John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. I yield 2 minutes to Zoe Lofgren, a member of the committee.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from California, Judy Chu, a member of the committee.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to remind my dear friend from Wisconsin, when he was chairman of the committee, in the 2005 Judiciary Committee report, he said: These protections are designed to ensure that abusers and criminals cannot use the immigration system against their victims, as abusers are known for interfering or undermining their victim's immigration cases and encouraging immigration officers to pursue removal actions against their victims. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished Member from Illinois, Mike Quigley.

Mr. CONYERS. I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentleman.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds. More than 300 organizations oppose this bill, including the American Red Cross and the National Council Against Domestic Violence. I ask the floor manager: Who supports it? I yield 1 minute to a distinguished member of the committee, Hank Johnson of Georgia, himself a former magistrate.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Texas, Sheila Jackson Lee, a senior member of the House Judiciary Committee.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to Linda Sanchez, a distinguished member of the House Judiciary Committee.

Mr. CONYERS. I am pleased now to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlelady from Minnesota, Betty McCollum.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, how much time is remaining on both sides?

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington, Rick Larsen.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. This is the third time I have asked my friends on the other side to please tell me why all of the women's organizations, law enforcement organizations--some 200-plus--are against this bill, and all of them were supporting the previous bill. I yield to the distinguished manager of the bill, a dear friend of mine, for a response.

Mr. CONYERS. I yield myself an additional 30 seconds. Since we're shaming on every organization that protects women, would you tell me who supports the Republican version of the bill? Name somebody.

Mr. CONYERS. I yield myself an additional 30 seconds. I have asked why hundreds of organizations are supporting it, and you say: Shame on them. I ask who's supporting the Republican measure and you say: I am. Well, I'm glad to know that. And I think that just about tells everybody where the logic and the support for this bill is. There is none. It's a Republican--not a prank, but a serious blow to women. And that's what the organizations know, and that's why, Madam Floor Manager, they're opposed to this bill.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to our leader, Nancy Pelosi.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield now 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra).

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. Ladies and gentlemen of the House, in fact, the new tribal protection orders added by the manager's amendment would reverse the Violence Against Women Act's victim-centered approach and would require Native women to sometimes travel hours to obtain protection orders from a Federal district court. Madam Speaker, I am now pleased to yield 4 minutes to the distinguished whip of the House of Representatives, Steny Hoyer of Maryland.

Mr. CONYERS. I am pleased to yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, how much time remains?

Mr. CONYERS. I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Lujan).

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker and Members of the House, this bill has been revealed to be reauthorizing certain grant programs, but it really doesn't. It undermines the safety of the most vulnerable victims of violence. It rolls back important protections for immigrant victims, putting them in a worse position than under current law, and excludes other vulnerable populations, such as tribal women, LGBTQ. In short, any alleged improvements made by this bill cannot conceal the overwhelming harm that it will cause. When I asked who supports this bill, the floor manager could name only one person. She said, I do. And when I asked her why do all of the women's organizations and law enforcement organizations oppose the bill, she made some other comment about why that was so. Ladies and gentlemen, we must turn back this unacceptable piece of legislation. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the ``John Hope Franklin Tulsa-Greenwood Riot Accountability Act of 2012,'' along with Representative Nadler, and additional cosponsors. This legislation will create a Federal cause of action to allow the survivors of the Tulsa- Greenwood Riot of 1921 to seek a determination on the merits of their civil rights and other claims against the perpetrators of the Riot in a Federal court of law. This legislation is named in honor of the late Dr. John Hope Franklin, the noted historian, who was a first-hand witness to the destructive impact that the riot had on the African-American community of Tulsa. Dr. Franklin made numerous scholarly contributions to the understanding of the long term effects of the riot on the city and worked to keep the issue alive in history and on the minds of policymakers. On April 24, 2007, he served as a witness, testifying in favor of the legislation, and its passage would be a fitting tribute to his memory and to a community which has never received its fair day in court. The Greenwood neighborhood of Tulsa, Oklahoma, was one of the nation's most prosperous African-American communities entering the decade of the Nineteen Twenties. Serving over 8000 residents, the community boasted two newspapers, over a dozen churches, and hundreds of African-American-owned businesses, with the commercial district known nationally as the ``Negro Wall Street.'' In May 1921, all that came to an end as 42 square blocks of the community were burned to the ground and up to 300 of its residents were killed by a racist mob. In the wake of the violence, the State and local governments quashed claims for redress and effectively erased the incident from official memory. The 1921 Tulsa Race Riot was one of the most destructive and costly attacks upon an American community in our nation's history. However, no convictions were obtained for the incidents of murder, arson or larceny connected with the riot, and none of the more than 100 contemporaneously filed lawsuits by residents and property owners were successful in recovering damages from insurance companies to assist in the reconstruction of the community. The case of the Tulsa-Greenwood Riot victims is worthy of Congressional attention because substantial evidence suggests that governmental officials deputized and armed the mob and that the National Guard joined in the destruction. The report commissioned by the Oklahoma State Legislature in 1997, and published in 2001, uncovered new information and detailed, for the first time, the extent of the involvement by the State and city government in prosecuting and erasing evidence of the riot. This new evidence was crucial for the formulation of a substantial case, but its timeliness raised issues at law, and resulted in a dismissal on statute of limitation grounds. In dismissing the survivor's claims, however, the Court found that extraordinary circumstances might support extending the statute of limitations, but that Congress did not establish rules applicable to the case at bar. With this legislation, we have the opportunity to provide closure for a group of claimants--many over 100 years old--and the ability close the book on a tragic chapter in history. Racism, and its violent manifestations, are part of our nation's past that we cannot avoid. With the prosecution of historical civil rights claims, both civil and criminal, we encourage a process of truth and reconciliation which can heal historic wounds. In this case, the Court took ``no great comfort'' in finding that there was no legal avenue through which the plaintiffs could bring their claims. The ``Tulsa- Greenwood Riot Accountability Act'' would simply give Tulsans and all Oklahomans, white and black, victims and non-victims, their day in court. Without that opportunity, we will all continue to be victims of our past.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, ``Democracy, at its core, requires that all of the people be included in `We the People.' '' Uttered by Mr. John Adolphus Payton during a 2008 speech in Michigan, this quote embodies his legacy. A true pioneer, John Payton rarely turned down an opportunity to advocate for the least among us and reminded America time and again of the necessity to advance toward a more inclusive and tolerant society. From his youth until his last days, John Payton fought for the recognition of individual rights and taught us how to work toward democracy--not just speak about it. A quick glance at John's background quickly reveals the makings of a civil rights giant. At the height of the overt racial tensions of 1965, John Payton was one of only a handful of black students at Pomona College. Even as a working student, John found time to enhance the quality of collegiate life for disadvantaged students by founding Pomona's Black Student Association, organizing and participating in anti-war and civil rights demonstrations, successfully lobbying Pomona's administration to recruit more black students, and for the creation of a black studies program. A year after graduating from Pomona College, John enrolled at Harvard Law School in 1974. As a law student he obtained affidavits from black student activists who were injured during Boston's school busing controversy. John served as an ideal model of what true civic engagement should be. Even without a formal title, he used his resources to fight for the rights of others. Serving as the sixth president of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund (LDF), John led many victories before the U.S. Supreme Court, including the 2010 case Lewis v. City of Chicago, where John successfully represented a group of firefighters who argued that the city had discriminated against black recruits by using a grading system that resulted in no black applicants being hired. Though their claims had been barred by a statute of limitations defense in the lower court, the Supreme Court reversed those findings, allowing the recruits' claims to move forward. Prior to taking the helm of the NAACP LDF, in 2003 John argued in Grutter v. Bolinger that the University of Michigan had a compelling interest in promoting class diversity, and that acknowledging race as one of many factors in admissions decisions was not a quota. In a 5 4 decision, the Supreme Court agreed with John's argument, and put our nation one step closer towards achieving equitable higher education for all. John's journey to erasing the ``badges of slavery'' meant challenging racism head on. As an associate with the D.C. law firm Wilmer, Cutler and Pickering (now known as Wilmer Hale), he contributed to the firm's representation of the NAACP in various legal matters, including assisting with the 1982 Supreme Court case NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co. The Claiborne case rescued the NAACP from certain bankruptcy by avoiding a financial penalty after the group organized a 1960s boycott against white merchants in Mississippi. In 1988, John represented the city of Richmond's program which set aside 30 percent of municipal construction jobs for minority-owned businesses. The Supreme Court ruled that the Richmond law was unconstitutional because it violated the white-owned construction firms' right to equal protection. Many would have been discouraged by the loss, but as John eloquently stated in the 2008 edition of The Civil Rights Monitor, published by the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, ``We must recognize that this is a marathon and not a race if we are to find solutions that will work.'' As I sat at John's memorial service, I not only sat as a legal colleague, but as a friend. Many shared their respects for a man who gave so much to promote justice and equality. I thank his wife of 20 years, Gay McDougall, for sharing her lifelong partner so that we could be beneficiaries of his lifelong mission.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Ladies and gentlemen of the House, it's time for a real jobs plan to get our Americans back to work in every district. And since the conservatives have taken over the House more than a year ago, they have refused to move forward with a real plan to create jobs to get our people back to work--a whole year and no comprehensive jobs plan when Americans needed it most. Now, in my bill, H.R. 870, the Humphrey-Hawkins Full Employment Act, revised, is a way to bring unemployment down to zero percent. There is no reason why everybody that wants a job in America can't be put in a position or trained for a position. Yet, although most of the people in the country treat jobs as the number one priority, we still haven't got movement in the House. It is a shame, and I think somebody is going to pay for it.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. I thank my friend from Maryland. Ladies and gentlemen of the House, perhaps my colleagues on the other side, my conservative friends, either don't realize what they're doing in this budget or they're trying to make sure that nobody else knows what they're doing in this budget because this budget ends the Medicare guarantees and shifts the costs to seniors. Now, this is a simple statement of fact that it either does or it doesn't. Number two: Those making over $1 million a year in this country will reap an average tax cut of $394,000, while it preserves tax breaks for Big Oil. True or false? It either does or it doesn't. Number three: It destroys over 4 million American jobs in the next couple of years. True or false? Well, the Economic Policy Institute tells us that it's true. The last point I would like to get a true or false response from: It raises Medicare eligibility from the age of 65 to 67. True or false? I would yield to anybody on the other side who would like to elucidate, or clarify, any of the statements that I have made. I hear no response.