John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to Judy Chu, an active member of the Judiciary Committee who, additionally, heads the Asian Pacific Caucus.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. I thank you, because there's only one problem separating the two views that have been presented by both sides of the aisle here this afternoon. But the proposal of those on the other side, of steamrolling through today, simply does not provide for new visas for STEM graduates. Instead, it completely eliminates diversity visas, a longstanding legal immigration program. And, as surely everyone understands on both sides of the aisle, we strongly oppose a zero-sum game that trades one legal immigration program for another. I heard someone suggest that. The elimination of the Diversity Visa Program will drastically decrease immigration from African countries. It's as simple as that. In recent years, African immigrants have comprised approximately 40 to 50 percent of the Diversity Visa Program's annual beneficiaries. And so we just say simply: That is not fair. There's no point in us having to swallow this poison pill. And I can assure you that there's no intention that that be done. Second, the Diversity Visa Program plays an important foreign policy role for the United States. As a former Ambassador testified the year before last at a Judiciary Committee hearing: The program engenders hope abroad for those that are all too often without it--hope for a better life, hope for reunification with family in the United States, and hope for a chance to use their God-given skills and talent. And so I ask my colleague to please consider how we can move the STEM issue forward without eliminating the Diversity Visa Program. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 2 minutes to the former chairman of the Education and Labor Committee, the distinguished gentleman from California, George Miller.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez) as few have worked harder on this with Zoe Lofgren.

Mr. CONYERS. I yield the gentleman 30 more seconds.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to gain the previous speaker's attention. The House, of which you are a Member, passed the DREAM Act 216-208, and we enjoyed the support of eight Republican Members. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, Sheila Jackson Lee.

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

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlelady, Ms. Sheila Jackson Lee, 25 seconds.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the very patient Member from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished gentlewoman from California, Ms. Zoe Lofgren.

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

Mr. CONYERS

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

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, on our side, I would begin our discussion by yielding 3 minutes to the distinguished senior member of Judiciary, ranking member of Immigration, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).

Mr. CONYERS. I yield the gentlelady 30 more seconds.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to let my distinguished colleague and friend from California know that we're in complete agreement with most of what he said, except that all we want to do is limit this to a 3-year measure instead of 5 years. Now, there's a compromise you can't turn away from. At this point I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished senior member from the Judiciary Committee, Jerry Nadler.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 20 seconds to commend the statement by the gentleman from California in this regard. Also, on the subject of transparency, two Senators--one from Oregon, the other from Colorado--asked the Director of National Intelligence how many Americans are affected by this law. The answer: We don't know.

Mr. CONYERS. I yield myself 10 more seconds. Now, we don't know if he meant that he didn't want to tell us that he knew or that he honestly didn't know. Either response or explanation is inadequate. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlelady from Houston, Texas, Ms. Sheila Jackson Lee.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, no one respects the gentleman from South Carolina more than I do, but I should advise him that it is incorrect to say that members of the Intelligence Committee didn't support my amendment to shorten the sunset period. I have the names of two of them in front of me right now. I also would advise him that the authority unquestionably affects United States persons, citizens on American soil, that their communications are regularly intercepted, and that would, I think, allow him to join in with some of the rationale for the resistance to this measure as it appears right now. It's in that spirit that I point out to him that, with the lack of transparency and no oversight, the length of the measure is too long, and that this is being brought up under a closed rule was part of our objections. I think they're in good faith. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 3 minutes to my good friend from Ohio, Dennis Kucinich.

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

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today extends the expiration date of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 from December 31, 2012 to December 31, 2017. I oppose this unwarranted long term extension because neither Congress nor the public yet have an adequate understanding of the impact this law has had on the privacy of American citizens. The heart of the FISA Amendments Act is section 702, which authorizes the government to intercept the communications of people who are reasonably believed to be foreign persons outside of the U.S. On its face, the statute includes protections for American citizens who may be on the other end of these communications. But section 702 does not require the government to obtain a warrant-- and without more information about how the executive branch uses this authority, we cannot confirm that the privacy of U.S. citizens is adequately protected. These concerns are more than theoretical. In 2009, the New York Times reported that the NSA had engaged in the ``overcollection'' of American communications in situations not permitted by law. The government assures us that this problem was an accident and has been corrected-- but the report does not inspire confidence in the safeguards we have put in place. More recently, in a July 26, 2011, letter to Senators Ron Wyden (D- OR) and Mark Udall (D-CO), the Office of the Director of National Intelligence stated that it is ``not reasonably possible'' to determine how many U.S. persons have had their communications intercepted under this law. Even if it is difficult to state an exact figure, it is hard to believe that the Director of National Intelligence cannot even guess. The Inspector General of the Intelligence Community didn't fare any better, and simply deferred to the non-answer provided earlier by the ODNI. The public deserves better--and it is our responsibility to demand more information in the public record if the government will not provide it. My colleagues prepared a series of amendments that would have addressed many of these basic oversight needs--without any risk to national security or the integrity of the underlying programs--but under this closed rule, we are not permitted to even debate these moderate changes to the bill on the floor. What is so dangerous about increased oversight that we cannot even debate an amendment? If we require the government to provide us with unclassified reports, public summaries of key FISA court opinions, and an honest accounting of the number of Americans who have been affected by these programs, we will have gone a long way towards the responsible exercise of our oversight role. And even if we cannot support these modest changes, we ought to amend this bill to provide for a shorter sunset. Meaningful oversight means revisiting these authorities before the winter of 2017. We cannot allow an entire presidential administration to pass before we discuss these authorities again--in the 115th Congress. My amendment would have had the added benefit of linking this sunset to the three expiring provisions created by the USA PATRIOT Act. It would be to our benefit to consider the most controversial aspects of FISA all at once, instead of piecemeal over the course of the next decade. But under this closed process on the floor today, the House has been denied the opportunity to even consider this moderate change to the bill. In conclusion, the government can and must do a better job of responding to our questions about privacy and other civil liberties. It can do so without risk to national security. I have no doubt that these expiring authorities are important to the executive branch, but we should not let this opportunity pass without demanding reasonable, meaningful, and public oversight of a highly controversial law. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 5949. I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, legendary jazz artist Jimmy Heath will be honored this year by the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation, CBCF, at the Jazz Issue Forum and Concert that will take place during the 42nd Annual Legislative Conference, ALC. Mr. Heath will also perform at the concert, which will take place on Thursday, September 20, 2012, at the Walter E. Washington Convention Center, in Washington, DC. Mr. Heath will receive the 2012 CBCF ALC Jazz Legacy Award for his six decades of contributions to jazz and world culture. The oldest living member of the Philadelphia-bred Heath Brothers jazz family (bassist Percy and drummer Albert); Jimmy Heath rose to prominence during the forties, as a member of the Howard McGhee Big Band. In 1948 at the age of 21, he performed in the First International Jazz Festival in Paris with McGhee, sharing the stage with Coleman Hawkins, Slam Stewart, and Erroll Garner. One of the earliest of Mr. Heath's own big bands (1947-48) in Philadelphia included John Coltrane, Benny Golson, Specs Wright, Cal Massey, Johnny Coles, Ray Bryant, and Nelson Boyd. He also played with and composed for Dizzy Gillespie, Miles Davis, Kenny Dorham, Milt Jackson, and Art Blakey. During his career, Mr. Heath has performed on more than 100 record albums, including 7 with The Heath Brothers and 12 as a leader. He has also written more than 125 compositions, many of which have become jazz standards, including C.T.A., and Gingerbread Boy. He has minted over 20 critically acclaimed recordings, including Really Big!, Love and Understanding, New Picture, Little Man, Big Band, and Endurance. Mr. Heath first worked as an educator with Jazzmobile, New York City's premier not-for-profit jazz program. In 1987, he was appointed Professor of Music at the Aaron Copland School of Music at Queens College, City University of New York. Professor Heath created the Jazz Program at Queens College, where he taught and mentored a generation of musicians, before retiring in 2004. He also taught jazz at Housatonic College and The New School for Social Research. In October 1997, two of Mr. Heath's former students, trumpeters Darren Barrett and Diego Urcola, placed first and second in the Thelonious Monk International Jazz Competition. Mr. Heath is among the most honored of our nation's musicians. In 2003, he was presented with the prestigious National Endowment for the Arts, NEA, Jazz Master Award. He is the recipient of three honorary doctorates, including one from Julliard. He is the first jazz musician to be so honored by Julliard and has also received The Julliard Service to the Arts Centennial Award. He has received 3 Grammy Nominations, Howard University's Benny Golson Award and The Thelonious Monk Founder's Award among many other honors. In 2010, he co-wrote I Walked With Giants: The Autobiography of Jimmy Heath, with Joseph McLaren (Temple University Press). Mr. Heath is still actively creative as a tenor and soprano saxophonist, composer and arranger. Mr. Speaker, Jimmy Heath is a living jazz treasure and I urge all members to join me in commending him for his magnificent contribution to American and World culture.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. H.R. 6189, the Reporting Efficiency Improvement Act, eliminates two reporting requirements that the Department of Justice deems no longer needy or useful to the Congress. Under the Government Performance and Results Modernization Act, the Department of Justice conducts an annual review of statutory reporting requirements that are outdated, duplicative, or otherwise no longer useful. In this review, the Department identified two reports that are the subject of the bill before us now. The first of the two stems from the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act, under which the Attorney General is required to report to Congress on various grants made to States to perform DNA analysis. Because Congress has not appropriated any funding for these specific grants since fiscal year 2003, this statutory reporting requirement has been obsolete for almost a decade. The second report is based on the Police Corps Act, originally a part of the Violent Crime Control Act of 1994. The Director of the Office of the Police Corps is required to make an annual report to Congress on the program's status. However, Congress hasn't appropriated any funds for the office since fiscal year 2005. So, H.R. 6189 is a simple cleanup of the Federal code. There is no need to have these reporting requirements on the books if there's no activity for the Department of Justice or the Office of Justice Programs to report, and none planned at any time in the near future. It's important to note that this legislation doesn't make changes to the relevant programs; it merely eliminates discrete reporting requirements that are no longer useful. I want to thank Lamar Smith, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, for his support and eagerness in moving this legislation through the committee. I urge my colleagues to support the measure. And having no other requests for additional speakers on this side, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, recent events have highlighted ongoing efforts to suppress the voting rights of American citizens. State representatives and political leaders in New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Florida have made public admissions that their particular state laws were designed to put a dent in the democratic process. In order to confront this assault on the right to vote, we are introducing a resolution, expressing the sense of Congress that the month of September be dedicated to ensuring that every eligible citizen is registered to vote in the United States, calling for a National Month of Voter Registration. This resolution will call for a nation-wide focus to challenge voting age citizens around the country to register to vote and confirm the status of their voter registration. The National Month of Voter Registration will encourage citizens to take action and mobilize voter education efforts and voter registration efforts across the country. Since the 2010 elections, misguided efforts in many states have led to the enactment of laws that could turn the clock back to pre-2008 levels of voter registration and voter turn-out. With no response, thousands of Americans may be subjected to state actions that are not in compliance with our federal voting standards and that harm the franchise. This national focus will challenge civil rights groups, third party voter registration groups, and voting eligible citizens to take action to conduct the following: Register to vote. With voter registration deadlines approaching, many citizens may face significant barriers if they wait until the final hours to register to vote. Verify voting status. Every voting eligible citizen will be encouraged to verify their voting status by confirming their presence on the voter rolls, and confirming that their address and personal identifying information in hand matches what the state or local board of elections has on file. Many voters believe that their voting status and information is current, however, citizens in Tennessee and Florida have already found that voter purging is real and can impact the right to vote without a voter being aware. Confirm polling place. Every voting eligible citizen will be encouraged to verify voting location before Election Day. Voters may find that their poling location has changed from prior elections. Mr. Speaker, I have not seen such an assault on the right to vote since the civil rights movement. As I look back on where we have come from in this country, it seems to me that some of these state voting changes mirror the negative trends of Jim Crow in their effect to scale back voting rights. For instance, last week, the Brennan Center released another report showing how new voter ID laws could impose serious financial burdens on eligible voters. If the right to vote is available to every American citizen, then why are states making it harder to exercise that right? I. addition, a second Judge in Wisconsin has deemed Wisconsin's strict voter ID law unconstitutional under the state's constitution. Litigants in the law suit found that the law created unnecessary hardships for minority voters who are less likely to possess a valid ID. On the other side of the argument, the state of Wisconsin argued that the law was going to help prevent voter fraud. Some state lawmakers have raised the issue of voter fraud to justify strict voter ID requirements and other strict voting changes. However, they won't tell you that during the George W. Bush Administration's five year probe of voter fraud from 2002-2007, that Administration came up with scant evidence of widespread voter fraud. In addition, they won't tell you the amount of voter fraud cases that have come out of states that have strict voter ID, because there are none. There were no cases of fraud in state of Indiana when the Supreme Court ruled on Indiana's voter ID law in Crawford v. Marion, and states like Pennsylvania, Florida, and Texas have publicly stated that there are no current cases of voter fraud being pursued in their states. Mr. Speaker, our voting rights are being threatened by the non-existent issue of voter fraud. Therefore, if states are going to present their worst laws to impact the franchise, then the American people have to rise up and combat these laws with better practices. During the National Month of Voter Registration, we encourage every American citizen to take back their right to vote. We will work with citizens to ensure that they register to vote, confirm their voting information is correct on the voting rolls, and verify that they know where to go to vote on Election Day. It is a troubling thought that in 2012, the Congress has to rise up and introduce this bill to protect voting rights. Even though Reconstruction Era and the Civil Rights Movement are technically in America's past, the current threat against voting rights is just as real as in those days. We are proud to stand with the American people to protect the exercise of their voice in our democracy.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to thank one of the most dedicated and productive members of the Judiciary Committee staff for his service to the House, Benjamin Staub. For six years Ben has worked ably and diligently for the Judiciary Committee, and I would like to commend him on his achievements. After growing up in Greeley and Silverthorne, Colorado, and being named a Boettcher Scholar, Ben graduated cum laude from Yale University. During his time at Yale, Ben worked for the Undergraduate Admissions Office, taught health in New Haven high schools with the Community Health Educators, worked at the Blake Street Head Start and Calvin Hill Day Care, volunteered in the welfare-to-work early childhood educator program at All Our Kin, and served as a Freshman Counselor for Davenport College. He served as the Executive Co- Coordinator and on the Board of Directors of Dwight Hall at Yale--the student-run nonprofit for community service and social justice with more than 3,000 annual undergraduate volunteers. He interned at the Paris branch office of the UN Office of the High Commissioner on Refugees (UNHCR) and wrote and recorded a year-long radio column for Colorado Public Radio about his senior year in college. He earned Yale's John C. Schroeder Prize for social service and the Davenport College Prize for Citizenship. Ben came to Washington following graduation to work for the political television advertising firm of Murphy Putnam Shorr and Partners, and following the 2006 election, came to work for the House Judiciary Committee. During his time with the Committee, Ben has worked on a host of issues of national significance--principally in intellectual property policy, antitrust law, and civil liberties. He distinguished himself as an excellent writer and was instrumental in the Committee's work on performance rights legislation and protecting intellectual property from digital theft. He authored large portions and supervised the editing and publishing of the Committee staff's report Reigning in the Imperial Presidency: Lessons and Recommendations Relating to the Presidency of George W. Bush, and always stood ready to work on a host of issues at a moment's notice, including voting rights, health care, civil rights, immigration policies, and Executive Branch oversight. Finally, Ben is well known among his peers as a dedicated athlete and began a trend in our office to use stability balls as desk chairs. On behalf of the Judiciary Committee, its staff, and this distinguished body, I would like to thank Ben for his exemplary work, generosity, sense of humor, and loyalty. He will be sorely missed as a colleague, advisor, and friend. We wish him the best of luck and extend to him our deepest gratitude.