John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I would like everyone to think about this in a very general way, that expanding the scope of offenses subject to mandatory minimums is just as harmful as enacting new ones. It is the same thing. And so, accordingly, I oppose this legislation. Those who commit crimes against children deserve to be punished, and repeat offenders most certainly deserve to face increased penalties. There is no one that, I don't think, in this House, disagrees with that. But nevertheless, I oppose mandatory minimum sentencing and, therefore, I must oppose this legislation. I believe that judges are the best suited to determine the just and appropriate punishment in each case. So for the foregoing reasons, I urge each and every one of my colleagues here to oppose H.R. 1862. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1842, a bill that is intended to address gaps in our child protection laws. Now, this bill makes a number of changes to the Federal criminal code that, unfortunately, makes the same error that was previously made. It results in the expanded imposition of mandatory minimum sentences. I don't know where we get this notion that mandatory minimum sentences are a solution. H.R. 1842 amends section 2250(d) of the criminal code, which provides for an enhanced penalty for sex offenders who commit a crime of violence while in noncompliance of sex offender registration and reporting requirements. In addition to the Federal crimes of violence already included in that statute, this bill would add State crimes of violence as predicate offenses that, in turn, would require the imposition of a mandatory 5- year prison sentence to be served consecutively to any sentence imposed for failing to register or comply with sex offender registration and reporting requirements. H.R. 1842 would also add prior military child sex offenses to several recidivist sentencing provisions, most of which carry mandatory minimum penalties of at least 15 years or life, itself. Perhaps we should expand coverage of enhanced sentences for the offenses added by this bill, but we should do so without expanding the number of mandatory minimums. The judges, not the Congress--not us--are in the best position to impose sentences for even the most offensive criminal violations because they know the facts and circumstances of each case. There is an increasing bipartisan, national recognition that mandatory minimum sentences are not only unfair, but they are also counterproductive. Instead of expanding the coverage of mandatory minimums, we should be eliminating them. Individuals convicted of serious offenses will still receive appropriately lengthy sentences, but they will not be set on a one-size-fits-all basis. We want to examine the facts, the circumstances in each case, and the judge is in the best position to do that. We should not be assuming that we can sit here and pass these national laws that will not help and will make it difficult for judges to do their work. Unfortunately, this bill takes the opposite course, and that is why I must oppose it. I encourage my colleagues to think about what we are doing here and oppose H.R. 1842. I urge your support against this measure, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, as usual, we are indebted to the gentleman from Virginia, who, for years, was the chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations in the Judiciary Committee and still carries with him the understanding and the experience that leads him to be on the floor with us today. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) in support of his position.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), who is the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations in the House Judiciary Committee.

Mr. CONYERS. Will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. CONYERS. I commend the gentlewoman for her consistent understanding and explaining why mass incarceration is at the base of all of the debate that is going on. I am hoping that more and more people who listen to these discussions that we have here in the House of Representatives will begin to understand that mass incarceration is not the answer to our problems. As a matter of fact, they compound the problems. I salute the gentlewoman for her tenacity and understanding and explaining this situation to everyone who can listen to our discussions here.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1842 is a well-intentioned bill meant to ensure that repeat sex offenders are punished for their crimes, whether their prior offenses are State, Federal, or military. While I believe that repeat sex offenders of any kind should receive appropriately lengthy sentences, I disagree with the imposition of mandatory minimums. We are not the court. We are not the judge. We do not hear the facts and circumstances in each case. I appeal to good common sense and good legal analysis that we oppose this legislation that would amplify the difficulties that we already know exist. I hope that we will oppose this measure. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Michigan (Mr. Bishop) for his contribution. I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff), the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee and the author of the bill.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I am pleased to make my closing remarks. Mr. Speaker, the Child Protection Improvements Act is a reasonable, bipartisan piece of legislation intended to protect our children and vulnerable adults from harm and give those who love them peace of mind. Although we still have work to do to address the accuracy and reliability of some criminal history records and give individuals an opportunity to challenge incomplete or inaccurate records, this is a good bill. For those reasons, I urge everyone in this Chamber to support the bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I reluctantly rise in opposition to H.R. 883, the Targeting Child Predators Act of 2017. You see, child sexual exploitation and abuse are reprehensible crimes committed against the most vulnerable members of our society. Unfortunately, these offenses have been increasingly facilitated by the use of the internet in recent years. H.R. 883 would change the administrative subpoena statute to facilitate the prosecution of criminals who commit these terrible crimes against children. Without question, I support the goal of pursuing these criminals, but, nevertheless, I am concerned that this bill would eliminate judicial oversight of nondisclosure orders currently required prior to the issuance of the administrative subpoenas. Section 3486 of title 18 of the United States Code authorizes investigators to request a 90-day order of nondisclosure from a district court judge. The order of nondisclosure forbids the recipient, such as an internet service provider, from alerting the target of the investigation of the law enforcement's inquiry. H.R. 883 would extend the nondisclosure period from 90 days to 180 days to allow investigators more time to complete their investigations before the target is informed of the inquiry. Although I would like to have more information about why it is necessary to extend this time period, it is particularly problematic combined with the other significant change to the law made by this very legislation. H.R. 883 would allow investigators to require nondisclosure of internet service providers without the approval of a judge, thereby eliminating any judicial oversight prior to issuance of the subpoena. The administrative subpoena authority is an extraordinary power given to certain agencies by Congress under its limited circumstances. While the legislation would allow a recipient to challenge a nondisclosure order in court, I am concerned about the bill's elimination of judicial approval on the front end. I understand the desire to do more to facilitate the investigation of these crimes and that the online context for them has raised issues that we should continue to examine, but I do not believe we have been given enough information justifying this bill, at least in its current form. Elimination of prior judicial approval of nondisclosure orders is a step we should undertake only based on evidence and careful deliberation. A bill such as the one before us warrants at least a legislative hearing to consider its potential ramifications. I don't think that is asking too much that we have a hearing on this matter before we decide what to do with the proposal rather than not have one at all. Our committee has not had the benefit of any such hearing on this legislation, and I think this is not the proper way the members of the House Judiciary Committee, who are mostly lawyers, should proceed. Mr. Speaker, accordingly, I oppose H.R. 883, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), who is one of the consistent leaders for a good criminal justice system.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, the most problematic aspect of H.R. 883 is that it would eliminate prior judicial approval of nondisclosure orders. I am firmly opposed to that. And while I fully support efforts to investigate crime, particularly those perpetrated against children, I cannot support this bill without knowing more about how it will affect an already extraordinary investigative power. Let's have a hearing. That is what our committee is for. The Judiciary Committee should inquire into this very carefully, and, in the absence of such evidence, I must urge, at this time, our colleagues join me in opposing H.R. 883. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, though troubled and saddened by the recent attacks on law enforcement officials, I believe that H.R. 115, the Thin Blue Line Act, is counterproductive to ensuring public safety and only serves to exacerbate concerns with the unfair and unjust death penalty. H.R. 115 expands the list of statutory aggravating factors in Federal death penalty cases to also include killing or targeting a law enforcement officer, firefighter, or other first responder. Aggravating factors are specific factors that judges and juries consider in determining whether a sentence of death is justified for the underlying offense. Passage of this bill would add a 17th statutory aggravating factor for Federal death penalty eligible offenses. H.R. 115 has been rushed to the House floor, without a single hearing and without the opportunity to consider amendments directly relevant to whether our system of imposing the death penalty is fair, just, and reliable. Like most of my colleagues, I support measures that would actually protect our first responders, brave men and women who risk their lives every day to protect us. Unfortunately, H.R. 115 not only fails to do this but would also exacerbate problems with the Federal death penalty. First, H.R. 115 duplicates Federal and State laws that enhance sentences of persons convicted of crimes of violence against law enforcement. The very law the bill seeks to amend, 18 U.S.C. section 3592, already states that a crime against a high public official, including a judge, a law enforcement officer, or an employee of a United States penal or correctional institution, is an aggravating factor that may be considered in determining whether a death sentence should be imposed. Other Federal laws also impose a life sentence or death on persons convicted of killing State and local law enforcement officers, or other employees assisting with Federal investigations, as well as officers of the United States courts. Secondly, H.R. 115 does not address documented and systemic unfairness and racial unfairness in the disposition of the death penalty. Any legislation dealing with the Federal death penalty must also address numerous concerns related to racial disparity in application of capital punishment, the lack of qualified counsel and sufficient resources to represent those facing the death penalty, and faulty forensic ``science'' testimony ordered in support of convictions in death penalty cases. The Federal death penalty, in particular, is rife with troubling evidence of racial disparity. For example, 36 of the 61 people currently on Federal death row are African American, Latino, Asian, or Native American. If you break this down by Federal circuit, the results are even more disturbing. For example, 15 of 18 men who have received a Federal death sentence in the Fifth Circuit--Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi--in the modern era have been people of color. Third, civil rights and civil liberties organizations oppose H.R. 115. Organizations committed to the protection of civil rights and civil liberties, including the NAACP, ACLU, and the LCCR, have noted that the Thin Blue Line Act ``is an unnecessary and misguided attempt to politicize the unfortunate deaths of law enforcement officers and could ultimately exacerbate existing tension between law enforcement and the communities they served.'' And finally, H.R. 115 will not deter violence against police officers. By adding a 17th aggravating factor to the Federal death penalty statute, this legislation ignores scientific research regarding the ineffectiveness of capital punishment as a deterrent to crime. It is important to note that the National Research Council of the National Academies has concluded that the studies claiming that the death penalty has a deterrent effect on murder rates are ``fundamentally flawed'' and should not be the basis of sound public policy. Accordingly, I urge all of my colleagues to oppose this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), a senior member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas.

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

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining?

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).