John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to a member of the House Judiciary Committee, Jerrold Nadler, who has worked on this subject matter for quite a long time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask if the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Johnson) would like additional time. If he requires any, I would be glad to arrange to yield him further time. If you require more time, I would be delighted to yield it to you.

Mr. CONYERS. I thank you, Mr. Johnson. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased now to yield 4 minutes to the Judiciary Committee member from Florida (Mr. Deutch), who has worked very carefully with us on this subject matter.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased now to yield as much time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson), a member of the House Judiciary Committee.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute to ask my friend and distinguished medical practicer and Member of Congress, Mr. Gingrey, is he aware that his bill, H.R. 5, eliminates joint and several liability for both economic and noneconomic damages? I yield to the gentleman for that purpose.

Mr. CONYERS. I yield myself an additional minute, and I thank Dr. Gingrey for his response. I ask the author of this bill, H.R. 5, if the answer to my question of whether H.R. 5 eliminates joint and several liability for both economic and noneconomic damages is ``yes''?

Mr. CONYERS. I thank the gentleman very much. Mr. Chairman, I am now pleased to yield as much time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Houston, Texas, Ms. Sheila Jackson Lee.

Mr. CONYERS. I yield the gentlelady 1 additional minute.

Mr. CONYERS. I yield such time as she may consume to a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, Maxine Waters of California.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, we have no further requests for time. With the agreement of the chairman of the committee, I would like to close at this point.

Mr. CONYERS. I'd like to thank all of the Members on both sides of the aisle that have participated in this important debate. There has been a lot of clarity, even though there has been a great difference in opinion. I return the balance of my time with this thought in mind, that even though the author of this bill is a well-regarded medical practitioner and a distinguished Member of the body, he is a doctor, but he is not a lawyer. I commend him on the fact that he agreed with the statement that to me determines a lot of people's point of view about this very controversial bill that is now before the floor, H.R. 5. That is, he agreed and answered in the affirmative that H.R. 5 eliminates joint and several liability for economic, noneconomic, and punitive damages. To me, with all the cases that have been of human suffering, of injury to women and children, of how wrong it would be to limit all of these kinds of damages to $250,000 in this 21st century is an insult to common sense and fair play.

Mr. CONYERS. I will yield to the gentleman.

Mr. CONYERS. Well, through the Chairman, I accept the comments of the gentleman from Georgia. I assume that his response to my question earlier is still ``yes.'' If that is the case, then all I can say is that I think there are very few people in the Federal legislature or among our citizenry who would say that there should not be an unlimited amount of recovery. The gentleman must have some feeling for the fact that $250,000 for the rest of the person's life, if they lose arms or legs, eyes, it's just unacceptable. I won't say that it's immoral, but it's unfair. It's my hope that most of our colleagues, as we continue this debate tomorrow, will realize that that is the fatal flaw in a bill that may have some justification in other parts of it, but that limitation of damages cannot be rationalized nor justified by the collective body of this legislature. For that reason, sir, I am urging all of our colleagues to consider this one point that I make tonight, as I close, as to be controlling in their decision that they will make as we vote tomorrow on this bill. I thank all of the Members that have joined in this debate this evening. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, even though he is very much alive, I rise this evening to celebrate the inspired life and contributions of the Reverend Dr. Charles Adams, who, on April 30 of this year, will be completing his teaching at the Harvard Divinity School, where he has for years conducted these important courses that he has taught. Earlier, he was the head of the largest NAACP chapter in the Nation, the Detroit chapter. He has inspired countless numbers of people on this planet to a greater faith and in the necessity to follow up with the work to produce the change, the compassion that in some ways, sometimes large and other times small, can dispense hope in a community, a State, a Nation, and sometimes even a world. Dr. Charles Gilchrist Adams Pastor, Hartford Memorial Baptist Church William and Lucille Nickerson Professor of the Practice of Ethics and Ministry, Harvard Divinity School Charles G. Adams, one of the most prominent ministers in the United States, an acclaimed preacher and leader on faith- based urban revitalization has been Pastor of Hartford Memorial Baptist Church since 1969. From 1962 to 1969 Dr. Adams served as Pastor of the historic Concord Baptist Church in Boston, Massachusetts. He has lectured on homiletics and Black Church Studies at Boston University, Andover Newton School of Theology, Central Baptist Seminary in Kansas City, and Iliff School of Theology in Denver, Colorado. Charles Gilchrist Adams, was born December 13, 1936, in Detroit, Michigan. He was baptized by his granduncle, the late Gordon Blaine Hancock, of Richmond, Virginia. He attended Fisk University where he was President of the Sophomore Class and Vice President of the Student Council. He graduated with honors from the University of Michigan and Harvard University and went on to become a doctoral fellow in Union Theological Seminary in New York City. He has been awarded twelve honorary doctorates from such institutions as Morehouse College, Marygrove College, Dillard University, Morris College, Kalamazoo College in Kalamazoo Michigan, and the University of Michigan. From 1962 to 1969, Dr. Adams served as Pastor of the historic Concord Baptist Church in Boston, Massachusetts, followed by an appointment as the Pastor of Hartford Memorial Baptist Church in Detroit, Michigan, in 1969. He has lectured on homiletics and Black Church studies in Boston University, Andover Newton School of Theology, Central Baptist Seminary in Kansas City, and Iliff School of Theology in Denver, Colorado. He lectured seven times at Boston University School of Theology in a course on the Black Church taught by Professor Preston Noah Williams. In April 1989, Dr. Adams was invited to speak before the United Nations on South African apartheid. In August 1990, he was a speaker for the World Congress of the Baptist World Alliance in Seoul, Korea. His theme was ``Together In Christ We Love.'' In 1991, Dr. Adams addressed the Seventh General Assembly of the World Council of Churches in Canberra, Australia, and spoke on the 157 theme, ``Come Holy Spirit, Renew The Whole Creation. At this Assembly, he was elected to their organization's Central Committee. He recommended the World Council use its offices and resources to combat racism in the U.S. and around the world, and their response was to join forces with the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA. Together, the organizations converged on Los Angeles in 1992 to meet with churches, gang leaders, public officials and citizens in order to bring about a lasting peace after the riots following the verdict in the beating of Rodney King. Dr. Adams was the 1993 94 Conference Preacher for Hampton University Ministers Conference held in Hampton, Virginia. He has been awarded twelve honorary doctorates from colleges and universities across the country, has spoken before the United Nations (on South African Apartheid), and has received the coveted ``Rabbi Marvin Katzenstein Award'' from the Harvard Divinity School. This is given to a Harvard graduate who exhibits ``a passionate and helpful interest in the lives of other people, an informed and realistic faithfulness, and an embodiment of the idea that love is not so much a way of feeling as way of acting and has a reliable sense of humor.'' Dr. Adams' board affiliations include the Baptist World Alliance, the World Council of Churches, the National Council of Churches, the Congress of National Black Churches, Morehouse College (Atlanta, GA) and Morris College (Sumpter, SC). He is married to Agnes Hadley Adams and is the father of Tara Adams Washington, M.D., and the Rev. Charles Christian Adams.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in memory of Rev. George St. Angelo, a resident of the state of Illinois, who dedicated his life to being a civil rights and social justice advocate. In 1955, St. Angelo was the first chaplain at North Central College where he encouraged discussion of social justice issues by inviting a variety of important speakers to the college's campus. These speakers included ``Freedom Ride'' organizer and Committee on Racial Equality founder James Farmer, Morehouse College President Benjamin Mays, and St. Angelo's good friend Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. Despite local opposition, two weeks after the first historic voting rights march that ended in the ``Bloody Sunday'' beating of citizens in Alabama, St. Angelo took a group of students from the suburban Chicago college to participate in the third Selma to Montgomery voting rights march, which ended at the state capitol with Dr. King's ``How Long, Not Long'' speech. I have profound respect for St. Angelo's devotion to the civil rights movement. He dedicated his life to service and remained personally involved in promoting intercultural understanding until his death. Thank you, Rev. George St. Angelo, for remaining steadfast in the fight for voter equality in this country. The people of Michigan, and all of those who you helped and fought for, will always remember your kindness, courage, and dedication to this just cause.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I strongly support H.R. 4086, the ``Foreign Cultural Exchange Jurisdictional Immunity Clarification Act,'' as amended. This is a bipartisan bill that the Judiciary Committee ordered favorably reported by voice vote. This bill contains a narrowly tailored fix to the expropriation exception of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 that would clarify that the exception is not available in cases where: artwork or a cultural object is imported into the United States for temporary exhibit or display pursuant to an agreement between a foreign state that owns or has custody of the work and a U.S. cultural or educational institution; the work has been granted immunity from seizure by the President pursuant to the Immunity from Seizure Act because it is of cultural significance and its temporary exhibit or display is in the national interest; and the President's determination has been published pursuant to IFSA. The bill also clarifies that its provisions do not apply to Nazi-era claims regarding the ownership of art or cultural objects. In short, this bill immunizes foreign states from lawsuits that seek damages for artwork that is already immune from seizure pursuant to a Presidential determination when the work is in the U.S. for temporary exhibition. I am an original cosponsor of this bill for several reasons. First, H.R. 4086 will make the FSIA consistent with the purpose underlying the Immunity from Seizure Act. The IFSA was intended to encourage foreign states to lend their artwork and other cultural property to American museums and educational institutions for the cultural and educational benefit of the American people. We enacted the IFSA in 1965 at the height of the Cold War to immunize certain artwork owned by the Soviet Union so that the Soviets would lend the artwork to the University of Richmond for a temporary exhibit. We recognized then, and continue to recognize now, that as a general matter, the benefits of the cultural exchange fostered by temporary exhibits or displays of artwork outweigh the provision of a U.S. forum for disputes about the ownership of cultural property that is held by a foreign government. The benefits of cultural exchange include an increased understanding of and appreciation for foreign cultures, a decrease in xenophobia and prejudice, and perhaps even some diplomatic benefit in fostering mutual respect between our Nation and other nations. IFSA worked well for 40 years. Unfortunately, the court's decision in Malewicz [MA-le-vich] v. City of Amsterdam broadened the scope of the FSIA's expropriation exception to the point where it undermined IFSA. The court construed the term ``commercial activity'' as used in the FSIA to include the temporary exhibit of artwork in the United States. This triggered the expropriation exception to sovereign immunity even though the works at issue in Malewicz had been immunized from seizure by the President. The Malewicz case has had a chilling effect on loans of cultural property from foreign states. According to a letter urging my support for this bill that I received from Graham W.J. Beal, Director of the Detroit Institute of Arts, both the Russian and Czech governments are refusing to lend works of art to American museums in the wake of this court decision. Additionally, the Metropolitan Museum of Art withdrew a loan request to a Middle Eastern museum out of fear that once the works were in the U.S., their presence would be used as grounds for a lawsuit. H.R. 4086 resolves the inconsistency between the IFSA and the FSIA created by the Malewicz decision by ensuring that any work that the President has immunized from seizure pursuant to IFSA will also immunize the foreign government owner of that work from a suit for damages under FSIA. Second, the sovereign immunity provided for under this bill is limited to a very specific set of circumstances. H.R. 4086 does not cover every possible claim concerning the ownership of artwork owned by a foreign government. For instance, the expropriation exception could be available for any claim concerning works that have not received immunity from seizure under IFSA. Similarly, the expropriation exception remains available for a work that is not in the United States on temporary exhibit or display pursuant to an agreement. Additionally, H.R. 4086 leaves untouched the other exceptions to sovereign immunity provided for in the FSIA, including the general ``commercial activity'' exception. Third, I can support H.R. 4086 because it makes an exception for Nazi-era claims. This carve-out is consistent with longstanding American policy to seek restitution when possible for victims of the Nazi government, its allied governments, and its affiliated governments. In light of the unique historical sensitivities surrounding the Nazi government's deliberate campaign to steal artwork from its victims, H.R. 4086 rightfully ensures that victims of the Nazis are not foreclosed from pursuing damages for stolen art, even at the cost of foreclosing cultural exchange. H.R. 4086 is an exceedingly modest bill that will nonetheless foster tremendous benefits for the American people. I applaud Representative Steve Chabot, the sponsor of this bill, as well as my fellow co-sponsors, Judiciary Chairman Lamar Smith and Representative Steve Cohen, for their leadership on this issue. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I'm glad that we can make this change of bringing together these deserving countries. I hope the bipartisan efforts coming from the Committee on the Judiciary, from both Chairman Smith and from senior member Howard Berman, will be a foundation on which to consider additional immigration reforms, reforms that are desperately needed to help families and businesses across this country. I rise today in support of H.R. 3992, a bipartisan proposal that would make Israel eligible to participate in the E 2 ``Treaty Investor'' visa program, which is now available to 79 other countries. Although larger reform of our immigration laws has remained elusive, there are small places where we can work across the aisle to pass commonsense legislation and achieve incremental, but important, results. H.R. 3992--introduced by my friend, Representative Howard Berman, along with Judiciary Chairman Lamar Smith, Foreign Affairs Chairwoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, and Immigration Subcommittee Ranking Member Zoe Lofgren--is just such a bill. This bipartisan bill allows citizens of Israel to come to the United States on E 2 visas for ``treaty investors'' if those individuals make substantial investments in businesses in the United States. And, those visas would only be available if Israel provides similar visas to U.S. citizens seeking to invest in businesses in Israel. As I just mentioned, the E 2 visa program is currently available to citizens of 79 other countries. This list includes our closest allies and trading partners, including the United Kingdom, Canada, Mexico, Japan, Jordan, and South Korea. And it also includes countries that are perhaps less obvious, such as Pakistan, Honduras, Liberia, and Iran. With a population of less than 8 million people, Israel is the United States' 22nd largest export market. Yet Israel is not currently eligible for E 2 visas. By expanding eligibility to Israeli citizens, and by Israel's expansion of similar visas to U.S. investors, we should see an increase in trade and investment beneficial to both nations. I am glad that we can make this change for Israel and I look forward to working with Howard Berman and Chairman Smith to afford this same opportunity to perhaps additional, deserving countries. I also hope today's bipartisan efforts will provide a foundation to consider additional immigration reforms--reforms that are desperately needed to help businesses and families in my district in Michigan and across the country. I thank Mr. Berman for introducing this bill. And I thank Chairman Smith and Chairwoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of the Foreign Affairs Committee for their support of this important piece of legislation. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I also thank Donna Christensen for her leadership in bringing us all together this evening. This is a wonderful way, when this Record is read of this Special Order for Donald Payne, for everyone to know the depth of the love and respect that we all had for this great and gentle human being. He was a committed public servant and a true champion for social and economic justice at home and around the world. He had a global perspective that helped teach us that all of the 6.4 billion people on Earth are connected and related. So when I was asked to campaign for his first run for Congress that I knew about, which was in 1988, I was pleased to do so. I traveled to Newark and joined with him in that victory. I remember being struck by his deep desire to help people, and I had no idea that he would grow and develop into this leader whom we mourn and praise here today. Through his work as a member of the House Education and the Workforce Committee and of the Foreign Affairs Committee, he led the fight to address inequities in every realm of existence. He was a great proponent for peace. I must say that I am convinced that he had the spirit and the philosophy of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., that he lived and demonstrated every single day of his life. He is the one Member of whom I can say I never saw angry, I never saw upset. When I was able to take him away from his African commitments, I took him to Haiti, where he immediately understood the depth of the suffering and the tragedy that required us to go back again and again and again. So, Donald Payne, what has been said of you today is only a small token of the contributions that you have made during your life. You will be missed by your colleagues. You will be mourned by your family. You will be treasured by many people in many places on this globe.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. I want to thank the gentlelady from Texas for her wide- ranging comments, for her very closely held beliefs, and for her very articulate way of joining me in the dialogue this morning. Mr. Speaker, I now yield to the gentlelady from California, Lois Capps. Personal Explanation

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to my friend, my brother, the one and only Harry Belafonte, whose birthday is today, his fame as a singer popularizing the Caribbean musical style with an international audience, and is best known for singing the Banana Boat Song, with its signature lyric, ``Day-O.'' He's a movie star and was in pictures filmed with Dorothy Dandridge and then Carmen Jones, which was Otto Preminger's hit musical. Throughout his career, though, he has been a civil rights advocate and a leader in humanitarian causes; and, for me, his close counsel and advice and support to the late Dr. Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., is something that I think will go down in civil rights history. He's been a leader in humanitarian causes for many years. He helped organize the Grammy award winning song, ``We Are the World,'' a multi- artist effort to raise funds for Africa when they needed it most. He performed in the Live Aid concert that same year. In 1987, Mr. Belafonte received appointment to UNICEF as a goodwill ambassador; and following his appointment, he traveled to Dakar, Senegal, where he served as chairman of the International Symposium of Artists and Intellectuals for African Children. He also helped to raise funds with dozens of other artists in the largest concert ever held in sub-Saharan Africa. And then he went on a mission to Rwanda and launched a media campaign to raise awareness of the needs and the troubles and the nutritional challenges of Rwandan children. In 2001, he went to South Africa to support the campaign to reduce HIV/AIDS. The next year, Africare awarded him the Bishop John Walker Distinguished Humanitarian Service Award for his efforts to assist in Africa. In 2004, he went to Kenya to stress the importance of education for the children in that area. In 2006, he was the recipient of the BET Humanitarian Award and was named one of the nine award recipients by AARP Magazine. Happy birthday, Harry Belafonte. I love you, America loves you, and the entire world will always love and admire your artistic genius, your steadfast devotion to causes of justice, peace, and your enduring spirit to transform both our country and the world so it is a more compassionate, soulful, and just planet. I'm going to yield, at this time, to the gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Sheila Jackson Lee, as much time as she may consume.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I reluctantly rise in opposition to the measure before us, the so- called Private Property Rights Protection Act. Now, while the goal of this legislation to protect property owners and tenants from the abuse of eminent domain is laudable and important, it would, in reality, supplant the work States have already done to respond to the Supreme Court's decision in Kelo v. The City of New London in the 7 years since the Court handed down that decision. Most importantly, whatever the concerns my colleagues may have about the Kelo decision, the use and abuse of the power of eminent domain, I hope that every Member would look very carefully at the penalty it will impose on States, counties, cities, and towns across the country. Even if they never take a single piece of property, even if a jurisdiction never uses eminent domain at all, the mere possibility that some future administration would use eminent domain in a prohibited manner would cast a permanent cloud over the jurisdiction's finances. The risk of the catastrophic penalties being imposed over the life of a 10-year or 20-year bond would be enough to destroy or mitigate a city or State's ability to float bonds at any time for any reason. At the very least, our cities and States would be forced to pay a risk premium that would make us envy Greece. While it would destroy the finances of every community in the country, it would still allow some of the most flagrant abuses of eminent domain today. One glaring example is that the Keystone XL pipeline, and all pipelines, specifically is exempted. Even now, when a Canadian company is threatening farm families with eminent domain for a project that hasn't even been approved, this bill would give TransCanada a free pass. Whatever your concerns, this bill is not the right answer to a very important question. You see, since 2005, there have been new developments that call into question whether Congress should even act at this point. When this House last considered similar legislation, the Kelo decision was new, and there was real concern that the Supreme Court had opened floodgates to abusive takings of homes, businesses, churches, and farms. The States responded, which is their role in our Federal system. They responded to the concerns of the people who live in those communities to restrain State power and safeguard property rights. In some cases, the State courts have acted to restrain State governments in ways that the Federal law would not. In response to the Kelo decision, States have moved aggressively to reconsider and amend their own eminent domain laws. More than 40 States have acted, and States have considered carefully the implications of this decision and the needs of their citizens. Congress should not now come charging in after 7 years of work and presume to sit as a national zoning board, arrogating to our national government the right to decide which States have gotten the balance right and deciding which projects are or are not appropriate. Yet my colleagues who decry an intrusive Federal Government, who exalt States' rights, and who demand that the courts defer to the elected branches of government to make important decisions are not satisfied. They want the courts to interfere. They want a one-size-fits-all, Washington-knows- best solution. They don't want to respect the way States have dealt with this issue. The power of eminent domain is an extraordinary one, and it should be used rarely and with great care. All too often, it has been abused for private gain or to benefit some at the expense of others. Has this bill drawn the appropriate line between permissible and impermissible uses of eminent domain? I think that is one of the questions we will really need to consider. We all know the easy cases. As the majority in Kelo said: The City would no doubt be forbidden from taking petitioners' land for the purpose of conferring a private benefit on a particular private party . . . nor would the City be allowed to take property under the mere pretext of a public purpose when its actual purpose was to bestow a private benefit. But which projects are appropriate and which are not can sometimes be a difficult call. Historically, eminent domain has been used to destroy communities for projects having nothing to do with economic development as prohibited by this bill. For example, highways have cut through neighborhoods, destroying them. I know about that. Many of these communities have been low-income and minority communities, and many of them have yet to recover from the wrecker's ball. Yet this bill would permit those projects to go forward, using eminent domain, as if nothing had happened. Other projects that have genuine public purposes would, nonetheless, be prohibited. There is no rhyme or reason for this legislation. I believe, as I did in 2005, that this bill is the incorrect approach to a very serious problem. With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. It is my pleasure to yield such time as she may consume to a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, my longstanding friend and supporter for many years, the gentlewoman from California, the Honorable Maxine Waters.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in memory of Marylyn Schmidt, a resident of the State of Michigan, who dedicated her life to the goal of achieving true universal health care for all Americans. She spent countless hours, day in and day out, organizing, mobilizing, and educating the citizens of Michigan in order to build grass-roots support for passage of a single-payer bill in Congress, H.R. 676. She passionately believed that every person in America should have access to quality, affordable, and accessible health care as a fundamental civil and human right. I knew Mrs. Schmidt for almost two decades. I had a profound respect for her unique leadership in advocating for human rights, universal health care, and protecting Social Security and Medicare. She belonged to numerous community and social-justice organizations, including the Michigan Improved Medicare for All, the Michigan Alliance to Strengthen Social Security and Medicare, the Michigan Universal Healthcare Access Network, and the Oakland County Welfare Rights Organization. For over 20 years, she fought for the human, economic, and civil rights of the voiceless and the vulnerable citizens of Michigan who wanted nothing more than a better life for themselves and their children. Thank you, Marylyn Schmidt, for remaining steadfast in your belief that health care should be a fundamental human right in this country. The people of Michigan and all of those you helped and fought for will always remember your kindness, your courage, and dedication to this just cause.