John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), our leader.

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

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Ted Lieu).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Brendan F. Boyle).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record from today's New York Times Editorial Board, noted today, ``Refugees From War Aren't the Enemy.'' It includes, ``this measure represents election-year pandering to the xenophobia that rears up when threats from abroad arise. People who know these issues--law enforcement and intelligence professionals, immigration officials and humanitarian groups--say that this wrongheaded proposal simply would not protect Americans from `foreign enemies.' '' [From the New York Times, Nov. 18, 2015] Refugees From War Aren't the Enemy (By The Editorial Board) The House is expected to vote Thursday on H.R. 4038, the American Security Against Foreign Enemies (SAFE) Act of 2015, which Republican sponsors say ``would put in place the most robust national-security vetting process in history'' for refugees, one that would ``do everything possible to prevent terrorists from reaching our shores.'' Conceived partly in response to the Paris attacks, the bill seeks to ``pause'' admission of Syrian and Iraqi refugees. Though there are real fears of terrorism, this measure represents election-year pandering to the xenophobia that rears up when threats from abroad arise. People who know these issues--law enforcement and intelligence professionals, immigration officials and humanitarian groups--say that this wrongheaded proposal simply would not protect Americans from ``foreign enemies.'' One of the bill's chief sponsors, Representative Michael McCaul of Texas, chairman of the House committee overseeing the Department of Homeland Security, surely knows how federal protocols for admitting refugees work. Yet the bill disregards the complicated current process, which already requires that applicants' histories, family origins, and law enforcement and past travel and immigration records be vetted by national security, intelligence, law enforcement and consular officials. This process can take 18 months to two years for each person. Among other hurdles, the measure would require that the secretary of homeland security, the director of the F.B.I. and the director of national intelligence personally certify that every refugee from Syria and Iraq seeking resettlement here is not a threat. That's a lot of women, children, and old people. Moreover, this bill ignores most of what the United States has learned, since 9/11 and before, of how potential terrorists actually reach these shores: such individuals more often already live here, or they come via illegal means. Unlike the refugees in Europe, those seeking resettlement in the United States must apply from abroad. They don't arrive until formally admitted, and about half of those seeking refugee status are approved. So far, half of the Syrian refugees accepted into the United States, officials say, have been children, and another quarter are over 60 years old. Roughly half are female, and many of those applying from abroad are multigenerational families, often with the primary breadwinner missing. About 2 percent are single males of combat age. Given these facts, it is fair to say that the people who will be denied resettlement by this bill would be the victims of war, people who have been tortured and threatened by the same jihadists the United States now battles. They are families, they are old people and they are children, who might be given a chance for an education and a future. This is a frightening time for Europe, and for the United States. Should this bill reach his desk, President Obama is more than likely to veto it because it has little to do with fighting global terror. It is sad that this proposal has been described as a first chance for the new speaker of the House, Paul Ryan, to cooperate with the Senate. This bill doesn't reflect who Americans are, and congressional leaders should have the good sense to realize that.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record letters of opposition to H.R. 4038. White House Statement of Administration Policy h.r. 4038--american safe act of 2015 (Rep. McCaul, R-TX, and Rep. Hudson, R-NC) The Administration's highest priority is to ensure the safety and security of the American people. That is why refugees of all nationalities, including Syrians and Iraqis, considered for admission to the United States undergo the most rigorous and thorough security screening of anyone admitted into the United States. This legislation would introduce unnecessary and impractical requirements that would unacceptably hamper our efforts to assist some of the most vulnerable people in the world, many of whom are victims of terrorism, and would undermine our partners in the Middle East and Europe in addressing the Syrian refugee crisis. The Administration therefore strongly opposes H.R. 4038. The current screening process involves multiple Federal intelligence, security, and law enforcement agencies, including the National Counterterrorism Center, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Departments of Homeland Security (DHS), State, and Defense, all aimed at ensuring that those admitted do not pose a threat to our country. These safeguards include biometric (fingerprint) and biographic checks, medical screenings, and a lengthy interview by specially trained DHS officers who scrutinize the applicant's explanation of individual circumstances to assess whether the applicant meets statutory requirements to qualify as a refugee and that he or she does not present security concerns to the United States. Mindful of the particular conditions of the Syria crisis, Syrian refugees-- who have had their lives uprooted by conflict and continue to live amid conditions so harsh that many set out on dangerous, often deadly, journeys seeking new places of refuge--go through additional forms of security screening, including a thorough pre-interview analysis of each individual's refugee application. Additionally, DHS interviewers receive extensive, Syria-specific training before meeting with refugee applicants. Of the 2,174 Syrian refugees admitted to the United States since September 11, 2001, not a single one has been arrested or deported on terrorism-related grounds. The certification requirement at the core of H.R. 4038 is untenable and would provide no meaningful additional security for the American people, instead serving only to create significant delays and obstacles in the fulfillment of a vital program that satisfies both humanitarian and national security objectives. No refugee is approved for travel to the United States under the current system until the full array of required security vetting measures have been completed. Thus, the substantive result sought through this draft legislation is already embedded into the program. The Administration recognizes the importance of a strong, evolving security screening in our refugee admissions program and devotes considerable resources to continually improving the Nation's robust security screening protocols. The measures called for in this bill would divert resources from these efforts. Given the lives at stake and the critical importance to our partners in the Middle East and Europe of American leadership in addressing the Syrian refugee crisis, if the President were presented with H.R. 4038, he would veto the bill.

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

Mr. CONYERS. I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, Members of the committee and of the House, 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 providing refuge for the world's most vulnerable. Accordingly, I plead with, I urge my colleagues to please oppose H.R. 4038. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following letters from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and First Focus Campaign for Children. United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Committee on Migration, Washington, DC, November 19, 2015. Dear Representative: On behalf of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), I write to oppose passage of H.R. 4038, the American Security Against Foreign Enemies Act of 2015. As you know, the legislation would suspend the resettlement of refugees from Syrian and Iraq until a procedure could be established whereby the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) would certify--with concurrence of the FBI director and the Director of National Intelligence-- that each refugee is not a terrorist threat. It also would require that the current or a future Administration report to thirteen congressional committees on each refugee that is considered for resettlement. These requirements would keep many deserving refugees in danger for an extended period of time, at risk of their lives, but would not necessarily make the process a more effective one. The U.S. Catholic bishops acknowledge and support the right of our government to defend our nation and to ensure that the American people are safe. However, we believe that this legislation is designed to severely limit, if not end, the resettlement of Syrians or Iraqis to the United States, including vulnerable women and children, the elderly, and religious minorities fleeing violence and death, including Christians. It also would impact Iraqis who may have been forced to flee to Syria during the Iraqi war, even those who may have supported our troops. The current security process for Syrian refugees can take up to 24 months or longer, as refugees go through several interviews and 5 security clearance reviews. Refugees go through more security checks than any arrival to our nation. Since 2001, the United States has resettled 784,000 refugees under this process and there has not been a single terrorist act committed by a refugee admitted into the country. The U.S. refugee program is an example of a successful private-public partnership which has enjoyed bipartisan support for decades. Presidents from both political parties have supported, and, at times, expanded the program to respond to humanitarian crises originating from global conflicts, including President Gerald R. Ford after the Vietnam War, President Bill Clinton after the Bosnian conflict, and President George W. Bush after the Iraqi War. H.R. 4038 represents a threat to this tradition and to our moral leadership in the world. Instead of imposing additional bureaucratic processes upon the current stringent security system through the adoption of H.R. 4038, we encourage you to work with the Administration to strengthen it, without suspending the program. I also ask that you work with your colleagues and the Administration to end the Syrian conflict peacefully so the 4 million Syrian refugees can return to their country and rebuild their homes. Until that goal is achieved we must work with the world community to provide safe haven to vulnerable refugees who are simply attempting to survive. H.R. 4038 abdicates our moral responsibility in this area and must be defeated. Thank you for your consideration of our views. Sincerely, Most Reverend Eusebio Elizondo, Auxiliary Bishop of Seattle, WA, Chairman.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, as many of you know, the promotion of best practices and oversight of state and local law enforcement have been legislative priorities during my tenure as a Judiciary Committee member. My Pattern And Practice statute, passed as part of the 1994 crime bill, has served at the dominant tool used by the Department of Justice to address the myriad of policing controversies dating back the LAPD, New Orleans and most recently Seattle, Cleveland and Ferguson, Missouri police departments. Over the past two decades, tensions between police and communities of color have grown as allegations of bias-based policing by law enforcement agents, sometimes supported by data collection efforts and video evidence, have increased in number and frequency. Recent events in the wake of Ferguson, Missouri demonstrate that racial profiling and bias-based policing remain divisive issues in communities across the nation that strikes at the very foundation of our democracy. The deaths of Walter L. Scott--arising from a traffic stop--Michael Brown, Eric Garner, and Antonio Zambrano-Montes--all at the hands of police officers--highlight the links between the issues of race and reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct. Ultimately, these men are tragic examples of the risk of being victimized by a perception of criminality simply because of their race, ethnicity, religion or national origin. Despite the fact that the majority of law enforcement officers perform their duties professionally and without bias, the relationship between the police and some of minority communities has deteriorated to such a degree that federal action is required to begin addressing the issue. With recent Washington Post reports of almost 400 police- involved shooting fatalities in the first five months of 2015, all should agree that the time for bipartisan action is long overdue. In 2001, I welcomed President Bush's invitation to draft legislation that would end the practice of unlawful police profiling, with bipartisan Congressional support. In April, I reintroduced the End Racial Profiling Act in the hope that Congress and the Obama Administration can come together to pass legislation that sends the signal that the Federal government is committed to ensuring that its law enforcement agencies conduct their activities free from bias. In May, the Judiciary Committee, where I am former Chairman and current Ranking Member, held a hearing on Police accountability, where we heard from expert witnesses on police practices and discussed policy options to restoring the relationship between the police and communities of color. In June, I followed up on this effort to address fair policing practices by reintroducing the Law enforcement Trust and Integrity Act. That bill is designed to provide incentives for local police organizations to voluntarily adopt performance-based standards to ensure that incidents of deadly force or misconduct will be minimized through appropriate management and training protocols and properly investigated, should they occur. The bill authorizes the Department of Justice to work cooperatively with independent accreditation, law enforcement and community-based organizations to further develop and refine accreditation standards, and further authorizes the Attorney General to make grants to law enforcement agencies for the purpose of obtaining accreditation from certified law enforcement accreditation organizations. Currently, there are no federally recognized minimum standards for operating a law enforcement agency. The ad hoc nature of police management has accordingly left many officers and agencies in the dark about how to cope with changes in their communities. That is the real reason police officers and department feel so adrift in the current post-Ferguson environment--not the Black Lives Matter Movement. There is a vacuum of leadership in policing that can only be filled by leadership at the federal level. Beyond the human toll created by law enforcement accountability issues, there remains the fiscal impact created by the high cost of litigation settlements for police abuse claims. While most cities fail to systematically track the cost of litigation, the cost reports for major cities have proven staggering. In New York City alone, during Mayor Michael Bloomberg's three term tenure, NYPD payouts were in excess of $1 billion dollars for policing claims. For small departments, the cost of a single high profile incident could prove crippling in its impact on public safety. While the Department of Justice has a range of criminal and civil authority to address policing issues, the Civil Rights Division will never have the resources necessary to investigate more than a small fraction of those departments engaged in unconstitutional conduct, even with the enhanced funding and task force authority granted by this legislation. Through the support of a robust accreditation regime, like that existing in healthcare, Congress can ensure that all communities have the best trained and managed police departments. Only by establishing acceptable police operations standards can we begin to preemptively address issues like use of force and heal the rifts within our communities. Media reports from Baltimore and other cities depicting confrontations between protestors and their police departments illustrate the current divide between law enforcement and the communities they police. In the past years, cities from New York to Cincinnati and Miami to Los Angeles have experienced unrest following controversial use of force incidents by their police. Absent a climate of trust and accountability, community needs are not served and the jobs of the police officers become more difficult and dangerous. 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. Out of respect for all who have lost their lives over the last nine months--both law enforcement and civilian--I hope you will join me in supporting legislation that initiates the reforms necessary to restore public trust and accountability to law enforcement.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Congratulations, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of action--the preference for progress of a status quo that is robbing millions of Americans of opportunity. Every person in this chamber was elected to improve this country and make the lives of our constituents a little bit easier. Nowhere is it easier to improve the quality of life for Americans than in investing for the long-term in our transportation infrastructure. The American economy depends upon the rapid delivery of goods and services. But as the White House pointed out in 2014's ``Economic Analysis of Transportation Infrastructure Investment,'' we are failing to support this vital network of roads, bridges, railways and other means of transportation. Last year, the World Economic Forum ranked the United States' roads 18th in the world; 65% of our major roads are in less than ``good'' condition; one in four requires significant repair. These inadequacies directly impact us all. Each year, we spend 5.5 billion unnecessary hours stuck in traffic--that's a $120 billion in extra fuel and unproductive time. Those figures cost business and industry an extra $27 billion in freight costs and delays. Money that could have gone to employees, or shareholders, or to investments in the future. But it isn't just corporations paying the price. It is the quarter of the 33,000 traffic fatalities where road conditions were a factor. It is the 45 percent of Americans who cannot access adequate transit. Today, the House voted to fund yet another short-term bill--as it should--to keep our surface transportation system moving. At the same time, this House voted to delay implementation of a 6-year-old law that requires ``positive train control''--a technology that saves lives and which I want to see rolled out as soon as possible--because they thought it important to provide the rail industry with certainty. But the simple fact is those two principles are at odds--because we aren't providing any certainty to American industry and American passengers and American drivers with a three-week transportation funding bill. A trip of a thousand miles may begin with a single step-- but you have to begin with a destination and path in mind. It is time this body recognizes the urgency of our problem. Transportation investments aren't based on a three-week schedule--and federal support shouldn't be either. Let's finally get something done on transportation, and pass a bill that will fund infrastructure priorities further out than people are booking flights for Thanksgiving.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman. Mr. Speaker, we are here today to discuss the rule for reconciliation, which I believe we are wasting on a doomed attempt to repeal ObamaCare for the 61st time. That we are doing this again for the 61st time is a problem. But that we are wasting our one shot at budget reconciliation on this is a tremendous shame. We should be using this opportunity to avoid the Senate filibuster to actually make law, not make a point to our bases. The way to do this is by focusing on a bipartisan issue: canceling the sequester. Mr. Speaker, the sequester is a unique problem in American public policy, a program that is intentionally designed to be a bad idea. It cripples the programs that made the 20th century one of unprecedented progress, and it weakens the bravest military in the world. It is bad for us at home, and it is bad for us overseas. Its blundering destructive approach to deficit reduction was supposed to push this Congress to compromise. Unfortunately, we have not gotten there because a few intransigents refuse to give up this hostage. But it isn't this body that is paying the ransom for our inaction on the sequester; it is the American people of all walks of life. It is the millions of workers, businesses, public servants, and soldiers who are facing uncertainty and inadequate support. Mr. Speaker, I would encourage us to stand up and use this one shot on something that matters and can pass, and canceling the sequester is something that both sides could actually agree on. So I urge my colleagues, please, to bring this theater to a close and to return to something we can all support. Let's use reconciliation to cancel the sequester once and for all. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, sadly, I note the passing of our former colleague, Don Edwards, on October 1. While Don retired from his seat representing his district in Northern California in 1994, he left a lasting legacy after his 32-year career in the House. Taking office in 1963, Don came to Congress at a time when our country was in dire need of men of conscience and the courage to lead on issues concerning civil rights, civil liberties, and the proper limits of government power. Don answered the call, quickly registering his support for landmark legislation such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. As a Member of the Judiciary Committee, he became the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights, a position he used for decades to protect the fundamental rights of all Americans. He fought particularly hard, in reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act, to preserve the Section 5 preclearance requirements for states that had a legacy of voting rights abuses. He realized how critical this law is to the foundational aspirations of America, and said, ``If you can't vote, you are not a real citizen.'' Another area where Don focused his energies concerned the uncovering and elimination of abusive government surveillance. Having been an FBI agent for a brief period prior to his military service in World War II, Don brought to Congress an understanding of the need for government to enforce the laws while not violating the civil liberties of those it is designed to serve. His work on the Judiciary Committee included actions to reign in government surveillance, and he was also instrumental in shutting down the House Un-American Activities Committee, whose sad legacy continues to caution Congress not to abuse its considerable powers. In matters of foreign affairs and the use of U.S. military power, he showed wise judgment in opposing the Vietnam War and also opposed the use of military force in other instances, such as the war in the Persian Gulf in 1991. I knew Don Edwards as a principled man who never stopped believing that the government's coercive powers should be subject to the highest levels of scrutiny, and that we should never forget that our government exists through the consent of the governed, with the purpose of preserving and not eroding our rights. We are grateful for his service to Congress and this country. He will be missed, but we will continue the work he devoted himself to in the Judiciary Committee and in Congress.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the people of Taiwan on the 104th anniversary of their great Republic on October 10. This day, known as ``Double Ten Day'' because it falls on the 10th day of the 10th month, is revered in Taiwan the same as we celebrate the 4th of July. It commemorates the Wuchang Uprising, the event that triggered a revolution that led to the overthrow of China's imperial regime and the establishment of the Republic of China on January 1, 1912. Over the following century, as a result of the hard work and dedication of the people of Taiwan, Taiwan has become a democracy that stands as a model to other nations around the world. On this national day, I would also like to take the time to thank Taiwan for their continuing focus on buying American goods. In 2014, Taiwan surpassed India and Saudi Arabia to become the United States' 10th largest trading partner. Last year, Taiwan purchased nearly $200 million worth of goods from my home state of Michigan, bolstering our chemical, metal and machinery sectors. 104 years after the Wuchang Uprising, Taiwan has transformed into a flourishing, economically robust society where social justice is a priority. Taiwan's praiseworthy commitment to social justice is perhaps best exemplified by their implementation of the single-payer National Health Insurance (NHI) system. This year marks the 20th anniversary of the system, which guarantees all Taiwanese citizens access to necessary medical care. In just two decades, Taiwan's healthcare system has become globally renowned for providing citizens with easy access to high-quality medical services, and it provides an important lesson to the world about the feasibility of a transition to a single-payer system. I am proud to commemorate the 104th anniversary of Taiwan's Double Ten Day, and I look forward to continuing the meaningful friendship and cooperation between the peoples and governments of the United States and Taiwan.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, earlier today, I was unavoidably detained and was not able to vote on the Motion Ordering the Previous Question on the Rule for H.R. 3457, rollcall vote 529. Had I been able to vote, I would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, due to the fact that I was unavoidably detained on September 28, 2015, I missed the rollcall vote on House Bill 2835, the Border Jobs for Veterans Act of 2015. Had I been present on rollcall vote No. 519, I would have voted YEA.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, tonight, it is an honor to stand before you all and celebrate the life of my good friend, Congressman Lou Stokes. Lou was a highly honored member of Kappa Alpha Psi fraternity. He was a decorated veteran who served in the U.S. Army during World War II. He was one of the original founders of the Congressional Black Caucus, and later its chair from 1972-1974. We will miss him here in Congress and across the country--he gave us all so much. Lou lived his life with an unrelenting optimism--he knew his country could be a better place, and he never ceased to join in that struggle. He shared that quality that so many great men and women possess: a fierce, unrelenting, desire to bring about change. In 1967, Lou followed that conviction to the U.S. Supreme Court, where he argued for the petitioner in Terry v. Ohio, which established the standards under which a police officer may stop a citizen. Less than a year later, he became the first African-American in Ohio elected to the United States House of Representatives. On Jan. 3, 1969 he took his seat in the House, just a year and three days after his brother--Carl Stokes--was elected Mayor of Cleveland and the first African-American mayor of a major city. He was a distinguished member of this body, serving on the Appropriations Committee for many years. He also served as Chairman of the House Select Committee on Assassinations, investigating the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy and Dr. Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., and as Chairman of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, now the House Ethics Committee. If there was one thing you knew about Lou, it was that you could find him fighting for what is right no matter how difficult the challenge or ominous the odds. It was--quite simply--an honor to call him my friend and my colleague. To have fought with him for 30 years has given my own time in this body a special meaning. I have passed along my condolences to his family--his wife Jay, his daughters Shelly, Angela, and Lori, and his son Chuck Stokes, an Editorial Director with Detroit's WXYZ News. I thank them for sharing Lou with those who loved him and a country that needed him. Congressman Louis Stokes left behind a record of accomplishment that will continue to benefit the people of Cleveland, the American public, and this body for many years.

Mr. CONYERS

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

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chair, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson), the ranking subcommittee member.