John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 367, the ``Regulations from the Executive in Need of Need of Scrutiny Act.'' Without question, this bill will have dangerous consequences for all Americans by creating an unworkable approval process that will make it nearly impossible for many new regulations to go into effect. It does this by imposing impossibly unrealistic deadlines by which Congress must consider and pass exceedingly complex and technical regulations in order for such regulations to take effect. Under H.R. 367, Congress would have only 70 legislative days within which to act after it receives a major rule. Now, let us put this in some perspective. Over the past few years, the average number of major rules promulgated each year is about 85. In 2010, for instance, 94 major rules were issued. But keep in mind the following fact: there were just 116 legislative days in the House during 2010. Worse yet, the bill restricts the days on which these major rules may be considered in the House, which--for last year--would have been just 10 days. Assuming there is just an average number of major rules, the House would have to consider an average of 8 separate major rules on each of those days. And, if the REINS Act were to become law today, there would be only 5 days left in 2013 on which the House could consider the merits of major rules. Under H.R. 367, there is just no way Congress could possibly have the time to consider all the major rules issued during the year. And, if Congress fails to act within this mandatory time frame, the regulation cannot be considered until the next Congress. Even Chief Justice John Roberts criticized a prior iteration of the REINS Act back in 1983. He said that such legislation would ``hobbl[e] agency rulemaking by requiring affirmative Congressional assent to all major rules'' and would ``seem to impose excessive burdens on the regulatory agencies.'' The bottom line is that the bill would at least significantly delay rulemaking and at worst bring it to a halt. Avoiding undue delay in rulemaking is important because strong regulation is vital to protecting Americans in nearly every aspect of their lives. According to the Government Accountability Office, if the REINS Act were in effect now it would delay or possibly derail at least 32 major proposed regulations issued this year and 68 such rules issued last year. Among other things, these proposed regulations pertain to: reimbursement rates for end-stage renal disease Medicare providers; payments to primary care physicians under the Vaccines for Children Program; various Federal student loan programs; the Justice Department's National Standards to prevent, detect, and respond to prison rape; meal requirements for the National School Lunch Program under the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010; the Transportation Department's Certified Medical Examiners National Registry; Labor Department Standards for H-2B Aliens in the United States; the subsistence allowance for veterans under the Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment Program; and the Patent and Trademark Office's proposal setting and adjusting patent fees. And, this is just a small sample of the many kinds of protections that the REINS Act would jeopardize. I could go on and on. This explains why nearly 70 consumer groups, environmental organizations, labor unions, and other entities, strenuously oppose this bill. Likewise, the Administration issued a strongly worded veto threat against this bill. It warns that H.R. 367 ``would delay and, in many cases, thwart implementation of statutory mandates and execution of duly-enacted laws, create business uncertainty, undermine much-needed protections of the American public, and cause unnecessary confusion.'' Finally, H.R. 367 will give anti-regulatory interests yet another opportunity to derail rulemaking. Major rules are the product of an intensive, multi-year process, based on extensive input received from the public and affected entities through a notice and comment period. Agencies often spend many months, if not years, to perfect theses rules based on feedback from these sources and their own expertise. Under the bill's short-circuited process, however, Congress will not realistically be able to second-guess the merits of these rules. Instead, we in Congress will be bombarded with visits, phone calls, and talking points from industry lobbyists and well-funded special interests that can use every resource available to persuade us of the validity of their views. Superficially, it may seem like a good idea to make Congress the final arbiter of all significant regulatory decisions. After all, Members of Congress are elected and regulators are not. But realistically, we simply lack the expertise and resources to make the requisite prudential decisions about the bona fides of these rules, particularly given the limited time frame we have to act under the bill. An example of how this legislation would work: I recently introduced H.R. 2480, the Nurse and Health Care Worker Protection Act of 2013, which would require the Occupational Safety and Health Administration to promulgate a regulation that protects our caretakers from debilitating injuries. Nursing professionals and health care aids have among the highest rates of back, neck, and shoulder injuries of any profession, due to the trauma of lifting, supporting, and repositioning patients. Through a straightforward regulation that promotes safe patient handling practices, including the use of mechanical devices, this regulation could save, millions of dollars each year, and countless years of experience. Now even if the House and Senate pass H.R. 2480 and the experts with OSHA develop the proper standards to prevent these debilitating injuries, under the REINS Act, any resulting regulations would have to be assessed by Congress and voted on in a short time frame. Let's be honest, who in this body know about ergonomics and the technical aspects of a nurse's day to day job? Accordingly, I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this seriously flawed bill.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the End Racial Profiling Act of 2013, along with additional cosponsors. This legislation represents a comprehensive federal commitment to healing the rift caused by racial profiling and restoring public confidence in the criminal justice system at-large. This legislation is designed to enforce the constitutional right to equal protection of the laws by changing the policies and procedures underlying the practice of profiling. This legislation can be traced back to the data collection efforts of the late 1990's that were designed to determine whether racial profiling was a fact versus an urban legend. Based upon the work around that legislation, by September 11, 2001, there was significant empirical evidence and wide agreement among Americans, including President Bush and Attorney General Ashcroft, that racial profiling was a tragic fact of life in the minority community and that the Federal government should take action to end the practice. Moreover, many in the law enforcement community have acknowledged that singling out people for heightened scrutiny based on their race, ethnicity, religion, or national origin had eroded the trust in law enforcement necessary to appropriately serve and protect our communities. During our 112th Congress Judiciary Committee hearing on racial profiling, we approached the issue from the perspective of ``smart policing'' and what makes sense in a time of austerity for protecting public safety. I believe that it became clear during the hearing that enough agreement exists to allow us to re-open the bipartisan dialogue on racial profiling commenced by President Bush and Attorney General Ashcroft. Despite the fact that the majority of law enforcement officers perform their duties professionally and without bias--and we value their service highly--the specter of racial profiling has contaminated the relationship between the police and minority communities to such a degree that federal action is justified to begin addressing the issue. While the Department of Justice promulgated a series of guidelines in 2003 which were designed to end the practice of racial profiling by federal law enforcement agencies, these measures do not reach the vast majority of racial profiling complaints arising from the routine activities of state and local law enforcement agencies. Further, the guidelines provide no enforcement mechanism or methods for identifying law enforcement agencies not in compliance and, therefore, fail to resolve the racial profiling problem nationwide. In this instance, there is no substitute for comprehensive federal anti-profiling legislation. The End Racial Profiling Act is designed to eliminate the well documented problem of racial, ethnic, religious, and national origin profiling. First, the bill provides a prohibition on racial profiling, enforceable by declaratory or injunctive relief. Second, the bill mandates that training on racial profiling issues as part of Federal law enforcement training, the collection of data on all routine or spontaneous investigatory activities that is to be submitted through a standardized form to the Department of Justice. Third, the Justice Department is authorized to provide grants for the development and implementation of best policing practices, such as early warning systems, technology integration, and other management protocols that discourage profiling. Finally, the Attorney General is required to provide periodic reports to assess the nature of any ongoing discriminatory profiling practices. Recent events demonstrate that racial profiling remains a divisive issue that strikes at the very foundation of our democracy. Though the death of Trayvon Martin was not the result of a law enforcement encounter, the issues of race and reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct are so closely linked in the minds of the public that his death cannot be separated from the law enforcement profiling debate. Ultimately, he is one of too many individuals across the country who have been victimized by a perception of criminality simply because of their race, ethnicity, religion or national origin. These individuals are denied the basic respect and equal treatment that is the right of every American. Decades ago, in the face of shocking violence, the passage of sweeping civil rights legislation made it clear that race should not affect the treatment of an individual American under the law. I believe that thousands of pedestrian and traffic stops of innocent minorities and the killing of innocent teen calls for a similar federal response. The practice of using race as a criterion in law enforcement undermines the progress we have made toward racial equality. Please join me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, I rise today because our Transportation-HUD Appropriations Act is insufficient to maintain our national transportation infrastructure and invest properly in community development and safe, affordable housing. This Transportation-HUD Appropriations Act really guts investments critical to strong, sustainable communities. And, in particular, it decimates the Community Development Block Grants program, slashing it in half to the lowest level since the program began in 1975. This isn't just something that hurts Democrats. It hurts Republicans, it hurts everybody. It's across the board. And so, for the Community Development Block Grant program to work and ensure access to decent, affordable housing, to provide services to the most vulnerable in our communities, and to create jobs through the expansion and retention of businesses, we've got to reject this proposal before us. Communities across the country rely on the Community Development Block Grant to provide critical services for low-income people and their families, as well as economic development assistance to small businesses and infrastructure improvements. To this day, the Community Development Block Grant remains the principal source of revenue for localities to use in devising flexible solutions to prevent economic and social deterioration in lower-income neighborhoods and communities throughout the Nation. These grants are an important tool for helping local governments tackle serious challenges facing their communities, making a difference in the lives of millions of people and their communities across the Nation. Now, Detroit is a longstanding Community Development Block Grant grantee, receiving an average of $33 million in annual funding, while Wayne County, which Detroit is in, receives an additional $5.3 million. Yet, this proposal in the appropriations bill would drastically cut these funds. The CDBG program in Detroit and Wayne County, includes preserving low- and moderate-income neighborhoods, offering a range of housing choices, constructing urban infrastructure, improving the appearance of urban and rural communities, increasing the quality of neighborhood- based living, and decreasing negative environmental impacts. For my conservative friends to continue to focus solely on reducing the deficit, in particular doing so on the backs of the most vulnerable Americans, is unnecessary and not appreciated. Although deficit reduction is an important task, Congress can't balance the budget on the backs of working families. And sharply reducing programs like the Community Development Block Grant and HOME is going the wrong direction. I would say, this is the second major cut for the Community Development Block Grant funding since the Great Recession. The CDBG Coalition, consisting of national organizations representing local elected officials, State and local government practitioners, development organizations, and nonprofit organizations, all strongly oppose these cuts. These are individuals working daily in their communities, with the most acute awareness of what their communities need. So, in support of them and our constituents, we must fund CDBG formula grants at no less than the $3.3 billion in FY14. So, Mr. Chairman, once again I ask the Congress to stop trying to balance the budget on the backs of working families. I yield back the balance of my time. Mrs. NEGRETE McLEOD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, last week, July 18, 2013, I was speaking with a documentary group about the civil rights movement, and I was unable to make it to the floor for rollcall votes 364, 365, and 366. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' for all three.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. Ladies and gentlemen of the House, this amendment will not stop the proper use of the PATRIOT Act or stop the FISA authorities from conducting terrorism and intelligence investigations. I'd never block that. All this amendment is intending to do is to curtail the ongoing dragnet collection and storage of the personal records of innocent Americans. It does not defund the NSA, and it will continue to allow them to conduct full-fledged surveillance as long as it relates to an actual investigation. Our joining together on this bipartisan amendment demonstrates our joint commitment to ensure that our fight against terrorism and espionage follows the rule of law and the clear intent of the statutes passed by this Congress. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote for this amendment. I rise in support of this amendment, which I am cosponsoring with my colleague from Michigan, Representative Justin Amash. This amendment will prevent mass collection of personal records, such as phone calling information, under Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act. When Congress passed and later revised this provision, we did not intend for it to authorize the bulk, indiscriminate collection of personal information of individuals not under investigation. However, we have learned that this law has been misused to allow the collection of call detail information on every phone call made in the United States under a bizarre interpretation of the statute's authorization to collect ``relevant'' information. As my colleague and author of the statute, Representative Jim Sensenbrenner, has stated, ``This expansive characterization of relevance makes a mockery of the legal standard.'' This amendment will not stop the proper use of PATRIOT Act and FISA authorities to conduct terrorism and intelligence investigations. All this amendment is intended to do is curtail the ongoing dragnet collection and storage of the personal records of innocent Americans. It does not defund the NSA, and it would continue to allow them to conduct full fledged surveillance as long as it relates to an actual investigation. Our joining together on this bipartisan amendment demonstrates our joint commitment to ensuring that our fight against terrorism and espionage follows the rule of law and the clear intent of the statutes passed by Congress. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote for this amendment to demonstrate our bipartisan commitment to protecting individual liberty.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, the shooting death of Trayvon Martin and subsequent acquittal of his killer by an all white jury is an echo of this nation's past that the African-American community is shocked to experience in the 21st century. It harkens back to the words of interposition and nullification, waking the ghosts of Emmet Till and Schwerner, Chaney and Goodman. It is simply the nightmare of every parent of an African-American male. Anyone who lacks empathy for Trayvon's parents or who has never experienced the indignity of being held suspect due to his race should take careful note of what this trial will mean for the nation. That issue brings the CBC to the House floor this evening: Where do we go from here. . . . This weekend, tens-of-thousands across the country rallied for the cause of justice for Trayvon Martin. These crowds included people from across all ages and racial lines. Following King's path of nonviolence protest, they asked for simple justice. Here in Congress, we have been advised that the Department of Justice has an open and active investigation to determine whether Federal charges will be filed in the case. Notably, two African-American men, Attorney General Eric Holder and President Barack Obama, have sought to assure all Americans that justice will be served in the case. Some have tried to criticize the President and Attorney General for their comments, saying that they are politicizing the case or grandstanding for the black community. I would disagree. Their comments were measured and to the point, seeking to reassure a nation transfixed by the powerful images attached to the incident and trial. The more interesting point is how a nation, led by two such powerful men, can still hold young black men as a suspect class. When you look at the stop & frisk number in New York, there really is no serious question about whether racial profiling is a reality in America. When I introduced data collection legislation during the 105th Congress, the phenomenon of driving while black was well known in the African- American and Latino communities. However, some commentators still tried to deny the credibility of people who came forward to tell stories about their treatment by the police. But as the litigation mounted and data was collected, it became obvious that the nation had a serious problem with the use of race by law enforcement. These attitudes, however, were not a product of policing, but rather a product of society. No matter who is in the White House, it seems that race never takes a holiday. So, where do we go? At the official policy level, we can address the suspect use of race by law enforcement through legislation. This week, I will re-introduce the End Racial Profiling Act. Based upon the work around that legislation, by September 11, 2001, there was significant empirical evidence and wide agreement among Americans, including President Bush and Attorney General John Ashcroft, that racial profiling was a tragic fact of life in the minority community and that the Federal government should take action to end the practice. Moreover, many in the law enforcement community have acknowledged that singling out people for heightened scrutiny based on their race, ethnicity, religion, or national origin had eroded the trust in law enforcement necessary to appropriately serve and protect our communities. The End Racial Profiling Act is designed to eliminate the well documented problem of racial, ethnic, religious, and national origin profiling. First, the bill provides a prohibition on racial profiling, enforceable by declaratory or injunctive relief. Second, the bill mandates that training on racial profiling issues as part of Federal law enforcement training, the collection of data on all routine or spontaneous investigatory activities that is to be submitted through a standardized form to the Department of Justice. Third, the Justice Department is authorized to provide grants for the development and implementation of best policing practices, such as early warning systems, technology integration, and other management protocols that discourage profiling. Finally, the Attorney General is required to provide periodic reports to assess the nature of any ongoing discriminatory profiling practices. We should be clear, however, that legislation, like ERPA, can only go so far. After all, Trayvon's killer was not a sworn law enforcement officer. Consider legislation the starting point for societal change. His death demonstrates that racial profiling remains a divisive issue that strikes at the very foundation of our democracy. Though not the result of a law enforcement encounter, the issues of race and reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct in this case were so closely linked in the minds of the public that his death cannot be separated from the law enforcement profiling debate. Ultimately, Trayvon Martin is one of too many individuals across the country who have been victimized by a perception of criminality, simply because of their race, ethnicity, religion or national origin. These individuals are denied the basic respect and equal treatment that is the right of every American. Until we address those broadly held views through important dialogues like this one, too many parents will anxiously await the safe return home of their sons.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chair, I rise today in opposition of H.R. 5, the so- called Student Success Act. H.R. 5 reauthorizes the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), and it is one that we have waited a long time to revisit. I hoped that we could work together on this bill because all of us care about our children's growth and development. Both Republicans and Democrats share concerns over the rate at which we are falling behind other nations. And whether you are liberal or conservative, we know that we need to hold our schools accountable for their performance. That is why this bill is so distressing. H.R. 5 is as dysfunctional as anything else that has come to the floor this Congress. It may not be as pointless as the 38th and 39th votes to repeal Obamacare that we had Wednesday. And it may not have been rammed down our throats quite as aggressively as the Farm Bill was last week. But this bill is still a piece of unilateral maneuvering--when we could be working together. Instead of spending public funds for the public good, H.R. 5 creates a quota system that shifts funds to private schools that are meant to go to low-income children and schools. Along the way to privatizing our public schools, it decreases accountability for states and school districts by block-granting specialized grant programs--allowing funds meant to address specific hardships to be diverted elsewhere. I will admit to my friends across the aisle, that while I know some in your base may buy into that pipedream--it is not the way to rebuild America. Formalizing the distinctions between our two Americas is not the key to healing our nation. Nor is depriving extra help to students with special learning barriers. Give our children their future. Give them a bill that will guarantee a 21st century school system to lead the world. I urge my colleagues to use this opportunity for something greater than mere posturing, and oppose this bill.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Delta Sigma Theta Sorority for their Centennial Celebration. Founded at Howard University in 1913, this international sorority has long focused on providing young women with the strength and experience to lead. Whether in law, science, business, or education, Delta alumnae all have one thing in common: they are dedicated to serving their communities. The five points of the Delta experience are Economic Development, Educational Development, International Awareness and Involvement, Physical and Mental Health, and Political Awareness and Involvement. The strength they gain through focused development on these points doesn't just benefit the young women who join Delta Sigma Theta. Through projects like the Delta Towers here in Washington D.C., their work with Habitat for Humanity across our nation, or their youth outreach programs--we are all better for the generosity of the Deltas we know and love. To all the Delta sisters out there--best wishes for the next hundred years.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in advance of the back-to-back votes brought to the floor by House Republicans to delay two key pieces of the Affordable Care Act: the individual responsibility and employer mandates. Today I will vote for the 38th time against a partisan attempt by Republicans to partially or completely repeal portions of the Affordable Care Act. The debate on these bills has added to the already 80+ hours spent on repeal efforts in the House, which has cost the American taxpayer $55 million. If the Majority were to succeed in their efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act, 129 million Americans with pre-existing conditions would lose the security of knowing they cannot be denied coverage. 25 million Americans will miss out on the opportunity to receive quality, affordable health insurance coverage through the new health insurance marketplaces. 6.6 million young adults would lose coverage provided through their parents' plans, including 3.1 million who were previously uninsured. 105 million Americans could again worry about lifetime limits on their health insurance coverage. Many constituents of Michigan's 13th District are among those already benefiting from Obamacare. So far, 121,000 of our neighbors who previously lacked health insurance have access to quality coverage without fear of discrimination or higher rates because of preexisting conditions, including 43,000 children who can no longer be denied coverage. 136,000 individuals--including 26,000 children and 61,000 women--now have health insurance that covers preventative services without any copays, coinsurance, or deductibles. And 103,000 13th District residents are saving money directly because of ACA provisions. All the while, the Majority has made no meaningful attempt to repeal damaging across-the-board sequestration cuts or come to the table to discuss legislation to create quality jobs with living wages. Mr. Speaker, it's long past time to end the dysfunction epitornized by repeated efforts to repeal Obamacare, so that we can turn our focus to addressing the serious problems facing everyday Americans.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, today I rise with the support of my colleague and friend Mr. Blumenauer of Oregon to introduce the ``Saving America's Pollinators Act of 2013.'' This legislation requires the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to take swift action and prevent future mass die-offs of honey bees. One of every three bites of food we eat is from a crop pollinated by honey bees. These crops include: apples, avocados, cranberries, cherries, broccoli, peaches, carrots, grapes, soybeans, sugar beets and onions. Unfortunately, unless swift action is taken, these crops, and numerous others, will soon disappear due to the dramatic decline of honey bee populations throughout the country. For over a decade now, honey bees have been suffering rapid population losses as a result of a phenomenon known as `colony collapse disorder.' Another decade of these mass die-offs will severely threaten our agricultural economy and food supply system. Scientists have reported that common symptoms of this decline are attributed to the use of a class of insecticides known as neonicotinoids. The 'Saving America's Pollinators Act' will address the decline of honey bee populations by directing the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to suspend the registration of certain neonicotinoids--known as imidacloprid, clothianidin, thiamethoxam, dinotafuran--and any other members of the nitro group of neonicotinoid insecticides until the Administrator has made a determination that such insecticides will not cause unreasonable adverse effects on pollinators based on an evaluation of peer-review scientific evidence and a completed field study. The bill will also require the Secretary of the Interior, in coordination with the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, to regularly monitor the health and population status of native bees and identify the scope and likely causes of unusual native bee mortality. This legislation is extremely critical to examining the death of honey bees and will allow us the opportunity to adequately secure our future food supply. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and protect America's pollinators.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks in strong opposition to the farm bill rule and the underlying bill because it hurts the working poor.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2642, the ``Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act of 2013.'' Separating this bill from the nutrition provision, including SNAP, is a foolish and immoral decision. The process that House Republicans chose to bring this bill to the floor was egregious and a blatant violation of this body's policy of giving Members and the public 72 hours to read a bill. This bill denies Members the opportunity for robust debate and to consider reform of farm policies. Many new provisions were inserted in this bill late last night. Furthermore, passage of this bill would undermine our efforts to assist vulnerable Americans, risk severe cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), and will allow outdated allotments and quotas under current farm policy to become permanent law. We are living at a time when low-income working families, senior citizens and disabled veterans are struggling to put food on their tables and children are attending school hungry--often leaving them unable to concentrate. Having a bitter partisan fight on the House floor opens the door to cuts to nutrition programs like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), the Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP), the Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP) and Women, Infant and Children program (WIC), which will only dramatically increase hunger in our country and drive even more people to food banks. Until every American has access to a decent paying job, American families should have the ability to feed their families. Every major deficit reduction packaged signed into law over the last thirty years has always been negotiated according to the principle of not increasing poverty or inequality. That's why I will continue to fight against cuts to the SNAP program and misguided efforts aimed at breaking the urban-rural coalition that protected and strengthened this program throughout our history. This bill fails our children and the most vulnerable in our country. Investing in hunger relief is a fiscally sound decision. It is a cost-effective and an investment in our nation's future. I ask you to stand with me to protect the most vulnerable and our most vital safety net in fighting hunger in America. I encourage my colleagues to oppose the bill.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, June 20, 2013, I inadvertently voted against the Pitts-Davis amendment to H.R. 1947, the ``Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act of 2013'' which was designed to reform the United States' national sugar policy. However, I rise today to clarify my position concerning this amendment and to state that I fully support the Pitts-Davis amendment and will continue to support and cosponsor H.R. 693, the ``Sugar Reform Act of 2013.'' It is unfortunate that the failed FARRM Bill proposed reforms for every commodity program except the sugar program, the most intrusive and outdated of them all. Our focus in Congress should be geared toward balancing the needs of all Americans. Instead, our current sugar policy's one-sided approach favors sugar processors and growers over American consumers and businesses. Under current law, the sugar industry is able to reap record profits when domestic sugar supplies are tight because of government restrictions. Yet, the cost of the sugar program is then passed on to taxpayers when surplus sugar burdens the market. As a result, American families have to spend additional money on their grocery bills and American companies are placed at a competitive disadvantage. We must limit these government restrictions and allow for a competitive marketplace that will balance the needs of all Americans.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Nurse and Health Care Worker Protection Act of 2013, on behalf of myself and my colleague, Mr. George Miller of California. This legislation provides important protections to nurses, nursing aides, and other health care workers who face frighteningly high rates of injury due to unsafe patient handling practices. In 2011, nurses had the fifth highest rate of musculoskeletal disorders of any profession; nursing aides were number one. However, this does not have to be the case. Modern technology, in the form of mechanical lifts and other assistive devices, makes the manual lifting and moving of patients mostly obsolete. My bill would require the Occupational Safety and Health Administration to promulgate a standard to protect health care workers from the some 36,000 severe injuries they suffer each year. In creating a federal standard to protect nurses, we will be joining health care facilities across the nation, and a number of states--such as Texas and California--who have passed similar legislation and seen dramatic savings as a result, mostly in the form of lower workers compensation and health care costs. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this bill and join me in making health care workers and patient safety a priority.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Ms. Lofgren. I appreciate this important debate and participating in it. Members of the House, by imposing a nationwide ban on abortions performed after 20 weeks, H.R. 1797, the so-called Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, is nothing less than a direct attack on a woman's constitutional right to make decisions about her health. It criminalizes previability abortions with only a narrow exception for the woman's life; it fails to include any exceptions for the woman's health; and it utterly disregards the often difficult personal circumstance women face when confronted with the needs to terminate their pregnancies. The amended version of H.R. 1797 made in order by the Rules Committee last night attempts to address the nationwide outcry in response to comments by the bill's author at the Judiciary Committee's markup that ``incidents of rape resulting in pregnancy are very low.'' As amended, the bill now includes only a very limited exception for rape and incest that would only be available if the victim could demonstrate that she has reported the crime to the proper authorities. This reporting mandate isn't even required in the Hyde amendment, and it ignores the many reasons why rapes go unreported, including the fear of the abuser, fear of how the legal system may treat the victim, and shame. In short, the majority has determined that a woman's word is not enough to prove that she has been raped or the victim of incest. This pernicious legislation would also impose criminal penalties on doctors and other medical professionals. But let's consider the facts, beginning with the sponsor's comments that ``incidents of rape resulting in pregnancy are very low'' and that there's no need for an exception. On the contrary, rape-induced pregnancy--unfortunately, I'm sad to say--occurs with some frequency. For example, the Rape, Abuse, and Incest National Network reported that during 2004 and 2005, 64,080 woman were raped, and of those rapes, 3,204 pregnancies resulted.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Chair, I rise to discuss my amendment, number 104, to H.R. 1960, the ``National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014.'' I would like to thank Chairman McKeon and Ranking Member Smith for accepting this amendment in en bloc amendment number five. This technical amendment would improve Section 1036 of the underlying bill, which requires the President to provide information to Congress as to which organizations it believes are affiliates or adherents of Al-Qaeda, the reasoning justifying such designation, and whether each group constitutes an associated force that is engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners. My amendment addresses the latter part of this assessment dealing with so-called ``associated forces'' affiliated with Al-Qaeda or the Taliban. The 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force passed shortly after the 9/11 attacks has been interpreted by the last two Administrations as authorizing war between the United States and Al- Qaeda, the Taliban, and co-belligerent ``associated forces.'' Although we clearly know who Al-Qaeda or the Taliban are, it is unclear which organizations the Executive Branch is referring to when referencing ``associated forces.'' This absence of transparency as to the government's application of this legal concept allows for the possibility that the United States could rely on the AUMF as a broad, nearly limitless source of authority for military operations, including drone strikes, against groups that have little to no connection to the September 11 attacks in places like Mali, Somalia, or even Syria. It is my understanding that Section 1036 of the bill attempts to address this ambiguity by attempting to discern the Administration's thinking about which groups it considers engaged in hostilities against our country. Unfortunately, it is unclear if Section 1036 is asking for information about ``associated forces'' for the purposes of interpreting the 2001 AUMF or simply seeking information about groups that affiliate with Al-Qaeda or the Taliban in a different context. This distinction is critically important, because the United States is only technically at war with ``associated forces'' covered by the 2001 AUMF and not with groups that have some other affiliation with Al-Qaeda or the Taliban. My amendment eliminates this ambiguity by explicitly requiring the President to provide information about organizations it considers to be ``associated forces'' for the purposes of interpreting this war authorization. In doing so, it should help the Congress understand the scope of this outdated law, which has been interpreted by the Executive Branch and the courts in an overbroad manner, and ensure that it is not being used to justify uses of force unauthorized by and inconsistent with Congress, the Constitution, and international law. Again, I thank my colleagues for supporting my amendment.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Youth Jobs Act. We are facing a jobs crisis in this country, and even our youth are not exempt from its effects. Five years after the Great Recession hit, 27 million workers are either unemployed or underemployed--roughly one out of every six U.S. workers. This is completely unacceptable. Even worse though, is the impact this crisis is leaving on the next generation of workers. America's young adults and teens are currently facing unemployment rates of 16 and 24 percent respectfully. The ramifications of these young Americans not being able to find work are troubling and far reaching. We must do everything we can to make sure young Americans have the jobs they need to pay for higher education and to learn skills that will prepare them for careers and professions. If we do not create employment opportunities for all young Americans, we inhibit the ability and opportunity for them to move up the economic ladder, and to improve their conditions. For this reason, I am introducing the ``Youth Jobs Act'' with Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont. This Act directs the U.S. Department of Labor to provide $1.5 billion in grants for states to provide summer and year-round employment opportunities for low-income youth. States could then use these funds to identify employment opportunities in emerging occupations and in the public and nonprofit sector to meet their community's needs. An additional $1.5 billion would be distributed through competitive grants to states and local communities to provide on-the-job training and apprenticeship programs for low-income youth and disadvantaged young adults. The grant recipients would be strongly encouraged to develop partnerships with employers, community colleges, community organizations and join labor-management committees. At minimum, every state would receive $15 million to implement summer and year round job opportunities and training programs, with the remainder being targeted to areas of particularly high youth unemployment and poverty. Ensuring there are adequate jobs for every American should be Congress' number one focus. I encourage my colleagues to support this measure to put America's youth to work. Fact Sheet on Rep. Conyers' Youth Jobs Act At a time when the youth unemployment rate is over 16 percent, and the teen unemployment rate is over 24 percent, we have got to do everything we can to make sure that young Americans have the jobs they need to pay for a college education and to move up the economic ladder. The Youth Jobs Act that will be introduced in the Senate by Sen. Sanders will provide $3 billion in immediate funding to employ hundreds of thousands of low-income youth and economically disadvantaged young adults in summer and year round jobs; and to provide young Americans with the job training and skills they need for the jobs of the future. This legislation is modeled on the youth jobs and training programs included in President Obama's American Jobs Act. The Youth Jobs Act would build on the success of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act which created over 374,000 summer job opportunities during 2009 and 2010 to young Americans through $1.2 billion for the Youth Jobs Workforce Investment Act program. Under the Youth Jobs Act, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) would provide $1.5 billion in grants to states to: Provide summer and year round employment opportunities for low-income youth, with direct links to academic and occupational learning; and Provide important services such as transportation or child care, necessary to enable young Americans to participate in job opportunities. Each state that would like to participate in this program would have to submit a plan to DOL that must include: Strategies and activities to provide summer employment opportunities and year-round employment opportunities for low-income youth, including links to educational activities; Identifying employment opportunities in emerging or in- demand occupations; Identifying employment opportunities in the public or nonprofit sector that meet community needs; and An estimate of the number of youth expected to be placed in employment opportunities. Under this legislation, DOL would also award $1.5 billion in competitive grants to local areas to provide work-based training to low-income youth and disadvantaged young adults. Through this bill, DOL will award grant applications to local areas that have the ability to: Implement effective strategies and activities to provide unemployed, low-income youth and disadvantaged young adults with the skills needed for employment; Provide opportunities for on-the-job training, and registered apprenticeship programs; Provide connections to immediate work opportunities; paid internships; enrollment in community colleges; or basic education and training for low-income young adults; and Develop partnerships with employers and employer associations, community colleges, and other postsecondary education institutions; community-based organizations; joint labor-management committees; and work-related intermediaries. All states would receive a minimum of $15 million to implement summer and year round job opportunities and job- training programs under this bill. The remainder of the funding would be targeted to areas of high youth unemployment and poverty.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am deeply concerned about the $20 billion cut over the next decade to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, formerly known as the Food Stamp Program, included in the reauthorization of the Farm bill and supported by some of my colleagues on the House Committee on Agriculture. SNAP is the cornerstone of our nation's nutrition assistance safety net and touches the lives of over one in seven Americans. To highlight the importance of this critical safety net, last week I participated in a one day SNAP Challenge by limiting my total daily food budget to $4.50--the equivalent of the daily benefits received by individuals living in Michigan. If these cuts are enacted into law, nearly 2 million low-income Americans will lose benefits and 210,000 children from low-income families will lose free school meals, which may be their only meal of the day. My colleagues claim that cuts are needed to reduce the federal debt. However, every major deficit reduction packaged signed into law over the last thirty years has always been negotiated according to the principle of not increasing poverty or inequality. Moreover, families are already facing cuts to SNAP benefits. Under current law, the temporary boost in benefits provided in April of 2009 by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act are scheduled to end on November 1. This expiration of enhanced benefits will cause a family of three to experience a $20-$25 month deduction in benefits, which amounts to a cut of $1.40 per person per meal. This reduction, coupled with the draconian $20 billion cut proposed in the Farm Bill, is simply cruel. In 2007, 26.3 million Americans participated in SNAP nationally. In 2012, more than 46.2 million people received benefits--doubling of the number of participants in 2007. This is a testament to the fact that when people struggle to put food on their tables during an economic downturn, SNAP is able to respond to meet their needs. SNAP is our nation's most important anti-hunger program and we must protect it for the future sake of vulnerable children and families. I encourage my colleagues to stand up for low-income Americans and fight for this vital safety net.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, in light of the recent public revelations about the National Security Agency's extensive surveillance programs, today we are introducing bipartisan legislation that will curtail the excesses of these programs and protect our privacy rights. The ``Limiting Internet and Blanket Electronic Review of Telecommunications and Email (LIBERT-E) Act'' contains commonsense proposals to strengthen our civil liberties and hold our government accountable. Specifically, the LIBERT-E Act provides for the following legislative changes: The legislation reforms access to certain business records for foreign intelligence and international terrorism investigations. Section 2 of the LIBERT-E Act changes Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act in order to prevent the mass collection of business records that are not material to an authorized foreign intelligence investigation, an international terrorism investigation, or clandestine intelligence activities. Currently, in order to obtain a Section 215 court order, the government need only show that the records are ``relevant'' to such an investigation. Recent reports suggest that the government's view of the ``relevance'' standard includes records of every telephone call on a given network. Section 2 of the LIBERT-E Act would also require that the government show that the relevance of these records to the investigation is based on ``specific and articulable'' facts, that the records are material to the investigation, and that the records ``pertain only to individuals under such investigation.'' In addition, the section removes a list of ``presumptively relevant'' records. The government should be required to show that the records it seeks are, in fact, material to a particular concern. The section also guarantees the recipient of a Section 215 order the right to challenge an accompanying gag order, and ensures notice and due process for any such challenger. The LIBERT-E Act also requires additional disclosures to Congress and the public in Section 3 of the legislation. This section provides for greater accountability and transparency in the implementation of the USA PATRIOT Act and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. This section amends existing reporting requirements contained in Section 601 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1871) by requiring the Attorney General to make available to all Members of Congress the information currently provided to the House and Senate intelligence and judiciary committees. It also requires that the Attorney General make unclassified summaries of each ``significant'' decision, order, or opinion of the FISA Court available to the public within 180 days of their submission to Congress. Further, this section requires the Inspectors General of the Department of Justice and the Intelligence Community to report on the impact that acquisition of foreign intelligence has had on the privacy of persons located in the United States. Lastly, the fourth section of the LIBERT-E Act requires that each assessment or review required under Title VII of FISA be submitted in unclassified form, with an unclassified index if necessary. I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan measure, which protects our privacy and increases transparency in the government's use of these authorities.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Chair, I rise to discuss of my amendment, number 146, to H.R. 1960, the ``National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014.'' My amendment simply states that nothing in the bill should be construed as an authorization for the use of military force against Iran. I would like to thank the cosponsors of my amendment: Mr. Jones of North Carolina, Mr. Johnson of Georgia, Mr. Ellison of Minnesota, and Ms. Lee of California. I would also like to thank Chairman McKeon and Ranking Member Smith for accepting this amendment in en bloc amendment number eight. By adopting this amendment, the House of Representatives is making it clear, for the second straight year, that none of the provisions in this bill should be interpreted as a war authorization against Iran. In recent months, the possibility of a preemptive military strike against Iran has been openly discussed as a policy option of last resort as our country and our allies determine how to best confront the challenge posed by Iran's nuclear program. At the same time, this national discussion has prompted a large number of current and former military and intelligence officials to come forward to encourage the Congress and the Administration to consider the possible consequences, both intended and unintended, of such a strike. These include high-level former U.S. and Israeli national security officials, including a Bush administration National Intelligence Council chairman, a former national intelligence officer for the Near East and South Asia, Colin Powell's chief of staff, five retired generals, the former Director of the Israeli Mossad, and a former Chief of Staff of the Israeli Defense Forces. These experts have raised concerns that an attack on Iran could possibly result in serious harm to the world economy, potentially ignite a regional war, and even push Iran into building a nuclear weapon. With consequences as serious as these being raised by outside and former national security experts, it is critical that any decision to initiate military action against Iran be rigorously debated and, if necessary, be backed by a separate war authorization. Again, I thank my colleagues for supporting my amendment.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I was absent for rollcall vote 211, as I had stepped away from the House Floor momentarily. If I had been present for this vote, on final passage of H.R. 2217, Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act of 2014, I would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the valiant services of Captain Emery Burk and thank him, as he retires, for serving Wayne State University and wider Detroit communities for 36 years. Captain Emery Burk is retiring from the Wayne State University Police Department after 36 years of dedicated service. Born in Detroit, Michigan, Emery Burk attended Hamtramck Public schools and then attended Michigan State University, graduating in 1975 with a Bachelor of Science Degree in Criminal Justice. Mr. Burk was hired by the Wayne State University Department of Public Safety on June 21, 1976, and started the Detroit Police Academy the same month. Upon his completion of the Police Academy, Emery was assigned to patrol, often leading his shift in arrest and other related statistics. During his patrol operations, Emery was a Field Training Officer and trained many of the officers who came through the department. Mr. Burk was the recipient of the Valor Award for heroic service as a patrol officer. At the time, he was only the second officer in the department to receive this high award. As an officer, in addition to patrol and field training, he was also assigned to the Crime Abatement Team. He led the team to a record number of quality felony arrest and crime prevention efforts. Captain Burk received promotions to Sergeant, Lieutenant and Captain, and currently serves as the Coordinator of Line Operations. In this capacity he has shaped and directed the Department's Comparative Statistic Model of data-driven policing, directed the campus high visibility campaign, and restructured the Field Training Program for all incoming officers. All the while, he has worked on various university committees, including the Commencement Committee and Major Special Event Coordination Committee. In serving as Coordinator of Line Operations, he also managed the additional duties of Coordination of Auxiliary Functions, handling budget and grant management, and human resource functions. Captain Burk has received 52 Letters of Appreciation from citizens, two Presidential Award for exceptional service to the University, a Lifesaving Award, 14 Commendations for outstanding police work, a Merit Award for exceptional service to the department, and a Valor Award for Heroic service. I applaud his career and wish him a wonderful retirement.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose H.R. 1911, the so- called ``Smarter Solutions for Students Act''. I propose a more accurate title ``The Making Kindergarteners Pay for Our Mistakes Act of 2013.'' I must confess that every time I hear someone say they support austerity for the children, I am forced to question their understanding of economics. I try not to question their motives, but on a day like today--that is a struggle I am hard pressed to win. This bill does little more than turn the United States government into a payday lender--charging students interest that far outstrips the government's cost of lending. Instead of a fixed interest rate, that will let parents and students know how much their education costs, this bill sets interest at a variable, market rate--plus a nice little premium for the government. I wonder what fury my friends across the aisle would raise if we were to treat banks in a similar manner. This fall's incoming class of students born in 1994 and 1995 was in kindergarten when Republicans seized control of our country and its surplus, and moved us quickly to deficit and debt. While these children were learning how rewarding it was to read, my colleagues across the aisle learned how remunerative it was to pass unfunded tax cuts and unfunded wars onto those children. While they let wages stagnate--an act which continues to this day--and they cut funding to schools-- another policy which continues to this day--they reaped millions in campaign contributions from the billionaire's whose taxes they cut, the military contractors to whom they brought billions. Now, my friends across the aisle will vote to ensure students who were five when Republicans started running up the debt, will pay down that debt as the price of going to college. Today a college degree is more necessary than ever, and more expensive than ever. Unlike my friends across the aisle, I remember that my own education was subsidized by the state. Unlike my friends across the aisle, I don't brag about paying for my college education during a time when our Federal and State governments looked out for students and the poor--when education was treated as a public good, and the minimum wage far outstripped its modern equivalent. The modern Republican party--many of them bragging about their in- state educations when they want to stress how much they understand the common person's experience--have all but officially declared for the for-profit model of education. Cut funding, and cut funding, and cut funding to the school. Push more of the cost onto students. Use those students to profit. I apologize that we cannot politely agree to disagree, but treating our children as a cash cow while proclaiming concern about our children does not pass the test of well-meaning debate. If they want the government out of the educating children business, then say so. But don't treat public education as a chance to pay down the debt. Children born in 1995 aren't the reason for our problems--Republican policies are. Eighteen-year-old kids didn't force them to increase inequality; 18-year-old kids didn't force them to destroy American meritocracy by securing inherited wealth for the child of every billionaire and denying opportunity to low-income children; 18-year-old kids didn't make them destroy the middle class to secure greater wealth for those who line your pockets with contributions. The promise of the American middle class was created when affordable education made the prospect of a good paying job possible for every child. If they want to destroy it, say so. If they want to take out on our children their own guilt about the haphazard, excessive spending of Republican administrations, say so. If they don't care about our children--at least not those who don't benefit from the millionaire tax cuts they pass at every opportunity--just say so. I urge my friends across the aisle to look at their own actions, and reassess if they can in good conscience support taking more from children just entering into the adult world. I urge them to drop this bill and begin working on a real solution, one that provides the next generation the same opportunities they were provided.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chair, I rise today to oppose H.R. 3, which is quite simply a waste of this chamber's time. Like the 37th vote to repeal the Affordable Care Act last week, we are again wasting Americans' time and money doing the bidding of corrupt, private industry--selling jobs that will never materialize, while exposing American land, air, and water to dangerous pollution. I understand my friends across the aisle have water--or oil--to carry for the energy industry, but this bill is not going to bring the environmentally damaging pipeline they support to fruition. Regardless of the outcome of this vote, the decision to approve or reject the Keystone XL pipeline will rest with the president. Unfortunately for my friends across the aisle, President Barack Obama knows the dangers of not going far enough or fast enough to stop the climate crisis. History will celebrate his decision to lead us toward a clean energy economy that solves climate change and creates long-term, sustainable jobs for Americans. We understand then, that achieving this awesome goal requires that the United States reject the TransCanada Corp.'s proposal to build the Keystone XL pipeline, which would cut through the heartland of America. Returning our economy to stable growth requires Americans to move forward toward the future, not back toward the past. We must put Americans to work building, implementing and maintaining a clean energy infrastructure that will power the economy of tomorrow. The Keystone pipeline is dirty energy infrastructure, reflecting a generations-old approach to energy and environmental questions. TransCanada Corp. is a Canadian company that wants the Obama administration to provide it with a permit to build the pipeline, which would run oil from Canadian tar sands all the way through our country to the Texas Gulf Coast. According to the Natural Resources Defense Council, tar sands oil is an environmental catastrophe--creating three to five times the global warming pollution of traditional oil. After refining the oil here in the United States, TransCanada plans to export this oil for sale to other countries, enriching Canadians and oil companies but doing little or nothing to decrease America's dependence on foreign oil. In the meantime we get to store dirty energy waste products like petroleum coke in our neighborhoods while we wait for billionaires like the Koch brothers to ship the global-warming byproduct overseas to China. Common sense demands that the president reject this pipeline. Most Americans want our country to be investing in energy solutions for the future--not outdated, polluting infrastructure that will do nothing to solve our energy problems. According to the State Department, the total number of jobs projected to result from Keystone is 3,900 direct temporary construction jobs over a one- to two-year period, but only 35 permanent and 15 temporary jobs will remain after those two years of construction. Those who are making the case for the pipeline--TransCanada, oil lobbyists and special interest advocacy groups funded by the oil lobby--are spreading misinformation about the numbers of jobs that would be created. TransCanada claims that the project will create 9,000 construction jobs and 7,000 manufacturing jobs; meanwhile, their spokesmen and advocates have been quoted in the media suggesting that ``tens of thousands'' or ``over a hundred thousand'' direct and indirect jobs would be created. This willful misrepresentation about jobs numbers speaks to how little these oil industry leaders, and those who they are funding, actually care about Americans who need jobs. They are selling a jobs pipe dream, so they can build a polluting pipeline. Consider the struggles of those who have lost their jobs in the recession. Consider the families who cannot pay their bills, who cannot access health care, who cannot send their children to college and who have lost their homes. Then consider how irresponsible it is for oil company lobbyists and their friends to sell this pipeline using inflated job estimates. According to a national study from the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, every dollar put into clean energy creates three times as many jobs as putting that same dollar into fossil fuels. Further, median wages are 13 percent higher in the green energy sector than those in other parts of the economy. Over the past two years, jobs in the solar industry have grown nearly 10 times faster than jobs in the rest of the economy, with only modest investment from federal and state governments. If we were to commit fully to supporting clean energy and putting an end to global warming, then we could create even more jobs. Research from the Brookings Institution has found that job quality is better in the clean energy sector, which is creating medium- and high-credential jobs at twice the rate as the fossil fuel industry. I urge my colleagues on both sides to vote against this bill, and turn their efforts instead to developing energy solutions for 2050--not 1950. Sludge from tar sands is not going to get America moving again; it will simply mire us in the past. Lets' move forward--and put a plug in Keystone XL once and for all.