John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, there are few issues of state as weighty as those we discuss today. The decision to engage in military conflict affects us all in innumerable ways. There are the obvious effects on our military men and women who risk their lives abroad, while also giving up many of the small joys associated with sharing life's meaningful moments with family and friends. Similarly, each of us bears the costs associated with domestic investments sacrificed at home when we decide to instead spend vast sums of money abroad. Each dollar spent in Afghanistan on a Blackwater mercenary is a dollar that could be spent keeping a teacher in the classroom, putting a cop on the beat, or retraining a Detroit steelworker so he or she can compete in the emerging industries that will underpin the global economy. Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, waging war tests our values as a nation. During these periods of conflict, the eyes of the world, rightly, are trained on our actions abroad. The ability to inflict violence upon large numbers of our fellow human beings demands that the American people be allowed to sit in judgment about what is being done in their name--to determine if the potent weapons at our disposal are wielded in a just manner. The question of whether or not we are living up to this highest of burdens could not be more important and that is why we must debate the War in Afghanistan here on the House Floor today. While the number of Members who will join my good friend from Ohio and myself in supporting this resolution may be small, this vote will not accurately represent the views of the public at large. A poll commissioned by CNN this January found that a majority of the American people oppose the War in Afghanistan. Apparently, as with many issues in Washington, those who are forced bear the costs of war are the first to recognize a flawed policy, while those who profit from perpetual war do their best to blunt any change in course. As a co-founder of the Out of Iraq Caucus, I remember that it took some time for official Washington to comprehend the scope of the public's opposition to that war. Thankfully, that caucus eventually grew to bloc of 70 Members and we were able to successfully match the will of the people with the priorities of the Congress. As a result, our troops will pull out of Iraqi cities this summer and leave the country by the end of the year. I believe that, as with Iraq, the Administration and Congress will, and must, adopt a course in Afghanistan that will benefit both the Afghan and American people. That is why I have founded the ``Out of Afghanistan Caucus,'' which acknowledges that peace and security in Afghanistan will only occur when the United States reorients its commitment to the Afghan government and people by emphasizing indigenous reconciliation and reconstruction strategies, rigorous regional diplomacy, and swift redeployment of the US military. It is increasingly clear that our military presence in Afghanistan inflames ethnic Pashtuns--many of whom would have nothing to do with the Taliban if they did not view the United States as an existential threat to their distinctive tribal culture and way of life. By picking sides in a 35-year-old civil war, the United States has made the necessary reconciliation between all parties in Afghanistan all but impossible. Similarly, I oppose the constant Predator drone strikes in both Afghanistan and Pakistan, in which one in three casualties is an innocent civilian. This violence will breed enmity, when we really need to be bringing these warring parties together. I hope that the House votes today in support of this War Powers Privileged Resolution. Regardless of the outcome, I and many others in the Congress will continue to organize against additional troop funding and for Afghan-centric development policies that will speed peaceful and permanent reconciliation. I hope that you will join me as a Member of the Out of Afghanistan Caucus and you will support this historic resolution.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, on March 10, 2010, I was called away on personal business. I regret that I was not present to vote on H. Res. 1146, H. Res. 1088, H.R. 4621, H. Con. Res. 248, and H. Con. Res. 249. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on all votes.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4573. This legislation would direct the Secretary of the Treasury to instruct the United States Executive Directors at the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the Inter-American Development Bank to immediately cancel Haiti's debts and urge donors to disburse grants. While Haiti is rebuilding, we should allow them to turn a new leaf and not be burdened by overwhelming debt. Last month I visited Haiti and witnessed firsthand the destruction caused by the massive earthquake of January 12, 2010. It is estimated by the Haitian government that well over 200,000 Haitians have been killed and 3 million have been affected by the natural disaster. It is imperative that this body help its neighbor in its time of need and make a significant long-term reconstruction commitment. Haiti has had a long history of multilateral institutions distributing aid in the form of loans. At its peak, Haiti had a total external debt of $1.8 billion. In recent years the United States has advocated debt forgiveness and the international community recently responded last summer by forgiving $1.2 billion in debt to multilateral institutions. I strongly support the legislation, which rightly argues that future aid to Haiti should be in the form of grants instead of loans. This must be kept in mind at the Haiti donor conference scheduled for later this month at the United Nations. Madam Speaker, I am heartened by the public and private support given to the victims by millions of our generous fellow Americans. I also commend President Obama's unwavering commitment to alleviate the suffering. Passing today's legislation would help free our struggling neighbor from the shackles of debt and offer a glimmer of hope during this time of need.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3650, ``The Harmful Algal Blooms and Hypoxia Research and Control Amendment Act of 2009.'' This bill requires the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere to utilize the resources of the Inter Agency Task Force on Harmful Algal Blooms and Hypoxia Task Force to establish and maintain a National Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Program. This program will help to develop and promote a national strategy to address and respond to one of the major problems facing our marine and freshwater ecosystems: algae blooms. The need to address the ongoing harmful blooms and hypoxic events that increase daily, in our oceans, lakes, rivers and waterways, is long overdue. I applaud the fact that this bill allows for closer coordination between state and federal agencies through the use of innovative demonstration projects. Similarly, I also support provisions in this legislation that focus our efforts to educate our citizens about the causes and harmful environmental effects of pollution and algal blooms in our oceans, rivers, lakes, and waterways. Water is our most critical natural resource and this legislation will improve our Nation's ability to provide safe water to all. As we continue to experience climate change, the threat posed by algal blooms will be a continuing challenge. This legislation addresses this threat in a measured, scientific manner and will improve our ability to address this issue in the future. I encourage my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, on March 9, 2010, I was called away on personal business. I regret that I was not present to vote on H.R. 3650, H. Res. 1069, and H. Res. 935. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on all votes.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2847, the ``HIRE Act.'' While I am sensitive to the excruciating economic pain felt by many in my district and around the country, I cannot in good conscience support this flawed bill. I applaud the House and Senate leadership for including some common sense job creation provisions in this bill. In particular, I support the inclusion of language that frees up $77 billion dollars worth of surface transportation investments and another provision that gives the recipients of qualified clean energy, school construction, and energy conservation bonds a direct payment from the federal government to cover their interest costs. I wish that these provisions were enough to secure my support for this legislation and help those who cry out for additional economic aid. Unfortunately, the originators of this legislation--my colleagues in the United States Senate--decided to set aside the remaining $13 billion dollars of this $17 billion dollar bill for an ineffective and wasteful hiring tax credit. As with many previous efforts in the upper chamber, the Senate has yet again sacrificed effective policy in order to tout some small measure of bipartisan support. During my 45 years in this body, we have debated whether or not to raise the minimum wage countless times. As we know from these reoccurring debates, companies do not respond to small changes in the cost of labor. This is why the periodic 15 to 20 percent increases in the minimum wage enacted into law by the Congress over the years have not effected employer hiring decisions. Unfortunately, the very economic reality that makes the minimum wage good policy also makes the Schumer-Hatch hiring credit bad policy. If a 15 to 20 percent increase in the minimum wage doesn't affect employer decision-making, logic dictates that an even smaller payroll tax break--6.2 percent to be exact--for companies that hire recently unemployed workers will similarly have a nonexistent effect on hiring. This bill will create yet another failed corporate ``trickle-down'' tax break and Congress will hand out a new benefit--paid with scarce taxpayer resources--to employers who hire workers they would have hired anyway. This is not to say that a properly conceived tax policy couldn't receive bipartisan support or play an important role in spurring hiring. For example, I have proposed legislation that is supported by many economists and organizations on both the left and right that would save millions of jobs at minimal cost to the federal government. My ``SHARE Credit Act'' would provide a tax credit to employers that shorten hours instead of firing workers. For a mere $22,000 dollars a worker, we could cheaply and efficiently stem the monsoon of layoffs reported each month by the Labor Department. However, above and beyond mere tax policy, Members on both sides of the aisle know that we need to do more. Ending the unacceptably high levels of unemployment that plague our economy will require us to attack this epidemic using all the tools of the federal government. This means coupling progressive tax measures with public works job hiring initiatives and a commitment to full employment. To do anything else would be a betrayal of the fundamental trust given by those who elected us. Each of us comes to Washington with a simple task: Address the most critical issues that face the Nation by using the most effective tools at our disposal. No bonus points are awarded for bipartisan legislation that does not meet this high standard. A bill whose major component is a meaningless giveaway to corporate America cannot be called a jobs bill. At a minimum, the Senate should conference the $150 billion dollar jobs package that that the House passed last December. Uneven and piecemeal legislative efforts like this bill must be the exception, not the norm. I encourage my colleagues to oppose this bill.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to commend Chairman Miller and Congresswoman McMorris Rodgers for their work and dedication on this issue. We all want our children to have the highest quality education and educational experience available. That cannot happen in an environment where students, paraprofessionals, teachers and administrators are not safe. This bill establishes standards that will ensure that those in classroom settings are safe and will prevent and reduce inappropriate restraint and seclusion by establishing minimum safety standards in schools, similar to protections already in place in hospitals and non- medical community-based facilities. By establishing minimum standards for situations that require the seclusion of students, this bill offers support to the nineteen states that have no standards set for such situations. Special education students are at a higher risk of being harmfully restrained. Because minority children are disproportionately placed in special education, this bill will offer them protection against harmful actions such as being denied food in order to punish or preempt behaviors. By setting minimum standards that apply to the whole student body, H.R. 4247 protects students without singling out anyone or placing a stigma on a child or a group of children. I am sensitive to the concerns of those who worry that they may lose the ability to implement certain behavioral interventions. I wish to continue this discussion with an eye toward further improvements in safety. This bill's parent notification provision is a positive step towards a continual dialogue between educational stakeholders that we in Congress can participate in. To those who have expressed concern over this bill, I want you to know that this bill is part of the on going conversation about students' safety in school and does not signal the end of our efforts to protect students.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1109, I call up from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 3961) to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to reform the Medicare SGR payment system for physicians, with the Senate amendments thereto, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. CONYERS. I have a motion at the desk.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous material on this matter.

Mr. CONYERS. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker and Members, this measure before us will extend three provisions of our foreign intelligence surveillance laws for 1 year. The provisions are section 206 of the PATRIOT Act, governing roving wiretaps; section 215, which addresses the collection of business records; and the so-called ``lone wolf surveillance law.'' Without extension, these provisions will expire on Sunday coming. As we consider this short-term extension, I make these observations: As one who has found that the USA PATRIOT Act needs a great deal of improvement and that there have been many excesses and sometimes abuses of these broad powers over the years, I have found that too little consideration of the impact of this type of surveillance on our civil liberties has been looked into. And that's why the Judiciary Committee has undergone an extensive process over the past year and reported out a bill that attempts to reform these provisions and enhance congressional oversight. In the other body, the Judiciary Committee has also passed out a bill that improves, in my view, the PATRIOT Act. So we're very close to real reform. The House bill has new protections for library and bookseller records. It clarifies the reach of roving authority to prevent ``John Doe'' blanket wiretaps. It tightens the standards for national security letters that have been abused in the past. It has extensive new reporting oversight and sunset provisions to greatly strengthen congressional oversight and makes other changes to the related provisions of law. Please understand, Members, that this extension is not the final word on the PATRIOT Act, and what we will do is use the time between now and the year that will elapse to improve and pass real reform. Now, while I would prefer to do this now, it is not to me strategically wise nor logistically possible to accomplish this at this time. And with the provisions expiring in a matter of 3 days, the other body has sent us this extension bill, so there is no reasonable possibility that they could pass a broader measure such as a Judiciary- passed bill at this time. In other words, we have no other choice but to go along with this extension because there isn't sufficient time. Well, tomorrow is the last day of the week. It's physically impossible. So under these circumstances, it seems to me the best course is to merely maintain the status quo and work with the other body and the administration towards some improvements that I have in mind. I can announce we've made progress towards reaching common ground, and I believe an orderly path forward between now and during the next year will lead us to a much better result. Now, although this extension doesn't reform underlying law, we recognize there's some value in a process that brings us quickly to another sunset date. Experience has taught that there's nothing like an approaching sunset to bring both the executive branch and the other body to the table with the will to see this resolved. So while I'd rather pass the Judiciary Committee bill out and truly make the reforms that I think are necessary, because of the time constraints that we find, I recommend that we take the next year and continue the process. I urge your careful consideration of this very important measure. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to yield such time as he may consume to the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, Mr. Sylvestre Reyes, who has served on this committee for 10 years.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield as much time as he may consume to the chair of the Constitution Subcommittee on the House Judiciary, the gentleman from New York, Jerry Nadler.

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

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to yield to Sheila Jackson Lee, a senior member on the Judiciary Committee, who will be our closing speaker; and I will yield to her as much time as she may consume.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve.

Mr. CONYERS. I'm pleased now to recognize a former senior member of the Intelligence Committee for over 10 years--she served as ranking member--and I yield now to Jane Harman as much time as she consumes.

Mr. CONYERS. How many minutes remain?

Mr. CONYERS. I reserve my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the remainder of our time to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio, Dennis Kucinich.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, today I rise in strong support of H. Res. 944, expressing the sense of the House of Representatives on religious minorities in Iraq. Today's resolution highlights the struggles of Iraqi minorities since the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and offers solutions for peaceful reconciliation for the Iraqi people. Madam Speaker, Southeast Michigan has one of the largest Arab- American populations outside the Middle East. It is estimated that there are well over 300,000 in Michigan, many of whom are Iraqi- American and are concerned on the future of Iraq. Specifically, the bill calls on the United States and United Nations to urge the Iraqi government to provide religious minorities with safe places of worship, guarantee protection of religious minorities, and ensure legal and political rights of this vulnerable population. This is vital because many of the more than 2.7 million Iraqi refugees are religious minorities. Today's resolution will compliment President Obama's commendable plan to withdraw from Iraq in the summer of 2011. While withdrawal will do much to stabilize and empower the sovereign nation of Iraq, it is also important that the United States do its part to actively assist the Iraqi people in establishing policies that protect the civil rights and liberties of all Iraqi citizens.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, on February 20, 2010, we lost a dedicated and tireless voice for the pursuit of peace and global sharing and cooperation, Linda Grover. I joined Ms. Grover in the founding of Global Family Day, an effort to celebrate and promote harmony within the global family every January 1st, but it was Linda whose every undertaking was in the name of Global Family Day. Linda Grover, an author, writer, and activist, was resolute in her belief that all people, regardless of race, culture, religion, or economic status, celebrate life on earth together as one human family. It was in the promotion of this ideal, that Linda Grover and her children conceived Global Family Day, One Day of Peace and Sharing, an international holiday that would allow people around the world to engage in global fellowship. Linda's Global Family Day initiatives were supported by the Congress and United Nations. In 2000, the 106th Congress unanimously passed S. Con. Res. 138 and in 2006, the 109th Congress unanimously passed H. Con. Res. 317 and S. Res. 582. These Congressional resolutions urged the President of the United States to issue an annual proclamation calling upon the people of the United States to observe Global Family Day. In 1999 and 2001, United Nations General Assembly resolutions, UNRes54/29 and UNRes56/2, were passed, recognizing a day of peace on January 1st and encouraging Member states to observe the global holiday. This Congress, I introduced another Global Family Day resolution, H. Con. Res. 221. In this purpose, I was joined by Representative Dennis Kucinich and Senators Harry Reid and Daniel Inouye. It was Linda's hope, as well as ours, that there finally be a proclamation issued by the President asking that the citizens of the United States celebrate Global Family Day, thereby resulting in the Day's widespread observance. In advancing Linda Grover's legacy, we will continue to pursue this proclamation and recognize Global Family Day every January 1st. Just as Ms. Grover believed, I think that, despite our differences, each of us has an interest in pursuing peaceful solutions to many of our contemporary world problems. A better appreciation for one another, practiced at the start of a new year, can only lead to the eradication of human suffering that results from violence, hunger, poverty, and other social ills. Even in the weeks right before she died, Linda worked diligently to spread the Global Family Day message. Linda said, ``it's [Global Family Day] is going to improve our global attitude and give us a slightly better chance to overcome all these global crises that are demanding global solutions. Economy, Environment, Energy, Ethnic Enmity, Education, Employment, Epidemics--and those are just the ones that start with the letter E.'' Linda's fight and determination to spread the message of peace and sharing through Global Family Day will be missed. However, I will work to make sure that the message is not forgotten. Linda is survived by three children, who I understand will continue their mother's work to champion Global Family Day, and I will join them in this effort. We must all understand, as Linda did, that by working together as one global family, we can better meet the challenges humanity will face in the years to come.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1098, I call up the bill (H.R. 4626) to restore the application of the Federal antitrust laws to the business of health insurance to protect competition and consumers, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 4626.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker and my colleagues, the bill before us will allow, for the first time, competition to take hold in the health insurance marketplace, an important and vital step in the road to fixing our broken health insurance system and containing costs. I want to commend, in particular, my colleagues Tom Perriello of Virginia and Betsy Markey of Colorado for working with our committee on this important effort. Experience has shown that Congress--and we hate to admit having made mistakes in the past, but we did make an error in 1945 in adding an antitrust exemption into the McCarran-Ferguson Act at the last minute during the debate. Not many of you were here at that time, and neither was I, but leading consumer groups and senior citizen groups, State attorneys general and others for years have been urging that we in the legislature fix this error that has been made so long ago. The bipartisan Antitrust Modernization Commission established by this body and President Bush in 2002 echoed this call in its 2007 report. And now, as we work to fix what everyone mostly agrees is a broken health insurance market, it is about time to bring into that market what is an essential ingredient of any well-functioning market-- competition. And the way we make sure that happens here is the same way we made sure it happens in every other industry--to have the antitrust laws apply. These laws are the principal protector of free market competition and the prosperity it provides, the principal guarantee that businesses who want to offer choice and value to consumers can do so. The blanket antitrust exemption in the McCarran-Ferguson Act shields health insurance companies from legal accountability for fixing prices, dividing up markets and customers they serve so as to deny meaningful choice, and using monopoly power to sabotage anyone who seeks to offer meaningful competitive choice to consumers. This, ladies and gentlemen, must end. Antitrust court actions alleging each of these practices, and more, have been blocked routinely in the courts by invoking the McCarran- Ferguson antitrust exemption, and that is what we are here to repair today. Now, an antitrust expert attorney, David Balto, with antitrust enforcement experience acquired both at the United States Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission, has found that State insurance commissioners have not brought any actions in any State against health insurers for anticompetitive conduct during at least the last 5 years. Health insurance premiums continue to spiral ever-upward each year, and copayments and deductibles keep taking further bites out of tight family budgets. Those families have a right to know that they are not being victimized by insurers any longer who should be competing to offer them choice and value but, instead, are, unfortunately, conspiring against them. In its famous Topco ruling, the United States Supreme Court refers to the antitrust laws as the Magna Carta of free enterprise. The health insurance industry should not be exempt from them. The Judiciary Committee has been working to remove this harmful exemption for a number of years. We made a lot of headway under the distinguished chairman, our former colleague, Jack Brooks of Texas, who headed the committee after Peter Rodino and after Emanuel ``Manny'' Celler, and it is time to complete this effort in the area of health insurance since this is the number one subject, legislatively, before us being watched carefully by everyone in the Nation. Last fall, our Judiciary Committee reported a similar bill which was incorporated into the comprehensive health care bill passed by the House. And so I commend my colleagues, Representatives Perriello and Markey, for their leadership in bringing this effort back to the House floor today as a freestanding measure. With more and more people having to choose between having health insurance or food on the table, isn't it about time the health insurance companies' cozy antitrust exemption be taken off the books? So I urge all my colleagues to support this long-overdue, pro- consumer legislation that will affect citizens and families in every State. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.