John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline), a distinguished member of the House Judiciary Committee, who is ranking member on the Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the Stop Settlement Slush Funds Act would prohibit the Federal Government from entering into or enforcing any settlement agreement requiring donations to remediate harms that are not ``directly and proximately'' caused by a wrongdoer's unlawful conduct. I, regretfully, oppose this measure for several reasons. To begin with, the bill would prohibit these types of settlement agreements even though they have been successfully used to remedy various harms, particularly those caused by reckless corporate actors. For example, these settlement agreements helped facilitate an effective and comprehensive response to the predatory and fraudulent mortgage lending activities of financial institutions that nearly caused the economic collapse of our Nation, and that led to the Great Recession. In fact, settlement agreements with two of these culpable financial institutions, Bank of America and Citigroup, required a donation of less than 1 percent of the overall settlement amount to fund foreclosure prevention and remediation programs to help harmed consumers. Now, contrary to the majority's claim, the Justice Department did not use any of these settlement agreements to fund active groups. Notwithstanding the production of hundreds of pages of documents by the Justice Department, along with hundreds of pages of documents produced by private parties, we have not seen a shred of evidence that the government included unlawful or politically motivated terms in its settlement agreements with Bank of America or Citigroup. The majority also asserts that these settlement agreements are used by the Justice Department and other agencies to circumvent the congressional appropriations process. But existing law already prevents agencies from augmenting their own funds. By law, donations included in settlement agreements must have a clear nexus to the prosecutorial objectives of the enforcement agency. And both the Government Accountability Office and the Congressional Research Service have concluded that settlement agreements providing for secondary remediation do not violate Congress' constitutional power of the purse. Finally, H.R. 732 would prevent the remediation of systemic harms in civil and criminal enforcement actions. These settlement agreements allow parties to resolve their civil or criminal liability by voluntarily remediating the harms caused by their unlawful conduct. For some types of unlawful conduct, such as discrimination based on race or religion, secondary remediation of harms may be the only remedy available for systemic violations of the law. The victims of such conduct are typically not themselves parties to the underlying action. Therefore, secondary remediation in the form of voluntary compliance and training programs serves as an important tool in these cases to protect victims of discrimination. Yet H.R. 732 would effectively prohibit such relief. Given these serious problems and some others presented by the bill, I strongly am led to oppose H.R. 732. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson), who is a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, in my role as a member of the House Committee on the Judiciary, I have always taken a serious view of my oversight of the Federal Bureau of Investigations. It is vitally important that we keep a close watch on the activities of law enforcement, especially regarding their operations in domestic intelligence gathering. In the wake of September 11th attacks, a time of crisis when civil liberties can be viewed as a luxury, it was important to ensure that all Americans could rely on the Constitution to both protect our rights and protect public safety. As we all know, the FBI has a long, troubling history of using its broad investigatory powers to vulnerable or dissenting groups in our society. As a long-serving member, I was here in Congress when the reports of the FBI's surveillance activities against African-American groups involved in the struggle for civil rights first surfaced in the press. Centralized operations under COINTELPRO officially began in August 1956 with a program designed to ``increase factionalism, cause disruption and win defections'' inside American Communist Party. Tactics included anonymous phone calls, IRS audits, and the creation of documents that would divide the American communist organization internally. An October 1956 memo from Hoover reclassified the FBI's ongoing surveillance of black leaders, including it within COINTELPRO, with the justification that the movement was infiltrated by communists. In 1956, Hoover sent an open letter denouncing Dr. T.R.M. Howard, a civil rights leader, surgeon, and wealthy entrepreneur in Mississippi who had criticized FBI inaction in solving recent murders of George W. Lee, Emmett Till, and other black people in the South. When the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC), was founded in 1957, the FBI began to monitor and target the group almost immediately, focusing particularly on Bayard Rustin, Stanley Levison, and, eventually, Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. During the 1960's Director J. Edgar Hoover also used COINTELPRO to spy on and attempt to discredit civil rights activists and members of the Black Panther Party. After the 1963 March on Washington, Hoover singled out King as a major target for COINTELPRO. Soon after, the FBI was systematically bugging King's home and his hotel rooms, as they were now aware that King was growing in stature daily as the leader among leaders of the Civil Rights Movement. Amidst the urban unrest of July-August 1967, the FBI began ``COINTELPRO--BLACK HATE'', which focused on King and the SCLC as well as the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), the Revolutionary Action Movement (RAM), the Deacons for Defense and Justice, Congress of Racial Equality (CORE), and the Nation of Islam. BLACK HATE established the so-called Ghetto Informant Program and instructed 23 FBI offices to ``disrupt, misdirect, discredit, or otherwise neutralize the activities of black-nationalist hate type organizations.'' The program was successfully kept secret until 1971, when the Citizens' Commission to Investigate the FBI burgled an FBI field office in Media, Pennsylvania, took several dossiers, and exposed the program by passing this material to news agencies. In 1976, the ``Church Committee'' (Sen. Frank Church-Idaho) launched a major investigation of the FBI and COINTELPRO. Journalists and historians speculate that the government has not fully released the many dossiers and documents related to the program. Against this backdrop, the Congressional Black Caucus is justified in its concern about the FBI's investigation of African-American political organizations. The coining of the phrase ``Black Identity Extremists'' and claims with ``high confidence'' that these groups are likely to target law enforcement based on ``perceptions of police brutality against African Americans'' takes us back to claims about groups like the Black Panthers in the 1960's. While it is important that the FBI monitor all threats domestic, its activities around the American Muslim community and efforts to ``combat violent extremism'' have raised questions about tactics and constitutional norms. The CBC has called for an FBI briefing on the origins on this research and the Bureau's intended next steps. I have supported this request in my role as Ranking Member on the Judiciary Committee and intend to keep a close eye on the Bureau's activities. This is not the time for a COINTELPRO 2.0 in America.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, as the Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee, I join with my colleague, Representative Sheila Jackson Lee, Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations, in expressing our appreciation for Regina Milledge-Brown's service to the Committee. Regina has enjoyed a distinguished career in service to our Nation. Regina is an employee of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), who joined us on detail at the beginning of this year. An attomey who graduated from the University of Georgia School of Law, Regina has worked for over fifteen years at ATF in various capacities. In her detail to the Committee, her experience with law enforcement and firearms issues has been an invaluable assistance to the Members and staff of the Committee. Regina has worked on a variety of important issues as the Committee has pursued its legislative and oversight agenda during 2017. In addition to her work on firearms-related issues, Regina has worked on issues such as hate crimes prevention, forensics, DNA identification, law enforcement grants, the protection of law enforcement officers, operation of federal prisons, reauthorization of the United States Secret Service, protecting the victims of trafficking, and preventing violence against women. In these and other legislative issues, Regina has displayed a high degree of professionalism and personal commitment, providing Members of the Committee and staff with wise counsel. In all of this, Regina has demonstrated magnanimity, energy, and enthusiasm, which has helped all of us immensely. We thank Regina for her selfless service to the Committee and our country, and wish her the very best as she returns to the ATF at the end of her detail. All of her colleagues here will miss her dearly and continue to value her friendship into the future.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the contributions of an extraordinary individual, Michael Lieberman, who in September celebrated 35 years at the Anti-Defamation League. Over his 35 year tenure with ADL, Michael has made invaluable contributions to the civil rights community on issues such as religious freedom, fighting anti- Semitism and all forms of discrimination, and striking the right balance between security and civil liberties. As ADL's Washington Counsel, his advocacy for hate crime legislation is particularly noteworthy. Michael worked to secure passage of a comprehensive federal hate crimes law for more than 15 years. His leadership on this issue was instrumental in the passage of the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, which was signed into law by President Obama in 2009. Michael also chairs the Hate Crime Coalition for the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, the most important civil rights coalition organization in Washington, and is widely recognized as one of our nation's foremost experts on hate crime laws. As ADL's point person on Federal and state response to bullying and bias-motivated violence, Michael has participated in a number of academic and law enforcement training seminars on the subject-- including training at the FBI Academy at Quantico. He has written numerous pieces on the issue, including training manuals and articles for criminal justice and civil rights publications. In 2015 he received the Justice Department's 2015 Meritorious Public Service Award for his leadership work in building coalitions to combat hate violence. Michael embodies ADL's mission. He works tirelessly to stop the defamation of the Jewish people and to secure justice and fair treatment to all. His entire career has focused on making the world a better place for all individuals, regardless of who they are or where they came from. He is a remarkable professional, mentor, and friend. Everyone that has an opportunity to work with Michael is constantly impressed by his drive and passion to make a difference. His work at the League has made an impact on countless lives, and we thank him for his substantial contributions to the community and our nation.

Mr. CONYERS

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

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Speaker, in closing, H.R. 36 is a dangerous and unconstitutional bill that demonstrates a fundamental distrust of women to make private decisions that are best for themselves and their families. It is, therefore, unsurprising that this legislation is strongly opposed by the Nation's leading civil rights organizations, the medical profession, and women's groups. In addition, 36 religious organizations noted in a letter to Members opposing this bill that the decision to end a pregnancy must be left to an individual woman, in consultation with her family, doctors, and any others she chooses to involve, in keeping with her personal beliefs. Madam Speaker, for these reasons, I urge my colleagues to please oppose this dangerous legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, how much time remains on both sides?

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).

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

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman from Texas an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), who is a senior member on the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici).

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Frankel).

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Clark).

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, how much time remains on each side?

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Speier).

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Adams).

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