John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Ladies and gentlemen, H.R. 7 is not about the regulation of Federal funds. Through the Hyde amendment, Congress already prevents funding of abortion and has done so for more than 30 years. Nothing in the Affordable Care Act changes this fact. H.R. 7 is not needed to prevent the Federal funding of abortion, nor does it merely codify existing law as has been falsely asserted by those proponents. As a matter of fact, the bill on the floor today contains numerous new provisions adopted after the Judiciary Committee marked up and reported the bill. This version of the bill has never been examined, debated, or amended by any committee of the House, yet my colleagues in the majority refuse to allow their colleagues any opportunity to amend this harmful bill today. This bill is far too significant and its impact on women is far too harmful to foreclose meaningful debate on an amendment as my colleagues in the majority have done. This measure represents yet another assault on women's health care and constitutionally protected rights and should be rejected. I reserve the balance of my time. I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 7, the so-called ``No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act.'' This bill is just another ill-conceived attempt to push a divisive social agenda instead of focusing on what Americans care most about: creating jobs and improving our Nation's economy. Plain and simple, H.R. 7 is not about the regulation of federal funds, but yet again another attack on women's health and their constitutionally-protected rights. Sponsors of H.R. 7 want you to believe that the bill merely codifies existing law, but this is false. For more than 30 years, the current law has prohibited federal funding for abortion. There is absolutely no risk that the public fisc will be raided to pay for abortion services, even under the Affordable Care Act. The goal of H.R. 7 is to nullify the decisions of women and small business employers who choose insurance coverage that includes abortion coverage paid for with purely private, non-federal funds. Through its novel tax penalty provisions, H.R. 7 departs radically from existing law, taking away women's existing health care and placing their health and lives at risk. H.R. 7 eradicates the authority of the District of Columbia to make decisions about how locally raised funds are used for the healthcare of women. When Delegate Holmes-Norton sought to address the Judiciary Committee about the bill's overreach, her request was denied by the Majority in utter disrespect for her and the District. Women deserve a meaningful examination of their constitutionally- protected private health care decisions, not the frivolous and reckless process the Majority has undertaken on this bill before us today. This bill was rushed through the Judiciary Committee, and was discharged from two other committees of jurisdiction--leaving no opportunity for their Members to seriously consider this legislation. What the Majority has brought to the floor today contains numerous new provisions, has never been examined, debated, or amended by any Committee of the House. The fact that the Minority is foreclosed from offering any amendments today is yet further proof that this legislation is simply intended to be yet another polemic attack on women, against our deliberative legislative process, and an attack against the citizens of the District of Columbia. Why are these latest changes being demanded? Who is pushing this drastic course? I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this egregious bill.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson), a distinguished Judiciary Committee member.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Chu), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. DelBene), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield briefly to the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee). (Ms. JACKSON LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased now to yield the remainder of the time to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. I rise today to honor the birthday of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., the man who so many year ago inspired me and challenged me to pursue a life in public service. His message of love, hope, and compassion ignited a Civil Rights Movement that changed the hearts of millions of Americans. His stirring rhetoric, his devotion to non- violence even in the face of grave danger, and his example of moral courage, breathed new life into the promises of freedom, equality, and justice that have always defined American democracy. Today I remind my colleagues that the nation and world of which he dreamed of remains unrealized. We have eliminated the most invidious forms of Jim Crow, but racism still permeates far too much of our daily lives. We have made great strides in ensuring equal opportunity regardless of race, sex, or religion, but vast inequalities still exist. We have been stalled in our efforts to ensure that every American has the opportunity to grow through education, gain dignity through honest work, and receive equal treatment before the law. These are the struggles where we have failed to live up to the example set by Dr. King; these are the battles Dr. King would be fighting if he was still around to celebrate his 85th birthday. Remember Dr. King, be thankful for the legacy he left behind, and consider what we can do to honor his memory. Happy Birthday Dr. King. Happy Birthday to you.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, a half-century ago today, President Johnson stood before Congress and declared ``unconditional war on poverty.'' Since that declaration we have seen many victories, but also many defeats. Battles may have been won, but the war is far from over. President Johnson's first State of the Union committed his administration to the pursuit of his fallen predecessor's agenda. Not out of sorrow for President Kennedy, but out of conviction for the principles he represented. President Johnson defined the mission of the War on Poverty as helping Americans achieve the American dream. He spoke in terms of the average citizen and his ``hopes for a fair chance to make good; his hopes for fair play from the law; his hopes for a full-time job on full-time pay; his hopes for a decent home for his family in a decent community; his hopes for a good school for his children with good teachers; and his hopes for security when faced with sickness or unemployment or old age. He identified poverty as not the cause but the symptom of America's problems. He believed the cause lay in a lack of education and training, a lack of proper clothing and housing, a lack of safe communities and the sense of security needed to pursue a better life. He challenged the nation to pursue bold solutions. He called for expanded investment to rescue distressed communities; to engage aimless youth in productive purposes; and to ensure basic levels of food, income, and medical security. We have done much in the intervening years to achieve his vision. Today, we have the Affordable Care Act helping Americans to receive vital medical services that were previously out of reach. We have numerous programs helping communities offer their children more opportunities to succeed. We have rooted out the most abject forms of poverty that once prevailed throughout much of our rural communities. The poverty faced by our nation's seniors prior to Johnson's declaration has seen tremendous improvement because of his call to action. And we have expanded workforce training programs and educational opportunities for everyone, sending millions of Americans to college who are the first in their families to attend. Unfortunately these admirable gains reflect less urgency and dedication than the War on Poverty should merit. The gains in the first decade after President Johnson announced this endeavor were remarkable, with the official poverty level hitting its all-time low in 1973. But since then new economic challenges have arisen that work against those at the bottom, limiting the ability of the impoverished to raise their position. Today, we have an inflation-adjusted minimum wage that is less than 70% of what it was at the end of President Johnson's administration. We have vast inequities in our schools that make the quality of children's education first and foremost a function of address and not their own effort or merit. These inequalities are magnified in an era of skyrocketing executive pay, corporate profitability, and worker productivity, where workers must subsist on stagnant wages that cannot even keep up with historically modest inflation. Just a couple of weeks ago, we made the problem worse by cutting off unemployment assistance to 1.3 million long-term job seeking Americans in a job market that simply cannot offer them meaningful employment. I urge my colleagues to cease their assault on the objectives President Johnson declared so long ago. Quit fighting the healthcare law and help us improve, refine, and implement it for the good of all Americans. Quit denigrating people who worked for decades, but through no fault of their own are now facing extended unemployment. They aren't resting on a hammock; they are clinging to anything that floats in an economic storm that we helped Wall Street create. Quit bargaining away the social safety net that prevents a family confronted with an unexpected layoff or family illness from losing their home and their future. But those actions are merely the very least of what we should be doing. If we want to make sure that every person actually has a chance to pursue happiness--which as President Johnson pointed out is the reason that we so jealously guard our security and liberty--then we need to finally win this war. It is time for us to recognize that in the wealthiest nation in the world and in the history of the world, we simply cannot tolerate the sort of persistent poverty that prevents generations of citizens from providing for themselves and their families. Winning this prosperity will require us to take action just as our predecessors did when President Johnson first called upon them. We can begin by taking up my bill, H.R. 1000, which would aggressively pursue a program of job training, and infrastructure and community investment until we reach full-employment. We should also pass a bill to raise the minimum wage and index it to inflation for this generation of workers-- the most productive of any generation in history--so they can realize the same fair break their parents and grandparents had. And we must reauthorize extended unemployment insurance to help salvage the dignity and security of men and women who lost their jobs because of the Wall Street bankers we bailed out in 2008. These are the first steps to ensuring that every American is able to enjoy the fruits of our forebears and our own toil. They are not enough to solve the breadth of problems that we face, but their enactment would lead to a meaningful improvement in the lives of those who are beginning to lose faith in us and themselves. I urge my colleagues to take action this session of Congress that reflects the standards President Johnson laid out a half-century ago and to pursue an agenda that elevates the poor rather than entrenches the rich. We did it before, we can do it again.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the retirement of Wayne S. Brown, the Director of Music and Opera at the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), who is stepping down from his position this week. Mr. Brown is a well-loved and integral part of the NEA, and both he and his record of accomplishments will be greatly missed. The NEA recognizes and supports a wide range of music, from classical to contemporary, including America's native art form: jazz. It works with performing ensembles and music presenting institutions to enrich the cultural lives of Americans. As Director of the NEA's efforts in this area, he has provided critical guidance for countless chamber music ensembles; choruses; early music programs; jazz ensembles; music festivals; symphony orchestras and opera companies. Mr. Brown has been with the NEA since 1997, having previously served as musical producer for the Cultural Olympiad in Atlanta, Georgia for the 1996 Olympic Games, and as executive director of the Louisville Orchestra where he has managed thousands of music and opera grants. He has also overseen national music initiatives, including the NEA Jazz Masters Fellowships, the nation's highest award in jazz; the NEA Opera Honors, celebrating individuals who have made extraordinary contributions to opera in America; and Great American Voices, which brings vocal ensembles from opera companies to our men and women in uniform. During his time he has not only been an administrator; he has been a leader in strengthening the NEA's largest discipline program and its ties with the broader music and opera community. His colleagues offer effusive praise for his accomplishments, his knowledge, and his steady judgment. While the NEA is sad to see Mr. Brown go, as a Detroiter and lover of music and the arts I am very proud to say he will be bringing his record of achievement to our city, where he will be the President of the Michigan Opera Theater at the Detroit Opera House. As Detroiters face great challenges ahead, I'm reassured to know that Mr. Brown will be bringing decades of experience to a city with a long and rich tradition of cherishing the arts. We are happy to welcome him home to where he first began his career in music and opera as an assistant manager with the Detroit Symphony Orchestra.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the ``Gabriella Miller Kids First Research Act.'' H.R. 2019 purports to end the public's contribution to political party conventions and redirect the savings into research on childhood diseases at the National Institutes of Health. In fact, the bill does no such thing. While I strongly support efforts to increase funding for pediatric research and other research at NIH, I do not believe H.R. 2019 does anything to advance this goal. This bill claims to make available to NIH, the $12.6 million per year raised as public support for the expenses of party conventions. In actuality, that bill would not do anything to restore the funding cuts that Republicans have strongly supported over the last few years, because it does not actually provide any additional funds to NIH. It only directs the money to be made available in appropriations. These funds will still have to go through the regular appropriations process, fully subject to the Budget Control Act caps--as reduced by sequestration--and will have to comply with the spending allocations of the Appropriations Committee. It is this exact process, caps, and especially sequestration that cut $1.55 billion from NIH last year alone, dramatically reduced NIH funding for cancer and other research capabilities. This bill only authorizes $12.6 million per year, which is four- tenths of one percent of the roughly $3.6 billion that NIH spent on pediatric research last year. Adding one more unfunded authorization will not interrupt the destructive downward trend this country is experiencing in research funding. It is not even an honest attempt to do this. NIH is already authorized to spend well beyond the $12.6 million a year this legislation allows. Republicans aim to show that pediatric research is a priority, but you only have to look at H.R. 1, the House Republican spending proposal from the 112th Congress, to see what their true priorities are. That proposal, which the vast majority of Republicans supported, slashed total funding for the Labor-HHS-Education Subcommittee by 22 percent, which would have cost NIH $6.7 billion. The reality is that few Republicans are genuinely interested in providing adequate funding for the NIH. Mr. Speaker, if my Republican colleagues truly want to support pediatric research, they should restore the $4.2 billion that has been cut from NIH's funding since they took the majority, and they could support my bill, H.R. 900, which fully repeals sequestration.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, on December 10 and 11, 2013, I was a part of an official congressional delegation to South Africa. I regret that I was not present to vote on H.R. 3521, H.R. 1402, H.R. 2019, H.R. 2319, S. 1471, H.R. 3212, H.R. 1992, and the Journal Vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on H.R. 3521, H.R. 1402, H.R. 2319, S. 1471, H.R. 1992, and the Journal Vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on H.R. 2019, and H.R. 3212. personal explanation

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of Mr. Ellison of Minnesota and Mr. Grijalva of Arizona, the co-chairs of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, as well as Ms. Lee of California, Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts and Mr. Grayson of Florida, I rise to acknowledge the many contributions of Mr. Tim Carpenter, and to send him wishes for healing as he fights against cancer. As the co-founder and director of the Progressive Democrats of America, Tim has helped to create a grassroots movement to bring the voice of the people to Washington. For the past thirty years, Tim has been indefatigable in pressing forward progressive ideals to help strengthen our American democracy. He has been in the forefront of progressive causes, from promoting nuclear disarmament to fighting to abolish the death penalty to establishing health care as a human right, as well as securing voting rights and jobs for all. Tim was a key organizer for the presidential campaigns of Rev. Jesse Jackson (1988), and Gov. Jerry Brown (1992), and he served as Deputy National Campaign Manager in the Kucinich for President campaign (2004). Tim was a national DNC delegate, and addressed the 1992 Democratic National Convention. Tim worked closely with Reverend Jesse Jackson Sr. during the 2004 Presidential election, in order to bring national attention to very serious problems with voting procedures in Ohio and other states. He helped strengthen and improve our democracy, by challenging elected officials in Congress and throughout the nation to protect the cherished right of our citizens to vote. Tim has received several awards including ``Democrat of the Year'' in Northampton, MA, Progressive Activist of the Year by the Nation magazine, as well as the Marilyn Clement award for his work on behalf of H.R. 676, the ``Expanded Improved Medicare for All.'' Tim's zeal to improve our system of government stems from his days as a student when he earned History and Political Science degrees from California State University Fullerton, as well as a Master's Degree in History. Early in his career, Tim took efforts to shape and guide our young men and women as a high school and community college U.S. History and Government teacher. For many years, Tim worked with California state senator Tom Hayden as a senior staff member. He was also an influential field organizer in the Orange County California Democratic Party. Despite his ailments, Tim is still engaging, still pushing forward and still trying to raise awareness of the great challenges this country is facing. In this trying time we lend our support to our friend, Tim, his wife Barbara Considine, and their daughters, Sheila and Julia. We ask that you all will join us in wishing Tim a full and quick recovery so that he can continue to do important work on behalf of our country.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Of course, we are here to correct the problem of patent trolls. We are, unfortunately, faced with a measure, H.R. 3309, which goes well beyond the issue of trolls and would, unfortunately, weaken every single patent in America. I say this for several reasons. First, H.R. 3309 fails to respond to the single most important problem facing our patent system today--the continuing diversion of patent fees. Nearly $150 million in badly needed user fees have been diverted in fiscal 2013. It is estimated that $1 billion in fees have been diverted in the last two decades. This cannot go on. Next, the bill's heightened pleading requirements will deny legitimate inventors access to the court in several critical respects: They will have an unfair impact against patent holders across the board; They are drafted in a one-sided manner; They will prolong litigation; They are unnecessary because the courts are already addressing pleading standards. The next thing I would bring to your attention is the bill's fee- shifting requirements will favor wealthy parties and chill meritorious claims. I am not surprised that the other side would be advancing something like this, but it is shocking because the provision is drafted in an overly broad manner and will apply well beyond patent infringement actions. The next thing that I would point out is that the bill's discovery limitations are counterproductive. Limiting discovery prior to holding hearings to construe patent claims and determine their scope will delay litigation and lead to even greater expenses for the parties. Finally, H.R. 3309 mandates that the Federal judiciary adopt a series of new rules and judicial changes that will make it more difficult for inventors to protect their patent rights. These changes are strongly opposed by the Judicial Conference of the United States, the principal policymaking body that Congress established to administer our Federal court system. I have spent my entire career on Judiciary to help foster an independent judiciary that can resolve disputes between parties on a fair and dispassionate basis based on an evenhanded set of rules. There is little doubt that the Federal judiciary, as evidenced by its exceedingly deliberative rulemaking process, is in a far better position than the entire Congress to set the proper rules for their own courtrooms on these matters. By unbalancing the patent system, we send a signal to inventors--the very people doing the research and developing the cures that benefit us all every day--that their inventions are not worthy of full legal protection. This means that the next cure for cancer or technological breakthrough may be stymied and perhaps never come, or they will be developed abroad rather than in the United States. We can and should respond to the problem of patent trolls in a direct, but fair and targeted, manner; but we must not do so in a way that punishes our innovators and inhibits innovation. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Massie).

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Chair, I yield the gentleman an additional half minute.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Chair, I am pleased now to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York, Jerry Nadler, a senior member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. CONYERS. I yield the gentleman an additional half minute.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Chair, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).