John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I'd just like the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Ross) to know that later on I'm going to introduce over 60 outstanding leaders, economists, and organizational heads that take a completely different view from the distinguished gentleman from Florida, and I'd like him to examine those documents. I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the former chairman of the Education and Labor Committee from California, George Miller.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to just remark on the words of the distinguished speaker on the Republican side by saying that another Republican has a completely different point of view, who was the former chairman of the House Committee on Science, and was so for over 5 years. He is Sherwood Boehlert, and many of us remember him fondly. He says that it would be ``difficult to exaggerate the sweep and destructiveness of the House bill.'' He is referring to H.R. 4078. The legislation might as well just directly order the agencies that were created to protect the public to close up shop. Then he goes on to say: There is no indication that this bill would aid job growth. Indeed, by blocking rules needed to make the economy run more smoothly, the bill could harm our economic prospects for years to come. So I present to you a point of view of the Republican leader of the House of Representatives, a distinguished Republican and former chairman of the Committee on Science in 2001 and 2006. I now yield such time as she may desire to the gentlelady from California (Ms. Eshoo).

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

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

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining?

Mr. CONYERS. At this time, I yield as much time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Atlanta, Georgia, Mr. Hank Johnson, a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. CONYERS. I yield the 45 seconds to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. CONYERS. I thank the author of this amendment because it highlights the dangers of this bill. And surely if there is anything that we prioritize in our whole ecosystem is the value and importance of clean water over profits, and I am astounded that anyone would oppose the amendment, frankly.

Mr. CONYERS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CONYERS. I may not need that much time. But this is the most important provision in this bill--if we can persuade our colleagues to accept it--because we've all been victims of this rising gas price and then they miraculously come down a little bit, and then they start going back up again and then they come down. I congratulate the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) for introducing the amendment, and I'm proud, along with him, to support consumers across this country. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted no on H.R. 2362, the Indian Tribal Trade and Investment Demonstration Project Act of 2011 (Rep. Cole--Natural Resources). Had I been present, I would have voted no on S. 2039, a bill to allow a State or local government to construct levees on certain properties otherwise designated as open space lands (Sen. Hoeven--Transportation and Infrastructure). Had I been present I would have voted yes on H.R. 3477, to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 133 Hare Road in Crosby, Texas, as the Army First Sergeant David McNerney Post Office Building (Rep. Poe--Oversight and Government Reform).

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chair, during rollcall vote No. 465 on H.R. 4402, the Young (AK) Amendment, I mistakenly recorded my vote as ``aye'' when I should have voted ``no.''

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This has been an unusual debate in Congress over an extremely important matter. What we have witnessed and listened to today for the 31st time is something that I would like to spare our conservative friends the heavy responsibility of trying to go back to their districts to explain. I would like them to not have to explain why they voted to allow insurance companies to deny coverage for 17 million children with preexisting conditions. I would like them not to have to explain why they voted to kick over 6.5 million youngsters up to age 26 off their families' insurance policies. I do not want my dear friends on the other side of the aisle to have to explain why their community hospitals will again have to provide free care to people without insurance and to pay for the medical costs of the uninsured. Medical providers, of course, pass these costs on to private insurers, which pass them on to families, increasing the premiums, on average, of about $1,000. You can tell families paying this hidden tax why they want to impose it. I don't want them to have to try to explain that. I don't want my conservative friends in this body to explain to the 13 million Americans that they won't receive $1.1 billion in rebates this summer from health insurance companies that have overcharged them. It goes on and on. We don't want anyone here to have to explain to the 105 million Americans who will have to face a lifetime limit on their coverage why they would want to allow insurance companies to deny them coverage once they get sick. Then, of course, there are the preexisting conditions that are an excuse to, first of all, not insure for health insurance and, in addition, to deny insurance once they have it if they feel that it is a long-term illness. We don't want any of our conservative friends to leave the House and to have to go home to explain to the 360,000 small business employers who use small business health care tax credits in order to help them afford health insurance for 2 million workers that they will not get it any longer. Finally, we don't want our conservative friends to have to explain why this bill promotes the fiction that repealing the Affordable Care Act won't increase the deficit. We can't keep doing this. I hope nobody is thinking about 32 or 33 times. There has been no comparable debate over a major piece of legislation that has been through this kind of tortured process in recent memory. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to assure my dear friend from California, a former attorney general of his State, that the Supreme Court has made more decisions that I don't like than he doesn't like, and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, rather than get into the Commerce Clause, ruled it a tax. I'm sorry he did that. I wish he had done it my way. You don't like the way that he did it. With that, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), the former chairman of the Constitution Subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, the gentlewoman from Texas, the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee.

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

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds. I would remind my distinguished friend from Florida on the Judiciary Committee that ObamaCare extends Medicaid and does not cause anybody to lose any insurance if they already have it. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlelady from Los Angeles, California, Maxine Waters, who has worked with us on so many progressive causes.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to tell Judge Gohmert that there isn't one American in this country that has lost their insurance because of ObamaCare. Not one. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee, a distinguished member of the Judiciary Committee (Mr. Cohen).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield the balance of my time to John Garamendi of California.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, this evening, I was called away on personal business. I regret that I was not present to vote on H.R. 4155, H.R. 4367, and H.R. 5892. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on these bills. Personal Explanation

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, on June 29, 2012, I regret that I was not present to vote on the Motion to Table the Jackson Lee Privileged Resolution and H. Res. 717. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on both bills.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the career and service to the United States of Judge Damon J. Keith on the occasion of his 90th birthday. Since joining the federal judiciary, Judge Keith has steadfastly and courageously protected the constitutional and civil rights of this country's citizens. In 1967, President Lyndon Johnson appointed Judge Keith to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, making him only the second African-American to sit on that court at that time. During his tenure on the District Court, Judge Keith delivered several key civil rights rulings. He addressed the issue of school desegregation in Davis v. School District of the City of Pontiac in 1970; of employment discrimination and affirmative action in Stamps v. Detroit Edison Co., in 1973 and Baker v. City of Detroit in 1979; and finally, of housing discrimination in Garrett v. City of Hamtramck in 1971 and Zuch v. Hussey in 1975. Judge Keith became Chief Judge of the Eastern District of Michigan in 1975. In 1971, Judge Keith issued a landmark civil liberties ruling in U.S. v. Sinclair, which came to be known as the ``Keith decision.'' Later unanimously upheld by the United States Supreme Court, Judge Keith's decision held unconstitutional wiretap surveillance absent a court order in domestic security cases. Judge Keith continued to safeguard constitutional rights and civil liberties on the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, where he has served since his appointment in 1977 by President James E. Carter. In the 1980s, Judge Keith served as chair of Sixth Circuit and Judicial Conference Committees commemorating the Bicentennial of the Constitution. He took senior status in 1995. Judge Keith was born in Detroit, Michigan on July 4, 1922 and became the first member of his family to attend college, earning a bachelor's degree from West Virginia State College. After serving our Nation for three years in the U.S. Army, he went on to receive an LL.B. from Howard University Law School and an LL.M. in labor law from Wayne State University Law School. Judge Keith started his legal career with the African-American Detroit law firm of Loomis, Jones, Piper & Colden and was one of six Detroit attorneys invited to the White House in 1963 by President John F. Kennedy to discuss the role of lawyers in the civil rights struggle. Later, Judge Keith and four other African-American attorneys established a law firm in what had previously been the all-white legal district of downtown Detroit. At this time, Judge Keith also served as Chair of the Michigan Civil Rights Commission and President of the Detroit Housing Commission. Throughout his distinguished career, Judge Keith has received numerous honors and awards, including: the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People's highest award, the Spingarn Medal, in 1974; the American Bar Association's Thurgood Marshall Award in 1997; and, the Edward J. Devitt Award for Distinguished Service to Justice in 1998, presented by a panel comprised of a United States Supreme Court Justice, a federal circuit court judge, and a federal district court judge. Judge Keith also holds honorary degrees from Harvard University, Yale University, Georgetown University, the University of Michigan, Tuskegee University, and over thirty other institutions. In addition, Judge Keith has played an active role in numerous civic, cultural, and educational organizations, including the Detroit YMCA, the Detroit Arts Commission, the Detroit Cotillion Club, and Interlochen Arts Academy, and has served as an active fundraiser for the United Negro College Fund and the Detroit NAACP. For fifty-three years, Judge Keith was married to the late Rachel Boone Keith, M.D., with whom he had three daughters, Gilda, Debbie, and Cecile. For his consistent defense of the Constitution and the civil rights of all people, on his 90th birthday, I honor and thank Judge Keith for his invaluable service to the United States.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. I rise today to provide some additional views on H.R. 4251, the ``SMART Port Security Act.'' I strongly support many of the provisions in this bill, which will streamline and strengthen our Nation's port security. In particular, I am pleased to see that this bill makes needed reforms to the Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC) program by streamlining and reforming the process of enrolling, issuing, and renewing worker credentials. This legislation will spare workers the financial and procedural burden of renewing their application until the Department of Homeland Security issues a final rule on biometric readers and implements the infrastructure needed to make the program fully functional. I want to express my concern about the possible consequences of Section 114 of the bill, which would create a new pilot program aimed at accelerating the deployment of medium-sized unmanned aircraft along the northern border. While improving our Nation's surveillance capabilities along our border is a laudable goal, law enforcement and border security officials have a responsibility to ensure that any use of drone technology in domestic airspace does not unnecessarily or illegally invade the privacy of ordinary citizens who happen to live close to the border. This legislation and the recent reauthorization of the Federal Aviation Administration are both components of a significant recent legislative effort aimed at significantly loosening regulations and other legal barriers that have, until now, limited the deployment of drones domestically. Before this technology is deployed along the border and elsewhere within the United States, Congress must put in place common sense protections that ensure that the privacy and due process rights of Americans are protected. For example, drones should not be deployed for open ended surveillance or law enforcement purposes. If a drone will intrude on reasonable privacy expectations, a warrant should be required. Legal protections should be put in place that clearly outline how personally identifiable information is collected and retained by a drone program. The process by which our country develops these policies and protections should be transparent and include all stakeholders. This technology has the capacity to dramatically change the character of public life in our country. We must ensure that a legal structure is put in place that will allow us to reap the benefits of this technology, while still preserving the freedoms and values that make our country great.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduced the Rehab and Ahmed Amer Foster Care Improvement Act of 2012. The Act will enhance the existing federal policy of encouraging state foster care programs to place children in the care of willing and able relatives. This legislation accomplishes that goal by requiring States that receive federal funding for foster care programs to add certain procedural enhancements to their foster care programs so as to ensure a more fair placement decision-making process. Specifically, my bill requires that, within 90 days after a State makes a foster care placement decision, the State must provide notice of such decision to the following affected parties: the child's parents; relatives who have informed the State of their interest in caring for the child; the guardian; the guardian ad litem of the child; the attorney for the child; the attorney for each parent of the child; the prosecutor involved; and the child if he or she is able to express an opinion regarding placement. Additionally, States must establish procedures that: allow any of the parties who receive notice of the State's placement decision to request, within five days after receipt of the notice, documentation of the reasons for the State's decision; allow the child's attorney to petition the court involved to review the decision; and require the court to commence such review within seven days after receipt of the petition and conduct such review on the record. The harrowing story of Rehab and Ahmed Amer of Dearborn, Michigan prompted me to craft this bill. In 1985, the Amers lost two of their children to Michigan's foster care system after Rehab had been subject to criminal charges related to the death of her two-year-old son Samier, who died because of head injuries resulting from a fall in a bathtub. Although Rehab had been acquitted in August 1986 of any criminal wrongdoing in connection with Samier's death, the State refused to return the Amers' other two children to them and, in fact, removed a third child from the Amers' custody four months after Rehab's acquittal. As a temporary alternative, Rehab's brother petitioned to be a foster parent to the Amers' three children, but was denied his petition even though he had previously served as a foster parent for other children. It is important to note that the Amers are Muslim. Nevertheless, the State, rather than placing the Amers' children with a foster family of the same faith and cultural background, sent them to live with an evangelical Christian family, which re-named the Amers' children-- Mohamed Ali, Sueheir, and Zinabe--with Christian names and raised them as Christians. Today, only the oldest of the Amers' three living children, Mohamed Ali, now known as Adam, communicates with them. In reaction to the Amers' story, Michigan enacted what became known as the Amer Law. That law requires foster care placement agencies in Michigan to consider and give special preference for relatives when making a foster care placement decision. The Amer Law is consistent with federal foster care policy, which also seeks to give preference to a child's relatives and, for Native American children, a family of the same cultural background as the child, when making placement decisions. The Amer Law, however, has several provisions that go beyond current federal law to ensure due process. In sum, this law gives parents, relatives, guardians, and the child in certain cases additional procedural rights, including the right to written notice and an explanation of a placement decision. In addition, it authorizes judicial review of a placement decision by a foster care agency. My legislation simply adds these enhanced due process features of the Amer Law to existing federal foster care law. The best interests of the child should always be the overriding consideration when making foster care placement decisions. That standard, however, should also require foster care agencies to give special preference to placing a child with relatives, where the child can be raised in the same culture or religion as his or her own, all other things being equal. I thank Rehab and Ahmed Amer for bringing this issue to light and for their tireless efforts to make the foster care placement process fairer for everyone, first in Michigan, and, now, nationally.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize and honor President Ma of Taiwan for his re-election victory. I believe that the people of Taiwan and the United States have a reason to celebrate President Ma's second inauguration, which occurred on May 20, 2012. I hope that during his second term, President Ma and the United States can work together to address the concerns that both our countries share, such as enhancing our mutual security, and exchanging ideas to improve the health care of both of our societies. These efforts, with the countless successes in the past and the close relationship we have maintained with Taiwan, assure a bright and peaceful future for both of our countries.