John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes. The gentleman from Texas, with this amendment, has unerringly gone to the one part of the McCollum habeas reform matter that we could have complimented him on, because he institutes an automatic stay of execution while the habeas petition is pending. By honing in on this one provision, we are now saying that there will not be any need for Federal habeas because the petitioner may be executed while his petition is pending. He might not ever live to find out that he was granted habeas. This is the most ultimately inhumane proposal that we have heard tonight. It is amazing that we have had these contradictory provisions coming from the side of the aisle that wrote the habeas bill that we do not like, and now we have these worsening amendments as the night goes on. I urge the strong strenuous rejection of this proposal by the gentleman from Texas. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I just want everybody in this Chamber to know that, as opposed as I am to this Draconian amendment offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox], ironically, if adopted, it may be the kiss of death for any habeas corpus reform since we know that the Senate is almost sure to deadlock. So, Mr. Chairman, I say to my colleagues, Have it your way, gentlemen. The McCollum habeas and the Cox habeas are in direct contradiction, and you----

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition.

Mr. CONYERS. Briefly.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I was there. He did mention, it was rather fulsome testimony on a great range of subjects. But I could hardly consider that that was the notice that we needed to come here tonight. In the markup, it was never mentioned at all. As a matter of fact, it was the gentleman's provisions on habeas that we gave great attention to. Mr. Chairman, I yield further to the gentleman from North Carolina.

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

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my colleague, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer].

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. CONYERS. If they are going to offer them, would the gentleman just ask them to provide copies to this side, please? Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

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

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, could I ask, are there more than two amendments on the gentleman's side? It seems to me that there is only one amendment on our side. Can the gentleman give us an idea on that?

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the request for a recorded vote.

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

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order and my demand for a recorded vote. So the amendment was agreed to.

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. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. (Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant]. Mr. Chairman, I say to the Members, this amendment, the closer you scrutinize it, the more you can get to like it, and I would like to ask my colleagues to look very carefully at this amendment. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Ohio is known for his very strong comments and commentary on the floor, but, if my colleagues examine this amendment, they will begin to see what I see in here, that he is attempting a carve-out on the McCollum bill, H.R. 666. My first amendment to the bill was an attempt at a codification of a U.S. Supreme Court decision, a very modest one, when we had begun, and they are both working toward the same objective. Now the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], said that this vote, a vote for this amendment, would denigrate the Federal bench. The Federal bench never gets to hear about these who are trying to settle their accounts. Now in my office I have constituents who have been trying to settle their accounts, admittedly delinquent, and if there is somebody here that has never heard of this, I say to them, you can share some of my case load with me. They have been trying to settle their accounts, and they will get a call from the agent at IRS telling them that, if they do not pay in full, immediately, in 30 days, they are going to padlock their dentistry office or they are going to padlock their business, which of course is the only way that they can possibly ever pay back on installments. I have had that repeatedly brought to my attention, so much so that the senior Senator from Michigan has worked with me on hearings in previous Congresses and meetings with IRS officials in our region. So, on behalf of all African-Americans and working class people who cannot retain a CPA or an attorney, Mr. Chairman, this carve-out to limit this untrammeled authority for an agent to objectively use reasonable good faith when he decides whether he is going to padlock someone or kick their door down is a very late-coming one, and I am sorry that I had not risen to this occasion earlier. The IRS cannot be allowed this kind of activity. Mr. Chairman, I hope this will spur an investigation in the appropriate committee, and I hope it is the Committee on the Judiciary, but at the same time let us recognize that if BATF can evade this amendment by joining with the FBI or the DEA, would it not be logical that we should extend the carve-outs to those other agencies as well, because if we do not, Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms will be getting around it by merely cooperating with someone else, including, perhaps, the IRS, perhaps not. But this amendment on its face, Mr. Chairman, is one that merits our colleagues' support. It speaks to a history of misconduct and wrongdoing, and I think that it is a commendable amendment, and as the ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary, I am very proud to attach my support to it.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CONYERS. I am very appreciative of the accord here. Could this be known as the McCollum-Fields substitute amendment?

Mr. CONYERS. I did not suggest that.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CONYERS. If the gentleman will yield, Mr. Chairman, the Government Operations Committee had hearings on the INS in the last Congress with harassed African-American and other minorities and women officers, and the gentleman's amendment and the discussion that surrounds it flows exactly with what we heard. I would refer every Member here to the Government Operations hearings on INS in the 103d Congress. It is a very dangerous instrumentality. There are a lot of good people. I love the commissioner, the director, but it still is not under control and the gentleman's amendment is very good and I accept it on this side.

Mr. CONYERS

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

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?