John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, many people, trapped in a cycle of despair, feel that there is no way out of homelessness, addiction, or prostitution. Exploitative pimps, callously indifferent law enforcement, and a lack of social services combine to make it almost impossible for some to escape the streets. Norma Hotaling not only successfully left that life, but has devoted herself to leading the fight to help those who remain behind. Ms. Hotaling founded the organization Stand Against Global Exploitation (SAGE). SAGE is devoted to helping women and men who have suffered rape, sexual assault, molestation or violence in the difficult transition from victim to survivor. As her organization has said, ``Norma [is] determined to make it easier for other women, men and youth who wanted to leave the sex trade and addiction behind, and find their way from the harsh effects of sexual exploitation to restored wellness, confidence, vocation, and overall wholeness.'' Through peer counselling--often by survivors--SAGE not only provides psychological and social services to prostitutes and those exiting prostitution, but also empowers the women once they have left the streets. Ms. Hotaling's efforts show that therapy should not be thought of as a luxury for the wealthy: everyone should be able to get psychological services. Norma Hotaling is a trailblazer. She encourages psychologists around the countries to work with their local law enforcement offices to help women and children exploited by prostitution. She founded San Francisco's internationally recognized ``john school'' in which arrested clients confront the reality of prostitution. Her outreach programs in jails and on the street raise awareness among at-risk populations about how commercial sexual exploitation can lead to addiction and post-traumatic stress disorder. Sadly, Ms. Hotaling is now in an even graver fight--the fight against cancer. We wish her comfort, and all the best. She is supported in her fight by thousands of people whose lives she has touched. Norma Hotaling's life is an inspiration, and her example will continue to inform our own fight against modern slavery and exploitation.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, while I am personally opposed to this bill, and have set forth my reasons elsewhere in this debate, the Judiciary Committee has nevertheless assisted the bill's drafters in an effort to help ensure that it does not inadvertently impair fundamental legal rights and protections. In that regard, as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I would like to further illuminate Congress's intent with respect to three provisions in section 119 of the bill, the section regarding judicial review and related matters. First, the limitation on injunctive and other equitable relief in section 119(a)(2)(A). This provision is written in light of the expected need for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, ``TARP,'' established under the bill in the Treasury Department to be able to act quickly on its decisions to purchase particular assets in the marketplace. Accordingly, the grounds for obtaining injunctive or other equitable relief, which could potentially impair the efficiency of the TARP's response to breaking market developments, is limited to remedying constitutional violations, while all underlying rights, and the availability of monetary damages where warranted, are preserved. Moreover, even in cases of constitutional remedy, there are special provisions in section 119(a)(2)(B)-(D) for expediting resolution of the matter in court. It should be kept in mind that the bill provides for a number of avenues to protect against possible overreaching by the Secretary or the TARP, including a special Inspector General, ongoing Government Accountability Office review, and a congressional oversight panel. Nor do the limits alter the normal rules governing agency rulemaking or adjudication, which are not the sort of actions that require the same kind of rapid response envisioned for TARP's marketplace decisions. Second, the provision regarding homeowners' rights in section 119(b)(1). This provision clarifies that a sale of mortgages or mortgage-backed securities to the TARP in no way impairs the claims or defenses of the homeowners whose mortgages are involved. All rights and interests of the homeowners, whether under the terms of the mortgage instrument or under law, are fully preserved. This means, among other things, that the TARP, in acquiring interests in these securities, does not thereby obtain the right to use any of the extraordinary collection methods and other recourse that is available solely to the Government, which it has been given for collecting fines and other debts owed directly to the Government which the homeowners here did not contract to be subject to. This provision does not prevent modifications to which the homeowner agrees, such as a reduction in interest rate, reduction in loan principal, waiver of fees and unpaid interest, or other forbearance that enables the homeowner to avoid foreclosure, continue living in the home, and keep the mortgage. In fact, this provision is designed to encourage TARP to consider such modifications whenever prudent. And it often will be, benefitting the investors in the mortgage- backed debt as well as the homeowners involved. The costs of foreclosure to the investors--leaving aside the costs to the homeowner, and the community of which the homeowner is a part--will generally far exceed the costs to investors of a mortgage modification. Indeed, taking into account costs such as foreclosure expenses, damage to vacant homes, maintenance, the loss from sales of vacant property in a declining market, the net recovery by investors in a foreclosure situation can be a small fraction of the amount owed on the mortgage. Many foreclosed homes end up being sold in bulk through distress sales, for only a few thousand dollars each. And all of this feeds a vicious circle of increasing foreclosures and declining home values. Loan modifications are almost invariably better for the investors, who continue to receive a steady stream of mortgage payments, as well as for the homeowner, who is able to stay in the home, for the neighborhood that keeps more of its homes occupied and property values supported, and for the entire community that benefits from the homeowner's economic contributions. Third, the savings clause in section 119(b)(2). As written, this provision is a combination of two separate sentences. And the first sentence has two separate purposes. One purpose of the first sentence is to preserve current and future responsibility for wrongdoing, and to ensure that this legislation is not interpreted to relieve wrongdoers from accountability or liability to those whom they have harmed. The Congress is aware of civil litigation brought by shareholders, ERISA participants, or by or on behalf of financial institutions, against officers, directors, and in some cases counterparties whose alleged misconduct caused or contributed to their losses. The Congress is also aware of media reports of criminal investigations. These matters are for the justice system to resolve. The Secretary, and the Executive Branch in general, should cooperate as appropriate with public and private efforts to recover losses from wrongdoers in the financial market, whether those efforts are brought by a governmental entity, securities purchasers, employees, or the corporation itself, or are asserted on behalf of the corporation derivatively. Nothing in this Act is intended to impair any legal rights as against private parties to recover for or redress wrongdoing under Federal or State law. The other purpose of the first sentence is to clarify, similarly as with mortgage-backed securities in section 119(b)(1), that a transfer of nonmortgage financial assets to the TARP does not impair any of the underlying rights, claims, and defenses of borrowers who are not in privity with the TARP and have not contracted for or consented to any such impairment. This does not affect the ability of the TARP and the financial institution transferring the assets to contract between themselves as to which rights and obligations related to those assets will be assumed by Treasury, and which rights and obligations will be retained by the financial institution. Rather, it clarifies that whichever of them deals with the borrower going forward must do so on the same terms, and owes the same duties, as under the original agreement, so that the rights the borrower contracted for or enjoys under law are in no way impaired. Again, this means, among other things, that the TARP, in acquiring these assets, does not thereby obtain the right to use any of the extraordinary collection methods and other recourse that are available solely to the Government, which it has been given for collecting fines and other debts owed directly to it--which the borrowers here did not contract to be subject to. The second sentence in section 119(b)(2) addresses what has come to be termed ``tranche warfare''--litigation among the various categories, or tranches, of investors in structured mortgage-backed securities, each vying for primacy in any modification of terms, at each other's expense. This sentence clarifies that, except as established by contract, a servicer of pooled residential mortgages that become subject to the TARP, if that servicer owes any duty to ensure that net present value of payments on a loan exceeds anticipated recovery in foreclosure, owes that duty not to any individual investor or faction of investors, but to the investors as a whole. Accordingly, the servicer, in agreeing to or implementing a modification or workout plan shall be deemed to be acting in the best interests of all such investors or holders of beneficial interests if the servicer takes reasonable loss mitigation actions, including partial payments. This clarification is intended to further encourage modifications to mortgage loans when, in the judgment of the loan servicer, in the overall interests of the investors.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, today the House of Representatives will vote for the second time this week on Secretary Paulson's flawed bailout legislation. His plan lacks the core principles needed to improve the economy. To be a viable plan, the legislation must include (1) enacting a moratorium on foreclosures, (2) restructuring mortgages to make them more affordable, and (3) prohibiting interest rate increases associated with subprime loans. These initiatives can be achieved without spending one dollar of the taxpayer's money. In addition, empowering the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation to guarantee all depositors and bond holders would provide immediate liquidity to credit markets. If the Congress acts imprudently today, we may end up draining our national treasury of over $700 billion in resources without curing our economic ills. Such a decision could effectively tie the hands of the next President and kill universal health care and job programs before they are ever drafted. I agree with former World Bank chief economist Joseph Stiglitz and other leading economists that action must be taken to tackle the problem posed by the tightening of the credit market. I simply disagree with the administration's proposed solution. Although it hasn't been reported in the mainstream media, there are real legislative alternatives to this bailout that have been vetted by some of the best economic minds in the Congress. One plan, offered by Representative Peter DeFazio and other members of the so-called ``Bailout Skeptics'' Caucus, proposes some common sense changes to Securities and Exchange Commission rules and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation policies. I have cosponsored this legislation because I believe it will efficiently free-up capital, protect the taxpayer, and give the next President the fiscal flexibility he will need to address the dire problems brought about by the current economic slowdown. Another plan, proposed by billionaire financier George Soros, mimics a successful model used in Norway and Sweden. The plan would inject credit into the markets in a direct and low-risk manner by empowering the Treasury Department to purchase preferred stock and discounted common stock from faltering lenders. I called for this type of direct capital deployment measure earlier this week, because it would provide the taxpayers with a tangible return on their investment and keep toxic mortgage-backed securities off the government's books. On top of these plans, I and many of my progressive colleagues have continually advocated for bankruptcy reform that would give judges the freedom to renegotiate home mortgages during court proceedings. National Assistance Corporation of America CEO Bruce Marks and I agree that this reform is a necessary component of any bailout plan. Most Americans have never heard of any of these alternative proposals because they have only been presented with a single, flawed narrative-- either accept this bailout plan or tempt economic catastrophe. This is a false choice that, unfortunately, has been successfully peddled by the President's fear-mongers and broadcast by a compliant media. The tactic being used by Paulson creates an atmosphere of fear. The events of the last two weeks are reminiscent of the days leading up to the adoption of the Patriot Act, and to the invasion of Iraq--times where fear-mongering dampened the careful and deliberate consideration of alternative courses of action. This time, instead of scaring the American people with tales of weapons of mass destruction or planes piloted by terrorists, the President bullies the taxpayer with dire warnings of a credit freeze that will bring our economy to its knees. There are serious options for dealing with this crisis that don't involve giving away billions to the richest, most irresponsible businessmen. My vote against the bailout today is not a do-nothing vote; it is a vote for a real solution. We cannot afford to repeat the mistakes of the past. Detroiters, Michiganders, Americans, and billions of people around the world are depending on us to get it right.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my gratitude for my fellow jazz enthusiast and Detroiter, Ed Love. For more than 24 years, Ed Love has delighted listeners with ``Destination Jazz: The Ed Love Program,'' on weekdays from 7 p.m. to midnight on WDET 101.9 FM. Ed's passion for jazz and radio extends all the way back to his youth in Kansas, when he was an avid listener of his mother's records and hosts like Dick Martin of WWL in New Orleans. After graduating from broadcasting school, Ed worked for Armed Forces Radio in several states and in the Philippines. Starting in 1960, he worked at various stations throughout Detroit until joining WDET in 1983. Ed has not only entertained Detroit radio listeners throughout his impressive career, but also spent six years hosting a nationally syndicated program entitled ``The Evolution of Jazz,'' educating and entertaining listeners on 125 stations from coast to coast. Ed was honored for his contribution to the world of jazz with the ``Distinguished Achievement Award'' from the Motor City Music Foundation. Ed was recognized by the Friends of the Detroit Institute of Arts with the ``Dr. Alian Locke Award'' in 1999 for his contributions to the arts. He's earned two ``Spirit of Detroit Awards'' from Detroit Mayors Coleman A. Young and Dennis W. Archer. The Michigan House of Representatives, the Michigan Senate, the Congressional Black Caucus and the National Broadcast Awards have all recognized him for his profound knowledge and love of jazz. The Southeast Michigan Jazz Association (SEMJA) recognized Ed for his outstanding contribution to jazz and the arts. In 2005, Ed received the ``Detroit Jazz Guardian'' Award from the Music Hall Center for the Performing Arts and the Detroit International Jazz Festival. Ed was also honored in 2005 with the ``Distinguished Arts Achievement'' award from the Oakland County chapter of The Links. He has also served as the senior program consultant for the Detroit International Jazz Festival since 2000. In the wake of the collapse of the International Association of Jazz Educators, Ed Love and other jazz advocates will be even more important in the preservation of one of our Nation's treasures and original art forms, jazz. I know that as long as jazz has stewards like Ed Love, we can be assured that it will be taught and will thrive the future. Through his work, Ed Love has and will continue to inspire generations of performers, educators, and students for years to come.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on S. 3197.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 3197) to amend title 11, United States Code, to exempt for a limited period, from the application of the means-test presumption of abuse under chapter 7, qualifying members of reserve components of the Armed Forces and members of the National Guard who, after September 11, 2001, are called to active duty or to perform a homeland defense activity for not less than 90 days.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The consumer bankruptcy overhaul signed into law 3 years ago adds a means test that presumes a debtor is abusing the law if he or she has income that exceeds a modest threshold, and thereby forces the debtor into a multiyear repayment plan. This bill, S. 3197, excepts qualifying National Guard and Reserve members from that presumption of abuse. We have the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky) to thank for this. With half a million members of the National Guard and Reserve called to Iraq and Afghanistan since 9/11, many serving multiple tours of duty, the financial toll on their families has been severe. It's estimated that up to 26 percent of National Guard members deployed experience money problems as a direct result. And so the measure before us makes an exception-to-the-means test presumption of abuse for National Guard and Reserve members who serve 90 days since September 11, 2001, and for a year and a half after they leave service. I'm heartened to know that we now have the opportunity to provide this modest but important relief to these brave men and women in the service. I also commend Ranking Member Lamar Smith of Texas who has helped make this a bipartisan endeavor. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to recognize the Chair of the California delegation, Zoe Lofgren, for as much time as she needs.

Mr. CONYERS. I yield now 7 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio, a Member not always heard on the floor, Dennis Kucinich. Will the gentleman yield to me briefly?

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

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the author of this bill, Jan Schakowsky, who is a sterling member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, as much time as she may consume.

Mr. CONYERS. We keep saying that the gentleman from Utah is on the floor for the last time, but the last time always becomes one more time. I want him specifically remembered for the cooperation and leadership he gave in the committee and on the floor in terms of broadband legislation, the credit card interchange consideration, the very complex issues of immigration, on literally all of the civil liberties issues that have come before us, and Internet gambling. He's given us his attention and helpfulness. We appreciate it so very, very much, Chris. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Indianapolis, Indiana, Mr. Andre Carson.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 3641) to authorize funding for the National Crime Victim Law Institute to provide support for victims of crime under Crime Victims Legal Assistance Programs as a part of the Victims of Crime Act of 1984.

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

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to remind our Members that the measure before us reauthorizes funding for the National Crime Victims Law Institute, which supports critical crime victims' legal assistance programs that help crime victims enforce their legal rights in a number of vital respects. Many of these programs provide financial assistance directly to crime victims. Others help victims receive proper notification of case developments, and still other assistance may come in the form of providing staff for victims' rights organizations and legal assistance to victims. Some of these victims are elderly, some are poor, and some are people that just can't afford any legal costs at all. Violent crime victims may be emotionally and physically traumatized and therefore unable to assert their rights effectively, and victims of identity theft may be financially devastated as a result of loss of savings or destroyed credit. So I am very pleased to bring this measure to the floor, and I urge support for it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to applaud the efforts of the United States Marshals Service for its pioneering program to encourage hundreds and thousands of individuals wanted for non-violent felony or misdemeanor crimes to voluntarily surrender to the law in a faith-based or other neutral setting. The initiative was conceived and is administered by the Marshals Service in states that have particularly high numbers of fugitive warrants. The goal of Fugitive Safe Surrender is to reduce the risk to law enforcement officers who pursue fugitives, to the neighborhoods and communities where they hide, and to the fugitives themselves. Authorized by Congress in July 2006, it is believed to be the first program of its kind in the Nation. In Detroit, Michigan, where the majority of my constituents reside, Fugitive Safe Surrender took place in June 2008, under the leadership of Robert M. Grubbs, United States Marshal for the Eastern District of Michigan. Over the course of the four-day surrender period, more than 6,500 individuals with outstanding warrants took advantage of the opportunity to surrender to law enforcement and help pave the way for a more successful future for themselves and their families. The credit for this outstanding success goes to the many city workers, judges, prosecutors, attorneys, clerks, and community leaders who contributed their time, efforts and leadership to administering the program. I am proud to salute the leadership of Dr. Edgar Vann, pastor of Second Ebeneezer Church, who allowed the Marshals Service to use his beautiful facility and who devoted countless hours to mentoring government officials and fugitives during the process. This brilliant initiative was conceived by Peter J. Elliott, United States Marshal for the Northern District of Ohio, after the death of Cleveland Police Officer Wayne Leon at the hands of a wanted fugitive. He believes that ``desperate people commit desperate acts.'' Marshal Elliot has helped lead the program in ten cities and has been urged by mayors from across the country to implement the program in their cities. As the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, I applaud Marshal Elliot for his courage to `think outside the box,' and his leadership in pairing law enforcement with communities in an amazingly successful effort to apprehend fugitives while giving thousands of individuals a second chance at life.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. As an elected official tasked with the tremendous responsibility of protecting the taxpayers' interests and money, I cannot in good conscience support this fundamentally flawed legislation before us today. As Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, I am often required to engage in oversight of the enforcement of our nation's antitrust laws, the statutes which ensure the competitive balance of our free market economy. One of the important things I have learned during my tenure is that the free market serves America best when it keeps prices low for the people on Main Street and doesn't cater to the titans of Wall Street. The only way this properly functioning market can be realized, is when no corporation or bank is allowed to become too big or too powerful to fail. Otherwise, corporations grow too bold, and begin to take more risks than a prudent business afraid of bankruptcy should. For the last 8 years, President Bush has governed from the intersection of Pennsylvania Avenue and Wall Street; leaving Main Street behind. Desperately needed priorities like children's health insurance and heating fuel for the poor have gone unfulfilled, while the top one tenth of one percent have benefited from dramatic cuts to the capital gains and income taxes. During this same time, President Bush's Justice Department sat by as the financial juggernauts grew larger and larger and their financial wheeling and dealing grew more and more reckless. Now, President Bush has proposed a $700 billion dollar bailout of Wall Street. And why is the Congress held hostage? Because financial institutions and investment banks are too big to be allowed to fail. Unless the American tax payer foots the bill for Wall Street's risky behavior, credit will freeze, investment will cease, and the economy will crash and burn. Or so the President's former Goldman Sachs executive, Treasury Secretary Paulson, would have us believe. I am not sure, considering the source here. True, buying the worthless mortgage backed securities from these firms and banks would likely improve their ability to lend. I'm sure it's just a coincidence that this approach also magically turns institutions on the verge of collapse back into profitable business ventures. If injecting credit into our financial industry is the solution to the current supposed credit squeeze, why hasn't this body been given the option to vote for other proposals, like giving tax payers a no- risk equity stake in the bailout recipients or supporting the direct injection of capitol into the financial industry, as we did during the Savings and Loan crisis of the 1980s? The likely reason is because Wall Street would have to give up a piece of its wealth; something this crony-capitalist Administration is loathe to do. Although the President's radical proposal has gradually been improved over the last week by the Leadership, the fundamental structure and capital delivery method remains flawed. No number of federal loan modifications or oversight boards will alter that. People all over the country are up in arms over this bailout, not because it's not necessary, but because it is just more of the same. The American people can't take another transfer of wealth from the working class to the upper crust. I encourage my colleagues to vote today to scrap this deal so that we can put together a real plan that addresses the credit crunch by directly injecting capital into the markets, updating our outdated regulatory structure, helping people who are struggling to stay in their homes, legitimately providing for the recoupment of taxpayer dollars, and restoring the competitive balance of the free market by ensuring that no firm is too big to fail.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the Democracy Restoration Act of 2008. This legislation will serve to clarify and expand voting rights as well as assist former felons with their reintegration into our democracy. The Sentencing Project reports that, since 1997, 19 States have amended felony disenfranchisement policies in an effort to reduce their restrictiveness and expand voter eligibility. These reforms have resulted in more than 760,00 citizens regaining their voting rights. Yet, despite these reforms, an estimated 5 million people will continue to be ineligible to vote in November's Presidential election, including nearly 4 million who reside in the 35 States that still prohibit some combination of persons on probation, parole, and/or people who have completed their sentence from voting. I believe that such prohibitions on the right to vote undermine both the voting system and the fundamental rights of ex-offenders. In the past two election cycles, flawed voter purges have deprived legitimate voters of their rights. Moreover, in Ohio, an erroneous interpretation of State law by the Secretary of State deprived thousands of ex-felons of even the right to register. Only Federal law can conclusively resolve the ambiguities in this area plaguing our voting system. Earlier this year, President Bush signed the Second Chance Act into law, signaling a greater awareness of the need to implement policies to aid the reintegration of our ex-felon community. This legislation is the next step in restoring the ex-felon community to full citizenship. Denying voting rights to ex-offenders denies them the opportunity to fully participate and contribute to their society. Disenfranchisement laws isolate and alienate ex-offenders and serve as one more obstacle in their attempt to successfully reintegrate into society. The legislation is a narrowly crafted effort to expand voting rights for ex-felons while protecting State prerogatives to generally establish voting qualifications. The legislation would only apply to persons who have been released from prison, and it would only apply to Federal elections. As such, our bill is fully consistent with constitutional requirements established by the Supreme Court in a series of decisions upholding Federal voting rights laws. In past Congresses, voting restoration legislation has been supported by a broad coalition of groups interested in voting and civil rights, including the NAACP, ACLU, the National Council of Churches (National and Washington Office), the National Urban League, the Human Rights Watch, and the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights, among many others. The practice of many States denying voting rights to former felons represents a vestige from a time when suffrage was denied to whole classes of our population based on race, gender, religion, national origin, and property. I believe that we fail not only ex- offenders by denying them the right to vote, but the rest of a society that has struggled throughout its history to be legitimate and inclusive. Just like poll taxes and literacy tests prevented an entire class of citizens, namely African Americans, from integrating into society after centuries of slavery, felon disenfranchisement laws prevent ex- offenders from reintegrating into society after retribution. It is long past time that these restrictions be relegated to unenlightened history.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the Senate bill (S. 431) to require convicted sex offenders to register online identifiers, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 3296) to extend the authority of the United States Supreme Court Police to protect court officials off the Supreme Court Grounds and change the title of the Administrative Assistant to the Chief Justice.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.