John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Sheila Jackson-Lee), the dedicated civil rights and constitutional expert on the Committee on the Judiciary. (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time. My colleagues, it can now be perceived that this bill is a ruse; that it is totally characteristic of Republicans who want civil rights on the cheap in a futile attempt to show the country that they are really not Neanderthals. But when it comes to real substance, they attack civil rights laws at nearly every turn. We do not need meaningless words. We want action. But when it comes to real action, the Republican Congress turns its back. When we try to raise the problem of civil rights laws being enforced, they respond by repealing key antidiscrimination laws. We see the horrors of hate crimes every day. Jasper, Texas. James Byrd as an example. But we cannot move on hate crimes legislation. We raise problems of police brutality, the spraying of 41 bullets into an unarmed black man. The tragic cases of Abner Louima and Mr. Diablo. We get no response from the committee that has jurisdiction. We could not even get funds for a hearing or a stenographer in Brooklyn, New York. So we try to fully fund enforcement of civil rights laws at the Justice Department, but the Republican members of the Committee on the Judiciary turn their backs on us. And now they ask us in good faith to support these words. We cannot do it, my colleagues. Mr. Speaker, I urge the rejection of H. Res. 121.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, this is an important matter before us. I want to commend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Wexler) for causing this embarrassing substitute to be brought to bear. The scheduling and the substance of this resolution is an utter affront to all believers of civil rights and regular order in the House of Representatives. I appeal to every Member to vote against the underhanded processes involved in bringing H. Res. 121 to the floor this afternoon. First, a word about bipartisan cooperation, since we have all come back from Hershey over the weekend. Without the courtesy of a simple phone call from the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), this bill was discharged from the committee with no hearing, no markup; another example of how Committee on the Judiciary Democrats are still being treated unfairly at every turn of the process, not even a single phone call. The leadership continues to mistreat what is almost an equal number of Democrats as Republicans in the House. Secondly, this bill, I think, is intended to be serious but it is really just a joke. A generalized, amorphous, meaningless resolution is an idea taken from the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Wexler) and is now so watered down as to be insulting. It is a cover for those Republicans who do not want to condemn the Council of Conservative Citizens because so many Republican leaders have been associated with this racist group. They have cloaked themselves in mainstream conservatism, but it is masking an underlying racist agenda. Its leader is the former Midwest director of the White Citizens Council. Their web site reads like something out of the Third Reich. What are we doing here today? I urge that the Members vote ``no'' on this resolution Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. The Speaker pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady) will control the 20 minutes on the majority side.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds. Mr. Speaker, I say to my good friend, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watts), who could not join the organization that he is covering up for, the Council of Conservative Citizens, if he applied, that this is not tit for tat. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Wexler), a distinguished attorney and a member of the Committee on the Judiciary who caused the Republicans to bring this forward.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Speaker, I would let my good friend, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watts) know that I did not know he was attacked. If he was attacked in his home area, it was by right-wing zealots that may have been in the Council of Conservative Citizens. But since the gentleman mentioned the names of these hate groups, why does the gentleman not put them in the resolution? Why do we not just debate them? The gentleman spoke about no one came to his defense. I would have loved to have come to the defense of the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watts).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 13 seconds. Mr. Speaker, as an original author of the Martin Luther King holiday bill, and one who worked and knew Dr. King, I am sure happy to see that at least the other side has been reading about King and have appropriate quotations to bring to this debate, falsely implying that he might not be supporting what we are trying to do. The gentleman ought to name the organizations. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Michael Forbes), pointing out that he could not get time on the other side.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn), chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds. Mr. Speaker, I was so moved by the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Pickering). Could the gentleman from Mississippi explain how racial conciliation can come from the Council of Conservative Citizens, a racist group? Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Barrett).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 seconds to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Barrett).

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

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 seconds to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Wexler).

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Steny Hoyer) as the ranking member for doing such an excellent job of studying where we are getting to, not where we have been. I love these allusions back into the past, as if they are some guide or reason for injustices to continue into the present. Now, as one of the most partisan--the ranking member of one of the most partisan committees in this Congress, I want to tell the Members that the funding and staffing problems go right to the core of many of our problems. I quote the present chairman of this Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Henry Hyde), who has said, ``Two-thirds and one-third ratios are used in the Senate, and I believe its realization in the House would enormously reduce the often acrimonious proceedings to which the House is subjected.'' And yet, and yet, even with some improvements at this late date, we are still trying to get somewhere near this goal. I am very disappointed. I have little else to do but to urge that we accept the alternative that has been put out that states what everybody keeps saying they support, and yet will not get to. This goes beyond a recommit and final passage, this is the matter of simple fairness. I, for one, am finding it more difficult to suffer through simple requests for publications, witness travel, stenographers, this is the Committee on the Judiciary, legal publications; no control over the funding. And here we now come, and even in impeachment it was the past Speaker that got us beyond the four out of 18 slots, if Members can believe it, for a committee on impeachment. I come here very disappointed and not happy at all about the position that we find ourselves in in the 106th Congress. It is unnecessary. This has gone on, this partisanship that affects our resource and staff allocations, and it is now affecting our ordinary work. For that reason, I am not able to support the proposal that is before us, and I really hope that we can turn this matter back until we get a further understanding of how we reach this very complex physicist's evaluation of one-third and two-thirds.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be introducing the Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 1999, along with Representatives Morella, Baldwin and Forbes. As of today there are 118 original cosponsors. This legislation will amend Federal law to enhance the ability of Federal prosecutors to combat racial and religious savagery, and will permit Federal prosecution of violence motivated by prejudice against the victim's sexual orientation, gender or disability. In 1963, the Sixteenth Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, was dynamited by the Ku Klux Klan. The killing of four African-American girls preparing for a religious ceremony shocked the Nation and acted as a catalyst for the civil rights movement. Last month, 36 years after the brutal bombing in Birmingham, Alabama was witness to another heinous act of violence motivated by base bigotry. The beating and burning of Billy Jack Gaither is testament to the reality that a guarantee of civil rights is not enough if violence motivated by hatred and prejudice continues. The atrocity, coming on the heels of last year's torture and murder of James Byrd in Jasper, TX and Matthew Shepard in Laramie, WY illustrates the need for the passage of the Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 1999. Current Federal hate crimes law only covers crimes motivated by racial, religious or ethnic prejudice. Our bill adds violence motivated by prejudice against the victim's sexual orientation, gender or disability. This legislation also makes it easier for Federal authorities to prosecute racial, religious and ethnic violence, in the same way that the Church Arson Prevention Act of 1996 helped Federal prosecutors combat church arson by loosening the unduly rigid jurisdictional requirements under Federal law for prosecuting church arson. Under my legislation, States will continue to take the lead in the persecution of hate crimes. In the years 1991 through 1997 there were more than 50,000 hate crimes reported. From 1990 through 1998, there were 42 Federal hate crimes prosecutions nationwide under the original hate crimes statute. Our bill will result only in a modest increase in the number of Federal prosecutions of hate crimes. The Attorney General or other high ranking Justice Department officials must approve all prosecution under this law. This requirement ensures Federal restraint, and ensures that States will continue to take the lead. At one time lynchings were commonplace in our Nation. Nearly 4,000 African Americans were tortured and killed between 1880 and 1930. Today, Americans are being tortured and killed not only because of their race, but also because of their religion, their disability, their sex, and their sexual orientation. It is long past time that Congress passed a comprehensive law banning such contemptible acts. It is a Federal crime to hijack an automobile or to possess cocaine and it ought to be a Federal crime to drag a man to death because of his race or to hang a man because of his sexual orientation. These are crimes that shock and shame our national conscience and they should be subject to Federal law enforcement assistance and prosecution. There certainly is a role for the States, but far too many States have no hate crimes laws and many existing laws do not specify sexual orientation as a category for protection. This problem cuts across party lines, and I am glad to be joined by so many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in proposing this legislation today. This is a battle we cannot afford to lose--we owe it to the thousands of African Americans who have been lynched, and we owe it to the families of James Byrd, Matthew Shepard and Billy Jack Gaither.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a giant within American jurisprudence, Judge A. Leon Higginbotham, Jr. He was a civil rights champion who died with his boots on; it was only a few weeks before his death that Leon Higginbotham testified before the House Judiciary Committee in protest of its impeachment process. Judge Higginbotham's contributions to the law, both as a peerless judge and superb educator, were immense. His love for the cause of justice made him a colossus of the civil rights movement. In his impeccably coherent and flawlessly logical testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, Judge Higginbotham reminded the nation's lawmakers, and the American people, of his legal brilliance. The achievements of Leon Higginbotham should serve as an inspiration to Americans of all ages. His legacy is a stellar example of a meritocracy at work, that diligence and opportunity can be an equalizing force against the vestiges of racism. After obtaining a brilliant record as a civil rights attorney, he was first appointed to a federal judicial post in 1964. His performance as one of the country's most consistent and fair judges led to his appointment to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. As a mediator in the 1994 South African elections, that country's first post-apartheid experiment with democracy, Judge Higginbotham shared with the world his judicial expertise and impartiality. The entire country paid him tribute in 1995, when President Bill Clinton awarded him the Presidential Medal of Freedom. There is no question that Leon Higginbotham belongs to that group of exceptional people which any nation would be proud to call its own. His outspoken courage and passionate opposition to racism were unceasing. Judge Higginbotham's condemnation of the damage that discrimination and disregard for individual civil rights does to the justice system made his ``Race and the American Legal System'' one of the most important and influential legal texts in the history of our country. I am honored to join my colleagues in saluting the living legacy of Leon Higginbotham. His compassion and respect for the individual, combined with his unrivaled knowledge and love of the law, make him a person I am proud to have known. We shall forever be indebted to Judge Higginbotham for his superior commitment to justice and his impeccable example of judicial scholarship and service.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to today introduce, along with 27 cosponsors, the Civil Participation and Rehabilitation Act of 1999. This legislation grants persons who have been released from incarceration the right to vote in Federal elections. At a time when our Nation faces record low voter participation, this legislation represents an historic means of both expanding voting rights while helping to reintegrate former felons into our democratic society. The practice of many states denying voting rights to former felons represents a vestige from a time when suffrage was denied to whole classes of our population based on race, sex, and property. However, over the past two centuries, these restrictions, along with post-Civil War exclusions such as the poll tax and literacy requirements, have been eliminated. Unfortunately, the United States continues to stand alone among the major industrialized nations in permitting an entire category of citizens--former felons--to be cut off from the democratic process. Denial of suffrage to these individuals is no small matter. A recent study by the Sentencing Project and Human Rights Watch reveals that some 3.9 million Americans, or one in 50 adults, is either currently or permanently disenfranchised as a result of state felony voting laws. This includes an estimated 1.4 million African American men, or 13 percent of the total population of black adult men. In two states (Alabama and Florida) almost one in three black men is permanently disenfranchised, while in five other states (Iowa, Mississippi, New Mexico, Virginia, and Wyoming), one in four black men is barred from voting in elections. Hispanic citizens are also disproportionately disenfranchised. In addition to diminishing the legitimacy of our democratic process, denying voting rights to ex-offenders is inconsistent with the goal of rehabilitation. Instead of reintegrating such individuals into society, felony voting restrictions only serve to reaffirm their feelings of alienation and isolation. As the National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals has concluded, ``if correction is to reintegrate an offender into free society, the offender must retain all attributes of citizenship.'' Clearly this includes voting--the most basic constitutive act of citizenship. The legislation I am today introducing constitutes a narrowly crafted effort to expand voting rights for ex-felons, while protecting state prerogatives to generally establish voting qualifications. The legislation would only apply to persons who have been released from prison, and it would only apply to federal elections. As such, my bill is fully consistent with constitutional requirements established by the Supreme Court in a series of decisions upholding federal voting rights laws. The legislation is supported by a broad coalition of groups interested in voting and civil rights, including the NAACP, ACLU, the National Council of Churches (National and Washington Office), the National Urban League, the Human Rights Watch and the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights, among many others.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, today I rise to lift up three extraordinary people who have contributed much the Civil Rights Era: Martin Luther King, Jr., John Coltrane and Nelson Mandela. Dr. King was very much aware of the cultural impact of jazz on the civil rights struggle. He talked while he was in Berlin, Germany about how music is such a great unifying force, in particular jazz, that connects people and enhances cultural development of society. King went on to discuss how jazz evolved from the black churches gospel songs and hymns into a popular art form that has wide appeal across racial and ethnic lines. Coltrane was instrumental in insuring jazz's distinction as a National American treasure. Coltrane once said, ``My goal . . . is to uplift people as much as I can, to inspire them to realize capacities for living meaningful lives.'' Through his boundless music, he like King and Mandela helped to break down the walls of prejudice and intolerance in our nation. Because of Coltrane, jazz has become the music that America is known for around the world. Jazz has such cultural significance that it crosses racial, ethnic, socio-economic, and geographic boundaries. The importance of music cannot be understated in the struggle for African-Americans in this country to gain rights of equality and fair treatment. Coltrane's musical genius acted to soothe the wounds after the harsh, brutal fight, acted as healing salve to bring both black and white, red and brown peoples together. It is Coltrane musical essence that still brings us together today. President Nelson Mandela is the last name in this trinity that I would like to lift up. It was Mandela who endured 27 years of prison interment only to merge as the leader of the most feared, apartheid ruled, police state in the world. It was Mandela who, in his brilliance organized his people and all South Africans to move toward reconciliation and forgiveness. President Mandela was also acutely aware of the healing power of music to the soul. If you ever listen to African music, to the congo drums, the singing, envision the women and men swaying with the beat, you can hear reminiscences of jazz, you can sense the cultural divide weakening, you can feel the healing in the music. We owe a great deal to King, Coltrane and Mandela and we profoundly thank them for their contribution to our lives.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, every year nearly 1.5 million women are the victims of domestic violence. Today I am proud to introduce the Violence Against Women Act of 1999. I am joined by Congresswomen Constance A. Morella and Lucille Roybal-Allard, along with 89 other original co-sponsors. Together, we take the first step that will make America safer for women. Nearly 5 years ago, Congress passed the original Violence Against Women Act. In the original legislation, funding was provided for battered women's shelters and rape crisis centers as well as establishing a domestic violence hotline. Now we must work to continue those commitments. I am hopeful for passage of this legislation in the 106th Congress. Last year, significant portions of this legislation were unanimously agreed to by the House of Representatives as an amendment to the Child Protection and Sexual Predators Punishment Act of 1998. I feel confident that this Congress can see fit to not only follow that lead, but do even more for victims of sexual abuse, domestic violence and rape. One of the key titles of this landmark legislation is Violence Against Women and the Workplace. This section establishes a grant for a national clearinghouse and resource center to provide information and assistance to employers and labor organizations in their efforts to develop and implement responses to assist victims of domestic violence and sexual assault. Also found in this section is a tax credit for businesses implementing workplace safety programs to combat violence against women as well as establishing Victim's Employment Rights which prohibits employers from taking adverse job actions against an employee because they are the victim of violent crime. The legislation makes important strides in improving the lives of not only women, but children as well. Title II, Limiting the Effects of Violence on Children, provides grants to create safe havens for children of victims of domestic violence. Children who witness domestic violence are at a high risk of anxiety and depression, and exhibit more aggressive, antisocial, inhibited and fearful behaviors. This title helps to ensure that children are protected from the effects of witnessing acts of domestic violence. Also, this title will provide funds to train child welfare workers to recognize the signs of domestic violence and sexual assault in the home. Title III of VAWA '99 works to prevent sexual assault against women. It establishes a National Resource Center on Sexual Assault as well as increases funds for rape prevention and education. This title also includes the language of the Hate Crimes Prevention Act which amends federal hate crimes legislation to permit federal prosecution for bias crimes based on gender, sexual orientation, or disability. Furthermore, language concerning the prevention of custodial sexual assault by correctional staff will make sexual conduct between all prison custodial staff and inmates a federal crime and establish measures to ensure that those convicted of such crimes are prevented from becoming correctional staff in the future. The Violence Against Women Act of 1999 includes other important provisions such as the rescheduling and classification of date-rape drugs; establishing grants for improved legal advocacy and representation of victims of sexual violence; and provisions to protect battered immigrant women. Nearly one in every three adult women experience at least one physical assault by a partner during adulthood. I urge my colleagues to join me in the fight to protect women from sexual abuse and violence. I encourage all Members to become a co-sponsor of this legislation and work towards passage of the Violence Against Women Act of 1999.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join with my colleague, Commerce Committee Ranking member John Dingell, in introducing today the ``Protect American Jobs Through the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Amendments Act of 1999.'' This bill clarifies one of our most important U.S. antitrust laws in order to enshrine the principle that U.S. law reaches anti-competitive foreign cartels, acts, and conspiracies designed to unfairly exclude American products from overseas markets. The principle aim of my bill is to codify the U.S. Department of Justice's current and correct interpretation of the Foreign Trade Anti-trust Improvements Act (``FTAIA'') which is embodied in footnote 62 of the International Antitrust Guidelines. The footnote makes it clear that there are no unnecessary jurisdictional or legal roadblocks to challenging anti-competitive acts and conspiracies that take place outside our borders. We live in an era of economic globalization. Today, America's prosperity depends, not just on vigorous competition within our territorial borders, but on free and fair access to markets in Japan, Europe, Africa, Latin America, China, Russia, and a host of other countries. Anti-competitive practices that block foreign markets to U.S. exporters are just as much a threat to the U.S. economy, as the purely domestic cartels and combinations that the Sherman Act sought to address at the turn of the century. The opening of global markets has advanced America's current economic prosperity, but it also poses fundamental challenges for U.S. antitrust laws. One example is the U.S. flat glass industry. For the better part of a decade, America's leading flat glass producers have been seeking access to the Japanese market, the biggest and richest in Asia. This isn't a situation where America doesn't have a good product, American companies are leaders in producing and selling high-quality innovative glass products around the world; and in fact, have succeeded in Europe, Asia, the Middle East, Latin America, but not Japan. The fact is that securing distribution effective channels for American glass products has not proved to be a significant barrier to entry in any country but Japan. My bill aims to address this situation by making an important clarification in the U.S. antitrust laws that govern jurisdiction over foreign firms. It does not change U.S. antitrust law. Instead, it is designed to codify and clarify U.S. antitrust doctrine. Although most observers would agree that the FTAIA established conclusively that DOJ and U.S. firms have jurisdiction to bring an antitrust case against foreign firms engaged in anti-competitive conduct that harms U.S. exporters, enforcement officials misinterpreted the law and said so in a footnote to the International Antitrust Guidelines. That footnote-- footnote 159--created a higher burden for U.S. exporters than Congress intended by requiring that they show harm to U.S. consumers in order to get their day in court. The bill would ensure that the will of Congress and the plain meaning of the FTAIA could never again be misconstrued by the federal antitrust agencies, a foreign litigant or a U.S. court. In doing so, it would assist in breaking down anti-competitive foreign barriers to U.S. exports. While the correction to Footnote 159 was drafted by Assistant Attorney General Jim Rill in the Bush Administration, it has been fully endorsed by the Clinton Administration. I commend Assistant Attorney Generals Rill, Bingman, and Klein for their strong leadership in strengthening international antitrust enforcement and for bringing cases under the authority of the FTAIA. By clarifying the jurisdictional requirements of the FTAIA, I hope to encourage the Department of Justice and injured industries to make any necessary use of this important power by challenging cartels, such as those blocking distribution of the U.S. courts, before U.S. juries, under U.S. law. My bill makes a simple and straightforward point. Anti-competitive foreign cartels and conspiracies are subject to the long arm of U.S. antitrust law. Foreign producers can run...but they can't hide. The global economy may be a reality, but U.S. law applies fully to anti- competitive international cartels, combinations and conspiracies. This bill already has the support of industry leaders, including Kodak, PP&G Industries, and Guardian International Corporation, and the National Association of Manufacturers. I look forward to working with other interested parties to bring U.S. law into a new era of international economic globalization, and to ensure that American firms and workers have a timely and effective remedy against those who engage in anti-competitive acts designed to exclude American products or services from the international marketplace.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I do not enjoy beginning on the divisive note of impeachment that consumed so much of the last Congress. I had hoped that we may have gleaned some lessons from the ordeals of last year, which began with an overzealous prosecutor consumed by a desire to bring down the President at any cost. This in turn led to the most polarizing impeachment in our Nation's history, culminating in an unprecedented party line vote. Not surprisingly, the net result was an impeachment totally lacking in credibility and overwhelmingly rejected by the American people. Today we have a final opportunity to put this salacious activity behind us. If we reject the motion to reappoint managers, we will send a signal that we are prepared to move from the politics of personal destruction, which has been so costly to our Nation. The incoming Speaker made references to that today. On the other hand, if we appoint and ratify the managers from the 105th session, this vote to appoint managers would be tantamount to a vote to remove the President from office. I remind the new Members who have not participated that they are not voting managers, they are voting two articles that call for the impeachment, conviction, and removal of the President of the United States. A vote to appoint managers is a vote to execute the impeachment articles that passed the House. A vote for appointment of the managers is a vote for a protracted trial, a vote to hear witnesses in their lurid and graphic fullness, from the Goldbergs, the Tripps, the Lewinskys. A vote for managers is to paralyze all of three branches of government while we pursue a futile attempt to remove a president from office. It is a vote to ignore the problems of social security and education and health care while we tilt at this impeachment windmill in total futility. It is a vote for more partisanship. By voting down the managers' amendment, for which there is precedent, we send a signal that the American people want us to send. We will win the approval of the American people as we begin our 106th Congress session in its first day. By voting down the appointment of managers, we are exercising the same common sense that was exercised in this very House in 1873, when it declined to appoint managers in an impeachment matter. There is no question that the Senate does not have the votes to convict the President, and so the only possible reason for pursuing this case now is to satisfy the hunger of a few people who wish to further tarnish the President. Vote against the appointment, and in so doing, you will be voting for bipartisanship, for encouraging the alternative common-sense route of censure and voting to move away from Lewinsky to the more pressing matters of the Senate. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes and 30 seconds to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes and 30 seconds to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, it is with great reluctance that I have to reduce the time of my dear friend from Hawaii, because now all my committee members have shown up. I nevertheless respect him so much that I want him to go at this point in time ahead of other Members. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), who has done an incredible job as being Chair of the Congressional Black Caucus and serving on the impeachment committee all at the same time.