like it or not. The bill imposes severe evidentiary restrictions and an overall $250,000 cap on punitive damages in all civil cases. Now, 25 employees or less, you must know that there are businesses doing hundreds of millions of dollars of business with less than 25 employees. Yes, it protects ``mom and pops,'' but it lets in at the other end these huge companies that are going to be so happy to know that you have got this provision on the floor.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield our remaining time to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. CONYERS. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.