John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to recognize the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Honorable Nancy Pelosi, for 1 minute.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I recognize an invaluable member of the Judiciary Committee, Keith Ellison from Minnesota, for 1 minute.

Mr. CONYERS. I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlelady from California (Ms. Harman), a former member of the Intelligence Committee. I wish I could give her more time. (Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I'm going to recognize Barbara Lee, but I want my dear friend from Michigan to know you cannot give retroactive immunity when you don't know what you're immunizing. That's the problem. I turn now to the co-chair of the Progressive Caucus, a distinguished civil rights fighter who has her own experiences, and we yield proudly to Barbara Lee of California for 1 minute.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, how much time have I remaining?

Mr. CONYERS. The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee), who has worked with us on this matter, is recognized for 1 minute. (Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield everything but 1 minute to the gentlelady from Illinois, Jan Schakowsky.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) for a unanimous consent request. (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, it's my privilege to yield the balance of our time to the majority leader, Steny Hoyer, whose legal expertise has held him in good stead over the months that we've worked on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. I thank the cochair of the caucus for allowing me to make it clear to our friends on the other side of the aisle that the budget, as a document of what it is we believe in, what we put our money down in support of, expresses in some greater way the values of the Nation. And so we come to this 2008 budget consideration in the midst of what some call an economic downturn, others call a recession and other things. Now, what we have done, and if there are parts of the Progressive Caucus budget that are specifically objected to, I would like to invite our friends on the other side to let us know what they are so that we can continue our work on it, because the Progressive Caucus every year always introduces an alternative budget. We've been getting more support on it each year. It's our hope that with your enlightened analysis of it, we will get more support. I'm looking for the day when we get a bipartisan vote on the Progressive Caucus budget. I think it's possible. I think it states our priorities that don't have ``Democratic'' or ``Republican'' stamped on them. What we are saying is let's look at these issues in the budget and point out which ones make your favorite, make the hit list, and which ones don't match the aspirations and viewpoints of the minority. I thank you, Madam Floor Manager. I rise today in support of the budget alternative offered by the Congressional Progressive Caucus, CPC. We often say that the Federal budget is a moral document, expressing the values and priorities of our Nation. During this economic downturn, when more families are facing unemployment, foreclosure and bankruptcy, our top priority should be protecting our most vulnerable citizens and keeping more Americans from falling into poverty. The President, however, seems to have his priorities upside-down. In this final budget proposal of his presidency, he once again sacrifices services for low- and moderate-income families failing to provide adequate funding for health care, housing, child care, job training and a host of other programs. Even though the President cuts these vital programs, his budget still makes the deficit worse, because it continues to give stunningly high tax cuts to the rich. Tax cuts for millionaires alone will cost $51 billion in FY '09. The CPC alternative budget gets our priorities straight. In stark contrast to the President's proposal, the CPC budget puts the needs of the economically vulnerable ahead of the needs of millionaires. The CPC budget proposal is the only one under consideration today that cuts wasteful cold war era defense spending, according to standards recommended by the GAO, so that we can employ our scarce resources to help people, not to keep feeding the military industrial complex for weapons we don't need. I want to draw attention today to the efforts of the Congressional Out of Poverty Caucus, which I co-chair along with my colleagues Ms. Lee, Mr. Honda, Mr. Baca and Mr. Butterfield. Under Ms. Lee's leadership, the House recently passed by unanimous consent H. Con. Res. 198, which commits the Congress to cutting poverty in half in the next decade. With the passage of H. Con. Res. 198, the House went on record, with unanimous, bipartisan support, making the alleviation of poverty a priority for this government. For the good of the Nation, it is imperative that we live up to our commitment. The Congress must take action to make good on this promise. The CPC budget promotes policy initiatives that can move us toward this goal by expanding programs with a proven track record of success in reducing poverty, like the Earned Income Tax Credit. We don't need more war and tax breaks for the rich. We need jobs, job training and better access to health care, child care and education. The CPC budget provides these critical tools that can help Americans lift themselves out of poverty. Let's get our priorities straight. Let's pass the CPC budget alternative.

Mr. CONYERS. I thank you so much. I just wanted to commend you before our debate closes on the Progressive Caucus proposal, because I'm hearing for the first time, we want to get beyond partisan positions, progressive partisan positions, progressive or conservative positions.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Congressional Black Caucus budget alternative. Our friends on the other side of the aisle have criticized this proposal because they say that it raises taxes and spending. The fact is, our Republican colleagues have different priorities than we do. In these perilous economic times, the Congressional Black Caucus believes our priority should be to help those Americans who are losing their jobs and their homes, who can't afford health care, higher education, and job training, who have to decide between paying the gas bill or paying for prescription drugs. The Republicans want to know where the cuts are in the CBC budget. Their budget slashes Medicare, Medicaid, the Low Income Heating and Energy Assistance Program and countless other critical social service programs. They think these programs are unnecessary; their priority is to preserve the Bush tax cuts, more than 99 percent of which go to people making more than $225,000 per year. More than 85 percent of the money we lose due to these cuts goes to households with incomes above $500,000 per year; 65 percent goes to households with incomes above $1 million. In fact, $51 billion next year alone will go to tax breaks for millionaires. By rescinding Bush's tax cuts, the Congressional Black Caucus increases funding for needed social programs while reducing the deficit even more than the Republicans do. It would seem the Republicans' concern is not fiscal responsibility, but preserving tax cuts for the rich, even if this grows the national debt. And, of course, we aren't even discussing the President's war today, which spends $12 billion dollars a month, more than most of these social service programs spend in a year, or 5 years, or 10 years. The debate today is clear. It's about priorities. We believe in keeping working Americans in their homes; the Republicans want to make sure the rich can stay in their mansions and yachts. I want to draw particular attention to some of my personal priorities within the CBC budget alternative. I am happy that the CBC accepted my proposal to add $10 million to the National Health Service Corps to help train the next generation of doctors to go into underserved communities without being crippled by educational debt. The CBC budget also includes several of my proposals to increase funding for Department of Justice programs. The highly successful COPS program focuses on local strategies to fight crime and has been praised by federal, state, and local law enforcement and political officials. The President's budget terminates the COPS program. In contrast, the CBC fully funds COPS at $500 million for FY 2009. I also recommended, and the CBC budget includes, increased funding for other vital local law enforcement programs, including Drug Courts and the Byrne Justice Assistance Grants. In addition, we significantly increase funding for programs serving juveniles who have entered our justice system, in an effort to break the cycle of crime and violence and to help these children to become productive members of our society. It's about priorities, and the choice today is clear. Supporting the CBC budget means prioritizing the basic needs of the American people. Supporting the Republicans' proposal means continuing our current course, where the rich keep getting richer, while the needs of the poor and middle class are neglected.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, today I am introducing the ``Credit Card Fair Fee Act of 2008,'' legislation that would help level the playing field for merchants and retailers negotiating with banks for the cost of certain fees, and ultimately reduce the costs of everyday goods for consumers. I am joined by Representatives Cannon, Lofgren, Shuster, Weiner, Delahunt, Platts, Welch, Sullivan, Wilson of South Carolina, Gohmert, Hall of Texas, Boozman, and Peterson of Pennsylvania. Every time a consumer uses a payment card--at the mall, at the grocery store, at a gas station, or on the Internet--the merchant is charged a fee. This fee gets divided up three ways--between the merchant's bank, the consumer's bank, and the credit card company. It covers processing fees, fraud protection, billing statements, and other expenses such as system innovations. Almost 90 percent of this fee comprises a so-called ``interchange fee,'' which is the payment made by the merchant's bank to the consumer's bank. The percentage is set by the credit card companies, generally Visa or MasterCard, and averages 1.75 percent of the total purchase. In 2006, interchange fees totaled approximately $36 billion, an increase of 117 percent since 2001. In 2007, the fees amounted to $42 billion, about 17 percent since 2006. These fees are ultimately passed on to all consumers in the form of higher prices for goods and services, whether the consumers purchase these items by credit card, check or cash. These interchange fees are set by the credit card companies. The two largest, Visa and Mastercard, are associations composed of financial institutions and are owned and controlled by their bank member-owners. Together, Visa and MasterCard control over 73 percent of the volume of transactions on general purpose cards in the United States and approximately 85 percent of the cards issued. Banks that are members of the Visa association are often also members of the MasterCard association. Merchants are forced to deal within this system because it is simply not an option to refuse to accept Visa or MasterCard from their customers. They are presented with take-it-or-leave-it options and are not part of the process by which the fees are set. Moreover, the card systems operate pursuant to comprehensive operating rules approved by the associations' member-controlled boards, but these operating rules are not accessible by the merchants. This legislation is intended to give merchants a seat at the table in the determination of these fees. It is not an attempt at regulating the industry and does not mandate any particular outcome. This legislation simply enhances competition by allowing merchants to negotiate with the dominant banks for the terms and rates of the fees. The bill creates a limited antitrust immunity for negotiating voluntary agreements and, if necessary, participating in the market- based proceedings. These market-based proceedings will determine the exclusive rates and terms merchants must pay for a 3-year term. No other fees, terms or conditions may be imposed on the merchants. The rates and terms will be determined by Electronic Payment System Judges, who will be appointed by the Department of Justice Antitrust Division and the Federal Trade Commission. The judges will apply a market standard in their determinations designed to replicate the rates and terms of payment that would have been negotiated in a competitive marketplace between a willing buyer and willing seller, both of which have no market power. The judges will have full independence in making all determinations but may consult with the DOJ and FTC on certain matters. It is time to level the playing field for merchants and consumers. I am hopeful that Congress can move to enact this worthwhile and timely legislation.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to voice my strong support for H.R. 1424, the Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act of 2007, which requires equity in the provision of mental health and substance-related disorder benefits under group health plans. This much needed legislation would finally provide for true mental health insurance parity, offering mental health and substance-abuse benefits on par with medical and surgical benefits, ending discrimination against patients seeking treatment for psychiatric disorders. Mental illnesses have a devastating affect on our nation. According to a 2005 Harvard study, over 35 million Americans suffer from a moderate or serious mental disorder in any given year. Societal costs, such as loss of productivity and the burden on family caregivers, total $113 billion annually. As well, the President's New Freedom Commission on Mental Health reported in 2003 that mental illnesses constitute the leading cause of disability in the United States; the Commission noted that half of those who need mental health treatment in this country do not receive it. The treatment of mental illness works. Unfortunately, only those who are able to access care can benefit from it. Most mental disorders are chronic, ongoing illnesses that require consistent and persistent treatment in order to achieve remission. It would seem unconscionable to limit the number of times a cancer patient sees their oncologist for treatment; those suffering from severe psychiatric illness should not be held to a lesser standard of care. Despite disinformation put forth by some of my colleagues today, the concept of mental health insurance parity is not a new one. In fact, as members of Congress, we all enjoy the benefits of mental health parity that our constituents are deprived of. The Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) Program has offered mental health and substance-abuse benefits on a par with general medical benefits since 2001. A convincing study of the FEHB program published by the New England Journal of Medicine in 2006 proves that the implementation of parity in insurance benefits for behavioral health care can improve insurance protection without increasing total costs. Mr. Speaker, the inequity of coverage with regard to mental health and substance abuse treatment benefits is tantamount to discrimination against the mentally ill, and it reinforces the strategy of insurance companies to deny care rather than provide care. It is our duty to end this intolerable discrimination against the mentally ill, and pass H.R. 1424, the Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act of 2007.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to voice my strong support for H.R. 1424, the Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act of 2007, which requires equity in the provision of mental health and substance-related disorder benefits under group health plans. This much needed legislation would finally provide for true mental health insurance parity, offering mental health and substance-abuse benefits on par with medical and surgical benefits, ending discrimination against patients seeking treatment for psychiatric disorders. Mental illnesses have a devastating effect on our nation. According to a 2005 Harvard study, over 35 million Americans suffer from a moderate or serious mental disorder in any given year. Societal costs, such as loss of productivity and the burden on family caregivers, total $113 billion annually. As well, the President's New Freedom Commission on Mental Health reported in 2003 that mental illnesses constitute the leading cause of disability in the United States; the Commission noted that half of those who need mental health treatment in this country do not receive it. The treatment of mental illness works. Unfortunately, only those who are able to access care can benefit from it. Most mental disorders are chronic, ongoing illnesses that require consistent and persistent treatment in order to achieve remission. It would seem unconscionable to limit the number of times a cancer patient sees their oncologist for treatment; those suffering from severe psychiatric illness should not be held to a lesser standard of care. Despite disinformation put forth by some of my colleagues today, the concept of mental health insurance parity is not a new one. In fact, as members of Congress, we all enjoy the benefits of mental health parity that our constituents are deprived of. The Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) Program has offered mental health and substance-abuse benefits on a par with general medical benefits since 2001. A convincing study of the FEHB program published by the New England Journal of Medicine in 2006 proves that the implementation of parity in insurance benefits for behavioral health care can improve insurance protection without increasing total costs. Mr. Speaker, the inequity of coverage with regard to mental health and substance abuse treatment benefits is tantamount to discrimination against the mentally ill, and it reinforces the strategy of insurance companies to deny care rather than provide care. It is our duty to end this intolerable discrimination against the mentally ill, and pass H.R. 1424, the Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act of 2007.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, on March 5, 2008, I was unavoidably detained due to weather-related travel delays. The following list describes how I would have voted had I been in attendance this afternoon. ``Yea''--H.R. 4191, To redesignate Dayton Aviation Heritage National Historic Park in the State of Ohio as ``Wright Brothers-Dunbar National Historic Park'', and for other purposes. ``Yea''--H. Con. Res. 278, Supporting Taiwan's fourth direct and democratic presidential elections in March 2008. ``Present''--H. Res. 951, Condemning the ongoing Palestinian rocket attacks on Israeli civilians, and for other purposes. ``Yea''--On motion to consider the resolution H. Res. 1014, providing for the consideration of H.R. 1424, Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act. ``Yea''--On ordering the previous question on H. Res. 1014, providing for the consideration of H.R. 1424, Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act. ``Yea''--H. Res. 1014, Providing for the consideration of H.R. 1424, Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act. ``Yea''--H.R. 4774, To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 10250 John Saunders Road in San Antonio, Texas, as the ``Cyndi Taylor Krier Post Office Building''. ``Yea''--H. Con. Res. 286, Expressing the sense of Congress that Earl Lloyd should be recognized and honored for breaking the color barrier and becoming the first African American to play in the National Basketball Association League 58 years ago.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I took a leave of absence today. Had I been in attendance I would have voted as follows: ``Yea''--H.R. 1143--to authorize the Secretary of Interior to lease certain lands in Virgin Islands National Park, and for other purposes (Representative Christensen--Natural Resources). ``Yea''--H.R. 1311--to direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey the Alta-Hualapai Site to the city of Las Vegas, Nevada, for the development of a cancer treatment facility (Representative Berkley-- Natural Resources). ``Yea''--H.R. 816--to provide for the release of certain land from the Sunrise Mountain Instant Study Area in the State of Nevada and to grant a right-of-way across the released land for the construction and maintenance of a flood control project (Representative Porter--Natural Resources).

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I will insert into the Record from today's New York Times, ``Time to Vote Contempt.'' [From the New York Times, Feb. 14, 2008] Time To Vote Contempt Alberto Gonzales may be out, but the country is still waiting for a full accounting of how he and his White House patrons cynically politicized the Justice Department. Congress is rightly asking questions about the actions of yet another United States attorney: New Jersey's Christopher J. Christie. The House also needs to stop procrastinating and vote to hold witnesses in contempt for refusing to testify in the wider scandal. Federal prosecutors must be scrupulously nonpartisan. Mr. Christie, a Republican activist who got his job despite a lack of trial and criminal-law experience, has gone up to the line of acceptable behavior--and possibly crossed it. He began an investigation of Senator Robert Menendez, a New Jersey Democrat, late in a hard-fought election campaign. The charges now appear baseless, but at the time the news provided a big boost to Mr. Menendez's Republican opponent. Mr. Christie went against a long Justice Department presumption against opening investigations or bringing indictments right before an election, to avoid affecting the outcome. There are also questions about Mr. Christie's decision to award, without competitive bidding, a lucrative contract to monitor a company accused of consumer fraud. The winner? Former Attorney General John Ashcroft, an influential Republican who was once Mr. Christie's boss. Senate and House leaders have asked the Government Accountability Office to investigate. Some of the people who likely know the most about the role politics has played in the Bush Justice Department have defied Congressional subpoenas to testify. Joshua Bolten, the White House chief of staff, and Harriet Miers, the former White House counsel, contend that they are protected from testifying by executive privilege. That is not enough. They have a legal obligation to appear before Congress and plead that privilege to specific questions. The House Judiciary Committee voted in July to hold Mr. Bolten and Ms. Miers in contempt. The House's Democratic leadership has been trying to figure out the pros and cons ever since. The public needs to hear the testimony of these officials (along with Karl Rove, who is also refusing to appear), and the full House should vote as quickly as possible to hold them in contempt. The House should also approve a resolution authorizing the Judiciary Committee to go to court to enforce the contempt citations if the current attorney general, Michael Mukasey, as expected, refuses to do so. The stakes are high. There are people in jail today, including a former governor of Alabama, who have raised credible charges that they were put there for political reasons. Congress's constitutionally guaranteed powers are also at risk. If Congress fails to enforce its own subpoenas, it would effectively be ceding its subpoena power. It would also be giving its tacit consent to the dangerous idea of an imperial president--above the law and beyond the reach of checks and balances. The founders did not want that when they wrote the Constitution, and the voters who elected this Congress do not want it today. Ladies and gentlemen of the House, the resolution we are considering today is not steps that I take as chairman easily or lightly. It's been 8 months that we've tried to negotiate, nine letters, but this is what is necessary to protect the constitutional prerogatives as a coequal branch of government in this democracy of ours. I believe the investigation we have been engaged in is an important one. And it's not about whether the U.S. Attorneys can serve at the pleasure of the President. They clearly can and do. But it concerns whether the American people can be assured that their laws are being fairly and impartially enforced by the United States Department of Justice. That's why we're here. In order to pursue this investigation, we've done what committees in the Congress have traditionally done: We've sought our documents and testimony initially on a voluntary basis and through compulsory process only as a last resort. The investigation did not begin with the White House but has ended up there only after the review of thousands of pages of documents and obtaining the testimony and interviews of nearly 20 current and former Department of Justice employees. We have been open at all times to any reasonable compromise and have been fully respectful and cognizant of the prerogatives of the executive branch. As a matter of fact, I have written the White House counsel on no less than nine separate occasions, and talked with him seeking a compromise on this matter. What I am not open to, as the chairman of Judiciary, is accepting a take-it-or-leave-it offer which would not allow us access to information that we need, would not even provide for a transcript, and would prevent us from seeking any additional information in the future. That is the only proposal we've ever received from White House counsel, and so I would hope that all of the Members in this body, as an institutional matter, recognize the problems inherent in such an approach. Now, some may argue that the stakes in this confrontation, and I think that's what's been suggested already, are so high that we cannot afford to risk that we might lose. Well, I'd say to them that if we countenance a process where our subpoenas can be readily ignored, where a witness under a duly authorized subpoena doesn't even have to bother to show up or tell us that they're not coming, where privilege can be asserted on the thinnest of bases and in the broadest possible manner, then we've already lost. This is not a matter of vindicating the Judiciary Committee; and if you're really concerned about Congress' rights, which I think all of us are, you would contact the White House counsel's office.

Mr. CONYERS. We don't know because we can't get one sheet of paper from Mr. Bolten and nobody else will talk to us. That's precisely why we were forced to this position, sir.

Mr. CONYERS. If the gentleman is so kind to yield again, we don't have any evidence. We aren't accusing them of anything, sir. We're merely seeking the documents that could be relevant to the determination of whether the Department of Justice has been politicized.

Mr. CONYERS. I wanted to respond, or continue our discussion that was raised by the gentleman from Utah. As a matter of fact, in our resolution recommending that contempt of Congress be issued, we found plenty of evidence of wrongdoing at the Department of Justice, nearly 100 pages of it. This was voted out of the committee. For example: The decision to fire or retain some U.S. attorneys may have been based in part on whether or not their offices were pursuing or not pursuing public corruption or vote fraud cases based on partisan political factors; Department officials appear to have made false or misleading statements to Congress, many of which sought to minimize the role of White House personnel in the U.S. Attorney firings; Actions by some department personnel may have violated civil service laws. Executive Summary To date, the committee's investigation--which has reviewed materials provided by the Department of Justice in depth and obtained testimony from 20 current and former Department of Justice employees--has uncovered serious evidence of wrongdoing by the Department and White House staff with respect to the forced resignations of U.S. Attorneys during 2006 and related matters. This includes evidence that: (a) the decision to fire or retain some U.S. Attorneys may have been based in part on whether or not their offices were pursuing or not pursuing public corruption or vote fraud cases based on partisan political factors, or otherwise bringing cases which could have an impact on pending elections; (b) Department officials appear to have made false or misleading statements to Congress, many of which sought to minimize the role of White House personnel in the U.S. Attorney firings, or otherwise obstruct the Committee's investigation, and with some participation by White House personnel; and ( c) actions by some Department personnel may have violated civil service laws and some White House employees may have violated the Presidential Records Act. Based on this evidence, and because of the apparent involvement of White House personnel in the U.S. Attorney firings and their aftermath, the committee has sought to obtain relevant documents from the White House and documents and testimony from former White House Counsel Harriet Miers-- who appears to have been significantly involved in the matter--on a voluntary basis and, only after taking all reasonable efforts to obtain a compromise, on a compulsory basis. The committee's subpoenas have been met with consistent resistance, including wide-ranging assertions of executive privilege and immunity from testimony. This has gone so far that the administration indicated in July that it would refuse to allow the District of Columbia U.S. Attorney's office to pursue any congressional contempt citation against the White House's wishes. In addition to the many infirmities and deficiencies in the manner in which the White House Counsel has sought to assert executive privilege, in the present circumstance such privilege claims would be strongly outweighed by the committee's need to obtain such information.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 976, I call up the bill (H.R. 5349) to extend the Protect America Act of 2007 for 21 days, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 5349.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker and Members of the House, what we have discussed this afternoon is far too important to rush the legislative process. I hope we will rise above partisanship today and act responsibly to defend the Constitution as we have all taken an oath to do. And so I urge the bipartisan passage of the measure that has been debated.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order.