John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, utility companies provide many basic and life-saving services, such as electricity to light our homes, water to drink, and gas to heat our homes. Sometimes, however, individuals, through no fault of their own, struggle to pay for these services often in the face of devastating medical debt, job loss, or economic disruption caused by divorce. While resorting to bankruptcy provides some relief from financial distress, current law permits utility companies to force these debtors to pay security deposits for continued service even if they were current on their bills before filing for bankruptcy or if they promise to be current on their bills after bankruptcy. Utility companies typically insist that debtors pay at least two months or more of their average bills as a deposit--in addition to requiring that they remain current on their utility bills after bankruptcy--in exchange for the utility continuing to supply service. The ``Preventing Termination of Utility Service in Bankruptcy Act of 2015'' corrects this injustice. It provides that if the debtor remains current on his or her utility bills after filing for bankruptcy relief, the debtor should not have to pay a deposit to the utility to continue service. In Detroit, for example, families across the city have seen their water rates increase by 119% over the past decade. During the same period, the Nation generally and Detroit in particular suffered in the aftermath of a global financial crisis that left one-in-five local residences in foreclosure and sent local unemployment rates skyrocketing. Fortunately, we are incrementally recovering from the Great Recession of 2008. For those individuals who must seek bankruptcy relief, however, we should ensure that their ability to pay their utility bills going forward is not hindered by unnecessary demands for deposits if these debtors remain current on their payments to these companies. Terminating a family's access to such life-saving services that keeps the lights on, warms our homes, and ensures that they can bathe, hydrate, and prepare meals is simply wrong if these utility bills are being paid on time. This legislation is part of a range of solutions that are needed to address the still pervasive adverse impacts of the Great Recession of 2008. I continue to work with my colleagues in Congress, state and federal officials, and my constituents to defend the right to water and protect public health. I will not tolerate the notion that--in the 21st Century, in the wealthiest nation on earth--families should go without access to affordable public water and sanitation services.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following: Summary The ``Home Foreclosure Reduction Act of 2015'' would permit a bankruptcy judge, with respect to certain home mortgages, to reduce the principal amount of such mortgages to the fair market value of the homes securing such indebtedness. My legislation will encourage homeowners to make their mortgage payments and help stem the endless cycle of foreclosures that further depresses home values. It also would authorize the mortgage's repayment period to be extended so that monthly mortgage payments are more affordable. In addition, the bill would allow exorbitant mortgage interest rates to be reduced to a level that will keep the mortgage affordable over the long-term. And, it would authorize the waiver of prepayment penalties and excessive fees. Further, the bill would eliminate hidden fees and unauthorized costs. This bill addresses a fundamental problem: homeowners in financial distress simply lack the leverage to make mortgage lenders and servicers engage in meaningful settlement negotiations, even when in the interest of all parties. My legislation would empower a homeowner, under certain circumstances, to force his or her lender to modify the terms of the mortgage by allowing the principal amount of the mortgage to be reduced to the home's fair market value. And, the implementation of this measure will not cost taxpayers a single penny. The ``Home Foreclosure Reduction Act of 2015'' is identical to H.R. 101 (introduced in the 113th Congress) and H.R. 1587 (introduced in the 112th Congress). It contains similar provisions included in H.R. 1106, which the House passed nearly six years ago. Unfortunately, those provisions were removed in the Senate and not included in the final version of the bill that was subsequently enacted into law. Section-by-Section Explanation of Provisions Section 1. Short Title. Section 1 sets forth the short title of this Act as the ``Home Foreclosure Reduction Act of 2015.'' Section 2. Definition. Bankruptcy Code section 101 defines various terms. Section 2 amends this provision to add a definition of ``qualified loan modification,'' which is defined as a loan modification agreement made in accordance with the guidelines of the Obama Administration's Homeowner Affordability and Stability Plan, as implemented on March 4, 2009 with respect to a loan secured by a senior security interest in the debtor's principal residence. To qualify as such, the agreement must reduce the debtor's mortgage payment (including principal and interest) and payments for various other specified expenses (i.e., real estate taxes, hazard insurance, mortgage insurance premium, homeowners' association dues, ground rent, and special assessments) to a percentage of the debtor's income in accordance with such guidelines. The payment may not include any period of negative amortization and it must fully amortize the outstanding mortgage principal. In addition, the agreement must not require the debtor to pay any fees or charges to obtain the modification. Further, the agreement must permit the debtor to continue to make these payments as if he or she had not filed for bankruptcy relief. Section 3. Eligibility for Relief. Section 3 amends Bankruptcy Code section 109, which specifies the eligibility criteria for filing for bankruptcy relief, in two respects. First, it amends Bankruptcy Code section 109(e), which sets forth secured and unsecured debt limits to establish a debtor's eligibility for relief under chapter 13. Section 3 amends this provision to provide that the computation of debts does not include the secured or unsecured portions of debts secured by the debtor's principal residence, under certain circumstances. The exception applies if the value of the debtor's principal residence as of the date of the order for relief under chapter 13 is less than the applicable maximum amount of the secured debt limit specified in section 109(e). Alternatively, the exception applies if the debtor's principal residence was sold in foreclosure or the debtor surrendered such residence to the creditor and the value of such residence as of the date of the order for relief under chapter 13 is less than the secured debt limit specified in section 109(e). This amendment is not intended to create personal liability on a debt if there would not otherwise be personal liability on such debt. Second, section 3 amends Bankruptcy Code section 109(h), which requires a debtor to receive credit counseling within the 180-day period prior to filing for bankruptcy relief, with limited exception. Section 3 amends this provision to allow a chapter 13 debtor to satisfy this requirement within 30 days after filing for bankruptcy relief if he or she submits to the court a certification that the debtor has received notice that the holder of a claim secured by the debtor's principal residence may commence a foreclosure proceeding. Section 4. Prohibiting Claims Arising from Violations of the Truth in Lending Act. Under the Truth in Lending Act, a mortgagor has a right of rescission with respect to a mortgage secured by his or her residence, under certain circumstances. Bankruptcy Code section 502(b) enumerates various claims of creditors that are not entitled to payment in a bankruptcy case, subject to certain exceptions. Section 4 amends Bankruptcy Code section 502(b) to provide that a claim for a loan secured by a security interest in the debtor's principal residence is not entitled to payment in a bankruptcy case to the extent that such claim is subject to a remedy for rescission under the Truth in Lending Act, notwithstanding the prior entry of a foreclosure judgment. In addition, section 4 specifies that nothing in this provision may be construed to modify, impair, or supersede any other right of the debtor. Section 5. Authority to Modify Certain Mortgages. Under Bankruptcy Code section 1322(b)(2), a chapter 13 plan may not modify the terms of a mortgage secured solely by real property that is the debtor's principal residence. Section 5 amends Bankruptcy Code section 1322(b) to create a limited exception to this prohibition. As amended, the exception only applies to a mortgage that: (1) originated before the effective date of this amendment; and (2) is the subject of a notice that a foreclosure may be (or has been) commenced with respect to such mortgage. In addition, the debtor must certify pursuant to new section 1322(h) that he or she contacted--not less than 30 days before filing for bankruptcy relief--the mortgagee (or the entity collecting payments on behalf of such mortgagee) regarding modification of the mortgage. The debtor must also certify that he or she provided the mortgagee (or the entity collecting payments on behalf of such mortgagee) a written statement of the debtor's current income, expenses, and debt in a format that substantially conforms with the schedules required under Bankruptcy Code section 521 or with such other form as promulgated by the Judicial Conference of the United States. Further, the certification must include a statement that the debtor considered any qualified loan modification offered to the debtor by the mortgagee (or the entity collecting payments on behalf of such holder). This requirement does not apply if the foreclosure sale is scheduled to occur within 30 days of the date on which the debtor files for bankruptcy relief. If the chapter 13 case is pending at the time new section 1322(h) becomes effective, then the debtor must certify that he or she attempted to contact the mortgagee (or the entity collecting payments on behalf of such mortgagee) regarding modification of the mortgage before either: (1) filing a plan under Bankruptcy Code section 1321 that contains a modification pursuant to new section 1322(b)(11); or (2) modifying a plan under Bankruptcy Code section 1323 or section 1329 to contain a modification pursuant to new section 1322(b)(11). Under new section 1322(b)(11), the debtor may propose a plan modifying the rights of the mortgagee (and the rights of the holder of any claim secured by a subordinate security interest in such residence) in several respects. It is important to note that the intent of new section 1322(b)(11) is permissive. Accordingly, a chapter 13 may propose a plan that proposes any or all types of modification authorized under section 1322(b)(11). First, the plan may provide for payment of the amount of the allowed secured claim as determined under section 506(a)(1). In making such determination, the court, pursuant to new section 1322(i), must use the fair arket value of the property at the date that such value is determined. If the issue of value is contested, the court must determine such value in accordance with the appraisal rules used by the Federal Housing Administration. Second, the plan may prohibit, reduce, or delay any adjustable interest rate applicable on, and after, the date of the filing of the plan. Third, it may extend the repayment period of the mortgage for a period that is not longer than the longer of 40 years (reduced by the period for which the mortgage has been outstanding) or the remaining term of the mortgage beginning on the date of the order for relief under chapter 13. Fourth, the plan may provide for the payment of interest at a fixed annual rate equal to the applicable average prime offer rate as of the date of the order for relief under chapter 13, as determined pursuant to certain specified criteria. The rate must correspond to the repayment term determined under new section 1322(b)(11)(C)(i) as published by the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council in its table entitled, ``Average Prime Offer Rates--Fixed.'' In addition, the rate must include a reasonable premium for risk. Fifth, the plan, pursuant to new section 1322(b)(11)(D), may provide for payments of such modified mortgage directly to the holder of the claim or, at the discretion of the court, through the chapter 13 trustee during the term of the plan. The reference in new section 1322(b)(11)(D) to ``holder of the claim'' is intended to include a servicer of such mortgage for such holder. It is anticipated that the court, in exercising its discretion with respect to allowing the debtor to make payments directly to the mortgagee or by requiring payments to be made through the chapter 13 trustee, will take into consideration the debtor's ability to pay the trustee's fees on payments disbursed through the trustee. New section 1322(g) provides that a claim may be reduced under new section 1322(b)(11)(A) only on the condition that the debtor agrees to pay the mortgagee a stated portion of the net proceeds of sale should the home be sold before the completion of all payments under the chapter 13 plan or before the debtor receives a discharge under section 1328(b). The debtor must pay these proceeds to the mortgagee within 15 days of when the debtor receives the net sales proceeds. If the residence is sold in the first year following the effective date of the chapter 13 plan, the mortgagee is to receive 90 percent of the difference between the sales price and the amount of the claim as originally determined under section 1322(b)(11) (plus costs of sale and improvements), but not to exceed the unpaid amount of the allowed secured claim determined as if such claim had not been reduced under new section 1322(b)(11)(A). If the residence is sold in the second year following the effective date of the chapter 13 plan, then the applicable percentage is 70 percent. If the residence is sold in the third year following the effective date of the chapter 13 plan, then the applicable percentage is 50 percent. If the residence is sold in the fourth year following the effective date of the chapter 13 plan, then the applicable percentage is 30 percent. If the residence is sold in the fifth year following the effective date of the chapter 13 plan, then the applicable percentage is ten percent. It is the intent of this provision that if the unsecured portion of the mortgagee's claim is partially paid under this provision it should be reconsidered under 502(j) and reduced accordingly. Section 6. Combating Excessive Fees. Section 6 amends Bankruptcy Code section 1322(c) to provide that the debtor, the debtor's property, and property of the bankruptcy estate are not liable for a fee, cost, or charge that is incurred while the chapter 13 case is pending and that arises from a claim for debt secured by the debtor's principal residence, unless the holder of the claim complies with certain requirements. It is the intent of this provision that its reference to a fee, cost, or charge includes an increase in any applicable rate of interest for such claim. It also applies to a change in escrow account payments. To ensure such fee, cost, or charge is allowed, the claimant must comply with certain requirements. First, the claimant must file with the court and serve on the chapter 13 trustee, the debtor, and the debtor's attorney an annual notice of such fee, cost, or charge (or on a more frequent basis as the court determines) before the earlier of either: one year of when such fee, cost, or charge was incurred, or 60 days before the case is closed. Second, the fee, cost, or charge must be lawful under applicable nonbankruptcy law, reasonable, and provided for in the applicable security agreement. Third, the value of the debtor's principal residence must be greater than the amount of such claim, including such fee, cost or charge. If the holder fails to give the required notice, such failure is deemed to be a waiver of any claim for such fees, costs, or charges for all purposes. Any attempt to collect such fees, costs, or charges constitutes a violation of the Bankruptcy Code's discharge injunction under section 524(a)(2) or the automatic stay under section 362(a), whichever is applicable. Section 6 further provides that a chapter 13 plan may waive any prepayment penalty on a claim secured by the debtor's principal residence. Section 7. Confirmation of Plan. Bankruptcy Code section 1325 sets forth the criteria for confirmation of a chapter 13 plan. Section 7 amends section 1325(a)(5) (which specifies the mandatory treatment that an allowed secured claim provided for under the plan must receive) to provide an exception for a claim modified under new section 1322(b)(11). The amendment also clarifies that payments under a plan that includes a modification of a claim under new section 1322(b)(11) must be in equal monthly amounts pursuant to section 1325(a)(5)(B)(iii)(I). In addition, section 7 specifies certain protections for a creditor whose rights are modified under new section 1322(b)(11). As a condition of confirmation, new section 1325(a)(10) requires a plan to provide that the creditor must retain its lien until the later of when: (1) the holder's allowed secured claim (as modified) is paid; (2) the debtor completes all payments under the chapter 13 plan; or (3) if applicable, the debtor receives a discharge under section 1328(b). Section 7 also provides standards for confirming a chapter 13 plan that modifies a claim pursuant to new section 1322(b)(11). First, the debtor cannot have been convicted of obtaining by actual fraud the extension, renewal, or refinancing of credit that gives rise to such modified claim. Second, the modification must be in good faith. Lack of good faith exists if the debtor has no need for relief under this provision because the debtor can pay all of his or her debts and any future payment increases on such debts without difficulty for the foreseeable future, including the positive amortization of mortgage debt. In determining whether a modification under section 1322(b)(11) that reduces the principal amount of the loan is made in good faith, the court must consider whether the holder of the claim (or the entity collecting payments on behalf of such holder) has offered the debtor a qualified loan modification that would enable the debtor to pay such debts and such loan without reducing the principal amount of the mortgage. Section 7 further amends section 1325 to add a new provision. New section 1325(d) authorizes the court, on request of the debtor or the mortgage holder, to confirm a plan proposing to reduce the interest rate lower than that specified in new section 1322(b)(11)(C)(ii), provided: (1) the modification does not reduce the mortgage principal; (2) the total mortgage payment is reduced through interest rate reduction to the percentage of the debtor's income that is the standard for a modification in accordance with the Obama Administration's Homeowner Affordability and Stability Plan, as implemented on March 4, 2009; (3) the court determines that the debtor can afford such modification in light of the debtor's financial situation, after allowance of expense amounts that would be permitted for a debtor subject to section 1325(b)(3), regardless of whether the debtor is otherwise subject to such paragraph, and taking into account additional debts and fees that are to be paid in chapter 13 and thereafter; and (4) the debtor is able to prevent foreclosure and pay a fully amortizing 30-year loan at such reduced interest rate without such reduction in principal. If the mortgage holder accepts a debtor's proposed modification under this provision, the plan's treatment is deemed to satisfy the requirements of section 1325(a)(5)(A) and the proposal should not be rejected by the court. Section 8. Discharge. Bankruptcy Code section 1328 sets forth the requirements by which a chapter 13 debtor may obtain a discharge and the scope of such discharge. Section 8 amends section 1328(a) to clarify that the unpaid portion of an allowed secured claim modified under new section 1322(b)(11) is not discharged. This provision is not intended to create a claim for a deficiency where such a claim would not otherwise exist. Section 9. Standing Trustee Fees. Section 9(a) amends 28 U.S.C. Sec. 586(e)(1)(B)(i) to provide that a chapter 13 trustee may receive a commission set by the Attorney General of no more than four percent on payments made under a chapter 13 plan and disbursed by the chapter 13 trustee to a creditor whose claim was modified under Bankruptcy Code section 1322(b)(11), unless the bankruptcy court waives such fees based on a determination that the debtor has income less than 150 percent of the official poverty line applicable to the size of the debtor's family and payment of such fees would render the debtor's plan infeasible. With respect to districts not under the United States trustee system, section 9(b) makes a conforming revision to section 302(d)(3) of the Bankruptcy Judges, United States Trustees, and Family Farmer Bankruptcy Act of 1986. Section 10. Effective Date; Application of Amendments. Section 10(a) provides that this measure and the amendments made by it, except as provided in subsection (b), take effect on the Act's date of enactment. Section 10(b)(1) provides, except as provided in paragraph (2), that the amendments made by this measure apply to cases commenced under title 11 of the United States Code before, on, or after the Act's date of enactment. Section 10(b)(2) specifies that paragraph (1) does not apply with respect to cases that are closed under the Bankruptcy Code as of the date of the enactment of this Act. Section 11. GAO Study. Section 11 requires the Government Accountability Office to complete a study and to submit a report to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees within two years from the enactment of this Act. The report must contain the results of the study of: (1) the number of debtors who filed cases under chapter 13, during the one-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act for the purpose of restructuring their principal residence mortgages; (2) the number of mortgages restructured under this Act that subsequently resulted in default and foreclosure; (3) a comparison between the effectiveness of mortgages restructured under programs outside of bankruptcy, such as Hope Now and Hope for Homeowners, and mortgages restructured under this Act; (4) the number of appeals in cases where mortgages were restructured under this Act; (5) the number of such appeals where the bankruptcy court's decision was overturned; and (6) the number of bankruptcy judges disciplined as a result of actions taken to restructure mortgages under this Act. In addition, the report must include a recommendation as to whether such amendments should be amended to include a sunset clause. Section 12. Report to Congress. Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Government Accountability Office, in consultation with the Federal Housing Administration, must submit to Congress a report containing: (1) a comprehensive review of the effects of the Act's amendments on bankruptcy courts; (2) a survey of whether the types of homeowners eligible for the program should be limited; and (3) a recommendation on whether such amendments should remain in effect.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, today, I am introducing the ``Cyber Privacy Fortification Act of 2014.'' This bill would provide criminal penalties for the failure to comply with federal or state obligations to report security breaches of the sensitive personally identifiable information of individuals. Certain breaches would also be required to be reported to the FBI or the Secret Service. The bill would also require federal agencies engaged in rulemaking related to personally identifiable information to publish privacy impact statements relating to the impact of the proposed rule. One of the main motivators for cybercrime and computer network intrusions is financial gain. Intrusions into networks of financial institutions and businesses may yield information, often on a large scale, about customers such as credit and debit card numbers, Social Security numbers, birth dates, account passwords, and other personally identifiable information. Information obtained through such data breaches may be used to steal from the accounts of the customers, use their credit cards, hack into their personal communications, or the information may be sold to others who commit these crimes or compile provides about individuals which others might find valuable. With constant revelations about new data breaches impacting millions of Americans, we must take additional steps to protect the sensitive information of consumers maintained on corporate databases. This bill will provide a greater incentive for companies to provide notice of breaches consumers' sensitive information such as Social Security numbers and financial account numbers. This protects the privacy of our citizens and allows them to be vigilant against identity theft.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Congratulations, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today, together with my colleagues-- the Honorable Bob Goodlatte, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee; the Honorable Spencer Bachus, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law; and the Honorable Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr., Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust--to recognize the 50th anniversary of the Administrative Conference of the United States. Every year, federal agencies issue thousands of regulations that concern the food we eat, the air we breathe, and the autos we drive. Although regulations play a role in myriad aspects of our daily lives, there is no independent, nonpartisan entity--other than the Administrative Conference of the United States--that exists specifically so that Congress can call upon it to evaluate ways to improve the regulatory process. This year marks the 50th anniversary of the Administrative Conference of the United States, an independent federal agency tasked by Congress to make recommendations intended to improve the administrative process and to provide nonpartisan expert advice. Over the course of its existence, many of these recommendations have been enacted into law or voluntarily implemented by federal agencies and the federal judiciary. As a result of the Conference's excellent work, our Nation's federal administrative procedures are not only looked to as a standard around the world, but constantly in the course of additional improvement. From its inception in 1964, the Conference has provided invaluable guidance to all three branches of government, including federal agencies, Congress, and the federal judiciary--about how to make the regulatory process more responsive, efficient, and cost-effective. Members of the Conference are drawn from executive and judicial branches of the federal government, academia, as well as from the private sector. Congress has assigned the Conference important responsibilities in the implementation of the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act, the Negotiated Rulemaking Act, the Equal Access to Justice Act, the Congressional Accountability Act, and the Magnusson-Moss Warranty- Federal Trade Commission Improvement Act. In addition, the Conference has facilitated judicial review of agency decisions and helped eliminate various technical impediments to such review. And, the Conference helps save taxpayer dollars. Just one agency alone--the Social Security Administration--estimated that the Conference's recommendation to change that agency's appeals process would result in approximately $85 million in savings. In recognition of its many accomplishments, the Conference has enjoyed broad bipartisan and bicameral support over the years. President Lyndon Baines Johnson signed the initial legislation creating the Conference into law in 1964, and President George W. Bush reauthorized the Conference in 2008. Similarly, the Conference is supported by the private sector and advocacy groups across the political spectrum. United States Supreme Court Justices Stephen Breyer and Antonin Scalia have testified before the House Committee on the Judiciary in support of the Conference and its work on not just one, but two highly historic occasions. Justice Breyer, for example, cited the Conference's ``unique'' role in identifying ways to improve the federal regulatory process. He explained in 2004, prior to the Conference's revival in 2010: Given the Conference's rather low cost (a small central staff, commissioning academic papers, endless amounts of volunteered private time, and two general meetings a year), it is indeed a pity that by abolishing this Conference, we have weakened our federal government's ability to respond effectively, in this general way, to the problems of its citizens. I have not found other institutions readily available to perform this same task. Individual agencies, while trying to reform themselves, sometimes lack the ability to make cross- agency comparisons. The American Bar Association's Administrative Law Section, while a fine institution, cannot call upon the time and resources of agency staff members and agency heads as readily as could the Administrative Conference. Congressional staffs cannot as easily conduct the technical research necessary to develop many of the Conference's more technical proposals. The Office of Management and Budget does not normally concern itself with general procedural proposals. Justice Scalia also described the Conference's ``unique'' characteristics. Citing its ``combination of talents from the academic world, from within the executive branch . . . and, . . . from the private bar, especially lawyers particularly familiar with administrative law,'' he observed, ``I did not know another organization that so effectively combined the best talent from each of those areas.'' In sum, Justice Scalia said that ACUS was ``obviously . . . a worthwhile organization'' and that it was ``an enormous bargain.'' Accordingly, we are pleased to mark the 50th anniversary of the Conference and to express our continued support for its very important work.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 83, Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015, and to set forth my views on certain matters concerning or relating to the jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary. While the bill does fund many agencies and programs within the Judiciary Committee's jurisdiction at the 2014 enacted level or higher through September 2015, H.R. 83 funds the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) only through February 27, 2015 because of the Republican Leadership's opposition to the President's actions on immigration. By restricting funding to DHS to a highly limited duration, this measure is not only short-sighted and irresponsible, but potentially harmful to all Americans. H.R. 83, by providing short-term funding to DHS, makes it nearly impossible for the agency to pursue long-term strategies to ensure the safety and security of our Nation. The bill jeopardizes many critical functions of DHS, including developing technologies to prevent future terrorism attacks and securing the Internet to fight various cyber crimes such as identity theft and financial fraud. It also undermines the agency's Disaster Relief Fund that FEMA uses to fund response and recovery efforts associated with major disasters. Other affected DHS components include the Secret Service, which protects the President and the White House from attack, and the U.S. Coast Guard, which provides essential operations, training, and equipment to those who guard our Nation's waters. Essentially, the Majority has bundled with must-pass year-end appropriations legislation a short-sighted measure intended to lash back at the President's humanitarian efforts to deal with a major immigration crisis. As a result, H.R. 83 now puts at risk the ability of the DHS and its thousands of dedicated employees to protect all Americans from terrorism, disaster, and crime. With respect to other agencies and programs that fall within the Judiciary Committee's authorization jurisdiction, H.R. 83 appropriates funding in most instances above 2014 enacted levels. Nevertheless, I am disappointed that the bill reduces funding for the COPS Program--a very effective initiative to reduce crime by putting more police on the streets and promoting community policing--by $6 million. The bill also extends the Internet Tax Freedom Act till October 1, 2015, which is a moratorium on state and local taxation of Internet access and on multiple or discriminatory taxes on electronic commerce, and which includes grandfather protections. In addition, the bill includes various riders, some of which are harmful. Fortunately, the final version of H.R. 83 does not include numerous House-proposed riders that would have impeded the Environmental Protection Agency's regulatory authority to ensure the safety of our Nation's air and water. Further, H.R. 83 attempts to prevent the implementation of an initiative legalizing recreational use of marijuana in the District of Columbia by prohibiting the use of any funds to ``enact any law, rule, or regulation'' for such purpose. It is my understanding, however, that as this initiative has already been enacted, no further funds are needed for it to go into effect. Thus, the bill's restriction has no legal effect on the initiative. The following summarizes the bill's principal provisions pertaining to the Judiciary Committee's jurisdiction: Judiciary Funding: $6.7 billion for the Judiciary, which is $182 million more than the 2014 enacted level; the $182 million increase is $1 million less than the Judiciary's request. Riders: 10 temporary district judgeships were extended for 1 year; no funding for new courthouse construction until the General Services Administration completes a feasibility study. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Funding: $3.5 billion for the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), which is equal to CBO's projection of USPTO's FY 2015 fee revenue collections, and $434 million above the 2014 enacted level. Department of Justice Funding: --$8.44 billion for the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which is $93.3 million more than the 2014 enacted level. --$2.03 billion for the Drug Enforcement Agency, which is $15.3 million more than the 2014 enacted level. --$1.2 billion for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, which is $22 million more than the 2014 enacted level. --$6.82 billion for the Bureau of Prisons, Salaries and Expenses account, which is $46 million more than the 2014 enacted level. --$376 million for Byrne-JAG grants, which is the same as the 2014 enacted level. --$208 million for the COPS program, which is $6 million less than the 2014 enacted level. --$430 million for Violence Against Women Prevention and Prosecution Programs, which is $13 million above the 2014 enacted level. --$125 million for the ongoing DNA Initiative program which funds the testing of sexual assault kits, which is the same as the FY 2014 enacted level and $25 million above the request. In addition, $41 million is included for the new Community Sexual Assault Kit Backlog Reduction program. --$73 million for the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), which is $14.5 million more than the 2014 enacted level and $18 million more than the request. Riders: --The agreement rejects House policy riders to: 1) block reporting requirements on multiple sales of rifles/shotguns to the same person, and 2) make permanent two annual riders related to firearms. --The agreement rejects a House rider to defund grants to state or local law enforcement on the basis of local immigration policy. --The agreement rejects a House rider prohibiting the Department of Justice from enforcing certain parts of the Fair Housing Act. Legal Services Corporation Funding: $375 million, which is $10 million above the enacted 2014 level. Federal Trade Commission Funding: $293 million, which is $5 million below the 2014 enacted level but reflects one-time moving expenses for 2014. Administrative Conference of the United States Funding: $3.1 million, which is $.1 million above the 2014 enacted level. Other Matters Abortion --The agreement does not include a House rider prohibiting funds to subsidize abortion services in connection with a multi-state plan offered under the Affordable Care Act exchanges negotiated by OPM. Surveillance --The agreement does not include significant House-passed reforms on government surveillance activities conducted by the National Security Agency, but instead retains current law. Health and Environmental Regulatory Concerns --The agreement does not include a House policy rider prohibiting EPA's Clean Power Plan Proposed Rule. --The agreement does not include a House policy rider prohibiting EPA's rule clarifying which waters are protected by the Clean Water Act. --The agreement does not include a House policy rider prohibiting EPA from changing the way discharge of fill material is regulated. --The agreement includes a House policy rider prohibiting regulation of lead in ammunition. --The agreement includes a House policy rider prohibiting the issuance of final and proposed rules related to Sage Grouse under the Endangered Species Act. --The agreement does not include a House policy rider prohibiting EPA from ensuring mining companies are financially capable of cleaning up pollution rather than taxpayers, but includes report language on the matter. --The agreement does not include a House policy rider prohibiting EPA from enforcing a rule on safe removal and renovation of lead paint, but includes report language on the matter. --The agreement does not include a House policy rider prohibiting funding for the development or revisions of regulations regarding imported ivory.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I feel, as all of us do, that we rise today to honor an accomplished public servant, an effective problem-solver, and a tireless advocate for our society's most vulnerable, Congresswoman Marcia Fudge of Ohio. As she concludes her tenure as chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus, she makes us all obligated to share our deep appreciation for her courage and her thoughtfulness. Since taking office 6 years ago, Congresswoman Fudge has been a national leader in the fight for job creation, the safety net, access to health care, and quality nutrition, and she has been able to motivate some 43 other Members of the Congressional Black Caucus in supporting these issues that have made her so outstanding. It is fortuitous that she came to lead the Congressional Black Caucus at a time of unprecedented attacks on the Nation's nutrition-support systems that are essential for saving lives and eliminating the opportunity gap. She has been unwavering and unstinting in her defense of people who rely on Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program or SNAP--as well as child nutrition and school feeding programs--for survival. There's no better way to reduce inequality than to ensure that children have access to the nutrition they need to prosper. As the Senior Member of the Judiciary Committee, I am also extremely grateful for Chairwoman Fudge's leadership and extraordinary insight and energy in advocating for voting rights and for victims of excessive force. Chairwoman Fudge has played an indispensable role in preserving the CBC's legacy as the ``Conscience of the Congress.''

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. I thank my colleague for yielding. Mr. Speaker and members of the committee, I rise today to honor a true statesman in every sense of the word, the dean of the House, chairman emeritus of the Energy and Commerce Committee, and a champion of the people of Metropolitan Detroit, the Honorable Congressman John Dingell. Now, I have had the distinct honor of working with Congressman Dingell for the last six decades, first as a member of his congressional staff and then as his colleague in the Michigan delegation. Over these six decades, we have fought together successfully for Medicare, for clean air and water, for workers' rights, and most importantly, for civil rights. Over these decades, he has succeeded at truly Herculean tasks, including passing the Endangered Species Act, the 1990 Clean Air Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Affordable Care Act, the Patients' Bill of Rights, and the Children's Health Insurance Program, among many others. Congressman Dingell is a masterful legislator but, most importantly, a man of conscience. As he passes the torch on to another extraordinary leader, Congresswoman-elect Debbie Dingell, I am so proud to salute his legacy of compassion and service.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the life and music of a great Detroit Motown Records singer and songwriter, Jimmy Ruffin, who passed away on November 17th, 2014, at the age of 78. His contribution to popular music left a huge mark on the music industry and Rhythm and Blues music. As the Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee, I have worked on music and copyright issues over the years and have a deep appreciation for the contribution that Mr. Ruffin made for lovers of Rhythm and Blues music across the world. Mr. Ruffin, born in Collinsville, Mississippi, was the older brother of the late Temptations singer David Ruffin. Both of them sang gospel music in the South and Detroit where their family later moved. They also worked with Barry Gordy and Motown Records, where they became widely known for their style of music. After serving honorably in the U.S. Army here and overseas he returned to Motown Records to continue his career. Jimmy Ruffin not only wrote but sang many of his musical creations which included his song ``What Becomes of the Brokenhearted,'' which went on to become a Top 10 pop hit. His reputation grew in this country and around the world. His popularity through the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s continued to grow as he put out songs including ``I've Passed This Way Before'' and ``Gonna Give Her All the Love I've Got.'' Jimmy and David Ruffin went on to work together on the 1970s album ``I Am My Brother's Keeper.'' In the 1980's he had a major hit, ``Hold on to My Love,'' which the Bee Gees' Robin Gibb produced. Mr. Ruffin will be missed for his singing and as a musician he produced music that was legendary. We are grateful for the songs and music that Mr. Ruffin provided to the Nation over the years and his songs will live on to be enjoyed by future generations. I am sad that we have lost a great performer, a consummate artist and one of Motown Records' biggest stars. Our condolences go out to his family and friends around the world.

Mr. CONYERS

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

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

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, in 1 week this 113th Congress will expire without having considered a single piece of legislation to fix our Nation's broken immigration system. It has been 525 days since the Senate passed bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform legislation that would have made meaningful and long overdue reforms. But our Chamber here has still steadfastly refused to allow an up-or-down vote on that measure. No one questions that our immigration system is broken. It is failing our economy and millions of families and our businesses. And yet, rather than deal with these critical issues, we are here today to vote on yet another symbolic, anti-immigrant measure that has absolutely no chance of consideration in the Senate. I want to be clear. H.R. 5759 is politically motivated, hastily drafted, and an attempt, once again, to attack our President, as well as immigrant families who contribute to our communities and our economy. By blocking the protections offered by the President's actions, the legislation would deprive nearly 5 million immigrants and their families of the hope that they might finally live without constant fear of separation and deportation. It would undermine the administration's efforts to devote greater resources toward securing our borders and deporting felons and not families. This would mean millions of undocumented immigrants would not be asked to pass national security and criminal background checks and pay their fair share of taxes in order to register for temporary protection from deportation. Now, H.R. 5759 falsely claims that President Obama's assertion of authority is unlawful. The constitutionality of the President's executive order is recognized by both liberal and conservative legal experts. In a letter written last month, 11 prominent scholars explained that the President's actions ``are within the power of the executive branch and that they represent a lawful exercise of the President's authority.'' This letter was signed--I was amazed at the list of constitutional authorities: Walter Dellinger; David Strauss, formerly with the Solicitor General's Office; Laurence Tribe; and even conservative professors like Eric Posner. Five days later, 135 immigration law professors echoed that conclusion and provided substantial constitutional, statutory, and regulatory authority for these actions; not to mention that the President himself was a professor of constitutional law. Finally, this measure, H.R. 5759, goes well beyond preventing the President from expanding deferred action for childhood arrivals or creating a program to protect the parents of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents from deportation. It would not only prevent this President, but any future President from protecting discrete categories of individuals facing unique dangers and challenges. This means that no future administration would be able to parole in place the undocumented parents or spouses and children of military personnel and veterans, or facilitate enlistment in our armed services by American citizens who have undocumented family members, or grant deferred action to victims of a crime or serious forms of human trafficking. For these and other reasons, this legislation is opposed by many organizations that care about our immigration system and are working to protect the vulnerable among us, including the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, the AFL-CIO, the Service Workers International Union, and the National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence Against Women. Let's think this through carefully, and I urge you to oppose this very dangerous anti-immigrant measure. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds before I call on our distinguished gentlelady from California. I want everyone, particularly the author of this bill, to know that, as the senior member of the House Judiciary Committee, I firmly believe and support the Constitution, the amendments, and the precedents. I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), a senior member of the Judiciary Committee who has worked on this issue for a number of years.

Mr. CONYERS. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).

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

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California, Judy Chu, a dedicated member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. CONYERS. I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price). (Mr. PRICE of North Carolina asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlelady from Texas, Sheila Jackson Lee, a distinguished member of the Judiciary.

Mr. CONYERS. I yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield now 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island, Representative Cicilline, a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, Al Green.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois, Luis Gutierrez.

Mr. CONYERS. I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), a senior member on the Judiciary Committee, to close out our side.