John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. I want to just say to my dear friend from Florida, Cliff Stearns, you cannot compare licensing concealed-carry permits to driver's licenses, and that's why this idea of yours, with all due respect, has never been passed by the Congress before. The reason is that no States have the same way to automatically check a driver's license for concealed-carry.

Mr. CONYERS. I yield myself 15 additional seconds. You cannot compare a carrying concealed weapons check with a driver's license because they are checkable. A concealed-carry weapon, there are States that don't even permit the information to be revealed from their database. So you're making a huge error that I hope can be corrected. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlelady from California (Ms. Chu), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. I just want, when we decide how we're going to cast our vote on this bill, to realize you cannot compare a concealed-carry weapon permit with a driver's license. The States do not have the ability, they do not have the automated machinery to do that. Many will not even release this information; it's considered a private matter. Concealed-carry permit information cannot be revealed in many States. I now yield 3 minutes to the former chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime, a distinguished member of the Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds. Ladies and gentlemen, forgive my passion on the discussion of this subject, but almost 300 young people of African American decent are injured or killed by gunfire from age 15 to 24 every week. With that, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Quigley), a distinguished member of Judiciary.

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

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds. There are, my colleagues, over 65 million handguns in the United States; and nearly 100,000 people in America every year are shot or killed with a firearm. I now yield 2 minutes to our distinguished Judiciary colleague, a former magistrate from Georgia (Mr. Johnson).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to our dear friend, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

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

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlelady from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz), a former member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall).

Mr. CONYERS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CONYERS. I thank the gentleman for his amendment. I rise in support of it and observe that last year, over 70 percent of Utah's concealed-carry permits were issued to nonresidents. I commend the gentleman.

Mr. CONYERS. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. And I am in full support of the logical and rational approach that she is taking in supporting a database. I plead with my colleagues to join us in a bipartisan sense to support an amendment that would create a comprehensive mechanism so that all permits and licenses for carrying concealed weapons would be available on a 24-hour-a-day basis. I congratulate the gentlelady on her amendment.

Mr. CONYERS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. CONYERS. I merely wanted to ask our distinguished colleague from Washington if I understood correctly that the GAO would conduct a study about the ability of the State and local law enforcement to verify the validity of out-of-state concealment after this bill is passed? I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. CONYERS. I see. Could I ask the gentleman why we wouldn't conduct the study in front of the bill rather than after the bill?

Mr. CONYERS. Well, may I suggest that perhaps our responsibility as Federal legislators might be to determine the impact of this proposal on public safety before we pass it, not years later after we pass it. Would the gentleman concede that that might be the more appropriate path that we normally take?

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with my fellow colleagues to urge this Congress to protect our access to the ballot, which has come under assault in several states across America. The strongest sound that exists in a democratic society is the one voiced during our elections. However, I am troubled that over 5 million Americans are at risk of having their votes suppressed by laws that have turned back the clock on significant freedoms and accessibility achieved in many states before the 2010 elections. Today, I stand in strong opposition to legislative tools that aim to repress the most important right to civic engagement and empowerment, the right to vote. The impact of recent voter suppression laws is spiraling out of control, as evidenced by recent current events. For example, a 96-year- old Tennessee woman was denied a voter ID under Tennessee's new law because she was unable to locate her marriage certificate--even though she produced everything from a copy of her lease, voter registration card, birth certificate and a rent receipt. After voting for over 70 years in all but two elections, this was the first time her right to vote was suppressed. Even our Nation's soldiers and war heroes have been disenfranchised by some of these new laws. Recently, an 86-year-old World War II veteran had to pay for a voter photo ID, even though the state law required that the IDs be given free of charge. Another 91-year-old woman was reportedly unable to receive her ID because she was physically unable to stand in long and crowded lines at the DMV with her cane. Students at the University of Wisconsin-Madison serve as a microcosm of college populations that now face extreme hurdles as their once- accepted student ID cards no longer qualify as acceptable forms of ID in several states. And news of a Florida teacher being unable to register several of her students--an act she customarily does every year as part of her educational curriculum on civic engagement highlights the civil penalties third party registrants face as they merely attempt to assist others become part of the political process. This suppression is affecting all classes, races, and ages, and we owe it to the general public to join in their public outrage against these attacks, which threaten to move America backwards to a period in our history that was ugly, discriminatory and crippling. At the core of all fundamental rights is the right to vote. As voting rights experts have noted, the recent stream of laws passed at the state level are a reversal of policies--both federal and state--that were intended to combat voter disenfranchisement and boost voter participation. That is why I sent a letter to the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee this week, asking that hearings be held to ensure that our federal laws in place to protect access to voting are being enforced. Ensuring that every veteran, senior citizen, student--whether natural born or naturalized--has the right to vote should not be a partisan issue. It should be the very purpose of this Congress since it is a priority to our democracy. I urge every elected official who is a beneficiary of our electoral system, to support the protection of every American citizen's right to have access to voting. Congress of the United States, House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC, October 31, 2011. Hon. Lamar Smith, Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Smith: We write to request a hearing to address the wave of recent changes in state voting laws that make it more difficult for Americans to cast a ballot. A recent report released by the Brennan Center for Justice entitled ``Voting Law Changes in 2012'' has concluded that more than 5 million voters could be impacted by the recently enacted legislation. The provisions that present the most serious concerns include: Provisions that limit voting by requiring the presentation of photo identification: Laws that exclude the most common forms, of identification (e.g., student IDs and Social Security cards), yet offer no alternate identification procedures for eligible voters. Changes requiring proof of citizenship as a condition for voter registration: Limitations or outright elimination of early voting opportunities. Barriers to first time voters such as the elimination of same day registration and limitations on voter mobilization efforts. These changes in state voting laws raise serious constitutional concerns under both the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Fifteenth Amendment. For example, requiring citizens to expend significant funds to obtain a photo ID to vote runs afoul of the prohibition on poll taxes set out by Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections. The Supreme Court in Crawford v. Marion Co. Election Board noted that elderly, persons born out of the state, persons with economic limitations, homeless people, and even people with religious objections to being photographed may be burdened by photo ID laws. We are also concerned that these prohibitions violate the spirit and the letter of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the Help America Vote Act, and the National Voter Registration Act. The Brennan Center Report found that these changes in state election regulations will have a particularly significant impact on minority voters. The report concluded that African American and Hispanic voters were more likely to take advantage of early voting opportunities and register to vote through the types of voter registration drives now curtailed or eliminated by the new laws. Most critically, the Report noted that many of the new voter identification laws do not allow voters to present many forms of identification frequently used by minorities, the elderly, and the young. For example, the new Texas law allows for the use of a concealed carry gun permit to vote, but fails to recognize student IDs, Texas Veterans' Administration identification and even Congressional identification. Further, Texas citizens must also spend $22 to obtain a birth certificate or up to $145 to obtain a passport to present the documentation necessary to acquire a form of ID required to cast a ballot. Numerous examples of the anti-democratic impact of these new laws have already come to our attention. A 96-year-old woman was denied a voter ID under Tennessee's new law even though she has voted in all but two elections over the last 70 years and produced a rent receipt, a copy of her lease, her voter registration card, and her birth certificate. Because her birth certificate had her maiden name, Dorothy Alexander, rather than her married name, officials demanded her marriage certificate which she did not have. Another 91- year-old woman in Tennessee was unable to receive her ID because she was physically unable to stand in the long and crowded lines at the DMV with her cane. Two days ago, we learned of an 80-year-old United States veteran and retired print shop worker who had to pay for a voter photo ID. A young voting age citizen seeking a free ID in Wisconsin was questioned by a Wisconsin DMV employee about how much money he had in his bank account and how much activity his bank account experienced. It has also been reported that in Wisconsin, the state's DMVs have been charging citizens improperly for an ID because employees were instructed not to clarify for citizens that the ID's were free. Assertions that these broad restrictions are needed to counter pervasive voter fraud do not appear to be supported by the evidence. For example, studies have found that only 24 people were convicted of, or pled guilty to, illegal voting at the federal level between the two Presidential and Congressional elections leading up to the 2008 elections. Moreover, only 19 instances of ineligible voting were determined at the state level. The right to vote is the foundation of all our other rights. In view of the gravity of this situation, we urge you to schedule hearings soon to address an issue so critical to our democracy. As voting rights experts have noted, the recent stream of laws passed at the state level are a reversal of policies--both federal and state--that were intended to combat voter disenfranchisement and boost voter participation. Ensuring the right to vote should not be a partisan issue; rather it is the very linchpin of our democracy. Sincerely, John Conyers, Jr., Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary. Jerrold Nadler, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on the Constitution. Brennan Center for Justice, New York University School Law

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1002, the Wireless Tax Fairness Act, which aims to help consumers and cell phone companies, unfortunately ignores the interests of state and local governments. The bill prevents states from determining what and how much to tax certain activities within their borders. True, increased taxes and fees on wireless services ultimately hurt consumers. Every penny matters and every tax increase can impact consumers' pocketbooks and their choices to spend on other goods and services. Rather than taking up this bill, we should consider ways how Congress can help our state and local governments, many of which are barely staying afloat financially during the current economic climate. These states and municipalities must balance their budgets while still providing essential police and fire services, assisting those in need, maintaining our roads and bridges, and ensuring an education for our children. Because of severely reduced revenues, many of our states are cutting their budgets and reducing funding for such essential services as law enforcement and education. This bill will only reduce more future state and local government revenues. For that reason, state and local governments and employee unions oppose this legislation. Instead, Congress can and should help our state and local governments. We could pass H.R. 2701, the ``Main Street Fairness Act,'' which I introduced earlier this Congress or similar legislation. H.R. 2701 would ensure fairness in the marketplace between remote retailers and their brick and mortar counterparts. It would level the playing field for retailers by requiring remote sellers to collect the same sales tax that local retailers have to collect. Thus, mom-and-pop retailers would no longer be at a competitive disadvantage against online retailers. And, it would support our states by providing them the authority to collect very much needed sales taxes which they have not been able to collect from remote sellers. I cannot support H.R. 1002 because it will prevent states from exercising their authority within their own borders. Instead, we should support more balanced measures, such as the Main Street Fairness Act.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, on October 26, 2011, I was absent and unable to vote on two amendments to H.R. 1904 offered by my colleagues Mr. Markey of Massachusetts and Mr. Lujan of New Mexico. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on both amendments.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, last month, the President signed into law the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act. I was a co-sponsor of a bipartisan amendment that added Section 37 to the House bill, which then passed the Senate and was enacted into law. Section 37 is an important provision that clarified the procedure for filing patent term extension applications under the Hatch-Waxman Act. It codified a sensible decision by a federal district judge and was meant to end years of confusion about this issue that had threatened to stifle innovation. Before the Senate voted on the House patent bill, an amendment was offered to strike Section 37. That amendment was fully debated and was defeated on a bipartisan basis. Last week, however, there was discussion of Section 37 on the floor of the Senate and it was suggested that Section 37 does not take effect for a year. But that is incorrect. Section 37 explicitly says that it ``shall apply'' to applications and court cases that are pending on the date of enactment of the bill. To apply to pending applications and cases, Section 37 obviously had to be effective immediately. Section 37 says very clearly exactly what it applies to so the default effective date provision for the Act does not apply here. During the entire debate over Section 37, not a single person suggested that Section 37 would not be effective immediately. In fact, everyone understood it would take effect right away and would govern currently pending applications and cases. The United States Patent and Trademark Office agreed with this interpretation. In fact, just last week, the Department of Justice explained in a court filing that this is the only possible interpretation of the law. In the end, the amendment to strike Section 37 was defeated during Senate debate. It is too late now to re-write history. And it is clear that Section 37 explicitly says that it is to be effective immediately.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate Taiwan, which celebrated its 100th anniversary earlier this month. The events of October 10, 1911, marked the beginning of the Wuchang Uprising, which ultimately resulted in the collapse of the Qing Dynasty in China and the creation of Taiwan. Under the leadership of Taiwan's President Ma Ying-jeou, relations between China and Taiwan have greatly improved. Both China and Taiwan have been able to benefit from this new era of cooperation. Chinese tourists have been flooding into Taiwan, bolstering the local economy and creating good will between the neighbors. Last year, both governments signed the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, ECFA. The agreement streamlines business between China and Taiwan. As a result of Taiwan's leadership, daily flights between the two countries continue to grow considerably. We are grateful for President Ma's efforts to create peaceful relations with its neighbors and congratulate Taiwan again on its 100th anniversary.