John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I have sent the Speaker, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Newt Gingrich) a letter that I want to put in the Record which deals with the fact that he has asked for a special committee to review any reports submitted by the independent counsel, Kenneth Starr. In my view, I say to him any such circumvention of the Committee on the Judiciary's historic duty would set a poor precedent and clearly indicate an intent to politicize this matter, rather than give it any sober and objective scrutiny. Coming several months before the midterm elections, I believe the American public would also see the abandonment of regular order as signaling a partisan witch-hunt. This is especially important in light of the bias that you, you being the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrich), have demonstrated in your recent public comments. The letter referred to is as follows: House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC, April 29, 1998. Hon. Newt Gingrich, Speaker, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Speaker: During the course of the past several months, news reports have repeatedly quoted you and your office as contemplating the circumvention of the House Judiciary Committee and the formation of a special committee to review any report submitted by Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 595(c). In my view, any such circumvention of the Judiciary Committee's historic jurisdiction would set a poor precedent and clearly indicate an intent to intensely politicize this matter rather than give it any sober and objective scrutiny. Coming several months before the midterm elections, I believe the American public would also see the abandonment of regular order as signaling a partisan witch hunt. This is especially important in light of the clear bias you have demonstrated in your recent public comments concluding the existence of illegal conduct prior to your even reading or considering the report to the House. In fact, if one looks closely at this matter, it is hard to see how one could contemplate any other venue than the House Judiciary Committee, which clearly has both the expertise and experience to handle any such report. The Independent Counsel Statute itself (the Ethics in Government Act, 28 U.S.C. 591, et seq.) is the legislative product of the House Judiciary Committee. The Committee continues to be engaged in oversight of the Act, has conducted hearings on the Act, and shortly will be responsible for reauthorization of the Act. Discussion of any underlying criminal statutes that may be contained in the report are under the jurisdiction of the Committee, and again, are subject to continuing scrutiny. The House Judiciary Committee is the one Committee with the experience of handling grand jury materials, the secrecy of which both federal law and House precedents require. As you know, I have repeatedly questioned Kenneth Starr both because of the tactics he employs and due to the numerous conflicts of interest that have beset his investigation from the start. If this matter is to be transferred to the House, it would be most unfortunate to taint any process from the outset with partisanship or political gamesmanship. Such a process would be widely viewed as a kangaroo court which illegitimately forms conclusions prior to hearing facts, and whose sole objective is the politicization of allegations to influence the fall Congressional elections. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, John Conyers, Jr., Ranking Democrat.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. It is a pleasure.

Mr. CONYERS. I know the gentleman did not.

Mr. CONYERS. Okay. Then the Washington Times is wrong again, and to the extent that they are incorrect I apologize for bringing it to the gentleman's attention.

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

Mr. CONYERS. I see. What word should they have used?

Mr. CONYERS. So this is not about activist judges. Okay. Well we are getting someplace. Now here is the problem with this bill. There was a section in H.R. 1252 granting parties in the 21 largest Federal districts the right to peremptorily challenge a Federal judge's right to hear a civil action. In effect, listen carefully, Republican Members of this House, in effect this provision permits prejudicial challenges based on the race or gender of the judge. Now, current law already provides a clear and coherent statutory regime for removing judges in appropriate circumstances, and it has been working pretty well all these years. But now today, 1998, we get a proposal in this bill that goes well beyond removing judges for cause and allows the parties to remove judges for no stated reason whatsoever, no stated reason whatsoever. This is what the Republican lawyers on the House Committee on the Judiciary propose we do to the Federal courts today, for no reason, any reason. These are lawyers on the Committee on the Judiciary seriously proposing that that is what we do, and I say that is wrong. In addition, these challenges would not require the exercising party to make any showing or even any allegation of bias on the part of the judge. In other words, ``I don't like that judge, let's get another judge.'' Does the gentleman know what that would do to the judicial process in the Federal system? Every judge that walks into every court where he is assigned, a judge, any party that does not like the judge, they get another one. And they go there and they get another one. They do not like the next one, someone else objects. And this is a serious proposal, my colleagues. I think we ought to take a good look at this and find out just what is fueling this desire to allow every lawyer that comes into Federal court to forum shop. I do not think it is proper, and I do not think that it ought to be in the law. The judges are not too thrilled about it either. The delay would be incredible, and the Judicial Conference is a little bit exercised, as my colleague can believe. A preemptive challenge would be devastating of this kind. All the expertise that a judge acquired regarding the cases developed over many months would be lost. New judges would have to educate themselves regarding the attendant cases, with delay and expense. And so we are asking that this provision be stricken from the bill. We hope that a lot of Members, lawyers and constitutional experts and Members that do not make that claim, will join us in opposing this section of the bill.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo) whether he has ever heard of the Supreme Court case, Missouri v. Jenkins.

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

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding to me. Mr. Chairman, I was delighted to hear the majority whip, constitutional expert in his own right, whose opinions I respect very much, and which will become very much in focus today. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), majority whip, is the same Member of Congress who claims it is time we impeach judges whose opinions consistently ignore their constitutional role, violate their oath of office, and breach the separation of powers. That is a quote.

Mr. CONYERS. Well, I want to forget it on my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Well, did the gentleman not read in there that the courts cannot impose taxes?

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I just asked the gentleman a question.

Mr. CONYERS. Yes or no?

Mr. CONYERS. Forget it.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. CONYERS. Yes, it was defeated in the committee; but with no derogatory reflection on the committee. It was passed in the House by a vote of 258 to 166, and then it was approved by an even larger motion to instruct conferees by 256 to 142, February 29, 1996. If the gentlemen are suggesting that I have got to pass an amendment in the Committee on the Judiciary before I can pass an amendment that has already passed on the floor, we maybe ought to reconsider the way that Congress works. Notwithstanding the Members in the committee, this is a very popular motion. Let us talk about the problems that one might examine here. First of all, I do not want to put the gentleman into a not wanting to protect American interests like the majority of us do. I know he does. I would argue that for anybody. But there is no retaliation. We are the ones that are being disadvantaged already. What I am doing is trying to level the playing field. The fact of the matter is that Americans cannot reach foreign corporations because we are tied up by their laws of service, their laws of discovery, their laws of bringing them into litigation. All I am saying is that foreign corporations, if and when they may be the subject of litigation, would be subject to no less rules of procedure than American corporations. How that would antagonize a foreign corporation benefiting from American sales, and by the way, guess who buys the most from everybody in the world? So there is no way that we could make them angry and they would take their products away from us. I do not think that is going to really work. So please, please, sir, realize that this is very critical to American citizens, our constituents, who are trying to seek some recovery. Now, it just occurred to me, I mentioned halogen lamps. You know, the greatest jazz musician in America, aged 90, Lionel Hampton, had his whole apartment destroyed because of a halogen lamp. I do not know whether it was made in or out of the U.S., but there was going to be a big suit, and they, fortunately, resolved it. But if it had gone to litigation, if it had been a foreign corporation, Lionel Hampton may not live long enough to ever see anything happen to it, because he would have to go along with the civil rules of procedure for whatever company, for whatever country the company originated in. All I am saying is let us have everybody play by the same set of rules. So if we could get another vote on it, and everyone is of the same opinion that they were 2 years ago, 1 year ago, I would be very grateful.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I would want to say to my friend from Florida, we need to work on this some more, but what more work does the gentleman have in mind? This is no different from the committee amendment. We have gone through this in the Committee on the Judiciary. That is the only way it got out to the floor.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I used to say that my amendment is simple and should be noncontroversial, but I have stopped doing that lately. But this is not a complicated amendment. It changes title 28 to provide for service of process against actions brought against defendant corporations located outside of the United States. It is an amendment that has succeeded before on a couple of occasions, once in a bipartisan vote, and the other in a motion to instruct conferees. It responds to the problem of service to a foreign corporation by creating a nationwide contacts test whenever a foreign defendant is sued in Federal court if it knew or reasonably should have known that its conduct would cause harm in this country. This is not a new test. It has been repeatedly upheld by our courts and is in the law already and for other activities. It is similar to the standard adopted last Congress when we amended the Foreign Service Immunities Act to permit actions against terrorist States to proceed in this country. Secondly, we provide for worldwide service of process. Presently, a big problem with service of process is that each nation requires different methods for process. A uniform worldwide service will fix this problem, and is consistent with our other laws like the Clayton Act, and the securities laws permitting service wherever the defendant can be found. Finally, my amendment ensures that foreign persons are subject to the same rules of discovery as our own citizens and corporations when they are sued for wrongdoing. Currently, Americans are subject to a cumbersome discovery process which requires involvement of foreign courts and is subject to foreign laws that are designed to thwart discovery process. Let us continue to create a level playing field so that our American companies are not, in fact, disadvantaged by foreign competitors. It will also help ensure justice for U.S. citizens that might be harmed by a foreign product. When a foreign automobile is defective, or when fruit imported from out of the country causes widespread disease, or when a halogen lamp made overseas but used in this country explodes, we need to make sure that there is some form of accountability, whether the defendant is located within the United States or not. So I urge, again, for the favorable consideration of the amendment.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the Judiciary for yielding. I join my colleague in his sentiments and point out that this is going to take a considerable amount of work to accomplish this delinking. But I think the time has come that judges, as a governmental class, should be able to be entitled to these very modest cost-of- living increases that the rest of people that serve in the government enjoy. I appreciate the efforts of the gentleman.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Chairman, reclaiming my time, it is an easy ``aye'' vote, and I urge support of the amendment.

Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Madam Chairman, my dear friend, the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Coble, pointed out this amendment was defeated in subcommittee. Well, that is probably an indication it is a pretty good amendment. But it is important that we know that. The next thing I should point out to everybody is that this amendment does not apply to civil rights cases. This amendment prohibits orders preserving the secrecy of documents that would adversely affect public health or safety. So, we are all in agreement so far. So this is an amendment you might want to consider favorably, because when you do not disclose vital health and safety information and keep it out of the public's reach, we have people that pay dearly; loss of life, as has been referenced by the gentlewoman from Texas. So these protective orders are dangerous. The artificial heart valves problem with their defects were kept hidden. Hundreds of people died unnecessarily, because the court allowed these records to be sealed. Then before I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas, I want to raise the problem that might become involved with the tobacco settlement. Look, the court records have hidden thousands of critical documents concerning the strategies used around teenage smoking, minority targeting, nicotine manipulation. You do not want to keep that information secret, do you? The tobacco industry, bless their hearts, have gone to incredible lengths to keep these documents under wraps. Let us make sure that with this amendment, they will not be able to do that, because the courts are public institutions, and the records and what goes on in the courts should be within the province of the people.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Dr. Conrad L. Mallett, Sr., president emeritus of Capital Community-Technical College in Hartford, Connecticut. A noted educator, historian and culture bearer, Dr. Mallett entered the arenas of education and government service to press the fight for justice and equality for America's oppressed and overlooked citizens. Although he and his wife, Dr. Claudia Jones Mallett, have spent the past 13 years in Connecticut, Dr. Mallett grew up and was educated in my hometown of Detroit, Michigan. That's where we first met. Our friendship has continued since. Dr. Mallett is an African-American historian who still believes that our nation can live up to its glorious promises; he is a husband, father and grandfather who takes great joy in seeing his offspring dream dreams that he could not even imagine as a poor, black child raised by a widowed mother in the segregated South and later the intransigently rigid North. Dr. Claudia Jones Mallett, his wife of 46 years, attributes his sterling character and his drive to his mother. ``She was a very strong woman who was a domestic worker. She imparted to him steadfastness and the work ethic. He has a strong belief that it is education that brought African-Americans as far as they have gotten, and it is education that will move them further along. ``He believes that the more we are able to allow every person to become an educated person, the more successful we will be in our drive to become full citizens in this country. Whenever he has encountered barriers that get in the way of that goal of full citizenship, he has tried to move them out of the way.'' Far more often than not, he has succeeded. Born in Ames, Texas, about 40 miles south of Houston, Dr. Conrad Mallett lost his father at age 10. His mother, Mrs. Lonnie Mallett, worked to support him and his sister, Nora. The family moved to Detroit in the early 1940s when Mrs. Mallett learned that domestics could earn twice as much in Detroit. ``Sometimes my husband tells a story about those days,'' Dr. Claudia Mallett recalled. ``His mom sometimes would take him and his sister to work with her. They had to be very quiet while she worked because they were not supposed to be there, so they had nothing else to do but read. Both he and his sister are avid readers, and I don't think I know of any person who is more well read than my husband.'' After graduating from Detroit's Miller High School, a young Conrad Mallett was drafted, trained in the South Pacific as an Army Air Corps engineer and eventually was stationed on Baffin Island, off the southern tip of Greenland. After his honorable discharge, he returned to Detroit and started a steady climb toward his goal. While working at the U.S. Post Office, he used the GI Bill to take some courses at the Cass Tech Veterans Institute. After a few years, he left the post office (``I found it dull and unromantic'') and began walking the beat as a Detroit police officer. At the same time he enrolled in college full time. ``I say with some pride that the years from 1952-57 were the most productive of my life. I married, we had three children and I completed college and worked full time. Had it not been for my wonderful wife, I would not have been able to do any of those things,'' he said of those years. With the exception of one year when he received a scholarship from the Mott Foundation, he always held full-time jobs while earning his undergraduate and post graduate degrees. Today he holds a B.S. in Education and an Ed.D. in Education Administration from Wayne State University and an M.A. in American History from the University of Michigan. The young ambitious father and husband was driven to succeed because, as he explained it, ``I come from a generation that had as its goal surviving, dealing with a racist society, dealing with prejudice. We just tried to make it day to day. ``Today I take great pride that my grandchild can say, `I will be the next Bill Gates or a doctor or a lawyer.' Those goals were not as accessible in the 1940s and 50s as they are now. I was always looking for a better quality of life, one with some dignity and respect.'' Dr. Mallett still remembers how his high school counselor tried to steer him into carpentry even though he had expressed an interest in engineering. After graduating from college, Dr. Mallett taught American History and social studies in the Detroit Public Schools. In fact, he taught the first African-American history course offered in the Detroit District. After seven years, he left the school system and took a job as head of the training unit of Detroit anti-poverty program. He may not have known it then, but Dr. Mallett was about to set off on a career that would earn him a shining reputation in public service and education. He had made sure he was prepared to take advantage of the opportunities that came his way. ``If you are prepared, sometimes good things happen,'' he said. ``It all goes back to the statement black parents made to their children during Reconstruction: Get as much education as you can because they can never take that away from you.'' Dr. Mallett's commitment to social justice extends far beyond the job. For example, in 1964 a fund-raising benefit was scheduled in Detroit for the Student Non-violent Coordinating Committee. Dr. Mallett and his wife agreed to put their home on the line to cover the cost of renting Detroit's Cobo Hall if the benefit did not raise enough money to pay the rental fee. In the 1960s Dr. Mallett became the first African-American Assistant to Detroit Mayor Jerome Cavanagh, a bold young Irish Catholic lawyer who, with the support of the black community, staged an upset victory over the incumbent mayor. ``I had finished everything but the dissertation on my doctorate when I was appointed to that job,'' Dr. Mallett said. As Director of the city's Department of Housing and Urban Renewal, Dr. Mallett helped steer the city through the turbulent 1960s. When Cavanagh left office, Dr. Mallett came to the attention of Wayne State University which needed someone with experience in public housing to oversee its building expansion. The University Board of Governors appointed him Director of Community Extension Services and then Director of the Office of Neighborhood Relations. In 1973, he was named Vice President for Academic Affairs at Wayne County Community College, Michigan's largest community college. He served in that position until 1977 when Detroit Mayor Coleman A. Young, the first African-American Mayor of Detroit, tapped him to be director of the Detroit Department of Streets, Traffic and Transportation. Six years latter, academia called again. Dr. Mallett left Detroit to serve as Vice President for Academic and Student Affairs at the Community College of Baltimore, a position he held until 1985 when he was appointed President of the Capital Region Community College District in Hartford, Connecticut. Upon the dissolution of the regional district, he was appointed President of the Greater Hartford Community College. In 1992, he became the first President of Capital Community-Technical College, a comprehensive, publicly funded two-year college program offering career, technical and transfer programs. On June 30, 1996, he retired as president emeritus. Recipient of many academic honors and leadership awards, he was named Educational Administrator of the Year by the Black Educational Administrators Association while at Wayne County Community College. The Southeastern Michigan Council of Governments presented him with its Distinguished Service Award. In recognition of his exemplary leadership, he received the Anthony Wayne Award from Wayne State University. Throughout their marriage, Dr. Mallett and his wife, now a retired science teacher, always kept their primary focus on their three children. Conrad Mallett, Jr. is Chief Justice of the Michigan Supreme Court; Lydia Mallett, Ph.D., is Director of corporate Diversity of the General Mills Corporation, and Veronica Mallett, M.D., is a faculty member at Wayne State University Medical School in Detroit and is pursuing advanced research in obstetrical and gynecological surgery. Though the children were raised in a middle-class environment, they were never allowed to forget the historic struggles and sacrifices that led to their lifestyle. Justice Mallett said he will never forget a trip he and his dad took to Houston, Texas. ``I was 17 years old, and that's not exactly the time you want to make a cross-country trip with your dad. But when we got to Houston, my dad said we were having dinner that night at the Rice Hotel. He said I had to put on a suit. It was August, and Houston was about 199 degrees. It was so hot. When I asked whey we had to go inside to eat, my dad said, `Because I never walked in the front door of the Rice Hotel. I was a bellboy there and made it all the way up to be bell captain, but I never walked in through the front door.' '' That night they both walked in through the front door. Justice Mallett said his father brought a fierce integrity to the process of public service delivery. ``He said that you may not always be able to do your best for everyone, but in general those persons less able than you to fend for themselves are the ones to whom you must give your best.'' And that, Mr. Speaker, is how Dr. Conrad Mallett, Sr. lives his life. Our nation is richer because of his contributions.