John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina, Walter Jones.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Ladies and gentlemen, here we go again. Last Tuesday on February 8 when this measure came up, it was defeated. It was a bipartisan vote. There was a full and fair discussion. Twenty-six Members on the other side joined with us to make sure that this measure was adequately examined for the flaws. It's not that the Patriot Act isn't important or needed. It's just that it's flawed. The most flawed provision of the three provisions is the one I want to comment on briefly, and that is the so-called ``lone wolf'' provision--someone operating on his own and not particularly attached to anyone. This provision allows our full national security surveillance powers, which are designed to be used against enemy governments, to be used against a single individual who is unaffiliated with any foreign power or terrorist group. Now, it is widely known that this provision has never been used. It hasn't been used because there are no terrorists; it hasn't been used because it doesn't have to be used. The Department of Justice, by its own admission, has other powers to go after these individuals. And that's why it hasn't been used. And because we got a closed rule from the Rules Committee, we weren't able to work out an agreement to take it out. Therefore, I come before you today to urge that we do not accept this measure. It is way too broad. And under the statutory definition, virtually any evildoer can be declared a ``lone wolf.'' So, ladies and gentlemen, let's be tough on terrorists. But let's describe this in a way that it will not be used in a way that will create fears that if we drop the lone wolf provision, the world may come to an end. I urge that this one provision is sufficient reason for us not to agree to the measure before us today. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. I would like to remind the chairman emeritus of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Sensenbrenner, that we are not playing politics. And merely accusing us of that and of not having hearings doesn't help the debate much. On September 22, 2009, the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Judiciary Committee held hearings; and on October 29, 2009, the full committee held hearings and reported out a bill, I would say to my friend from Wisconsin. On November 4 and 5 of 2009, I say to the distinguished gentleman, we had a 2-day markup in Judiciary with record votes on 10 amendments offered by members of both parties and we reported out a compromise measure by voice vote. And so to say that we didn't hold hearings when we were in control is inaccurate, and I am not made happy by this misrepresentation. To say that this is a minority party tactic misses the point, again. The gentleman was awake and on the floor last Tuesday. Twenty-six of your members voted with us. That's not partisan politics. And so I am very sorry that this discussion is getting off with so much misinformation. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to remind my dear friend from California that the provisions in lone wolf do not apply to Americans.

Mr. CONYERS. I yield myself an additional 15 seconds. Hassan was an American, and we have not yet used the terrorist provisions of lone wolf. Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I would now like to yield such time as he may consume to a senior member of the committee, the gentleman from Virginia, Bobby Scott, a former chairman of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 2 minutes to a distinguished Member of this body, Dana Rohrabacher of California.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York, Jerry Nadler, former chair of the Constitutional Subcommittee.

Mr. CONYERS. How much time remains, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. CONYERS. Does my friend from Texas have in his heart any generosity to yield a couple of minutes?

Mr. CONYERS. That is up to the leader. That is not up to me.

Mr. CONYERS. I thank the gentleman from Texas, Lamar Smith, the chairman, for his generosity. I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the remaining time to the gentleman from Ohio, Dennis Kucinich.

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

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am curious about the reference and surprised that my friend, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, would come to the floor in this discussion and lift up the REINS Act as a way that we may prevent the regulations for inhibiting jobs. Dear friends, under the REINS Act we would be violating the separation of powers doctrine that I am sure that Members of the Judiciary Committee, particularly my friend the chairman and ranking member for many years, would be familiar with. The REINS Act, which we have under consideration in our committee, would be the last thing we would want to enact in this Congress to create more jobs--the last thing. I am surprised that the separations of powers doctrine is now required for me to explain on the House floor, about a 1988 case entitled Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654, that the REINS Act would be constitutionally infirm and that the REINS Act would be a terrible thing for us to do if you are serious about jobs. Supporters of the REINS Act argue that Congress, and the chairman has said this, that Congress has delegated too much authority over the years to what they call ``unelected bureaucrats'' in the executive branch--of course, they are appointed--creating thereby a lack of accountability among Federal agencies and resulting in burdensome regulations. The REINS Act does not address even the problem that they are arguing about. Some might argue that there is a need to strike a balance between protecting the safety and health of all Americans and fostering economic growth and job creation. But the President of the United States has already anticipated this need with his issuance just days ago of the executive order improving regulation and regulatory review. I intend to put this in the Record at the appropriate time. This directs agencies to consider these concerns in promulgating rules. But the bill that the chairman of the committee refers to would not achieve this balance. Rather, it will distort the rulemaking process and will hamper implementation of every single law on the books by changing the presumption in the Congressional Review Act and requiring affirmative congressional approval for all major rules. This act will serve as a chokehold and stifle regulatory review, which may in fact be the real intent of REINS legislation. So I must respectfully hope that all of the Members of this House will carefully review the REINS Act, which will be coming up for a vote in the committee. We have had the hearings. I would like you to all weigh in on this, because nothing could be more seriously destructive to trying to create jobs than doing what is proposed in that bill. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased now to yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Courts and Administration.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In the time allotted to the Judiciary Committee, Judge Poe, if he is still here, has raised two specific grievances about overregulation diminishing job opportunity. One was on the 1099 form, which I am going to examine more carefully; and the other was about the fact that the Health Care Reform Act frequently, derogatorily, is referred to as the ObamaCare Act, but which I call the ObamaCare Act because I think it's going to go down in history as a major accomplishment of the President's within the first 2 years of his office. He said it would cost 800,000 jobs. I would like to ask him or anyone in the House for any evidence that there is an 800,000 jobs expense. The health care bill that both sides refer to as ObamaCare now creates jobs because we're adding many more people to the health care system, which, ladies and gentlemen, is going to require more doctors, more nurses, more clinics, more hospitals. How on Earth can we expand the provisions of health care, which incidentally should apply to every American in this country, and then say that it's going to reduce the number of jobs? I think that logic defies explanation, but I would yield to anybody who would like to explain it to me.

Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from Texas, chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. CONYERS. Reclaiming my time, I frequently cite them as a credible source myself; but would the chairman of the committee explain how we insure millions more people and then have fewer and fewer jobs? Did the CBO explain anything about this job loss and about how the health care system would be considerably expanded but would at the same time lose jobs and would do it with fewer people? Would the chairman of the committee assist me in understanding that apparent disconnect? I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I am now pleased to yield such time as she may consume to the distinguished gentlelady from Houston, Texas, Sheila Jackson Lee, a senior member of the committee.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I would like to yield such time as she may consume to the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. CONYERS. I thank the gentleman from Texas, Chairman Smith. I appreciate that very much. I wanted to suggest that the gentleman from Texas, Judge Poe, a distinguished member of the Judiciary Committee, raised the criticism about the new 1099 rule being a job-killer. And apparently, he and the President are in agreement on the rule expanding reporting requirements to include transactions of $600 or more. President Obama has stated that he is open to reconsidering these rules in light of the burden that it brings on small business. So I would like to suggest that there is at least one point of accord. There may be others between the members of the Judiciary Committee in the consideration of the matter before us. Now I return to the assertion that the health care bill, proudly referred to by some on this side of the aisle as ObamaCare, that this bill will cost 800,000 jobs. And I would like to suggest that this misleading figure has been floating around since last summer. This is why The Hill article on the CBO today said, ``GOP jumps on old job numbers.'' What CBO said last summer was that if health insurance is affordable, a person who is working a bad job just to keep health care might be able to leave the job. Surely we wouldn't want a person who is suffering from a preexisting disability, who would be covered under this expanded health care law, to keep on working when the only reason he was working in the first place was to get the health care that was otherwise, until now, unavailable. If people can get health insurance despite preexisting conditions, then such folks might be able to leave their work. I'm sure that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle wouldn't have any objection to that. Yes, it might reduce the number of people working, but it would save lives. That's what health care is about. A person who is not eligible for Medicare because he or she was under 65 might choose to retire and get private insurance instead of staying on the job until Medicare becomes available. Others who needed to work a second job just to afford health care may not now need to do it because we have made health care more affordable. For goodness sake, I can't imagine that anybody under the example that I have used would be opposed to a person leaving a job under that circumstance. That does not mean that that is costing jobs in America. It's saving lives. [From the Healthwatch--The Hill's Healthcare Blog, Feb. 10, 2011] GOP Jumps on Old CBO Job Numbers (By Jason Millman) Eager to exploit an opening to attack the healthcare reform law, Republicans on Thursday touted testimony by Congress' budget scorekeeper that the law would result in 800,000 fewer people working. Congressional Budget Office Director Doug Elmendorf first made the projection last summer, but it didn't stop Republicans from circulating his Thursday comments during a House Budget Committee hearing as fresh proof that the reform law ``destroys'' jobs. ``The Verdict Is In: CBO Confirms New Health Care Law Will Cost Jobs,'' was the title of a Senate Republican Conference press release. ``CBO: ObamaCare Will Destroy 800,000 Jobs,'' was the headline from the National Republican Congressional Committee. However, the CBO prediction is a little more nuanced. Last summer's CBO report said the projected labor reduction is ``largely'' the result of more people voluntarily staying out of the workforce because the healthcare reform law gives them better healthcare options through an expansion of Medicaid and new state-run health insurance exchanges. From the report: ``The expansion of Medicaid and the availability of subsidies through the exchanges will effectively increase beneficiaries' financial resources. Those additional resources will encourage some people to work fewer hours or to withdraw from the labor market.'' Further, a ban on discriminating against preexisting conditions will likely ``increase the appeal'' of health insurance plans offered outside the workplace for older workers. ``As a result,'' CBO said, ``some older workers will choose to retire earlier than they otherwise would.'' Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), the ranking member on the Budget Committee asked Elmendorf to explain the report on Thursday. ``One of the impacts you said was that there will be some individuals who, because they can get their health care through the exchange . . . would now have the freedom to choose to not get a job simply because they needed the health care,'' Van Hollen said, according to a transcript from CQ. ``Isn't that correct?'' ``Yes, that's right,'' Elmendorf replied. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS

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

Mr. CONYERS. I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

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