John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 2840) to establish a liaison with the Federal Bureau of Investigation in United States Citizenship and Immigration Services to expedite naturalization applications filed by members of the Armed Forces and to establish a deadline for processing such applications.

Mr. CONYERS. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, foreign-born soldiers serving in our Armed Forces are eligible for expedited U.S. citizenship, yet they often face delays in the processing of the FBI background check required for naturalization. S. 2840 would address this backlog by creating an Office of the FBI Liaison within the Department of Homeland Security. This office will help expedite the processing of naturalization applications filed by soldiers, veterans, and spouses and children of active duty soldiers. The bill requires DHS to adjudicate these naturalization applications within six months, or to inform the applicants of the reasons for the delay and provide them with an estimated date of completion. It promotes accountability by having the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) report annually to Congress on how many of these naturalization applications that remain pending a year after filing due to delays in background checks. Approximately 45,000 lawful permanent residents are currently serving in our Armed Forces. More than 13,000 non-citizen military have applied for U.S. citizenship since 2002. S. 2480 is a good measure that will help ensure that our soldiers and veterans do not face unreasonable hurdles to U.S. citizenship. I urge my colleagues to support the bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Ciro Rodriguez, as much time as he may consume.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlelady from California, Zoe Lofgren, as much time as she may need.

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

Mr. CONYERS

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

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this bill imposes a limited, but important, condition on enforcement of foreign defamation judgments in our courts. It prohibits a federal or state court from enforcing a defamation judgment entered in another country for publication involving a matter of public concern, unless the court first determines that the judgment is consistent with the free-speech clause of our Constitution's First Amendment. H.R. 6146 responds to the problem of what is sometimes called ``libel tourism.'' This is the disturbing practice of suing authors for defamation in foreign countries rather than in the United States, so as to avoid the speech-protective features of defamation law enshrined in our Constitution. A much-cited recent example is the lawsuit filed by a Saudi billionaire against an American expert on terrorism, as a result of statements about his activities she made in a book entitled Funding Evil: How Terrorism Is Financed and How to Stop It. The Saudi billionaire sued the American author not in the United States, where the book was published, but in England, where a mere 23 copies of the book had been sold to on-line buyers. He sued in England to avail himself of English libel law, which denies authors the important free-speech protections of our First Amendment. This kind of end-run on the Constitution poses an obvious threat to free speech rights in our country. H.R. 6146, which was introduced by our colleague, Steve Cohen of Tennessee, would go a long way toward eliminating this threat. At the same time, it would not interfere with the judicial systems of other countries, or deprive plaintiffs of their choice of forum. It would simply require that anyone who seeks to enforce this specific type of defamation judgment in our courts to establish that the judgment does not offend our First Amendment. Many U.S. courts already impose this condition on the enforcement of foreign defamation judgments. I urge my colleagues to support this important bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the author of the measure, Steve Cohen, the gentleman from Memphis, Tennessee, as much time as he may consume.

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

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3174) to amend titles 28 and 10, United States Code, to allow for certiorari review of certain cases denied relief or review by the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces.

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

Mr. CONYERS. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the Equal Justice for Our Military Act amends the Federal judicial code to allow members of the United States Armed Services to petition for review by the United States Supreme Court in certain cases when they have been denied relief by the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. Many Americans would be shocked to learn that soldiers serving their country in uniform are blocked from equal access to the Supreme Court. But the truth is that current law provides virtually no avenue through which active service members who have been convicted by court- martial of certain serious offenses, or who face discharge or dismissal, to ask our Nation's highest court to review their case. Currently, the Supreme Court can only hear cases where the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, the highest court of the military justice system, has either conducted a review of a court-martial, or has granted a service-member's petition for extraordinary relief. What this means is that when the court of appeals denies review, which it does nearly 90 percent of the time, the Supreme Court is barred from reconsidering the case at the request of the servicemember. Adding insult to injury, while a servicemember is not able to obtain Supreme Court review if he or she loses at the court of appeals, if the court of appeals rules against the government, the Government can seek review in the Supreme Court. And a former servicemember who is tried under the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act in civilian court for crimes committed while on active duty also has full right to petition for Supreme Court review. The Equal Justice for Our Military Act corrects this unfair one- sidedness by allowing an active servicemember to file a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court in any case where the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces has denied review of a court-marital conviction or has denied a petition for extraordinary relief. I would like to commend the author of this bill, our colleague Susan Davis of California, for her leadership in working to correct this ongoing injustice, so that our active servicemembers have the same fundamental protection that Americans take for granted. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis).

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

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition today to the United States-India Nuclear Cooperation Approval and Nonproliferation Enhancement Act. If this body ratifies this agreement today, it will be the first time that a country that is not a member of the Nonproliferation Treaty will have the benefits of nuclear trade without any of the responsibilities associated with possessing unstable, dangerous material on the planet. Earlier this month, the Nuclear Suppliers Group made the ill-fated decision to approve an India-specific waive from its guidelines requiring full-scope International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards as a condition for nuclear supply and trade. The decision ends the 34-year global ban on nuclear trade with India, a nation which has defied international norms regarding responsible and acceptable nuclear energy use. Now, the Bush Administration is attempting bilateral deal with India that would exacerbate and codify the NSG's mistake. Under the deal, India would only have to separate its unregulated military and regulated civilian nuclear programs, not cease the pursuit of additional nuclear weapons. Additionally, India is allowed to keep 1,000 bombs worth of nuclear material outside of IAEA safeguards. In other words, by agreeing to provide material to satisfy India's civilian nuclear needs, America would be freeing up unregulated material for use in its military bomb production program. How a deal like this brings India into conformance with international norms of state nonproliferation behavior--something the administration claims--is beyond me. Freeing up more unregulated nuclear material for bomb making doesn't sound like a safety measure. It sounds like a recipe for irresponsible use. The economic benefits of this deal have also been greatly exaggerated by the Bush Administration. Russia and other regional states are already actively negotiating supply deals with India; leaving little opportunity for US energy companies half a world away. However, more important than the potential economic aspects of the deal for our domestic energy production industry, or even the increased ability of India to create nuclear weapons, is the drastic effect the deal would have on the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, one of the most sacrosanct and honored multilateral agreements in international law. The NPT is the single most effective bulwark against the spread of nuclear weapons materials and technology. The treaty currently has 189 signatories and only four non-signatories. Under the treaty, NPT countries which possess nuclear weapons agree not to share weapon making materials or information. Similarly, NPT countries without weapons agree not to pursue these materials or information. By agreeing to supply a nation that has not agreed to abide by these solemn pledges, this agreement would blow a hole in the NPT. Previously, our government required states to sign the NPT if they wanted to engage in nuclear trade with us. With this deal, the leverage inherent in that tradeoff will be gone. What moral authority will we or the international community have over Iran, or any other NPT signatory for that matter, if it actively seeks nuclear materials in violation of the treaty? In the waning days of an administration that has shredded international law and our credibility around the world, why is this body prepared today to add to this tarnished legacy? Let there be no doubt, a vote for this bill is a vote for a more dangerous world. For the sake of peace and the sanctity of the rule of law, I encourage my colleagues to oppose the bill.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6045) to amend title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to extend the authorization of the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program through fiscal year 2012.

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

Mr. CONYERS. We yield back our time.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Members of the House, I rise to commend the gentleman from Indiana, Peter Visclosky, for helping us provide more bulletproof vests to policemen. It's kind of amazing that we need to pass a law to get more bulletproof vests for policemen. More than 800,000 police officers put their lives at risk daily to protect our community. Many of them are protected by bullet-resistant armor, but an alarming number of officers are not afforded this protection because of local budget constraints. So this bill created by the gentleman from Indiana tries to take care of this problem. The Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program was established back in 1998 to assist State and local law enforcement agencies in securing protective equipment necessary to safeguard the lives of officers. And the program administered by the Department of Justice provides up to half of the matching grants--50 percent of the matching grants for the purchase of protective vests. Since then, the program has enabled thousands of jurisdictions across our Nation to purchase more than 1.5 million such vests. It's estimated 3,000 law enforcement officers have survived shootings in part due to their bulletproof vest. In recognition of its vital role in the protection of these officers, the Bulletproof Vest Program has been extended, and it's set to expire at the end of fiscal year 2009 unless we extend it again. Here we reauthorize the program for an additional 3 years so that to help more of our law enforcement officers, and I doubt if there's a Member in this House that isn't in full support of this measure. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) as much time as he may consume.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, Mr. Scott of Virginia, Mr. Smith of Texas, Mr. Gohmert, and I would like to submit this statement into the Congressional Record on behalf of all the Members and staff of the Judiciary Committee regarding our dear friend and colleague, Rachel King, who, after a long battle with cancer, passed away on August 25, 2008, at her home in Wayne, Maine, overlooking Dexter Pond, surrounded by family and friends. We were privileged to know Rachel during her time as counsel to the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security. Many of us, and many others who work on Capitol Hill, already knew her from when she worked with the American Civil Liberties Union. Rachel was one of the most intelligent, passionate, and committed advocates in the fight for justice and equality. On issue after issue, whether it was the death penalty, mandatory minimum sentencing, drug policy, child soldiers, or denial of due process, Rachel was a clear, strong, and articulate voice for justice, and she was loved and admired for it. She continued to pursue this commitment energetically at the Committee right up until the week before her last days in Maine. She was well-known and well-respected for her tireless advocacy against capital punishment. She authored two books about the death penalty, each from the perspective of families affected--one, regarding families of murder victims; the other, families of the condemned. She also wrote a novel detailing the lives, challenges and triumphs of advocates in Washington, DC, working for progressive social causes. And many did not know that she was pursuing a master's degree in creative writing at Johns Hopkins University, in addition to the Juris Doctorate and Masters in Law degrees she already had. We will remember Rachel not only for the wise and experienced counsel she gave us on issues going to the heart of what a criminal justice system should look like in a civilized society, but also for her gentle and tireless spirit. We are grateful that she chose to spend the last part of her distinguished career working with us.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. I return the balance of our time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, and Members of the Congress, I am delighted to come here this evening to have listened to two doctors and a judge talking about a subject that is of great interest to me as well. And the reason that I mentioned their names is that the subject matter that brings me to the well tonight with other colleagues is how we improve the health care system. And when I hear Judge Louie Gohmert, who serves with distinction on the Judiciary Committee, I always love to try to involve him in what we're doing. And of course we have great respect for Representative Gingrey, the gentleman from Georgia, who is a physician, a medical doctor; Dr. Boustany of Louisiana. All of these are gentlemen whose attention I would like to draw and invite to join us in this and future discussions about the state of health care in the country. I will be making every attempt to communicate with them on it. We happen to have a doctor here on our side, Dr. Donna Christensen from the Virgin Islands, a medical doctor as well. And so just think of the exciting exchange of views that might have otherwise occurred. But this is nevertheless an opportunity to take special orders to review, Mr. Speaker, that over 45 million Americans are currently without any form of health insurance whatsoever. More than eight out of ten of these Americans are members of working families, of all things. And then another 50 million Americans are underinsured and face possible financial ruin due to an unexpected medical bill for hospitalization or other emergencies that might occur. And so for many Americans, the cost of health care, the cost of insurance, the insecurity of employer-based coverage--because many companies are downsizing or moving out of the country entirely--and these factors limit their most important choices in life: staying well and staying healthy, their decisions to work, to raise a family, to return to school, to have children, to retire early or not, to change careers. And the fact of the matter is that health care is the number one subject for nearly everyone in this country. And so it is truly odd that some of my colleagues seem to believe that health care for all is somehow divorced from what they perceive to be the ``American Dream.'' Indeed, the American Dream is posited on the notion that you would be healthy. Before you would become educated, prosperous, rich, accomplished, you have to have good health. Physical and mental as well. And so I begin our discussion underscoring the fact that the American Dream assumes that we're in good health and that good health, continued good health is available to all. One of the Presidents of the United States once stated that Americans already have universal health care because the emergency rooms cannot legally refuse to treat patients. That is the sitting President of the United States that made that statement, the 43rd President of the United States. And there's only one way that he could have made that statement, and that is that he's never had to use the emergency room for health care or it would be very clear to him that this is the most expensive and immediate and emergency-type circumstance that a person could receive medical care. I wish he would come with me--if I had one wish, I would probably wish something else other than coming with me to the hospital to an emergency room to find out what it's like and how limited the treatment of necessity is because the hospital is defective or the doctors are not fully prepared--but they're under the stress of all emergencies coming from anywhere in the area to come in. So that sort of reminds me of the phrase ``Let them eat cake.'' ``Go to the emergency room. What is the problem?'' Well, the problem is that many emergency rooms cannot handle all of the cases for people who don't have insurance. And I am sorry to report that on some occasions, they are not able to entertain the health needs of the people that seek emergency room medical treatment. And so we, in our office, have been bombarded with the tales, the tragic stories from people who are facing permanent injury, unemployment, death, bankruptcy, foreclosure, even the breakup of families due to the unaffordable health care costs. So during this discussion this evening, we want to share--I invite that we share with each other the experiences that have been related to us, Mr. Speaker, that have come from the American people because nothing has become clearer in the course of my experience here that before we can discuss policy options to reform our health care system, Congress needs to hear from patients and citizens and constituents who suffer under our current non-system, broken way that we deliver health care in the United States. And so it is in that spirit that we begin this discussion. I want to just relate one, and this is entitled ``Robin's Story.'' ``My son was 16 when he was diagnosed with a rare form of liver cancer (undifferentiated sarcoma of the liver). I was married. My husband and I were both working and we had health insurance through my husband's employer,'' Robin says. ``I had recently lost my job as a professor at a business college and was trying to start up my law practice from my home office. When Taylor got sick, we were barely making ends meet. ``The doctors had told us Taylor,'' 16 years old, ``Taylor didn't have cancer but they weren't sure what the mass in his liver was. When they opened him up, they knew it was cancer but it took 5 days to determine the exact type of cancer. They had to close Taylor up without removing the tumor because it was so intertwined with his major blood system. They would have killed him,'' they thought, ``if they tried to remove it. ``As I sat next to Taylor's bed at about 3 in the morning, we both were awake because we couldn't sleep. My husband and I had words. We were so stressed over the uncertainty of our future. We were facing the possibility of losing our son to cancer and we couldn't even pay our bills, let alone pay for the medical bills we were already facing from the surgery and hospital stay. Then to have to pay the cost of cancer treatment was overwhelming. ``Apparently Taylor had heard parts of our conversation. He lay on the bed, barely able to get up to go to the bathroom, facing an uncertain future. He said, `Mom, I'm so sorry about the money.' ``I can't begin to explain how inadequate I felt. I couldn't take care of my own son. He should be focusing on recovering from this major surgery and on gathering his strength to fight the biggest battle of his life. Instead he was worrying about how we were going to pay for all of this. ``We had insurance but we had a large deductible and co-pay. The cost of his treatments over the next year was a quarter of a million dollars. Even though we only had to pay a percentage, 20 percent of an astronomical figure is astronomical. Our phone rang constantly with creditors and collection agents wanting to know when we were going to pay our bills. I was unable to work much because Taylor's treatments and the everyday issues of cancer were as much as I could handle. So in addition to extra bills, we had a fraction of our previous income. ``After Taylor's first surgery and chemo treatment, we were preparing to leave the hospital. We were told we would have to administer a shot to Taylor every day to try to keep his blood counts high enough to continue his cancer treatment. It was stressful to consider giving your son a shot every day. That doesn't compare to the moment the first 14 shots were delivered to our hospital room along with a statement for $6,122! My heart sank to my stomach. I asked the delivery person if I had to pay them right then. He said they would bill us. Thank God. I can only imagine having to decide whether we would pay our mortgage payment and electricity, or give our son a shot that might save his life. ``We eventually got to the point we couldn't pay our mortgage. Our electricity was turned off many times. Each time, I had to pay the amount due plus an extra $100 cut-off fee. If I couldn't afford the original bill, how would I afford the additional $100? Friends and family raised money to help us. It didn't even begin to touch the amounts we owed. And as he turned the corner towards survival, everyone believed that the crisis was passed and stopped helping us. ``We are so blessed because our son survived cancer. It is truly a miracle. But our family didn't survive. After 23 years, my marriage dissolved. The financial pressures were more than the marriage could stand. I still have all of the medical debts and other debts on top of that. I try to just get through each day. I know that I am one of the lucky ones. Although I didn't survive cancer, my son did. I know many families who lost their child and then are also financially devastated. . . . probably even more so than I because they had years of medical treatment that failed to save their child. ``We tried to keep our insurance coverage. But we had to go on COBRA coverage, which was over $1,000 per month in addition to the medical bills. So both Taylor and I and Taylor's father have no insurance. After treatment, Taylor went in for a checkup every 3 months. Each checkup costs $6,000. We are now on six month checkups and hope to go to one a year next year. ``However, all of the other medical issues will just have to be placed on hold. Because I don't have health insurance, I don't take care of medical issues I used to address as they arose. Last summer I fell. I may have broken my wrist or at least tore ligaments. I didn't go to the doctor but just let it heal on its own. My wrist will always be a problem because it didn't heal right. Taylor's beautiful teeth that we worked so hard to straighten with braces will just have to be dealt with later. ``I just pray Taylor or I don't have a major medical problem. I live in fear for both of us because I know what treatment can cost. ``What I learned through our ordeal is that the individual is expected to pay for an inflated `retail' price for health care but the insurance companies, the ones who have the financial ability to pay, have made deals with the providers to pay a fraction of the `retail' price. As an `insured,' we received an explanation of benefits showing that the insurance company was given a `discount' and they usually only paid one-third of the amount paid by an individual with no insurance. That is so wrong. That means that the individual is paying the price for the insurance companies' `discounts.' ``This insanity must stop. We need to tell our story. The insurance companies and providers are making money on the backs of individuals already in crisis, facing life threatening illness and financial struggles because their income is reduced. I knew that survival is related to attitude. I assure you we are losing lives because it is hard to have a positive attitude through financial crisis on top of medical crisis. I want to help tell the story.'' A similar wind is now blowing in the 21st century. I believe the people, not special interests, should decide what type of health care system exists in this country. I believe this wind of change will usher in a new day; a day when hope for the just treatment of all of our brothers and sisters will be reborn. A truly open and democratic process is needed as we pursue this endeavor to ensure equal, just, and comprehensive care for all. To this end, I implore the inclusion of the American people in this discussion, so that the singular, resounding voice of those who believe in change, who believe in moral responsibility, can reverberate across the nation loudly enough so as to drown out those who would profit from continued injustice. The struggle for health care for all is the civil rights struggle of the 21st century. Let there be no doubt: the powers aligned against us are powerful and vast; the coming struggle will be long and hard. But, we have been down this road before, and we have succeeded. We shall succeed once again, because as Fannie Lou Hammer once said, we are sick and tired of being sick and tired. Kathryn's Story My sister was 46 when she saved enough money and was able to go to her doctor for a physical. Her doctor discovered an orange sized mass in her uterus. He recommended that she have an ultrasound. She said she would when she had saved more money. This was August 2005. She continued to work two part time jobs, one at a hospital as a housekeeper in the operating room on the OB/GYN floor. The other job was working for the State of Michigan as a maintenance worker cleaning restrooms. She worked hard and was a loyal employee. Unfortunately, both jobs were part time, so no benefits were offered. She also didn't qualify for aid from the county or State because she worked too much! By September 2006, she was dead. The mass was cancerous, spread to her ovaries, and finally to her lungs. She died three months after diagnosis. Medicaid was approved after her death. conclusion My friends, the vital issue of the health care crisis in this country is rising to the surface; the plight of the uninsured and the underinsured can no longer be ignored. As the election season continues to progress, and as we draw nearer to a new administration, the time is now for Members of the House to call for serious, comprehensive health care reform. Martin Luther King, Jr. once said, ``Of all the forms of inequality, injustice in health care is the most shocking and inhumane.'' I am privileged to have known Martin Luther King, Jr. and to have worked closely with him on civil rights issues. Madam Speaker, health care is a civil right. It is the spirit of the civil rights crusaders of the past from which we should draw inspiration and strength. Abolitionists did not settle for piece-meal appeasements or token change. Rather, a dynamic and sweeping wind reshaped the Nation for the better, capitalizing on a nagging conscience that Americans, both black and white, knew was the moral and just thing to do. I'd like now to turn to the gentlelady from the Virgin Islands, Dr. Donna Christensen, who not only serves on two very important committees in the House of Representatives, but in addition, she chairs the Congressional Black Caucus Health Caucus, and I've had the honor of working with her across the years, and I would yield to her.

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Dr. Christensen. ``Everybody in, nobody out.'' I know a doctor in Chicago that uses that term very frequently.

Mr. CONYERS. I'm pleased now to yield to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), who I had the great privilege to be in the White House when his Second Chance bill was signed into law after many years of working in this body and the other body to see that it came to fruition. It derived from his long experience as a civil rights activist, as a commissioner, a county commissioner in Chicago, and as a community health worker in community clinics for a considerable period of time. I'm so proud that he's an original cosponsor of H.R. 676, and I yield to him.

Mr. CONYERS. And Physicians for a National Health Plan, PNHP.

Mr. CONYERS. We're expecting his presence at the 38th Congressional Black Caucus event next week in which we will be having a forum on universal single-payer health care.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, today, I was called away on personal business. I regret that I was not present for the following votes: Ordering the previous question on H. Res. 1449. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.'' On agreeing to H. Res. 1449. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.'' On the motion to recommit with instructions H.R. 6604. Had I been present I would have voted ``nay.'' On passage of H.R. 6604. Had I been present I would have voted ``aye.'' On the motion to table H. Res. 1460. Had I been present I would have voted ``yea.'' On ordering the previous question on H. Res. 1441. Had I been present I would have voted ``yea.'' On agreeing to H. Res. 1441. Had I been present I would have voted ``yea.''