John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), who has been the chair of the Subcommittee on Crime in the Judiciary Committee for 4 years.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I reluctantly rise in nonsupport of this provision to extend expiring provisions of the Patriot Act because of section 215 of the Patriot Act, which I'd like to call to your attention. This is the act that allows a secret FISA court to authorize our government to collect business records or anything else, requiring that a person or business produce virtually any type record. We don't think that that was right then. We don't think it's right now. And I feel obligated to oppose any extension of these expiring acts since we've had no hearings, no markup, no committee vote, nobody's done anything about it. They're saying, well, ex-chairman, just support this, and we'll get to it afterward. Well, I can't go along with that. This provision is contrary to traditional notions of search and seizure which require the government to show reasonable suspicion or probable cause before undertaking an investigation that infringes upon a person's privacy. And so I urge a ``no'' vote on the extension of these expiring provisions. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York, Jerrold Nadler, who has been the chairman of the Constitution Subcommittee longer than any Member in the Congress.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas, Mr. Ron Paul. (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, no one has worked more carefully on this matter than Dennis Kucinich, the distinguished gentleman from Cleveland. I yield the gentleman 2\1/2\ minutes.

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

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am proud now to yield 2 minutes to a senior member of the committee from Houston, Texas, Ms. Sheila Jackson Lee.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Dear Madam Speaker, I inadvertently voted ``no'' on the Matheson amendment to H. Res. 9, which would instruct the committee of jurisdiction to include a permanent fix to the Medicare physician payment formula in legislation to replace the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. I intended to vote ``yes'' on the Matheson amendment. I have always been a strong supporter of having the most optimal Medicare reimbursement rate for our nation's physicians. This is because the level of Medicare reimbursement rates to physicians does have a significant impact on the quality and level of health care physicians will provide to our nation's senior citizens and disabled.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, Ms. Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to Dr. Judy Chu of California, a very valuable member of Judiciary Committee.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes. Ladies and gentlemen of the House, I am very pleased to defend what has been not intended as a compliment, but to defend the so-called ObamaCare bill. President Obama is going to go down in history for having taken 54 million people, according to the CBO, off the rolls of the uninsured and given them insurance. I've been looking over my congressional district over the King holiday and talking to a lot of people about health care. I haven't found one parent in the 14th Congressional District that didn't like the idea of having their children remain on their health care policy until age 26. Have you found anybody that would like not to have their children extended until 26? Please see me after this debate, because we've got so much to be proud of. And what are we talking about? Preexisting illnesses not being a basis for being denied insurance or a reason to kick one out of a health insurance policy. These are good things. I am amazed by the fact that people say this bill is going to cost jobs. Well, the CBO says it's going to cost us $230 billion to repeal the bill. Please, could we be a little more fiscally conservative in this body as we rush to repeal this bill? The question of constitutionality is a very interesting one for the Judiciary Committee, a matter we are going to go into further. But we've found a very good set of arguments about the ability of this bill to be totally within the framework of our Constitution. Come on. We already have Medicare. Who do you think runs that? We already have Medicaid. What about Social Security? Mr. Speaker, the issues here are simple. The health care bill that Republicans attack today ensures that millions of Americans have access to essential medical care. It enables businesses to provide health care to their employees-- which protects and creates the jobs we so desperately need. It protects Americans from notorious insurance company practices like denying coverage to those with pre-existing conditions and children with birth defects. It stops insurance companies from dropping your coverage when you get sick. And it takes critical first steps towards getting health care costs under control, cutting hundreds of billions of dollars from the deficit. Everyone in America who gets health insurance through their work has seen premiums and co-pays skyrocket year after year. Those increases afflict our entire health care economy. Before we passed the Affordable Care Act, they threatened to engulf the entire federal budget. Those who would repeal this law are simply not serious about our debt. Costs of Repeal Repealing this bill would undo all these profound public policy achievements. And towards what end? Repeal would add 54 million people to the rolls of the uninsured. Is that what the new majority wants as their first legislative act? Repeal would permit health insurers to resume discriminating against those with pre-existing conditions. Does the new majority want to tell women who have survived breast cancer or children with birth defects that they are not allowed to buy health care? Repeal would lead to millions of young people being dropped from their parents' insurance coverage. In this economy, with work and the health insurance that comes with it so hard to find, does the new majority really want to kick these children off the insurance rolls? And finally, repeal would add more than $230 billion to the near term federal deficit. Is that what the new majority has in store for the American taxpayer? The majority apparently feels that all these costs are acceptable, because they will ``replace'' the health care bill with something else. But that is simply not credible. After all we went through to pass this bill, it obviously would be no simple thing to draft a replacement. So if the majority is serious about wanting to improve our health care system, at the least they should hold off on repealing the current law until their replacement actually exists. Voting now suggests the true motive here is the politics of health care, not the policy. During the health care debate last year, we saw the Republican approach--and it simply does not improve our health care system. Indeed, in November of 2009, the Republicans put forward their own plan which the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office found would cover only 3 million people. That meant that for the 54 million people left without the ability to afford insurance, the Republicans' ``No Care'' plan provided exactly that--no care; no hope; no security. Conclusion There may be no issue that comes before the Congress that more clearly demonstrates the different priorities of the parties. Based on today's proceedings, it is clear that the new Republican majority stands for protecting insurance companies, exploding the national debt, and playing to the extremes of their base. The Democratic minority, on the other hand, stands for affordable health care for all, holding insurance companies accountable, and responsibly addressing our long term financial challenges. I urge all Members to vote against repeal of the landmark health care reform law. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. I yield the gentlewoman 15 seconds.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to a former subcommittee chairman of Judiciary, the gentleman from Georgia, Hank Johnson, to defend the ObamaCare legislation.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to congratulate Lamar Smith on becoming the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee during the 112th session of Congress. I turn now to the former chairman of the Constitutional Subcommittee, Jerry Nadler of New York, and I yield him 2 minutes.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute, and I congratulate the ranking member of Government Reform, to the gentleman from Maryland, Elijah Cummings.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Birmingham, Alabama, Terri Sewell.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Braley).

Mr. CONYERS. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Walz).

Mr. CONYERS. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Missouri, Russ Carnahan.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida, Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Rob Andrews. (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. How much time have we remaining, Madam Speaker?

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Because this is the Judiciary Committee and so little has been said about the constitutionality, I am pleased to quote from the dean of the law school of the University of California, Erwin Chemerinsky, who said that opposing health care reform and relying on an argument that it is unconstitutional is an inadequate way to proceed. Somebody here must remember that there is Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security. Please, this is not new that the government would be intervening in this way. Maybe we need to revise and revisit the questions of constitutionality. [From POLITICO, Oct. 23, 2009] Health Care Reform Is Constitutional (By Erwin Chemerinsky) Those opposing health care reform are increasingly relying on an argument that has no legal merit: that the health care reform legislation would be unconstitutional. There is, of course, much to debate about how to best reform America's health care system. But there is no doubt that bills passed by House and Senate committees are constitutional. Some who object to the health care proposals claim that they are beyond the scope of congressional powers. Specifically, they argue that Congress lacks the authority to compel people to purchase health insurance or pay a tax or a fine. Congress clearly could do this under its power pursuant to Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution to regulate commerce among the states. The Supreme Court has held that this includes authority to regulate activities that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. In the area of economic activities, ``substantial effect'' can be found based on the cumulative impact of the activity across the country. For example, a few years ago, the Supreme Court held that Congress could use its commerce clause authority to prohibit individuals from cultivating and possessing small amounts of marijuana for personal medicinal use because marijuana is bought and sold in interstate commerce. The relationship between health care coverage and the national economy is even stronger and more readily apparent. In 2007, health care expenditures amounted to $2.2 trillion, or $7,421 per person, and accounted for 16.2 percent of the gross domestic product. Ken Klukowski, writing in POLITICO, argued that ``people who declined to purchase government-mandated insurance would not be engaging in commercial activity, so there's no interstate commerce.'' Klukowski's argument is flawed because the Supreme Court never has said that the commerce power is limited to regulating those who are engaged in commercial activity. Quite the contrary: The court has said that Congress can use its commerce power to forbid hotels and restaurants from discriminating based on race, even though their conduct was refusing to engage in commercial activity. Likewise, the court has said that Congress can regulate the growing of marijuana for personal medicinal use, even if the person being punished never engaged in any commercial activity. Under an unbroken line of precedents stretching back 70 years, Congress has the power to regulate activities that, taken cumulatively, have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. People not purchasing health insurance unquestionably has this effect. There is a substantial likelihood that everyone will need medical care at some point. A person with a communicable disease will be treated whether or not he or she is insured. A person in an automobile accident will be rushed to the hospital for treatment, whether or not he or she is insured. Congress would simply be requiring everyone to be insured to cover their potential costs to the system. Congress also could justify this as an exercise of its taxing and spending power. Congress can require the purchase of health insurance and then tax those who do not do so in order to pay their costs to the system. This is similar to Social Security taxes, which everyone pays to cover the costs of the Social Security system. Since the 1930s, the Supreme Court has accorded Congress broad powers to tax and spend for the general welfare and has left it to Congress to determine this. Nor is there any basis for arguing that an insurance requirement violates individual liberties. No constitutionally protected freedom is infringed. There is no right to not have insurance. Most states now require automobile insurance as a condition for driving. Since the 19th century, the Supreme Court has consistently held that a tax cannot be challenged as an impermissible take of private property for public use without just compensation. All taxes are a taking of private property for public use, but no tax has ever been invalidated on that basis. Since the late 1930s, the Supreme Court has ruled that government economic regulations, including taxes, are to be upheld as long as they are reasonable. Virtually all economic regulations and taxes have been found to meet this standard for more than 70 years. There is thus no realistic chance that the mandate for health insurance would be invalidated for denying due process or equal protection. Those who object to the health care proposals on constitutional grounds are making an argument that has no basis in the law. They are invoking the rhetorical power of the Constitution to support their opposition to health care reform, but the law is clear that Congress constitutionally has the power to do so. There is much to argue about in the debate over health care reform, but constitutionality is not among the hard questions to consider. I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Sheila Jackson Lee, a senior member of the committee.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, today I rise in support of House Resolution 32, expressing the sense of the House of Representatives with respect to the tragic shooting in Tucson, Arizona, on January 8, 2011. Last Saturday's senseless and vile act of violence wounded Congresswoman Giffords at an event with her constituents. Six Americans were tragically killed and 14 others, including relatives of the slain, are recovering. First, above all else, I want to express how deeply saddened I am by this weekend's events. Congresswoman Giffords is a dedicated public servant, a cherished colleague, and a friend. I join with all Americans in wishing Gabby and the other wounded a speedy recovery. I also mourn the loss of those who passed. Gabriel Zimmerman was Congresswoman Giffords' community outreach director. Dorwin Stoddard, a retiree, was waiting in line with his wife to speak to the Congresswoman and protected his wife from the gunman's bullets. The youngest victim was 9-year-old Christina Green who had just been elected to her elementary school's student council. Dorothy Murray was a retired homemaker and her husband was among the injured. Phyllis Schneck, also a retiree and a New Jersey native, spent winters in Arizona. Chief Judge John Roll was a respected jurist who served on the federal bench since 1991 and became Chief Judge in 2006. Last Saturday, Representative Gabrielle Giffords was doing the people's business, meeting constituents in front of a local grocery store and explaining how government, can improve their lives. She was doing her job: connecting her constituents to their government. The tragic event should cause us all to stop and consider what more we can to do to change the tone of our national politics. In recent years, it seems that politicians and other public figures have increasingly utilized political rhetoric that includes violent imagery to make a point. We can do better. We must do better. As someone who knew the late Dr. Martin Luther King, I have drawn inspiration during this crisis from one of his statements. Dr. King believed that ``nonviolence means avoiding not only external physical violence but also internal violence of spirit. You not only refuse to shoot a man, but you refuse to hate him.'' As we approach the Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., holiday, I hope we can reflect on these words and his teachings and make our world a more just and peaceful place.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, today, I rise in strong opposition to the House Resolution 22, which would cut Congress's budget by five percent in 2011 and 2012. The proposed cut undermines Members of Congress's ability to serve their constituents and perform official duties. Today, many communities around the Nation are recovering from the Great Recession. Members' offices are flooded with phone calls from constituents who are facing foreclosure and having problems with their Social Security and Medicare. Furthermore, millions are looking toward Members of Congress for information on government programs, help on constituent casework, finding contracting opportunities with the federal government, and how to apply for federal grants. Lastly, it is imperative constituents can voice their opinion on proposed legislation to our staff. Today's draconian attempt to reduce Members of Congress's budget would hamper their ability to fulfill these essential tasks for our fellow Americans. At a time of economic crisis, a well functioning democracy cannot survive the ``starve the beast'' syndrome. Specifically, Congress needs talented staff to properly and judiciously advise Members on proposed legislation and help communicate our work to our constituents. A recent article in Politico found that the majority of congressional staff has not had an effective pay increase in many years. If we go down this road, eventually we will not be adequately staffed to fulfill the critical needs for Members. The resolution today extends the failed mantra that government is the problem. In the run up to the Great Recession, many important federal regulatory agencies were severely underfunded and could not carry out their vital missions. The House of Representatives needs to reflect on this lesson and reject this failed right wing philosophy. I urge my colleagues to oppose today's proposal.