John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Ladies and gentlemen of the House, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5421, as amended, the Financial Institution Bankruptcy Act of 2014. It is intended to ensure that the resolution of large, complex financial institutions on the verge of insolvency can be better facilitated under the Bankruptcy Code. I support this legislation for several reasons. First, it addresses a real need, which is recognized by the regulatory agencies, bankruptcy experts, and the private sector, that the bankruptcy law must be amended, so that it can expeditiously restore trust in the financial marketplace after the collapse of a major financial institution. Such was the case with the failure of Lehman Brothers in 2008, for example, which caused a worldwide freeze on the availability of credit, wreaking havoc on Wall Street, as well as on Main Street. The near collapse of our Nation's economy that resulted from Lehman's failure revealed that current bankruptcy law is, unfortunately, ill-equipped to deal with complex financial institutions that are in economic distress. This legislation, accordingly, creates a court-supervised, orderly liquidation mechanism that will be guided by the regulators. In sum, this process will allow a failing financial institution to transfer its assets to a newly-formed bridge company over a single weekend, which will promote confidence in the financial marketplace. The institution's equity and debt will remain in the bankruptcy case to be administered by a trustee under court supervision. As a result, value assets will be maximized for the benefit of creditors, and the marketplace will be stabilized. Additionally, I support the legislation because it appropriately recognizes the important role the Dodd-Frank Act has in the regulation of large financial institutions. Without a doubt, the Great Recession was a direct result of the regulatory equivalent of the Wild West. The Dodd-Frank Act goes a long way toward reinvigorating a regulatory system that makes the financial marketplace more accountable and, hopefully, more resilient. The act also institutes long-needed consumer protections that have up until now not been available. Title II of the Dodd-Frank Act establishes a mandatory administratively-driven resolution process to wind down large financial institutions. Title II is a critical enforcement tool for bank regulators to facilitate compliance with the act's heightened regulatory requirements for large companies. Nevertheless, the Dodd-Frank Act clearly recognizes that bankruptcy should be a first resort and that the title II's orderly liquidation process should be a last resort. In fact, title I of the act explicitly requires these companies to write so-called ``living wills'' that must explain how they will resolve their financial difficulties in a hypothetical bankruptcy scenario. This is because bankruptcy law has, for more than 100 years, enabled some of the Nation's largest companies to regain their financial footing. I am from Detroit, and I remember that General Motors and the Chrysler Corporation were major beneficiaries. H.R. 5421 will ensure that bankruptcy is a truly viable alternative to the Dodd-Frank Act's resolution process. I am pleased to note, as has been referenced by the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, that this legislation is the product of a very collaborative, bipartisan, and deliberate process, which should be the norm, not the exception, when it comes to drafting legislation, so a tip of my hat to Chairman Goodlatte and to the subcommittee chairman for the work that they have done in bringing this legislation to this point. For example, this bill, unlike similar legislation in the Senate, doesn't include any controversial provisions aimed at undoing the important protections of the Dodd-Frank Act. I should also note, however, that H.R. 5421 does not include any provision allowing companies to have access to lenders of last resort. Nearly every expert recognizes that such access, even if it is the Federal Government, is a necessary element to ensure financial stability. I want to acknowledge the excellent level of cooperation on both sides of the aisle on the Judiciary Committee in producing the legislation that is pending before us today, and I urge my colleagues to support this measure. I would like to just add that my friend, Spencer Bachus of Alabama, is a longtime Member who has been particularly active over the years in the areas of administrative law, as well as immigration and criminal justice. I find him an individual of principle who has worked on many bipartisan initiatives. I understand Representative Bachus' father often used the adage, ``If you can't say anything nice about a person, don't say anything at all.'' Mr. Bachus has certainly adhered to that advice, as he was a consummate gentleman who wielded the gavel with fairness at all times when it was his turn to sit in the chair. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I was absent on November 17, 2014 due to a flight delay and therefore missed roll call vote No. 520. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in memoriam of John Doar, who passed away at the age of 92, this past Tuesday, November 11th, 2014. A courageous advocate, a brilliant legal mind, and a remarkable public servant--Mr. Doar will remain an inspiration to everyone who has made and who will make the pursuit of justice their life's work. His accomplishments are such that they cannot seem but exaggerations--but because they are not--I feel the need to stand before you and recognize a colleague who did so much for so many. As a member of the House Judiciary Committee, I was fortunate to have worked with Mr. Doar many times--first during his time as Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of Justice, and later when he served as Special Counsel during the investigation and impeachment in the House of President Nixon. I remember Mr. Doar as someone of fierce determination and true integrity. A Lincoln Republican--he served two Democratic Presidents and impeached a Republican one--without ever changing his party affiliation. But more than an adviser, he was an active participant in making history. He was a firm defender of our national ideals, and he fought their perversion with every tool at his disposal. As one of the architects of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, he helped ensure that every American had the opportunity to fully participate in our society and our democracy. As an attorney and advocate for the American people, he fought to integrate the University of Mississippi, and secured the first conviction of white persons for violent crimes against black persons in the history of Mississippi. As a believer in law and the power of non-violence, he stood between protesters and police on the edge of confrontation in the wake of Medgar Evers funeral. In every action he brought credit to his profession, to the government, and to the promise of our nation. It is has been my privilege to have worked with Mr. Doar for so many years, and it has been America's privilege to have had his service. His example will serve as a benchmark for generations of public servants to come. On behalf of a grateful nation, I extend my sincere thanks and condolences to his family and loved ones.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, jazz artist Geri Allen will be honored this year by the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation (CBCF) at the Jazz Forum and Concert during the 44th Annual Legislative Conference (ALC). Ms. Allen is an internationally renowned pianist, composer, and educator, who will also be performing at the Walter E. Washington Convention Center, in Washington, D.C. Ms. Allen will receive the 2014 CBCF ALC Jazz Legacy Award for her contributions to jazz and world culture. Geri Allen was born on June 12, 1957 in Pontiac, Michigan, but she was raised in Detroit, where she attended Detroit public schools. Her early music education came at Cass Technical High School in Detroit, and through the Jazz Development Workshop, where she was taught by Marcus Belgrave. She then came to Washington, D.C., where she received a degree from Howard University in Jazz Studies in 1979. At Howard, she studied under composers Thomas Kerr, pianists Raymond Jackson, John Malichi, Fred Irby, Arthur Dawkins, and Komla Amoaku. She then left D.C. for New York City, where she learned from bop pianist Kenny Barron. She then moved on to study ethnomusicology at the University of Pittsburgh, earning her masters there. She returned to New York, where she began touring with Mary Wilson and the Supremes in 1982. She later helped charter the Black Rock Coalition and the Brooklyn M-Base movement. She would collaborate on several works with a fellow charter member of that group, Steve Coleman. Her own albums have displayed a depth of range and skill. Her first album, The Printmakers, displays what many have called an avant-garde talent. In 1995, her album Twenty-One, won the Soul Train's Lady of Soul Award for album of the year. In 2008, Ms. Allen won a Guggenheim Fellowship in Composition, which allowed her to release her composition Refractions: Flying Toward the Sound, which celebrates the work of Cecil Taylor, McCoy Tyner, and Herbie Hancock. She is the youngest person and the only woman to receive the Danish JAZZPAR award. In addition to the massive number of awards she has received, which are simply too numerous to mention here, Ms. Allen has also been a remarkable mentor to younger jazz musicians. One example of such efforts is found in the powerful For the Healing of the Nations, a tribute to the survivors of 9/11, which was performed with Howard University's Afro-Blue Jazz Choir. In addition to her work with her alma mater, she has been a professional educator for many years, having taught jazz at the University of Michigan, and presently at the University of Pittsburgh. Despite this list of accomplishments, she has yet to slow down and take a break. She recently released a recording celebrating our collective home town: Grand River Crossings: Motown & Motor City Inspirations. On May 10, 2014, she received an Honorary Doctorate of Music from the Berklee College of Music. Geri Allen is a living national jazz treasure, and I encourage my colleagues to learn more about her tremendous contributions to the most American of art forms.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I agree with President Obama that the destabilizing and destructive actions of ISIL demand an American response. While I am supportive of President Obama's targeted actions against ISIS to date, I believe our government must be mindful of the unintended consequences inherent in training and equipping fighters in a highly complex foreign conflict For this reason, I authored a successful bipartisan amendment to the House's Defense Appropriations bill this summer, prohibiting the transfer of dangerous shoulder-fired antiaircraft missiles known as MANPADs to parties in the Syrian civil war. As President Obama uses any authority granted by Congress to train and equip Syrian rebels, I hope he honors the will of the House of Representatives to prevent the dissemination of these and other dangerous weapons in the Middle East and beyond. We must remain cognizant that military force is not the solution to the strife afflicting Iraq and Syria. I continue to oppose the presence of U.S. ground troops in the region. We must do all we can to eliminate funding sources for ISIL and to support inclusive governance and vigorous dialogue while respecting Iraqi sovereignty. We must also do what we can to promote a peaceful settlement in Syria and to invest in employment-focused economic development throughout the region.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, losing a great jazz artist is always hard for those of us who love the art form. The joy these musicians bring into our lives--the technical skill and virtuosity they allow each of us to witness--is never easily replaced. But it is especially hard when we lose someone who we not only admired as an artist, but who we were fortunate enough to call our friend. This past week we lost Mr. Gerald Wilson, who I had known for many years, and who had just turned 96 on September 4, 2014. Mr. Gerald Wilson was to me not only an icon in the Jazz community-- having served as a National Endowment for the Arts Jazz Master--he was a fellow Detroiter. His penultimate masterpiece, Detroit, captured in all its glory the vibrant spirit of the town that made the 20th Century possible, as well as the promise the future holds for our great city. For seven decades, Gerald Wilson was a force on the jazz circuit where he played, conducted, and arranged with his own band and with names we all know: Duke Ellington, Dizzy Gillespie, Benny Carter, and Ella Fitzgerald. In addition to his talent as a performer and composer, he served in the U.S. Navy during World War II, taught for many years at universities in California, and most importantly--was a loving husband and father. Just a few years ago, he was the headliner at a concert I promoted as part of an annual leadership conference held in Washington, D.C., where we celebrated his 92nd birthday. Though I am heartbroken to see him go, I know that I am--and we all are--fortunate to have had the chance to know him, see him, and hear him.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. Ladies and gentlemen of the House, I strongly oppose H.R. 5272. This, in all honesty and candor, is one of the most mean-spirited and anti- immigrant pieces of legislation I have seen in all of my years in the Congress. Now, the main reason, of course, is that it would unfairly harm current and future DREAM Act kids. The majority have been clear about their intent with this bill: No DREAMers. This legislation is designed to prevent young people who have lived here most of their lives and are members of our communities from benefiting from deferred action. It would foreclose the administration from focusing resources on identifying and removing individuals such as criminals and gang members from our communities. And even worse, the legislation would mean that the hundreds of thousands of young people who have already benefited from deferred action, who are contributing to our economy, participating in our communities, and obtaining an education could be deported in less than 2 years. And that is why the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, the AFL-CIO, and the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU, have already registered their strong opposition to the bill. I am confident that there are many more who would oppose this legislation because it seeks to roll back protections supported by civil rights organizations, religious organizations, college and university presidents, labor unions, and national educational organizations. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. I am now pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutieerrez).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

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

Mr. CONYERS. How much time remains on either side, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas, Sheila Jackson Lee, a distinguished member of the judiciary committee.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa).

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

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, we are ready to close on this side.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, to close.

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

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

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

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. I thank the gentlelady. Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, as the former chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, I rise in strong opposition to House Resolution 676, which would authorize the Speaker to file suit against the President of the United States for failing to enforce the Affordable Care Act, which has been attacked more than 51 times unsuccessfully in the House. Now, why do I oppose this seriously flawed measure? One, the fact that it addresses a nonexistent problem. Two, it violates constitutional requirements and fundamental separation of power principles. And three, it diverts Congress from focusing on truly critical matters that require prompt legislative responses. Mr. Speaker, I would like to include in the Record a letter received only today signed by eight constitutional law scholars explaining the reasons why a lawsuit filed pursuant to H. Res. 676 is likely to fail. July 30, 2014. Hon. John Boehner, Speaker of the House, Washington, DC. Dear Speaker Boehner, We write as law professors who specialize in constitutional law and federal courts to express our view that the members of the House of Representatives lack the ability to sue the President of the United States in federal court for his alleged failure to enforce a federal statute, even if an Act of Congress were to authorize such a suit and especially without such legislative authorization. Never in American history has such a suit been allowed. In fact, in many cases, the United States Supreme Court and the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit have held that members of Congress lack standing to sue in federal court. An entire House of Congress is in no stronger a position to sue. Moreover, this is exactly the type of political dispute which courts have found to pose a non-justiciable political question and that should be resolved in the political process rather than by judges. In Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811 (1997), members of Congress sued to challenge the constitutionality of the line-item veto. The Court dismissed the case for lack of standing and said that the members of Congress ``have alleged no injury to themselves as individuals, the institutional injury they allege is wholly abstract and widely dispersed, and their attempt to litigate this dispute at this time and in this form is contrary to historical experience . . . . We therefore hold that these individual members of Congress do not have a sufficient `personal stake' in this dispute and have not alleged a sufficiently concrete injury to have established Article III standing.'' After Raines v. Byrd, it is clear that legislators have standing only if they allege either that they have been singled out for specially unfavorable treatment as opposed to other members of their bodies or that their votes have been denied or nullified. This is consistent with a large body of lower court precedent, primarily from the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, that requires a showing of nullification of a vote as a prerequisite for standing. The Court of Appeals has stated that a member of Congress has standing only if ``the alleged diminution in congressional influence . . . amount[s] to a disenfranchisement, a complete nullification or withdrawal of a voting opportunity.'' Goldwater v. Carter, 617 F.2d 697, 702 (D.C. Cir. 1979), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 444 U.S. 996 (1979); see also Harrington v. Bush, 553 F.2d 190, 213 (D.C. Cir. 1977). It is just for this reason that the House of Representatives as a body, like its members individually, lacks standing to sue. The claim that the President has not fully enforced provisions of the Affordable Care Act, or other laws, does not amount to a ``disenfranchisement, a complete nullification, or withdrawal of a voting opportunity.'' Congress retains countless mechanisms to ensure enforcement of a law, ranging from use of its spending power to assigning the task to an independent agency. On many occasions throughout American history, the Supreme Court has seen the need for the federal judiciary to stay out of disputes between the elected branches of government. That is exactly the lesson that the proposed lawsuit would ignore. Thus the suit likely would be dismissed both for want of standing and because it poses a non-justiciable political question. As Justice Scalia pointed out years ago, courts frequently fail to review actions or inaction by the Executive when a decision involves ``a sensitive and inherently discretionary judgment call, . . . the sort of decision that has traditionally been nonreviewable, . . . [and decisions for which] review would have disruptive practical consequences.'' Webster v. Doe, 486 U.S. 592, 608 (1988) (Scalia, J., dissenting). The question presented here poses the very essence of what the Supreme Court in Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 217 (1962), said is a political question because of ``the impossibility of deciding without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for nonjudicial discretion; or the impossibility of a court's undertaking independent resolution without expressing lack of the respect due coordinate branches of government.'' The idea of a judge telling a President how to exercise his discretion in enforcing a law cuts at the heart of separation of powers and thus presents a question non-justiciable in the courts. Under long-standing practice and precedents, disputes, such as this one between members of the House of Representatives and the President, must be worked out in the political process, not the courts. Disclaimer: institutional affiliations are for identification purposes only. Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean, University of California, Irvine School of Law; Janet Cooper Alexander, Frederick I. Richman Professor of Law, Stanford Law School; Peter Edelman, Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center; Lawrence Lessig, Roy L. Furman Professor of Law, Harvard Law School; Burt Neuborne, Inez Milholland Professor of Civil Liberties, New York University Law School; Kermit Roosevelt, Professor of Law, University of Pennsylvania Law School; Suzanna Sherry, Herman O. Loewenstein Professor of Law, Vanderbilt University Law School; Charles Tiefer, Professor, University of Baltimore School of Law.

Mr. CONYERS. To begin with, H. Res. 676 seeks to solve a nonexistent problem because the President has, in fact, fully met his obligations to fully execute the laws. Allowing flexibility in the implementation of a major new program, even where the statute mandates a specific deadline, is neither unusual nor a constitutional violation. Indeed, in the case of the Affordable Care Act's employer mandate, the administration acted pursuant to statutory authorization granted to it by Congress. Section 7805(a) of the Internal Revenue Code authorizes the Treasury Secretary to issue any rules necessary for the enforcement of the Code, including the provisions that enforce the employer mandate. Exercising discretion in implementing a law is the reality of administering sometimes complex programs and is inherent in the President's duty to ``take care'' that he ``faithfully'' execute laws. This has been especially true with respect to the Affordable Care Act. The President's decision to extend certain compliance dates to help phase-in the Act is not a novel tactic. Yet, even though not a single court has ever concluded that reasonable delay in implementing a complex law constitutes a violation of the Take Care Clause, the Majority insists there is a constitutional crisis. In addition, a suit initiated under H. Res. 676 would itself be unconstitutional and would violate separation of powers principles. This is because such a lawsuit would essentially allow federal courts to second-guess decisions by the Executive Branch in how it chooses to implement a policy. The federal judiciary, under the political question doctrine, avoids answering such questions precisely because a court is not appropriate forum to resolve issues of complex policy. Additionally, it is highly unlikely that Congress could satisfy the standing requirements of Article III of the Constitution that must be met in order to enforce the Take Care Clause. To meet those requirements, a plaintiff--under the Supreme Court's 1997 decision in Raines v. Byrd--must show, among other things, that it suffered a concrete and particularized injury. Injury amounting only to an alleged violation of a right to have the Government act in accordance with law--which is what this resolution contemplates--is not judicially cognizable for Article III standing purposes. This is in stark contrast to cases where Congress has sought to protect a fundamental power, like its subpoena authority. In subpoena enforcement cases, courts have found standing for one House of Congress to sue because a specific legislative prerogative was at stake, constituting a sufficiently concrete injury to Congress to confer Article III standing. Article III's standing requirements enforce the Constitution's separation-of-powers principles. Congress cannot simply legislate away these constitutional standing requirements. Finally, H. Res. 676 is obviously just pure political theater that distracts the public from the fact that this Republican-controlled House has failed to address a whole host of critical issues. These include immigration reform, extending unemployment insurance, enhancing environmental protections, ensuring worker safety, and helping those who are financially struggling. Coincidentally, H. Res. 676 shares a number with H.R. 676, the ``Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act,'' which I introduced in February of 2013. H.R. 676 would create a publicly-financed, privately-delivered health care system that would greatly improve and expand the already existing Medicare program. My legislation would ensure that all Americans have access, guaranteed by law, to the highest quality and most cost effective health care services regardless of their employment, income or health care status. Instead of discussing this and other critical matters, today we continue to waste precious resources on a patently unconstitutional measure that would authorize a lawsuit destined to fail. We owe it to the American people to address real, not imaginary, challenges facing our Nation, including enhancing health care for all Americans. I would also note that the litigation referred to by the gentleman from Texas that I was involved in eight years ago involved a situation where the House and Senate passed different versions of the same budget bill that was signed by the President. That was brought in our individual capacity as Members, not the House as a whole, and did not involve the use of additional taxpayer funds. The resolution before us today is of course an entirely different matter.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, I rise today to celebrate the 49th anniversary of the Medicare bill. The impact of Medicare on the lives of millions of Americans over the past 49 years has been extraordinary. As a result of this program, Mr. Speaker, millions of Americans have lived longer, more productive, and healthier lives. I am very fortunate and honored to be able to say that I was one of the few Members still here who cast a vote for Medicare in 1965. Earlier that year, I joined with the gentleman from California, Cecil King, and I introduced, as my very first piece of legislation, a bill that would have provided health care under Social Security and an increase of benefits. Mr. Speaker, I said at that time: Our senior citizens have far too long been neglected in this, the most prosperous society on Earth. Many of them, after leading productive lives prior to their twilight years, have been so overburdened with medical costs that they have been denied the rewards that should come with retirement. I am proud to say that in my nearly five decades since the enactment of Medicare, the program has accomplished its mission of providing retirement security for America's seniors and care for those suffering from disabilities and debilitating diseases; yet Medicare continues to face threats from some of the same opponents that have opposed its enactment back in 1965. They continue to seek to cut Medicare's guaranteed benefits and push seniors into private plans, which value profits over health outcomes. Today we present another path forward, one in which Medicare's benefits are protected by expanding health care security and insurance coverage to more Americans, not fewer. Since 2003, I have introduced H.R. 676, the Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act, which would create a national publicly funded, privately delivered single-payer health care system. Studies have shown that enacting H.R. 676 would save nearly a half trillion dollars by slashing the administrative waste associated with the private health care system. Another $100 billion would be saved by using the purchasing power of the Federal Government to reduce pharmaceutical prices to the levels that exist in other industrialized nations. Lastly, by slowing the growth of health care costs, H.R. 676 would save $5 trillion over the next decade, thereby ensuring that the guarantee of affordable public health insurance will be there to be enjoyed by future generations. And so for all of these reasons, H.R. 676 is one of my most important pieces of legislation in my way of thinking, and I am proud that it now has 60 cosponsors. I want to thank the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Clark) for being the 60th sponsor. But I would be remiss if I did not reiterate my strong support for President Obama's landmark health care legislation, the Affordable Care Act. The Affordable Care Act's results speak for themselves. As of this month, the percentage of uninsured Americans is now the lowest on record. The Affordable Care Act has protected as many as 129 million Americans with preexisting conditions from being denied health care coverage or being charged higher premiums. It has provided free preventive health care services such as mammograms, birth control, and immunizations to the 100 million Americans who are on private insurance or Medicare. Around 60 million Americans have gained expanded mental health benefits. And since the Affordable Care Act was enacted, almost 8 million seniors have saved nearly $10 billion on prescription drugs as the health care law closes Medicare's doughnut hole. But, as with any complex law, implementation can be difficult and there will be unforeseen issues. Those issues have been seized by some opponents against expanding health care who hope to eliminate health insurance for those who cannot afford it. This is unacceptable. While we must continue to defend the Affordable Care Act, we must also work to ensure that any future changes to the Affordable Care Act take us in the direction of the universal health care enjoyed by virtually all of the citizens of other industrialized countries. I hope Members of Congress and the American public will join me to fight for a day when, in the wealthiest country on Earth, no one has to suffer and die unnecessarily because their health care system prioritizes corporate profits over their health. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, July 25, 2014 marks the 40th anniversary of the establishment of the Legal Services Corporation, a private, nonprofit corporation tasked with ensuring equal justice for all Americans who are unable to afford legal representation. The creation of LSC was long-championed by President Richard Nixon who ultimately signed its enabling legislation on July 25, 1974 with bipartisan support from the Congress. Federally-funded, LSC awards grants to 134 local legal aid programs, with nearly 800 offices serving every congressional district and the U.S. territories. LSC-funded legal aid programs provide vital civil legal assistance to the needy, including women seeking protection from domestic abuse, mothers trying to obtain child support, families facing unlawful evictions or foreclosures that could leave them homeless, veterans seeking benefits duly earned, seniors defending against consumer scams, and individuals who have lost their jobs and need help in applying for unemployment compensation and other benefits. Unfortunately, because of a decrease in its federal funding over the last several Congresses, LSC-funded programs have had to turn away more than 50 percent of eligible clients seeking assistance. With the growing number of Americans eligible for services and increased demand for legal services, the need for legal aid attorneys has never been greater. We should do more to support this vital program and protect our fellow Americans. As President Nixon said in support of his legislation creating LSC, ``[W]e must provide a mechanism to overcome economic barriers to adequate legal assistance.'' On this 40th anniversary of the Legal Services Corporation, we should recommit ourselves to the founding principle and continue to ensure that LSC can fulfill its critical mission through sufficient funding. I commend LSC and its grantee programs for the vital work they do every day on behalf of Americans who need qualified counsel and for continuing its mission of equal justice for all.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, water is a human right. I applaud the recent decision to suspend Detroit's water shutoffs for 15 days to enable residents to demonstrate financial hardship. This is a first step in preventing a regional public health crisis and protecting the basic rights of Detroit residents. I submit the following editorial from the Detroit Free Press, which makes the case that recent water-shutoffs, which have been implemented with little or no warning to households, are wrong-headed and shortsighted. [From the Detroit Free Press, July 21, 2014] Ending Detroit's Water Shut Offs a Good Start On Monday morning, the Detroit Water and Sewerage Department announced that it's calling a 15-day halt to an aggressive shutoff campaign that has left an unknown number of Detroiters without water. It's a start. The department has about 137,000 delinquent residential accounts totaling about $75 million, and about 10,000 delinquent commercial accounts worth about $23 million. Folks who can pay should pay what they owe. But department officials have to accept that some Detroiters just can't pay--and further, that the department itself has created an expectation in customers juggling bills that it's OK to prioritize other debts. If the water department's goal is to get, and keep, delinquent customers current on bills, ramping up shutoffs with no warning to ratepayers was a wrong-headed, shortsighted way to proceed. After weeks of public protest, harsh words from the United Nations, the federal judge overseeing Detroit's bankruptcy and this newspaper's Editorial Board, the department seems to get it. Department officials say they plan a citywide advertising blitz, complete with outreach to community groups and churches. That's excellent news, but outreach must be paired with concerted efforts to match impoverished residents with financial assistance to pay up and stay current. The department should also consider income-based partial amnesty for ratepayers who are truly unable to catch up, or comparing data with social service agencies to identify customers who are in need of assistance. The department must also identify vacant, abandoned homes and target those first. There's little excuse for cutting off water to families as a cost-saving tactic when empty buildings are flooding. We've been told, confidently, by the folks in charge that no one who honestly cannot afford to pay is being deprived of service; that's overconfidence at best, and outright dishonesty at worst, as documented in Free Press reporter Patricia Montemurri's story about conditions in the city this weekend. Some adherents of the department's shutoff campaign have dismissed fears that disconnection from clean water and modern sanitation could lead to a public health crisis, noting that the vast majority of delinquent account holders pay up promptly and have water restored. But let's consider the reality of this situation: If just 10% of the ratepayers currently delinquent are unable to pay to have service restored, we're talking about more than 10,000 residents. It's terrible public policy. All of this against the backdrop of the city's bankruptcy, and the department's efforts to clean up bad debt in an attempt to make a regional water authority more attractive to suburban county executives. (Though let's also keep in mind that aides to Oakland County Executive L. Brooks Patterson wrote in a February report to the Oakland County Commission that ``stoppage of water and sewer service for tens of thousands of fiscally distressed members of the system is unacceptable policy and one the Oakland County executive will never support.'') Detroit is a poor city. About 38% of residents live in poverty. Our unemployment rate is twice the national average. It's time to talk about what our goals are, and rethink how we deliver water.