John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Dennis Kucinich.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure I recognize a distinguished member of the Judiciary Committee, Adam Schiff of California, for 2 minutes.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Last August, a number of Members with whom I agree lamented the fact that we got jammed by the other body and the clock and ended up with a bad law. Here I am again today trying to stop that same thing from happening again. And yet, in what I can call only in kindness misguided perfectionism, there are those here who would come to the floor to criticize this bill, a 15-day extension. Now it is easy to do that; it is harder to get a good law from both of these bodies at the same time, and that's only what this committee is trying to do this afternoon. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield to the distinguished majority leader of the House of Representatives, Steny Hoyer, 1 minute.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, we reserve our time at this point.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I rise, first, to thank the Members of the House for this very reasonable debate, and I want to thank particularly my colleagues on the other side. Ranking Member Smith has been excellent in helping us work out, as closely as we can with reservations, nothing is perfect, but I appreciate the spirit with which he has come to the floor today. The extension is not a vote for the temporary law that we have been living under since August. It is not a vote against the temporary bill or against what the Senate is working on. It is a vote only to avoid a head-long rush into possibly ill-conceived legislation. And I think we have all been able to come together on that. I'm grateful to our leadership and to the Members on the other side of the aisle for the discussion that brings us here this afternoon.

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

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I rise to voice my strong support for overriding the President's veto of the revised bipartisan SCHIP, State Children's Health Insurance Program, bill--H.R. 3963. Overriding this veto will provide healthcare coverage for 10 million children of working families. This bill will preserve coverage for all 6.6 million children currently covered by SCHIP and extend coverage to 3.8 million children who are currently uninsured, including 80,900 in my home State of Michigan, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. In this weakening economy, more and more American parents are having difficulty finding affordable health insurance for their children. It is estimated that in Michigan, 35,600 additional children will need SCHIP or Medicaid in each year of this economic downturn. Funding the enrollment of children eligible for the SCHIP program is more critical than ever. The bipartisan SCHIP bill is supported by 81 percent of the American people; 64 Senators, including 17 Republicans; 43 Governors, including 16 Republicans; and more than 270 organizations, including the AARP, AMA, Catholic Health Association, and Families USA. House Democrats continue to stand strong to ensure health coverage for all of America's children, while those on the other side of the aisle persist in standing between millions of children and the health care they need. House Republicans should put our children first and override the President's misguided veto.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I rise to voice my strong support for the Mentally III Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction Reauthorization and Improvement Act of 2007. This legislation would provide grants for improved mental health treatment and services provided to offenders with mental illness. Over the course of the past three decades, as our country's mental health infrastructure has deteriorated, many mentally ill individuals have been forced to fend for themselves on the street. Oftentimes, these individuals end up in jail or prison for offenses related to their illness. Unfortunately, our jails and prisons have become the sanatoriums of the 21st century. As mental institutions have closed down, jails and prisons have filled up. In fact, prisons currently hold three times more mentally ill people than do psychiatric hospitals, and prisoners have rates of mental illness that can be as high as four times the rate of the general population. Not surprisingly, the prison system is ill-equipped to deal with the growing number of prisoners requiring psychiatric care. Jails and prisons do not have adequate resources to properly evaluate incarcerated individuals for mental health and substance abuse problems. Police and other law enforcement officials are generally not trained to handle mentally ill offenders. Mental health services may be provided, but they are often underfunded and inadequate. H.R. 3992, the ``Mentally III Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction Reauthorization and Improvement Act of 2007,'' addresses this problem by establishing grants for programs training law enforcement officials to better identify prisoners with mental illness and respond to their needs. In addition, H.R. 3992 would authorize funding for developing receiving centers to assess individuals in law enforcement custody for mental health and substance abuse treatment. Such funding would also be used to improve technology to facilitate information sharing among law enforcement and criminal justice personnel, as well as to promote evidence-based mental health care practices in correctional facilities. Madam Speaker, it is our moral responsibility to provide timely, appropriate and adequate health care to those in the custody of our correctional system. The treatment of mental illness should be no exception.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, today I am pleased to introduce the Caging Prohibition Act of 2008, a critical contribution to the Congress's election reform efforts as we approach the 2008 election. I would like to acknowledge and thank those that join me in this introduction--Representatives Rahm Emanuel, Chris Van Hollen, Xavier Becerra, Rush Holt, Mike Honda, Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick, and Gwen Moore and members of my committee, the Judiciary Committee-- Representatives Jerrold Nadler, Zoe Lofgren, Steven Cohen, and Keith Ellison.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, the provision that caused the President to veto the entire Defense bill simply reaffirms the original intent of Congress to allow victims of terrorism to hold countries that commit or provide material support for terrorist acts accountable. As a principal author of the provision, I am pleased that we were able to salvage much of it. But I am disappointed in the change that the President has insisted on. The President has decided that it is of utmost importance to shield the Iraqi Government from suits by American soldiers who were brutally tortured by the Iraqi Government under Saddam Hussein, as prisoners of war during the gulf war. The soldiers were not only starved, denied sleep, and exposed to extreme temperatures. They were severely beaten, threatened with castration and dismemberment, and put through mock executions. As a result, they have sustained lasting physical and mental injuries. These brave soldiers and their families have been waiting many years for justice in our courts. The President, through the actions of his lawyers in the courts, has endeavored to block their progress at every turn. He has even gone so far as to twist a provision Congress included in the Emergency Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2003, designed to remove restrictions on providing assistance to the new Iraqi Government, into an astonishing claim that Congress somehow implicitly thereby gave him authority to block court jurisdiction over suits against Iraq--a claim that disregards the understanding of those involved in negotiating that provision, as well as article III of the Constitution and the separation of powers. And now, despite these new congressional efforts to help those soldiers, the President wants them to continue to wait--for the good, he says, of the new Iraqi Government. In order for the Defense bill to be signed, my colleagues and I have reluctantly had to amend this provision to allow the President to carve out the Iraqi Government entirely. It is important to note that this change does not affect rights under current law. The President's waiver authority extends only to the provisions being newly enacted in this bill; by its clear terms, it does not extend to current law. There is ongoing litigation regarding the rights of these American soldiers under current law; if the President exercises his new waiver authority, that litigation will proceed unaffected by that waiver. The difference is that, if the President exercises the waiver authority, these soldiers will not be helped by this new provision we wrote and passed, as we wanted them to be, and as they would be absent the waiver. I believe current law, properly interpreted, already gives them the protection they need to obtain justice. Among other things, I believe it is clear, despite the administration's assertions and one aberrational court holding to the contrary, that Congress intended the 1996 amendment to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act to provide an explicit Federal statutory cause of action against state sponsors of terrorism for the victims. That intent is stated explicitly, among other places, in the House Judiciary Committee's report for the bill in the previous Congress, H. Rept. 103-702. In the face of sustained efforts by the President to persuade the courts to disregard congressional intent, we wanted to give these soldiers, and other victims of state-sponsored terrorism, another clear path to obtaining justice. But the soldiers who suffered at the hands of Saddam Hussein will not get the benefit of this other clear path if the President exercises his waiver authority, as we expect he will. And there is always a risk that the courts will be persuaded by the arguments of the President and his lawyers, and reach what we believe would be the wrong interpretation, and deny the soldiers' claims under current law. If so, then the waiver will have the effect of further delaying justice, and a very real possibility of making it harder to obtain at all. Because even though the waiver cannot permanently and irrevocably extinguish their claims, another delay may make it all the more difficult to gather the proof when those claims can once again be pursued. For all these reasons, we did not want to make this change. And when we ultimately concluded that the President was willing to hold the entire Defense bill hostage unless we did, we tried to limit the harm. We wanted the President to have to weigh the interests of the victims in justice, and make specific findings to inform us, and the victims, why he believes those interests are outweighed by the interests of the Iraqi Government, and why he believes those interests cannot fairly be reconciled. We wanted him to have to explain in those findings why he believes it necessary to shelter all of Iraq's assets from legal accountability, even when Iraq is reaping billions upon billions of dollars from its oil fields. We wanted the President to have to reaffirm those findings periodically, so that they would not be set in stone. And we wanted a sunset, to bring a definite end to what we believe is a manifest injustice. Unfortunately, we were not able to achieve these goals. What we have been able to do, instead, is to add a new sense of the Congress that the President should work with the Government of Iraq to get fair compensation to these victims. That is, of course, non- binding; but it could also create a new path to justice. And I hope the President will take it to heart, and act on it, and that through one of these paths, the victims will see some semblance of the justice they have been struggling for these many years. Otherwise, I think the President will have done a grave disservice to these soldiers, who are only 17 in number, and whose treatment at the hands of our enemies, in the service of their country, calls for greater respect than they have been getting.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Chairman, I rise today in support of the passage of H.R. 3524, the ``HOPE VI Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2007.'' This bipartisan bill allows public housing agencies to continue to improve the lives of families in public housing through the revitalization of severely distressed public housing. Throughout America, there are tens of thousands of working families who are in desperate need of affordable housing, but are unable to obtain it, due to a shortage of sufficient public housing units. Passage of H.R. 3524 will dramatically improve the lives of those from low and moderate incomes who are having difficulty finding decent and affordable housing. In Detroit, there are scores of families who are on the public housing waiting list, and are in dire need of affordable housing. Many of these families are forced to stay in homeless shelters, sleep in expensive hotels, or stay with friends and relatives until they can find permanent housing. This bill will provide direct assistance to low-income individuals and families in Detroit who will now have access to more affordable housing units, given that cities and towns across America will have increased federal funding to construct affordable housing units. H.R. 3524 also ensures that the HOPE VI program does not contribute to the loss of public housing. It requires public housing agencies replace any demolished public housing unit with another comparable unit. Furthermore, the legislation gives agencies flexibility in the location of replacement housing by allowing replacement units to be provided in on- site mixed-income housing developments; and in other areas where the public housing agency has jurisdiction. One of the most important benefits of H.R. 3524 is that more Americans will receive expanded housing opportunities through ensuring that families are able to move back into replacement housing units by prohibiting unreasonably stringent rescreening policies and making residents who are otherwise eligible for public housing also eligible for a HOPE VI unit. The bill also encourages resident involvement in the redevelopment planning phases for new affordable housing. This is a critically important provision because it will help ensure that communities impacted by housing redevelopment will have a say in where they are going to live. Also, H.R. 3524 requires the monitoring and tracking of displaced residents by requiring housing authorities to maintain current contact information for each affected household while the mixed-income community is being developed. It is also a progressive bill, in that it implements green building standards in order to provide long-term energy efficiency and savings.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 863) to amend title 18, United States Code, with respect to fraud in connection with major disaster or emergency funds.

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

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Members of the Congress, this important legislation strengthens Federal criminal prohibitions against fraudulent misuse of emergency and disaster relief funds. It passed the Senate earlier this month without opposition. It is a good bill, and one that the House should support. Reports of fraud surfaced almost immediately after the Federal Emergency Management Agency began distributing funds Congress had appropriated for disaster aid to victims of Hurricane Katrina, Hurricane Rita, and Hurricane Wilma. These reports included allegations that funds had been misused to purchase luxury goods, that noneligible persons had applied for and received benefits, and that criminals had established phony Katrina-related Web sites to swindle those who wished to contribute to legitimate disaster assistance efforts. Last year, the GAO reported that it had identified numerous instances of fraud in connection with Katrina and Rita disaster relief. Although the total amount of cost of these fraud schemes is not yet known, the GAO estimates that it will certainly be in the amounts of billions of dollars. Despite diligent efforts by Federal law enforcement agencies to prosecute these schemes, current criminal laws are not adequate to the task. The Emergency and Disaster Assistance Fraud Penalty Enhancement Act addresses that shortcoming in several respects. The bill creates a new Federal crime that specifically prohibits fraud in connection with any emergency or disaster relief benefit as to both Federal assistance and private charitable giving, with fines up to $250,000 for an individual, and up to $500,000 for an organization, and prison terms up to 30 years. The bill also increases prison terms for engaging in mail or wire fraud in connection with emergency or disaster relief to the same levels as currently apply in cases involving bank fraud. The bill also directs the Sentencing Commission to revise its sentencing guidelines for fraud or theft in connection with a major disaster emergency declaration in light of the new statutory changes. It is a bipartisan measure, and will help ensure that disaster assistance funds are received by their intended recipients and used for their intended purposes. I am proud of the work that the Judiciary Committee has done on both sides of the aisle in this matter, and particularly commend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) in his management of this legislation. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the indefatigable member of the Judiciary Committee, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

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

Mr. CONYERS

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

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 660) to amend title 18, United States Code, to protect judges, prosecutors, witnesses, victims, and their family members, and for other purposes.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, Ranking Member Lamar Smith and I are introducing a bill to codify into positive law as title 41, United States Code, certain general and permanent laws related to public contracts. This bill was prepared by the Office of the Law Revision Counsel, as part of its functions under 2 U.S.C. Sec. 285(b). This bill is essentially identical to H.R. 5414, favorably reported by the Committee on the Judiciary in the 109th Congress, updated to incorporate enactments that took place after the earlier bill was prepared. This legislation is not intended to make any substantive changes in the law. As is typical with the codification process, a number of non- substantive revisions are made, including the reorganization of sections into a more coherent overall structure, but these changes are not intended to have any substantive effect. The bill, along with a detailed section-by-section explanation of the bill, can be found on the Law Revision Counsel Web site at http:// uscode.house.gov/cod. The Committee on the Judiciary hopes to act on this bill after providing an opportunity for public review and comment. In addition to sharing concerns with the Committee, interested persons are invited to submit comments to Ken Paretzky, Senior Counsel, Office of the Law Revision Counsel, U.S. House of Representatives, H2-304 Ford House Office Building, Washington, DC, 20515-6711, (202) 226-9061.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, this bill makes important changes to the national instant check system, designed to help States identify and prevent convicted felons and other dangerous individuals from owning firearms. As it currently stands, millions of criminal records are not accessible by the instant check system, and millions of additional records fall through the cracks as a result of backlogs and other problems. The bill will help cure these problems by providing the resources and incentives needed to modernize the system and ensure that the records are up to date. Improving and enhancing the instant check system will help prevent future tragedies such as the Virginia Tech shootings earlier this year, where there is clear reason to know, after due process, that the individual in question should not own a gun. The House has passed this bill in each of the last two Congresses. Now the Senate has passed it, with changes dealing with the procedures for restoring gun ownership rights. While I continue to have reservations about the new process for restoring gun ownership rights to individuals previously diagnosed with mental illness, and will be monitoring its implementation very closely, passage of the underlying bill is extremely important. I want to again thank my good friends Carolyn McCarthy and John Dingell, as well as Rick Boucher from the Judiciary Committee, and Lamar Smith, our Ranking Member, for all their work on this important matter. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 62) to correct the enrollment of H.R. 660.

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

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, this concurrent resolution enables us to agree with the Senate on H.R. 660, the Court Security Improvement Act, and send that important bill to the President by correcting a PAYGO problem in the version of H.R. 660 that the Senate passed on Monday. The Senate passed this concurrent resolution last night. When we pass it now, it will have the effect of removing the problematic provision from the Senate amendment to H.R. 660. We will next turn to final passage of H.R. 660, and it will be sent to the President stripped of that provision. I pause now to personally commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) for the wonderful job that he has done in helping us work out the matters that needed final adjustment. I urge our Members to support this concurrent resolution so we can send this much-needed legislation on its way to final enactment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the resolution as well, and I yield back the balance of my time.