John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Ted Lieu).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. My colleagues, I rise in rather strong opposition to the measure before us, H.R. 348, the Responsibly and Professionally Invigorating Development Act of 2015, or its nickname, the RAPID Act. H.R. 348 has a number of flaws. I won't try to go into each and every one of them. Most critically, this measure would jeopardize public safety and health by prioritizing project approval over meaningful analysis that is currently required under the National Environmental Policy Act. By giving the proponents of construction projects greater control over the environmental approval process, this bill is the equivalent of giving Wall Street the authority to write its own regulations for financial responsibility. The bill accomplishes this result in several respects. To begin with, under the guise of streamlining the approval process, H.R. 348 forecloses potentially critical input from Federal, State, and local agencies, as well as from members of the public, to comment on environmentally sensitive construction projects that are federally funded or that require Federal approval. The bill also imposes hard and fast deadlines that may be unrealistic under certain circumstances. Moreover, if an agency fails to meet these unrealistic deadlines, the bill simply declares that a project must be deemed approved regardless of whether the agency has thoroughly assessed the task. This is an embarrassment, my friends. As a result, H.R. 348 could allow projects that put public health and safety at risk to be approved before the safety review is completed. This failing of the bill, along with some others, explains why the administration and the President's Council on Environmental Quality, along with more than 40 respected environmental groups, vigorously oppose this legislation before us today. These organizations include Public Citizen, the League of Conservation Voters, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Sierra Club, and The Wilderness Society. Likewise, the administration has appropriately issued a veto threat. Stating that the bill will increase litigation, regulatory delays, and potentially force agencies to approve a project if the review and analysis cannot be completed before the proposed arbitrary deadlines, the administration warns that, if H.R. 348 ever became law, it would lead to more confusion and delay, limit public participation in the permitting process, and, ultimately, hamper economic growth. Another concern, among many, that I have with this measure is that it is a flawed solution in search of an imaginary problem, and that is not just my opinion. The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, for instance, states that highway construction project delays based on environmental requirements stem not from the National Environmental Policy Act, but from laws other than the National Environmental Policy Act. In fact, the Congressional Research Service found that the primary source of approval delays for these projects are more often tied to local or State and project-specific factors, primarily local or State agency priorities, project funding levels, local opposition to a project, project complexity, or late changes in project scope. Undoubtedly, the so-called RAPID Act will make the process less clear and less protective of public health and safety. My final major concern with this bill is that, rather than streamlining the environmental review process, which we need to do, it will sow utter confusion. H.R. 348 does this by creating a separate, but only partly parallel, environmental review process for construction projects, which will cause confusion, delay, and litigation. As I have noted, the changes to the National Environmental Policy Act's review process, as contemplated by the measure before us today, apply only to certain construction projects. The National Environmental Policy Act, on the other hand, applies to a broad panoply of Federal actions, including fishing, hunting, and grazing permits, land management plans, Base Realignment and Closure activities, and treaties. As a result of the bill, there could potentially be two different environmental review processes for the same project. For instance, the bill's requirements would apply to the construction of a nuclear reactor, but not to its decommissioning or to the transportation and storage of its spent fuel. Rather than improving the environmental review process, the measure before us will complicate it and generate more litigation. More importantly, this bill is yet another effort by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to undermine regulatory protections. As with all of the other regulatory bills, this measure is a thinly disguised effort to hobble the ability of Federal agencies to do the work the Congress requires that it does. For those reasons, I urge my colleagues to strenuously oppose this seriously flawed bill. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson), a distinguished member of our committee.

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

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Members of the committee, do not be misled by the title of this bill. Rather than effectuating real reforms to the process by which Federal agencies undertake environmental impact reviews, as required by the National Environmental Policy Act, this measure before us will actually result in making the process less responsible, less professional, and less accountable. These kinds of attempts are not new to this session of Congress. Accordingly, I urge that my colleagues carefully consider the discussion on this measure and oppose H.R. 348. ORGANIZATIONS THAT OPPOSE H.R. 348, the RAPID ACT Alaska Wilderness League, American Rivers, Center for Biological Diversity, Citizens for Global Solutions, Clean Air Task Force, Clean Air Council, Clean Water Action, Conservation Colorado, Conservatives for Responsible Stewardship, Defenders of Wildlife, Earthjustice, EDF Action, Environmental Law and Policy Center, Epic--Environmental Protection Information Center, Energy Action Coalition, Friends of the Earth, Gulf Coast Center for Law & Policy, Green Latinos, Kentucky Heartwood. Klamath Forest Alliance, Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Center, KyotoUSA, League of Conservation Voters, Los Padres ForestWatch, Marine Conservation Institute, Montana Environmental Information Center, National Parks Conservation Association, Natural Resources Defense Council, New Energy Economy, New Jersey Sierra Club, Oceana, Ocean Conservation Research, Public Citizen, Rachel Carson Council, Safe Climate Campaign, Sierra Club, Southern Environmental Law Center, Southern Oregon Climate Action Now, SustainUS. Union of Concerned Scientists, Western Environmental Law Center, The Wilderness Society.

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

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 3504, the ``Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act.'' Contrary to its misleading title, H.R. 3504 is not about protecting children born alive. Its real intent is to further undermine a woman's right to choose, a right that has been constitutionally guaranteed for more than 42 years by Roe v. Wade. H.R. 3504 constitutes an unprecedented level of intrusion by the government into medical decision making. It also completely fails to distinguish between a viable and a non- viable fetus, which is the constitutional line that separates abortions that may be performed without restriction from those that may be regulated or prohibited. These restrictions, in conjunction with the bill's draconian criminal penalties, will effectively intimidate doctors, thereby making abortion services unavailable as a practical matter. Further yet, there is absolutely no need for this legislation. No evidence has been uncovered that necessitates congressional interference in the doctor-patient relationship. Even if wrongdoing were to occur, many federal and state laws already protect babies ``born alive.'' In truth, abortion practice is safe, legal, and humane and any evidence of wrongdoing can and should be handled under existing law. For example, the criminal Kermit Gosnell, who ran an illegal abortion front in Philadelphia, was prosecuted under existing law and is rightfully in prison serving multiple life sentences. In sum, the bill's vague and broad mandates, combined with its severe penalties, will undermine the ability of women to access safe affordable abortion services, which unfortunately appears to be the underlying intent of this flawed legislation. As the Administration, in its Statement of Administration Policy, warns ``H.R. 3504 would impose new legal requirements related to the provision of abortion services in certain circumstances, which would likely have a chilling effect, reducing access to care.'' In addition, this legislation is opposed by Planned Parenthood, which states that H.R. 3504 would ``add new criminal penalties against doctors and clinicians as a scare tactic that serves the sole purpose of scaring women away from seeking safe, legal, abortion.'' Further, NARAL Pro-Choice America correctly observes that H.R. 3504 is ``part of an unprecedented assault on reproductive rights.'' And, the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists explains that this ``legislation represents gross interference in the practice of medicine, inserting a politician in between a woman and her trusted doctor.'' Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing H.R. 3504, an anti-choice, anti-woman, and thoroughly unnecessary measure.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I unfortunately missed the vote on adoption of H. Res. 420. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I oppose H.R. 758, the ``Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act of 2015.'' This bill is substantially identical to bills that we considered in the 112th and 113th Congresses, and we have considered even earlier versions of this bill going back at least a decade. H.R. 758, like its predecessors, is a solution in search of a problem that would threaten to do more harm than good if enacted. H.R. 758 would restore the 1983 version of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by making sanctions for Rule 11 violations mandatory and by eliminating the current safe-harbor provision that allows a party to withdraw or correct any allegedly offending submission to the court within 21 days after service of such submission. Moreover, the bill would go beyond the 1983 Rule by requiring a court to award reasonable attorneys' fees and costs related to Rule 11 litigation. Current Rule 11 makes such awards entirely discretionary. Yet no empirical evidence suggests any need for a change to the current Rule 11. In fact, there were good reasons why the Judicial Conference of the United States amended the 1983 version of Rule 11. For these same reasons, H.R. 758 is ill-advised. The 1983 Rule caused excessive litigation. Many civil cases had a parallel track of litigation--referred to as ``satellite litigation''-- over Rule 11 violations because having mandatory sanctions and no safe- harbor provision caused parties on both sides of a Rule 11 motion to litigate the Rule 11 matter to the bitter end. The dramatic increase in litigation spawned by the 1983 Rule not only resulted in delays in resolving the underlying case and increased costs for the litigants, but also strained judicial resources. In light of this history, it is clear that H.R. 758 will result in more, not less, litigation and will impose a great burden on the federal judiciary. Ultimately, the type of Rule 11 sanctions regime that H.R. 758 envisions will only favor those with the money and resources to fight expensive and drawn out litigation battles. H.R. 758 also threatens judicial independence by removing the discretion that Rule 11 currently gives judges in determining whether to impose sanctions and what type of sanctions would be most appropriate. It also circumvents the painstakingly thorough Rules Enabling Act process, recklessly attempting to amend the rules directly, even over the Judicial Conference's objections. Finally, we know that the 1983 Rule had a disproportionately chilling impact on civil rights cases, and there is no reason to think H.R. 758 would not have a similar chilling effect if it is enacted. Civil rights cases in particular depend on novel arguments for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law. Not surprisingly, a Federal Judicial Center study found that the incidence of Rule 11 motions was higher in civil rights cases than some other types of cases when the 1983 Rule was in place, notwithstanding the fact that the 1983 Rule was neutral on its face. Even the decision in Brown v. Board of Education arguably may have been delayed or stopped had H.R. 758's changes to Rule 11 been in effect at the time, given the novel nature of the plaintiffs' arguments in that case. At a minimum, the defendants could have used Rule 11, as amended by H.R. 758, as a weapon to dissuade the plaintiffs or weaken their resolve. H.R. 758 is a flawed bill for many reasons. I would urge my colleagues to oppose it.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1949, the National Liberty Memorial Clarification Act of 2015, which will help lay the final foundation for a National Liberty Memorial in Washington, D.C. Two-hundred and thirty-nine years ago our nation was inked into existence by Thomas Jefferson in defense of a simple idea: that all men were created equal, and are endowed with certain unalienable rights. Countless men and women stood up for that idea around the new nation-- some volunteered to fight, but others served in their own way as civilians. We know so many of those patriots' names by heart--George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, John Paul Jones, John Adams--and those we do not are remembered in their hometowns all across America. However, there are a number of patriots who are too often forgotten: the thousands of slaves and freed men and women who fought for our country and provided civilian assistance at our most vulnerable time. These men and women believed so fully in the ideas and principles of the American Revolution that they fought, died, and sacrificed even as their own rights were trampled. Their actions demonstrated patriotism in its absolute highest form. But there is no monument to their sacrifice, no memorial for their descendants to honor, and no place for our nation to offer their collective thanks. The National Liberty Memorial Clarification Act of 2015 will finally pay the debt we owe to these brave patriots who helped breathe life into our new nation. After some 230 years, it is the least we can do. I would like to thank Mr. Butterfield and Mr. McClintock for offering this important legislation. I would also like to thank my former Judiciary staffer, Maurice Barboza, who has been fighting to honor the sacrifices of slaves and freed persons for decades. Their work is a credit to us all.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the extraordinary achievements of the legendary percussionist and innovator of Afro-Cuban Jazz, Candido Camero. Popularly known as Candido, Mr. Camero has literally changed music on a world-wide scale. A jazz artist that has performed and recorded with a long list of distinguished figures across a dizzying array of genres, he holds the distinction of being the most recorded percussionist in the history of Jazz. ``Candido'' is truly the percussion colossus of Modern Jazz and popular music. On September 17, 2015, National Endowment for the Arts Jazz Master Candido will be honored this year by the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation (CBCF) at the 30th Annual Jazz Forum and Concert, during the 45th Annual Legislative Conference (ALC). Dubbed ``The Man with A Thousand Fingers,'' Candido was the first musician to play two or more congas simultaneously, while tuning the drums to add melodic interest to rhythmic complexity. His innovations paved the way for future percussionists in Latin jazz, pop, rock, mambo, salsa and world music. For his many contributions to the development of music, Candido is truly deserving of the 2015 CBCF Jazz Legacy Award. Candido de Guerra Camero was born on April 22nd, 1921 in Havana, Cuba. He started playing congas and bongos as a young child, and competed in neighborhood parades known as comparsas. His earliest gigs were with the CMQ Radio Orchestra for six years, and later with the famed Tropicana nightclub for eight years. In 1946 he appeared in a musical revue called Tidbits at the Plymouth Theater on Broadway, playing backup for the Cuban dance team, Carmen and Rolando. He made his first U.S. recording with the famed Afro-Cuban bandleader Machito in 1948 on the tune, El Rey Del Mambo, and worked with trumpeter Dizzy Gillespie to record three albums, Afro (1954), Gillespiana (1960) and The Melody Lingers On (1966). Candido also appeared on the Ed Sullivan and Jackie Gleason shows. Gillespie introduced Candido to legendary pianist, bandleader, composer and educator, Dr. Billy Taylor. He played with Taylor from 1953 to 1954. They recorded The Billy Trio with Candido: A seminal, Latin jazz LP which spotlighted Camero's amazing and revolutionary conga and bongo playing. Dr. Taylor wrote that, ``he had not heard anyone who even approaches the wonderful balance between jazz and Cuban elements that Candido demonstrates.'' Candido also worked and recorded with Stan Kenton, Tito Puente, Grant Green, Elvin Jones, Wes Montgomery, Tony Bennett, Art Blakey and Randy Weston. In 1979, Candido wrote ``Jingo'' for the West African percussionist Olatunji and his Dancin' and Prancin' LP for the Salsoul Latin-disco label. Candido recorded over fifteen recordings as a leader, including ``The Volcanic'' (1956), ``Conga Soul'' (1962), ``Thousand Finger Man'' (1969), ``Brujerias de Candido: Candido's Latin McGuffa's Dust'' (1971), ``The Conga Kings,'' with percussionists Giovanni Hidalgo and Patato Valdes (2000), and ``The Master'' (2014). He was named an NEA Jazz Master in 2008, and was featured in the 2009 PBS documentary, Latin Music USA. Candido Camero is a living national jazz treasure, and I encourage my colleagues to honor his tremendous contributions to Jazz.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the extraordinary achievements of legendary saxophonist and educator Gary Bartz. A highly-talented instrumentalist, vocalist, composer, and leader--Mr. Bartz's long career deserves our applause. Mr. Bartz started playing at an early age with Art Blakey at his father's jazz club in his hometown of Baltimore, MD. Fifty-seven years later, he is an international sensation, earning a Grammy Award in 2005 for his and McCoy Tyner's ``Illuminations.'' Over the course of his career, he has recorded over 40 solo albums and made guest appearances on over 200 more. Gary Bartz first came to New York in 1958, at just 17 years old, to attend the Julliard Conservatory of Music. He remembers those days fondly, saying, ``It was a very good time for the music in New York, at the end of what had been the be-bop era. Charlie Parker had passed away three years previously but Miles' group was in its heyday, Monk was down at the Five Spot, and Ornette Coleman was just coming to town. Things were fresh.'' He spent much of his time drinking Coca-Cola in the all-ages ``peanut gallery'' at Birdland, where he enjoyed a marathon bill of performers. Reflecting on his musical youth, he has said, ``If I didn't have money to get in, I'd help somebody carry a drum to work my way in.'' From 1962-64, Mr. Bartz participated in Charles Mingus' Workshop and began practicing regularly with fellow members of the horn section, including Eric Dolphy. By the mid '60s, the alto saxophonist, still in his early 20s, began performing throughout the city with the Max Roach/ Abbey Lincoln Group, and quickly established himself as the most promising alto voice since Cannonball Adderley. With the splash of his New York debut solidly behind him, Mr. Bartz joined Art Blakey's Jazz Messengers. The young saxophonist's parents owned a club in Baltimore called the North End Lounge. When his father hired Blakey for a gig, Mr. Bartz grabbed the opportunity to fill a sax player vacancy in the band. After his performance that night, he was officially hired to join the Jazz Messengers. In 1965, he would make his recording debut on Blakey's ``Soulfinger'' album. In 1968, Mr. Bartz began an association with McCoy Tyner, which included participating in Tyner's classic ``Expansions'' and ``Extentions'' albums. Work with McCoy proved especially significant for Mr. Bartz because of the bandleader's strong connection to John Coltrane. During his first two years with Tyner, Mr. Bartz was also touring with Max Roach and taking some time out to record on Max's Atlantic Records release, ``Members Don't Get Weary.'' ``With Max, there was that bond with Charlie Parker,'' declares Bartz. ``Charlie Parker is why I play the alto saxophone.'' Mr. Bartz began working with Miles Davis in 1970, his first experience playing electric music. It also reaffirmed his yen for an even stronger connection to Coltrane. In addition to working with Miles in the early '70s--including playing the historic Isle of Wight Festival in August, 1970--Mr. Bartz was busy fronting his own NTU Troop ensemble. The group got its name from the Bantu language: NTU means unity in all things, time and space, living and dead, seen and unseen. Outside the Troop, Mr. Bartz had been recording as a group leader since 1968, and continued to do so throughout the '70s, during which time he released such acclaimed albums as, ``Another Earth,'' ``Home,'' ``Music Is My Sanctuary'' and ``Love Affair.'' By the late '70s, he was doing studio work in Los Angeles with Norman Connors and Phyllis Hyman. In 1988, after a nine-year break between solo releases, Mr. Bartz began recording what music columnist Gene Kalbacher described as ``Vital ear- opening sides,'' on such albums as ``Monsoon,'' ``West 42nd Street,'' ``There Goes The Neighborhood,'' and ``Shadows.'' Mr. Bartz followed those impressive works in 1995 with the release of his debut Atlantic album ``The Red and Orange Poems,'' a self-described musical mystery novel and just one of his brilliantly conceived concept albums. Back when he masterminded the much-touted ``I've Known Rivers'' album, based on the poetry of Langston Hughes, his concepts would be twenty years ahead of those held by some of today's jazz/hip hop and acid jazz combos. So it continues with ``The Blues Chronicles: Tales of Life,'' a testimonial to a steadfast belief in the power of music to soothe, challenge, spark a crowd to complete ecstasy, or move one person to think. It adds up to a shoe box full of musical snapshots from a life lived and played with passion and stirred--with both joy and sadness--by the blues. Mr. Bartz's release ``Live at the Jazz Standard Volume 1--Soulstice'' is the first of a series of recordings documenting his legendary, non- stop style, live performances. This initial release on his own OYO label bares testimony to Bartz's continuing growth as a composer, group leader, and a master of both the alto and soprano saxophones. A quartet session recorded in 1998, was followed by ``Live at the Jazz Standard, Volume 2'' released in 2000, which features Mr. Bartz's exciting Sextet. His follow-up release ``Soprano Stories'' features Mr. Bartz exclusively performing on the soprano saxophone in a studio quartet setting. His follow-up album to the highly acclaimed ``Volume 1 of the Coltrane Files, Toa of a Music Warrior,'' will be released in 2015, along with his album honoring Woody Shaw entitled ``Two MF's'.'' When he is not on the road or preparing new music, Mr. Bartz serves as a professor in the Jazz Studies Department of the Oberlin Conservatory of Music. Mr. Bartz performs at the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation's Annual Legislative Conference Jazz Concert on September 17, 2015. On that occasion, I will be presenting him with the Foundation's Jazz Legacy Award. Next month, he will be honored with the BNY Mellon Jazz 2015 Living Legacy Award in a special ceremony at the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts on Friday, October 16, 2015. Gary Bartz is an extraordinary musician that has made a remarkable contribution to Jazz music and world culture. For these reasons, I urge you to join me in congratulating him for these awards and his lifetime of outstanding accomplishments.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker and Members, I strongly oppose H.R. 3460 because it is another attempt to derail diplomacy and set the United States on the path to war. H.R. 3460 suspends until January 21, 2017--meaning through the rest of President Obama's term--the authority of the President to waive, suspend, or reduce sanctions pursuant to the Iran nuclear agreement. This legislation was introduced less than 48 hours ago and has had absolutely no committee process. While the Foreign Affairs Committee has held 30 hearings since the announcement of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action in November 2013, this legislation has never even been a topic of committee discussion. This is not a serious attempt to legislate. Put simply, it is a political attack on the President of the United States in an attempt to derail a good deal that is in the best interest of our Nation. The Iran deal represents the cumulative efforts of countless diplomats. After imposing some of the toughest sanctions in history, the P5+1--the U.S., the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Russia, and China--were able to bring Iran to the table and strike a deal that achieves our core strategic objectives. President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry deserve our respect and thanks for this achievement. They kept together a coalition that forced Iran to make serious concessions in how they operate their domestic nuclear programs. We did not get everything that we wanted, but we achieved a verifiable deal that is our best hope to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. The details of the deal are commendable. Among other things, Iran will reduce its uranium stockpile by 98 percent and lower its enrichment level below weapon levels. This will increase the ``breakout time''--or how long it takes to create a weapon--to 1 year. In addition, the International Atomic Energy Agency will oversee testing and inspections, and cheating will be severely punished with snapback provisions that reimpose the crippling sanctions that brought Iran to the table. Unfortunately, it appears that the majority does not understand progress in diplomacy. Those who are trying to undermine this historic agreement are motivated by the same naive approach to negotiation that has paralyzed this Congress. This time, unless they get everything they want, they will not accept a deal that forestalls war and prevents Iran from becoming a nuclear power. This intransigence may be new in its degree, but it is an old and regretful approach taken by critics of diplomacy. I remember, almost 30 years ago, when a President late in his second term reached out his hand in peace. His attempts to constrain and ultimately reduce nuclear stockpiles were mocked. I rarely saw eye to eye with that President, but nearly three decades later, I am glad that he stood up when he did. That President was Ronald Reagan. When he signed the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty with Mr. Gorbachev, he faced the same fury we see today. However, 28 months later, the Soviet Union was replaced by a growing number of free and independent states, and 28 years later, the United States is still standing and remains as strong as ever. The lesson in all of this is that diplomacy is rarely clean, and it develops in its own time. There are stops and starts. Things move forward, sometimes backwards, and even often sideways; but, repeatedly, we have shown that a step in the direction of peace will be met in kind. Whether a Republican or a Democratic President seeks that peace, Congress has an obligation to support those efforts. I am proud of our President's efforts to forge a new path with Iran. The Iran deal prevents Iran from developing a bomb, creates a new foundation for further diplomacy, and stands as part of a proud tradition of progress. I urge my colleagues to carefully consider and oppose H.R. 3460. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Huffman).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Judy Chu).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), a distinguished member of the Judiciary Committee.

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

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez).

Mr. CONYERS. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Nolan).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

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

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