John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I would like to insert into the Record at this point a more detailed description of the changes that have been made in the bill since it was reported. Explanation of Changes to SHVRA Introduction The Committee believes that the licenses in Sections 111 and 119 should be updated to accommodate the growing practice of multicast broadcasting, by which television stations transmit multiple streams of digital television programming over a single broadcast signal. While the Committee has endeavored to avoid including in the bill any provisions that would interfere with existing communications law and regulation, the Committee has been cognizant of the interplay between the copyright and the communications elements of the legislation and intends to confine its amendments to the copyright licenses only. In addition to addressing issues raised by multicasting in the 111 and 119 licenses, this bill addresses important concerns raised by Members at markup. The penalties for willful and large-scale infringement of the license have been increased, and some damages now go directly to the pool of copyright owners. The qualified carrier provisions have also been clarified and strengthened. While nothing in the qualified carrier provisions reported by the Committee lessened the qualified carrier's obligation to comply with all aspects of the Section 119 license, the Committee recognizes that the royalty and household eligibility requirements of the Section 119 license should not be overshadowed by the qualified carrier's unique commitment to provide local-into-local service to all 210 markets. Therefore, the bill provides for at least one compliance examination and a certification requirement for the qualified carrier. Finally, the bill responds to some Members' concerns about the continued necessity of these compulsory copyright licenses by providing for a study of policy alternatives that may enable Congress to phase out the licenses without unfairly altering the television market or diminishing the value of the copyrights involved. I. Section 111 Multicasting With the transition from analog to digital technology, questions have arisen as to how digital streams shall be treated for cable royalty purposes. The definitions in Section 111 have been amended to address the multiple digital streams that television stations are now able to transmit. The definition of ``primary transmission'' now includes both the primary stream and any multicast streams transmitted by a television station. The ``local service area'' definition has been amended to clarify that the primary stream of a television broadcast station and any multicast streams of that station have the same local service area. For example, if the FCC has determined that a television broadcast station is ``significantly viewed'' in a particular area, that area will be part of the local service area of all of the station's digital streams for purposes of section 111. This definition is relevant to the Copyright Act only, and is not intended to create any inference in favor or against carriage obligations for cable multicast streams, which are the exclusive jurisdiction of the Communications Act and the Federal Communications Commission. The calculation of royalties under the cable license has been amended to value multicast signals. The ``distant signal equivalent'' definition now specifies that each non-simulcast primary and multicast stream carried outside of its local service area will be subject to a separate royalty payment calculation by cable operators and should be evaluated separately to determine its distant signal equivalent value assignment. Section 111 allows cable systems to pay less than full DSE rates where FCC rules permit only a portion of a distant signal to be carried. This amendment gives the same treatment to multicast streams. The significantly viewed status of a primary stream under the FCC rules and regulations also applies to the multicast streams of the same television stations, to determine distant or local status for royalty purposes. However, the 3.75 percent ``market quota rate'' and the ``syndicated exclusivity'' surcharge royalty rates are only payable for retransmission of primary streams, and are not applicable to secondary transmission of multicast streams. In order to clarify the different types of digital streams that may be offered by television stations, definitions for ``primary stream,'' and ``multicast stream'' have been slightly altered and a definition has been added for ``simulcast stream,'' in Section 111. A ``primary stream'' is the digital stream that a television station is entitled to demand be carried by cable systems located within the station's local service area under the FCC's rules in effect on July 1, 2009. A ``multicast stream'' is any digital stream transmitted by a television station other than the primary stream. The Committee recognizes that some broadcasters may use their multicast streams to create ``simulcast'' streams-- i.e., streams that duplicate the programming on the broadcaster's primary stream or on other multicast streams. For example, a broadcaster may transmit the same content on two streams, but one stream will be in high definition format and the other will be in standard definition. In such instances, a DSE value will be assigned only to one of the duplicating streams. The Copyright Office may, as multicasting evolves, determine whether there are other circumstances in which two streams should be considered duplicating. The definitions of ``network station,'' ``independent station,'' and ``noncommercial station'' have all been expanded to include a television station's multicast streams as well as its primary stream. The ``network station'' definition incorporates the conditions under which a multicast stream may be deemed a network station for royalty purposes. Thus, to be considered a network station for royalty purposes, a multicast stream must transmit all or substantially all of the programming from an interconnected program service that (a) is owned and operated by one or more of the networks that supply nationwide programming for a substantial part of the typical broadcast day and (b) offers programming on a regular basis for 15 or more hours per week to at least 25 affiliated television station licensees located in at least 10 states. These revisions do not alter the statutory definition of ``network station'' as it applies to a primary stream. DSE values are applied to individual multicast streams as of the date of enactment, except where a cable system was retransmitting a distant multicast stream prior to that date, in which case the assignment of a DSE value to that multicast stream shall commence on July 1, 2010. Separately, a multicast stream retransmitted by a cable system subject to an agreement requiring carriage of multicast streams that was entered into prior to July 1, 2009 will not be assigned a DSE value for royalty purposes until the first accounting period after the expiration of the agreement. While cable operators that did not account for multicast streams in their royalty calculations prior to the effective date are not retroactively liable for royalties for such carriage, cable operators that did may not seek refunds or offsets of any royalties paid on account of such secondary transmissions. The Committee does not intend that any of its audit provisions in this bill alter existing liability and related damages for copyright infringements. II. Section 119 Grandfathering The Committee also believes that simply because Congress changes the law, law-abiding consumers should not be deprived of programming they have become accustomed to receiving without fair warning. In Section 119, where changes to the law that govern the treatment of multicast streams have the potential to render certain consumers ineligible for distant signals that consumers are currently receiving, grandfathering provisions have been added to facilitate a smooth transition to the changed compulsory license system. Households classified as ``unserved'' with respect to a particular network station are the only households eligible to receive secondary transmissions of an affiliate of that network station under the Section 119 license. The advent of multicasting has introduced confusion about whether a ``multicast stream'' of a particular network renders a household served, which would force the satellite carrier to stop providing distant signal programming to the household for that network. The bill harmonizes the preexisting grandfathering provisions with those in the Energy and Commerce bill to ensure a smooth transition to a new regime in which, in three years' time, any stream of local programming, primary or multicast, will render a household served. Specifically, the bill provides that households that subscribed to distant signals before the date of enactment who were lawfully receiving them can keep those distant signals until the subscriber elects to no longer receive those signals. A household that requests a network's distant signal from a satellite carrier after enactment can receive such a signal if: (1) the household is in a market where the satellite carrier offers local service, but does not yet receive from the satellite carrier the primary stream of an affiliate of that network that originates within its local market (in which case the subscriber can keep the distant signal until he or she does receive such stream from the satellite carrier); or (2) the household is in a market where the satellite operator does not yet offer local service (in which case the subscriber can keep the distant signal until he or she decides to discontinue it). III. Increased Protections for Copyright Owners in Section 119 The bill also responds to concerns expressed by Committee Members at the markup by increasing transparency and accountability by the qualified carrier concerning its obligations to copyright owners. A certification provision similar to the one passed by the Committee on Energy and Commerce has been added. It requires the satellite carrier to certify to the district court and the Copyright Office that it remains compliant with the license 30 months after the district court initially recognized the satellite company as a qualified carrier. The bill provides for at least one Qualified Carrier Compliance Examination. This examination is not intended to be punitive. The Committee anticipates that the Comptroller General will take precautions to ensure that compliance with its examination does not burden the qualified carrier any more than is necessary to examine the qualified carrier's observance of the proper royalty calculation, payment and adherence to the license's standards for eligible households. Only if the Comptroller General, in consultation with the Register of Copyrights, determines that there is a substantial likelihood that a copyright owner could bring a successful infringement action will a second examination be initiated. The report does not replace the judgment of the district court, which retains exclusive jurisdiction over the waiver of the injunction and assessment of damages against the qualified carrier. The Committee has taken one other additional step to strengthen protections for content-owners. The Committee has increased the damages available for infringement of copyright by any satellite carrier who engages in a pattern or practice of wrongful provision of distant signals on a substantially national basis. Statutory damages of up to $2,500,000 are now available for each 3-month period of infringement. Furthermore, these vastly increased damages will be split between the plaintiff and the pool of copyright holders whose funds are distributed by the United States Copyright Office, to compensate copyright owners who may have been unaware of the infringement. IV. Study of Alternatives to Compulsory Licenses Despite these improvements, the Committee is aware that the compulsory license is not a perfect system. It is, however, deeply entrenched in the current cable and satellite television industries, and cannot be eliminated at the present moment without causing serious disruption for both the industries and the consumers. The compulsory license expires at the end of the year and must be reauthorized, but we know that the television marketplace and broadcast technology will continue to evolve. This legislation provides for a study of whether the licenses can be eliminated in the future, and how the marketplace could and should transition away from the licenses. Madam Speaker, I yield with pleasure to Chairman Boucher.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, on December 1, 2009, I was called away on personal business. I regret that I was not present for the following votes: On the passage of H.R. 3029. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.'' On the passage of H. Res. 727. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.'' On the passage of H.R. 3667. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, as I look over the House, no one has known Jesse Jackson longer than I. I remember him coming to Detroit, I remember going to Chicago, and I remember the work that he was doing even before Dr. Martin Luther King added him to the top of his staff as a valuable assistant. The quest that he pursued then is still the quest that he pursues now. Over the 25 years, he hasn't changed. As a matter of fact, he has become international. I'm so proud that in our State we nominated him for President in one of his runs. Obviously, now the connection is clear--from Jackson to Obama. Rev. Jackson, we owe you this victory that we celebrate today.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Chairman Rangel, and all of our colleagues that have supported single-payer health care. Eighty-six other Members are now working to make sure that we get this bill passed. I single out my colleagues Dennis Kucinich and Anthony Weiner for their particularly effective work. But I want to say that this is the same battle that some people went through when we passed Social Security. We had the same naysayers. The same people when we passed Medicare, the same naysayers. The same people when we passed Medicaid, the same naysayers. And now we try to reform health care today, and what do we get? The same people saying ``no'' again. So I'm proud to bring all of the support that I can to make sure that this bill becomes law, that more people are covered, and that preexisting conditions no longer will be an excuse to get rid of people.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to make the following votes today. If I were present I would vote ``yea'' to: H. Con. Res. 210-- Providing for the House, upon completion of the Affordable Health Care of America Act, to adjourn until November 16, 2009 and H. Res. 893-- Congratulating the 2009 Major League Baseball World Series Champions, the New York Yankees.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3548, which extends unemployment benefits to scores of Americans who are out of work due to the severe downturn in the economy. The bill will also continue to extend the First Time Home Buyer Tax Credit though April 30, 2010. The $8,000 First Time Home Buyer Tax Credit program has allowed approximately 350,000 hard working Americans to achieve the dream of home ownership this year. Given that this nation is still struggling, providing American families with an $8,000 homebuyer tax credit will stabilize the housing market and stimulate the economy. The bill will also provide a $6,500 homebuyer credit to current homeowners who purchase another home. Furthermore, providing an extension of the First Time Home Buyer Tax Credit will also help further encourage job growth at a time when it is desperately needed. With the purchase of a home, other jobs are created in various sectors. This includes construction, plumbing, home appliances, and numerous other jobs that are the result of expanding affordable housing. There is also evidence that suggests that neighborhoods are safer and become more stable when there are high rates of home ownership in the community. This legislation also extends unemployment benefits to millions of Americans who otherwise would lose much needed and deserved benefits. In this sluggish economy, American workers are finding it more difficult to find good jobs and this benefit will fill this gap. This bill could not be any timelier. It extends a provision that allows states with high unemployment, like Michigan, to provide a total of twenty weeks of extended benefits. Mr. Speaker, I believe today's legislation will further help the workers of Michigan through these difficult times. I rise in strong support of H.R. 3548 and urge my colleagues to support today's legislation.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, on November 3, 2009, I was unable to cast votes due to personal reasons. I was not present for rollcall votes 835 through 840. Had I been present, I would have cast a ``yea'' vote for final passage of H.R. 3949. I would have cast a ``yea'' vote for final passage of H. Res. 398. I would have cast a ``yea'' vote for final passage of H. Res. 866. I would have cast a ``nay'' vote for the final passage of H. Res. 867. I would have cast a ``yea'' vote for final passage of H.R. 3157. Also, I would have cast a ``yea'' vote for H. Res. 736.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, on November 2, 2009, I was unable to cast votes due to personal reasons. I was not present for rollcall votes 832 through 834. Had I been present, I would have cast a ``yea'' vote for final passage of H.R. 1168. I would have cast a ``yea'' vote for final passage of H. Res. 291. Also, I would have cast a ``yea'' vote for the final passage of S. 509.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Extension Act of 2009, S. 1793. In our efforts to assist those with HIV/AIDS, the Ryan White Program has been at the forefront, offering lifesaving care for those with this disease. The Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program allocates federal funds to metropolitan areas and states to assist in reducing health care costs and increasing support services for individuals and families affected by the human immunodeficiency virus or acquired immune deficiency syndrome. The Ryan White Program has been able to serve more than half a million low-income citizens living with HIV/AIDS each year. Of these constituents with HIV/AIDS, 33 percent of them are uninsured and an additional 56 percent are underinsured. This program is facilitated by the Health Resources and Services Administration of the Department of Health and Human Services. Composed of four major parts, the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program provides grants to urban areas, directs funds to states and territories, pays for the AIDS Drug Assistance Program, and provides grants to both public and private nonprofit entities for family-centered care. This bill also allows for the continued funding for the Minority AIDS Initiative, a program that is attempting to address the impact of this disease on racial minorities. In December 2006, Congress reauthorized the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program until September 30, 2009. With 1.1 million persons in the U.S. living with diagnosed or undiagnosed AIDS/HIV, we must ensure that the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program and the Minority AIDS Initiative are fully funded so that vital services to our neighbors are not cut. I strongly support the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program Act and its mission of providing direct care to patients in need. I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, the FISA Amendments Act of 2009 would amend FISA to protect the constitutional rights of Americans while ensuring that the government has the powers it needs to fight terrorism and collect intelligence. Section 1--Short Title This Act may be cited as the FISA Amendments Act of 2009. Section 2--Telecommunications Immunity The bill would repeal the retroactive immunity provision in the FISA Amendments Act, leaving it to the courts to determine whether any telephone companies that complied with the illegal warrantless wiretapping program acted properly under the laws in effect at the time and therefore deserve immunity. It would retain limitations on liability for acting in compliance with FISA, the criminal surveillance laws, the Protect America Act and the FISA Amendments Act. Section 3--Bulk Collection The bill retains the new authorities provided in the FISA Amendments Act but builds in additional safeguards to protect the rights of innocent Americans. The bill would prevent the government from using the warrantless collection authorities of the FISA Amendments Act to conduct ``bulk collection,'' which could include the collection of the contents of all communications between the United States and the rest of the world. It would do so by requiring that the government have some foreign intelligence interest in the overseas party to the communications it is collecting. Bulk collection raises serious constitutional questions, and it could permit data mining of massive quantities of communications of Americans. Section 4--Reverse Targeting The bill would place additional limits on the warrantless collection authorities of the FISA Amendments Act to ensure that they are not used as a pretext when the government's real goal is to target the Americans with whom the ostensible foreign target is communicating. It would require a FISA Court order if the government is wiretapping a person overseas but ``a significant purpose'' of the surveillance is to collect the communications of the person in the United States with whom the person overseas is communicating. Section 5--Use of Unlawfully Obtained Information The bill would limit the government's use of information about U.S. persons that is obtained under FISA Amendments Act procedures that the FISA Court later determines to be unlawful, while still giving the FISA Court flexibility to allow such information to be used in appropriate cases. This provides a basic incentive for the government to target foreign agents overseas rather than innocent Americans here in the United States. It is similar to the existing law that limits the use of information collected pursuant to FISA's emergency authority if the FISA Court determines after the fact that the FISA standard was not met. Section 6--Protections for International Communications of Americans The bill would permit unfettered acquisition of foreign-to- foreign communications and of communications of suspected terrorists into or out of the United States, while creating safeguards for communications not related to terrorism that the government knows have one end in the United States. Specifically: When the government knows in advance that a foreign target is communicating with someone in the United States, it can acquire that communication if it involves terrorism, if someone's safety is at stake, or with a court order. When the government does not know in advance with whom a foreign target is communicating, it can acquire all of that target's communications, without individualized court review. If the government later realizes that it has acquired a communication with one end in the U.S., it must segregate that communication in a separate database. It can then access, analyze and disseminate that communication if the communication involves terrorism, if someone's safety is at stake, or if the government has obtained a court order.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the ``Disclosure of Presidential Declassification of Intelligence Information Act of 2009.'' This bill will help increase transparency by requiring the White House to release public notices when classified materials are declassified. Specifically, this legislation would require the President to inform the relevant congressional committees within 15 days whenever intelligence has been declassified. The bill also contains a sense of Congress that additional notice should be given to the Director of National Intelligence, the Archivist of the United States, and the heads of the applicable elements of the intelligence community. In January of this year, I released a report documenting several abuses and excesses of the Bush Administration. The Report, titled ``Reining in the Imperial Presidency: Lessons and Recommendations Relating to the Presidency of George W. Bush,'' contained 50 separate recommendations designed to restore and support the traditional checks and balances of our constitutional system. This bill carries out the recommendation that Congress consider legislation requiring the President to announce the declassification of classified materials. As the report details, the Bush administration selectively leaked numerous items of classified information to strengthen the case for war in Iraq. For example, evidence suggests that President Bush secretly authorized the declassification of information without notice in an effort to neutralize Ambassador Joe Wilson's op-ed that raised questions about the case for war. This bill will help to prevent similar future abuses and political manipulation of intelligence authority by alerting Congress when information is declassified. Such transparency in presidential delegations of declassified authority is a matter of good government regardless of who occupies the White House.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the ``Inspector General Authority Improvement Act of 2009.'' This Act will provide the Inspector Generals of the various agencies the authority to issue subpoenas for the testimony of former employees or contractors as part of certain investigations of wrongdoing. Under current law, a critical witness can evade being interviewed by an Inspector General, and thus seriously impede an investigation, by simply resigning from the agency. In January of this year, I released a report documenting several abuses and excesses of the Bush Administration. The Report, titled ``Reining in theImperial Presidency: Lessons and Recommendations Relating to the presidency of George W. Bush,'' contained 50 separate recommendations designed to restore and support the traditional checks and balances of our constitutional system. This bill responds to one of those recommendations. As the Report details, that ability of Inspector Generals to investigate serious allegations of wrongdoing was significantly impeded during the prior Administration because critical witnesses could not be interviewed if they simply resigned during the investigation or had already left the agency. As a practical matter, the witnesses were beyond the reach of the Inspector General, and their knowledge of potential wrongdoing went with them. For example, in the investigation of potential misconduct by Monica Goodling, the Department of Justice Inspector General was unable to obtain witness statements from those who had resigned and thus were no longer available. Similarly, the Department of Homeland Security Inspector General was limited in his ability to conduct a complete investigation into the circumstances surrounding the rendition of Canadian citizen Mohammed Arar to Syria. His Report stated bluntly: ``Many of the principal decision-makers involved in the Arar case have left government service and declined our requests for interviews. As they are no longer DHS employees, we cannot compel them to speak with us.'' It is important to note that this bill contains important limitations on the Inspector Generals' subpoena power in order to prevent abuse or damage to ongoing investigations. Most prominently, an Inspector General cannot issue a subpoena if the Department of Justice concludes in a particular case that the taking of a deposition would interfere with civil or criminal litigation. I believe that with this limitation, this legislation strikes an appropriate balance between the need for an independent Inspector General to investigate administrative wrongdoing and the responsibility of the Attorney General to enforce our criminal laws and protect the civil interests of the United States Government. This legislation will go a long way in fostering transparency in government by improving the Inspector Generals' tools and permit them to effectively carry out their mission. Such vigorous oversight is a matter of good government, regardless of whether we have a Democratic or Republican Administration.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I submit the following: Sec. 1. Short title and table of contents. Section 1 names this Act the ``USA PATRIOT Amendments Act of 2009'' and provides a table of contents for the entire bill. Title I--USA PATRIOT Act Related Amendments Sec. 101. Roving Wiretaps. Sec. 101 clarifies that when the government only provides a description of the target of surveillance for purposes of obtaining a warrant (whether or not that warrant is for a regular or roving FISA warrant), that description must be sufficient to allow a court to determine that the target is a single individual. Sec. 102. Extension of Sunset of Sections 206 and 215 of USA PATRIOT Act. Sec. 102 extends the sunset dates of roving wiretaps and FISA business records to December 31, 2013. Sec. 103. Access to Certain Tangible Things under section 501 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. Sec. 103 (Sec. 215 tangible things) requires a statement of specific and articulable facts showing that the tangible things sought are relevant to an authorized investigation, other than a threat assessment. The ``specific and articulable'' language is not present in the current law, and is a more exacting standard for government to meet. This section also retains the concept that certain types of records are ``presumptively relevant'' to a counterterrorism or counterintelligence related investigation (assuming an appropriate statement containing specific and articulable facts). The retention of the ``presumptive relevance'' for documents pertaining to foreign powers or agents of a foreign power accomplishes two important goals. First, it puts the government and a court on notice that these types of records are the type of documents that Congress generally expects the government will be pursuing in furtherance of authorized counterterrorism and counterintelligence investigations. The presumptive relevance standard does not, however, allow the government to obtain the documents merely by showing relevance to a foreign power or agent of a foreign power through a statement of ``specific and articulable facts.'' A court must also find that the requested records are actually relevant to an authorized investigation. Second, the government may be able to acquire certain records even if it cannot show that the documents are relevant to a foreign power or agent of a foreign power. However, these types of records, which do not fall into the ``presumptively relevant'' category, would be evaluated with a higher degree of scrutiny by a court. The court would determine whether or not the government presented specific and articulable facts to show relevance to an authorized investigation. With respect to judicial review, current law requires the recipient of a nondisclosure order associated with a Sec. 215 order to wait a year before seeking judicial review of the nondisclosure order. Sec. 103 allows a recipient to challenge both the underlying order and any associated nondisclosure order immediately. In addition, the government must notify the recipient of a right to challenge the legality of the production order or nondisclosure order, and the procedure to follow to file such a petition at the time the government serves the Sec. 215 order on the recipient. Absent bad faith on the part of the government, current law also allows a certification by a high level official to conclusively defeat a challenge to a nondisclosure order. Sec. 103 eliminates the concept of a ``conclusive certification'' entirely. Compliance assessments of minimization procedures pertaining to Sec. 215 orders are now facilitated by allowing FISA court judges to review government compliance with minimization procedures associated with specific orders. A request for Sec. 215 records cannot be made to a library or bookseller for documentary materials that contain personally identifiable information concerning a patron. None of these elements are present in the current law. Sec. 104. Sunset Relating to Individual Terrorists as Agents of Foreign Powers. Sec. 104 allows the ``Lone Wolf' provision to sunset on December 31, 2009. ``Lone Wolf'' is not reauthorized. Sec. 105. Audits. Sec. 105 requires the DOJ Inspector General to audit and submit reports to Congress for 215 tangible thing orders, National Security Letters (NSLs), and FISA pen register/trap and trace orders for all calendar years through 2013. Sec. 106. Criminal ``sneak and peek'' searches. Sec. 106 requires the government to seek an extension for delaying notice of the search after seven (7) days, not the current thirty (30) days. Any extension to delay notice granted by a court cannot be longer than 21 days at a time. In addition, any application for extension must be made by the Senate- confirmed United States Attorney for the district seeking the delay. This section also narrows the circumstances under which the government could obtain a ``sneak and peek'' warrant by eliminating ``otherwise seriously jeopardizing an investigation or unduly delaying a trial'' as a situation that would permit the issuance of a ``sneak and peek'' warrant. Sec. 107. Use of Pen Registers and Trap and Trace Devices under title 18, United States Code. Sec. 107 requires the application for a pen register to contain a statement of specific and articulable facts showing that the information likely to be obtained is relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation. Current law only requires a certification by the applicant. Sec. 108. Orders for Pen Registers and Trap and Trace Devices for Foreign Intelligence Purposes. Sec. 108 requires the application for a pen register to contain a statement of specific and articulable facts relied upon by the applicant to justify the belief that the information likely to be obtained is foreign intelligence information not concerning a United States person or is relevant to an ongoing investigation. Current law only requires a certification by the applicant. This section also requires the implementation of minimization procedures for pen registers and trap and trace devices, and allows FISA court judges to assess the government's compliance with these minimization procedures. These are new requirements. Sec. 109. Public Reporting on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Sec. 109 requires annual public reporting of aggregate numbers of requests for surveillance that also include a breakdown of requests for (a) electronic surveillance, (b) physical searches, (c) orders for tangible things (Section 215 orders), and (d) pen registers. Current law requires only public reporting of the above categories in the aggregate. Sec. 110. Challenges to Nationwide Orders for Electronic Surveillance. Sec. 110 allows a provider of electronic communication service or remote computing service to challenge a subpoena, order, or warrant requiring disclosure of customer communications or records in either the district in which the order was issued or the district in which the order was served. Title 11--National Security Letter Reform Sec. 201. Short Title. Sec. 201 indicates that title II shall be cited as the ``National Security Letter Reform Act of 2009.'' Sec. 202. Sunset. Section 202 provides a sunset date of December 31, 2013 for national security letters, with the effect of returning the relevant national security letter statutes to read as they read on October 25, 2001. Sec. 203. National Security Letter defined. Sec. 203 defines ``national security letter,'' for the purposes of this bill, as a request for information under one of the enumerated provisions of law. Sec. 204. Modification of Standard. Sec. 204 requires an official with authority to issue a national security letter to document and retain a statement of specific and articulable facts showing that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the information sought pertains to a foreign power or agent of a foreign power. This standard changes the focus of the ``relevance'' required under current law from ``authorized investigation'' to ``foreign power or agent of a foreign power.'' In addition, current law does not directly couple the relevance standard with ``specific and articulable'' facts as support for relevance--a more exacting standard for the government to meet. Current law also does not require the government to create and maintain a record of such facts at the time the national security letter is issued. Sec. 205. Notification of Right to Judicial Review of Nondisclosure Order. Sec. 205 requires the government to notify a recipient of a national security letter of (1) a right to judicial review of any nondisclosure requirement imposed in connection with that national security letter and, (2) that the nondisclosure requirement will remain in effect during the pendency of any judicial review proceedings. Current law does not require such notification. Sec. 206. Disclosure for Law Enforcement Purposes. Sec. 206 requires the Attorney General to authorize the use of any information acquired or derived from a national security letter in a criminal proceeding. Current law does not require such ``use authority'' for national security letters. Sec. 207. Judicial Review of National Security Letter Nondisclosure Order. Sec. 207 establishes additional procedures for a recipient to seek judicial review of a nondisclosure requirement imposed in connection with a national security letter. If the recipient wishes to have a court review a nondisclosure requirement, the recipient must notify the government. Not later than thirty days after the receipt of notification, the government must apply for a court order prohibiting the disclosure of information about the national security letter or the existence of the national security letter. The nondisclosure requirement remains in effect during the pendency of any judicial review proceedings. The government's application for a nondisclosure order must include a certification from the Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General, or the Director of the FBI (or the head of another agency if not part of DOJ) containing a statement of specific and articulable facts indicating that disclosure may result in a danger to the national security of the United States, interference with a criminal, counterterrorism, or counterintelligence investigation, interference with diplomatic relations, or danger to the life or physical safety of any person. If a court determines that there is reason to believe that disclosure will result in one of the enumerated harms, the court will issue a nondisclosure order for no longer than 180 days. The government can seek renewals of nondisclosure orders for additional periods of no longer than 180 days each. If there comes a time when the facts supporting a nondisclosure order issued by the court cease to exist, the government must promptly notify a recipient who sought judicial review of a nondisclosure order that the nondisclosure is no longer in effect. Current law neither requires the recipient to formally notify the government if ``he'' wishes to seek judicial review, nor specifies that the government will initiate such court review by applying for a court order. The government is also not required to notify a recipient who sought judicial review of a nondisclosure if or when such an order would cease to exist based on a change in facts supporting the nondisclosure order. In addition, absent bad faith on the part of the government, current law also allows a certification by a high level government official to conclusively defeat a challenge to a nondisclosure order if the challenge is filed within one year of the request for records. Current law also allows a recertification made by high level officials to be treated as conclusive, unless made in bad faith. Sec. 207 eliminates the concept of a ``conclusive certification'' entirely. Moreover, this section corrects constitutional defects in the nondisclosure orders pertaining to national security letters as addressed in Doe v. Mukasey, 549 F.3d 861 (2nd Cir. 2008). Sec. 208. Minimization Procedures. Sec. 208 requires the Attorney General to establish minimization and destruction procedures to ensure that information obtained pursuant to a national security letter regarding persons that are no longer of interest in an authorized investigation is destroyed.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to introduce today the ``Department of Justice Inspector General Authority Improvement Act of 2009.'' This Act will authorize the Department of Justice Inspector General to investigate attorney misconduct within the Department of Justice. Whether we have a Democratic or Republican administration, I believe we should have strong and vigorous oversight of the Department of Justice. At present, however, the Department of Justice Inspector General is limited in his ability to investigate allegations of misconduct. Instead, present law, to the surprise of many, requires that all allegations of wrongdoing by the Department of Justice attorneys be investigated not by the Inspector General, but by the department's Office of Professional Responsibility. In contrast with the statutorily independent Inspector General, the Office of Professional Responsibility is supervised by the Attorney General. It is absolutely contrary to human experience to believe that the counsel to the Office of Professional Responsibility can aggressively and independently investigate high level officials in the department when the Attorney General himself has authority over such investigation. This limitation on authority does not exist for any other Inspector General of other agencies. Accordingly, the Department's Inspector General should have the same power Inspector Generals have throughout the government to investigate any and all allegations of wrongdoing that arise in their department. In the last Congress, I offered this provision as an Amendment to H.R. 924, the Improving Government Accountability Act. It passed the House, however, it was stripped from the final Bill when the measure went to the Senate. I am introducing this legislation again today because I believe that transparency and vigorous oversight are essential to maintain the checks and balances of our constitutional system. As documented in my recently released report, ``Reining in the Imperial Presidency: Lessons and Recommendations Relating to the presidency of George W. Bush,'' there was serious misconduct on the part of Department of Justice attorneys, including alleged misconduct by high level politically appointed attorneys, in connection with hiring attorneys for the Civil Rights Division or in other components of the Department. However, due to the unique limitations on his power, it was difficult for the Inspector General to fully investigate these allegations. I certainly trust those sorts of abuses are unlikely to recur in this Administration. This legislation will help prevent future abuses and politicization of the Department of Justice by improving the Inspector General's tools to effectively carry out his mission. Such vigorous oversight is a matter of good government, regardless of the political party in power.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, on October 14, 2009, I was unable to cast votes, due to personal reasons. I was not present for rollcall votes 775 through 779. Had I been present, I would have casted a ``yea'' vote for final passage of H. Res. 768, Expressing support for the designation of the month of October as ``National Work and Family Month''; H.R. 1327, Iran Sanctions Enabling Act of 2009; H. Res. 816, Mourning the loss of life caused by the earthquakes and tsunamis that occurred on September 29, 2009 in American Samoa and Samoa; H.R. 3371, Airline Safety and Pilot Training Improvement Act of 2009 and H. Res. 786, Commemorating the canonization of Father Damien de Veuster, SS.CC. to sainthood.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, on October 15, 2009, I was unable to cast votes, due to personal reasons. I was not present for rollcall votes 788 and 789. Had I been present, I would have cast a ``nay'' vote on the motion to recommit H.R. 2442 and I would have voted ``yea'' on final passage of H.R. 2442, the Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program Expansion Act of 2009.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, on October 13, 2009, I was unable to cast votes, due to personal reasons. I was not present for rollcall votes 772 and 773. Had I been present, I would have cast a ``yea'' vote for final passage of H.R. 3689. Also, I would have cast a ``yea'' vote on final passage of H.R. 3476.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule on the National Defense Authorization Act. While this legislation addresses many important defense related matters, such as military readiness and pay raises for our troops. It also includes other provisions like reform of the Federal Employee Retirement System. Most important, from the perspective of my Chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee and as author of the House legislation, it also touches on the issue of hate crimes by including the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act. Some have objected loudly to the inclusion of hate crimes legislation in a defense authorization bill. However, hate crimes legislation is of critical importance to this nation and has passed with broad bipartisan support in the House for the last three (3) Congresses, only to fail in the other body by being stripped out at Conference. I hope that this year is different. As the names in the title of this provision demonstrate, hate crimes are a blight on this nation. Despite what some would claim, the number of hate crimes each year demonstrate that federal action is crucial to bringing these offenses under control. Since 1991, the FBI has documented over 118,000 hate crimes. In the year 2007, the most current data available, the FBI compiled reports from law enforcement agencies across the country identifying 7,624 bias-motivated criminal incidents that were directed against an individual because of their personal characteristics. These offenses range from assaults to murder. This legislation will provide assistance to state and local law enforcement and amend federal law to streamline the investigation and prosecution of hate crimes. It is important to note that states will retain primary responsibility for prosecuting these offenses, but with aid of the Federal government. In the cases of James Byrd and Matthew Shepard local prosecutors acknowledge the crucial role of federal investigative assistance in obtaining prosecutions. In the Shepard case in particular, the local officials could have used a key provision of the bill to help defray the costs of the prosecutions and thus avoid the furlough of law enforcement personnel. The key element of the bill is its expansion of federal jurisdiction to cover crimes motivated by bias against the victim's perceived sexual orientation, gender, gender identity or disability. I believe that the expansion of jurisdiction to cover additional groups is the key issue to those opposing this legislation. After all, our first hate crimes statute was enacted in 1968 and there has been no move to repeal that law (18 U.S.C.A. Section 245). At the core of this bill is its protection of First Amendment rights, while protecting communities from bias-based violence. The bill contains a provision that protects the First Amendment rights of the accused at trial and provisions that protect freedom of speech and conduct generally. Despite argument to the contrary, no person can be prosecuted under this act for mere speech or belief. This legislation sanctions violent conduct and the Constitution does not protect speech, conduct or activities consisting of planning for, conspiring to commit, or committing an act of violence. These hate crimes prevention provisions are supported by a long list of groups (more than 300), including law enforcement groups, religious groups, civil rights groups, disability groups, and numerous other organizations. Behind each of the statistics is an individual or community targeted for violence for no other reason than race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or disability. Law enforcement authorities and civic leaders have learned that a failure to address the problem of bias crime can cause a seemingly isolated incident to fester into wide spread tension that can damage the social fabric of the wider community. After more than a decade, it is time to send hate crimes legislation to the President. While I strongly support certain provisions of the bill, I remain concerned about the military commission system despite the reforms that are included in Title XVIII of the Conference Report. Those changes undoubtedly improve existing law in several important ways. For example, the bill prohibits the admission of statements that have been obtained through cruel, inhuman, and degrading interrogation methods. It also expands the scope of appellate review of military commission trial decisions to allow the reviewing court to consider issues of fact as well as law. Congress previously restricted all appeals to issues of law only, an unprecedented departure from how our existing military justice and Article III courts operate. So these changes are positive. In many respects, however, the reforms simply do not go far enough. Several recommendations made by the Judiciary Committee--including a sunset provision for the law, limiting the use of military commissions for trial of detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; requiring a voluntariness standard for all statements; adopting a different appeals structure; and prohibiting the trial of child soldiers in military commissions--should also have been adopted. In July, the Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties held two hearings on military commissions and possible reforms. Though I voted against the Military Commission Act of 2006, I participated in those hearings with an open mind to determine why military commissions are necessary and whether we can create a system that complies with our laws and our Constitution. After hearing from several witnesses, including representatives from the Departments of Justice and Defense, I am not convinced that we need military commissions or that, even with these reforms, the military commission system is lawful. The last administration seemed to believe that military commissions were desirable because they made it easier to obtain convictions, regardless of the evidence. President Obama has assured us that he seeks a system that is fair, legitimate, and effective. We have just that in our existing Article III courts and courts-martial system. Our efforts to create an alternative system already have proven unwise and unconstitutional. We should work toward retiring, not reforming, this system. In the meantime, however, I cannot in good conscience oppose changes that will improve the existing system. I urge a vote in support of the rule.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. I am so glad we are doing this, and I am glad to be with both of you. Dr. McDermott has been working on this for so long, and he brings a clear voice of experience, not congressional but medical. That's what makes this so important. Of course you, Mr. Ellison, are a young person who has jumped into this in a way that makes me very proud that you grew up in Detroit, probably in my district. I have something that just came in from the 14th Congressional District in northwest Detroit. We had an examination of how many seniors in my congressional district hit the doughnut hole in the bill, the current legislation. There were 5,400 seniors that were forced when they hit that doughnut hole to pay their full drug costs, despite the fact that they had part D medical coverage. And the current bill before us that we are working on, H.R. 3200, it would cut brand-name drug costs in the doughnut hole by half and ultimately eliminate the doughnut hole. That is very important, especially in this day and age. We found that there were 2,230 health care related bankruptcies in my congressional district alone. At our next Special Order, I am going to have these same numbers for the whole State of Michigan. So 2,230 people in the 14th Congressional District had to go into bankruptcy court in the year of 2008, primarily caused by the costs of health care not covered by their insurance. In 2008, health care providers in the district were provided $31 million worth of uncompensated care, care that was provided to individuals who lacked insurance coverage and who were unable to pay their bills. How many people don't have insurance, my colleagues, in the 14th District, have no health care coverage at all. This is last year's figures, which have undoubtedly gone up since 2008: 1,300 people in my district are uninsured. How many are uninsured, my colleagues, in your districts? That is 17 percent of all of the people in the district that are uninsured, and the Congressional Budget Office estimates that 97 percent of all Americans will have insurance coverage if H.R. 3200 takes effect. Now, if this benchmark is reached in the district, 85,000 people who currently do not have health insurance will receive coverage. There is another factor I would like to introduce. I haven't discussed it with you, but this as good a time as any to do it. There is a stress factor coming into this whole discussion of health coverage in America because of all of the people that are losing their jobs, especially in Michigan and Ohio, industrial States that are hit the hardest. We have the highest unemployment rates. But there is something else that kicks in. When you lose your job, you, of course, lose your income; and, frequently, if you have a mortgage payment, you could end up losing your house. One of the things, Dr. McDermott, I was in a shelter in midtown Detroit off Woodward Avenue at Peterboro, and both of you have been there. I went into the shelter in the morning, and they were having breakfast. I was astounded by this one visual picture I got. These were not people that were homeless, wandering around or were disheveled. These were well-dressed people being fed in a shelter who had just recently lost everything. When you get hit, you lose your house, your car, your job, your insurance, your pension. So you come into a shelter, you're dressed like we are, but you don't have anywhere to eat, you don't have anywhere to stay. I have never experienced that phenomenon before in my life. One other factor that is up to date and in real-time is that with all the people suffering under this economic--well, it's called a severe recession, but I call it a depression--there are people now that are working who have jobs, who have health insurance, but there is a little something beginning to bother them: Maybe this could happen to me too. We all know people who were going along quite well; and all of a sudden their company announced at 3 p.m. on Friday that, You don't have to come back anymore, or, We're closing down in 2 weeks. Sorry about that. We can't explain it now, but this is it. There are people now--and you may be able to comment on the stress factor--there are people that are working. Nobody said they were going to close their job down. Nobody has heard any rumors about anything. But they can't help but think about all the other people that were going along smoothly, and they lost their jobs. People are beginning to worry about the fact that--I know it's not me. I know I'm working. I know I've got insurance, but it could be me next month. It could be me in December. It could be me in January. What about that?

Mr. CONYERS. But, Dr. McDermott, I'm talking about the people that didn't lose their jobs, income and health insurance. I'm talking about the folks that are working, and they know about that. They can't help but think, That could happen to me. I don't know what you call this, but you start another stressful situation from that. There is nothing happening to them, but it's happening to people around them. It happens, like these people that I saw in this shelter in Detroit, where if we weren't in a shelter, they would be people I would expect to see at Starbucks.

Mr. CONYERS. Well, when you say 130 percent increase, that's more than double, isn't it?

Mr. CONYERS. A 100 percent increase would be double. A 130 percent increase is one and a third more than what they're paying. Is this an annual increase rate?

Mr. CONYERS. Oh, I see. It's a period of over 10 years. What it's saying to me is that these folks don't have any option of changing insurances or doing anything. What are their alternatives? If you don't pay, where are you going? Is there some private insurance company offering a lower premium? Can we call up insurance companies and say, My insurance has more than doubled over the last 10 years, and I want out. What happens then?