John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the committee, I rise to yield myself such time as I may consume. Ladies and gentlemen of the House of Representatives, although we passed the constitutional amendment against slavery in 1865, slavery still exists, not just in the world, but in the United States of America. And so we begin an examination of H.R. 3887, commending the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Republicans and Democrats, and commending those members of the House Judiciary Committee, Republicans and Democrats, that have come together today to pass under suspension H.R. 3887. Slavery is a social, ugly circumstance that still controls and guides the destiny of so many people in this country. It is important that the 13th amendment's guarantee of freedom operates, whether it involves forced prostitution, whether it operates in farms or sweat shops, or in domestic service. Mr. Speaker, if you could have heard the powerful testimony that was given by our witnesses on this bill. It shocked me. People were forced to live and work under conditions of fear and terror that was extended to their parents. A young woman, who couldn't even use her real name in the committee, told about the trafficking of human beings inside of America, in the City of Detroit, where this club was using her to commit all kinds of acts and raise huge amounts of money at the same time. As one of the television shows on NBC showed yesterday morning, guess what? There is more money being taken out of prostitution in America than in the drug industry. Drugs come number two to prostitution and involuntary servitude. This is what brings all of us to the floor today. I am very proud of these two committees in the House that are dealing with new enforcement tools to combat modern-day slavery, whether the exploitation is by unscrupulous labor recruiters, by diplomats who abuse their services, or by brutal street pimps who coerce and keep under their domain these women, young women, at that. Mr. Speaker, I want to just take a moment here to respond to concerns to that an aspect of this bill, that it will somehow federalize prostitution. That is not the case. That is not what we are trying to do. The sex slavery offense, renamed ``aggravated sex trafficking,'' still captures cases of coercion that implicate the 13th amendment. The new ``sex trafficking offenses'' improves the Mann Act to allow prosecution of pimps who affect commerce but don't actually cross State lines. This new tool should not diminish other anti-slavery efforts or the fight against child exploitation. We expect it to be used consistently with the principles of Federal prosecution that defer to local authority as appropriate. We want the States to control the prosecution of this offense. There is no place in today's America for slavery. And for that reason, H.R. 3887 is critically important, because it puts new potency in the Thirteenth Amendment's guarantee of freedom: whether on farms or sweatshops, in domestic service or forced prostitution. In a recent hearing before the House Judiciary Committee, we heard moving and powerful testimony from a young woman who has further inspired us to work together to bring this bill to the floor, to draw the line against modern slavery. The bravery of that young woman, her story, and her willingness to speak on behalf of all victims of human trafficking, are an example for all of us, and a call to action for us to meet again our Nation's ongoing mission to deliver on the promise of freedom that has been enshrined in our Constitution since the Civil War. The Thirteenth Amendment's prohibition against involuntary servitude and slavery is as important and basic a civil right today as it was at the time of Emancipation. Its promise of freedom is a sacred trust, written in the suffering of all of those who have been held in bondage. As a country, we owe it to them to never stop fighting for freedom. This bill is named in honor of William Wilberforce, the famous English antislavery legislator of the Nineteenth Century. It will equip our law enforcers with tough new enforcement tools to combat modern slavery, whether the exploitation is by unscrupulous labor recruiters, by diplomats who abuse their servants, or by brutal pimps. It will protect immigrants and U.S. citizens alike within our country, and provide law enforcement training and victim protections overseas as well. I would like to take a minute to respond to concerns that aspects of the bill could somehow ``federalize'' all prostitution and pimping. This is not the case. The servitude offense--which the bill renames ``aggravated sex trafficking''--still captures only those prostitution offenses that implicate a liberty interest under the 13th amendment because they involve coercion. The new ``compelled service'' crime allows more flexibility in proving enslavement. And the crime entitled ``sex trafficking'' improves the Mann Act to allow prosecution of pimps whose activities affect interstate commerce, not just those who actually cross a State line. It is not our intent to redirect resources away from child exploitation, terrorism, or other important law enforcement, or to depart from the principles of federal prosecution that defer to local prosecutions where possible and serve as a ``backstop'' to catch the worst of the worst. This approach maintains the structure and definitions of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000, and builds upon the good work of the Civil Rights Division and its antitrafficking task forces around the country. As was noted in yesterday's New York Times, these Federal and State task forces are vigorously confronting modern slavery in forced prostitution and forced labor alike. We expect those efforts to continue, and now to intensify with these additional enforcement tools. This bill brings law enforcement officials and service providers together, to punish traffickers and to protect victims and their families. And it provides critical immigration mechanisms to protect children and other vulnerable people. In the 1800s, escaped slaves such as Frederick Douglass and Sojourner Truth spoke out against chattel slavery. Their voices, and the voices and efforts of many others, led to a constitutional commitment that everyone in this country would be forevermore free from slavery and involuntary servitude. The young woman who testified before our committee did not allow her enslavement and incarceration to silence her either. She became a voice not only for herself, but for other victims of slavery in its various forms, many of whom remain in bondage. We owe it to her, and to the millions who continue under the oppression of modern slavery and involuntary servitude, to support this bill.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the chairman of the Crime Subcommittee, who has worked with us in a highly cooperative way.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) first dusted off the 13th amendment of the Constitution in 1999, but it is the present chairman of the Constitution Subcommittee in the Judiciary, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), who has brought this incredibly important constitutional amendment, enacted in 1865, into real live use, and I am proud to recognize the chairman of that committee for 2\1/4\ minutes.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, this bill, the Wilberforce bill, tracks the definitions in the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of the year 2000, builds upon the good work of the civil rights division within the Department of Justice and its anti-trafficking task forces around the country which vigorously confront modern-day slavery which does exist in forced prostitution and forced labor alike. We expect these efforts to continue, and we will monitor them with great scrutiny. In the 1800s, escaped slaves such as Frederick Douglass and Sojourner Truth, who came out of this brutal experience in America, spoke out against chattel slavery. Their voices and the voices of many others led to a constitutional commitment that everyone in this country would be forevermore free from bondage. The young lady who testified with an assumed name before the Judiciary Committee did not allow her suffering to silence her. And neither will our voices be silenced. We urge that this bill pass, hopefully unanimously, from the House of Representatives.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to yield the balance of our time on our side to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas, Sheila Jackson-Lee, an invaluable member of the Judiciary Committee.

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 H.R. 3773.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Members of the House, the RESTORE Act dealing with FISA addresses the needs of the intelligence community for flexibility in dealing with modern communications networks. It received the most careful scrutiny and consideration by this Committee on the Judiciary, as well as by the Intelligence Committee, chaired by Chairman Reyes, to ensure that it meets every concern our intelligence agencies have raised, every single one of them, and does so consistent with the rules of law, our Constitution, and our values. Let's begin this discussion this evening by clearing up a few things that the bill will not do. The RESTORE Act will never require our intelligence agencies to stop listening to the bad guys. Never. Special emergency provisions allow us to listen first and get the warrant after the fact, if it's needed. No one will ever have to stop listening to a terrorist plotting an attack. I hope I don't hear that raised on the floor this evening. The RESTORE Act will not make our intelligence agencies have to get thousands of warrants for terrorists outside the country. It will not do that. Instead, a basket authorization will permit surveillance of an entire foreign terrorist organization. This is the most effective way to target Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda, and other threats to our country and our citizens. The RESTORE Act does not give the government free rein to listen to Americans. As has always been the case under FISA, this bill requires that the government get a warrant to target an American; any American. We have also a manager's amendment, which continues to promote the goals of intelligence flexibility with appropriate oversight, while safeguarding our security and our liberty. It makes clear that the protections of the act will not inhibit gathering intelligence against present dangers, such as Osama bin Laden, or threats to our troops in the field. It does provide guidelines to make it easier to determine when the significant purpose of the surveillance act is to acquire information on a United States person and a FISA warrant is needed. It provides important safeguards on dissemination of information about individual Americans when it's acquired under the RESTORE Act's more flexible structure. Specifically, an SES-level manager will review such dissemination on a particularized basis. Importantly, the RESTORE Act has no retroactive immunity for telecommunications carriers who may have assisted the government in conducting unlawful surveillance on Americans. I am sorry to report to you that the other body has a measure that does give that retroactive immunity. The RESTORE Act now on the floor has no retroactive immunity for telecommunications carriers who may have assisted the government in unlawful surveillance on Americans. Until we receive the information, the data, the letters that we have requested to know what they have done, information we have been waiting for more than 10 months for, we can't even begin to responsibly consider such a request. So as of now, it's out. No retroactive immunity. The legislation that we have before us now is a much-needed start to restoring our system of checks and balances, preserving our liberty, and ensuring that our government has the tools they legitimately need to combat terrorism. We got pressed up against the wall in August. It's not going to happen again. There's a 6-month run on the present measure before us. Before we get pushed up against the holidays, we are saying, Let's do it now. We have had a tremendous working relationship with the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, Silvestre Reyes, and his staff and my staff. Majority and minority have been working closely together to bring to you a commonsense and balanced piece of legislation that does what we set out to do, and that is to preserve our liberties and make sure we have effective security. We want our intelligence agencies strong, but we want to bring the FISA Court back into the picture, and we do in the measure before us. Six years ago, the administration unilaterally chose to engage in warrantless surveillance of American citizens without court review. That decision has--to be charitable--created a legal and political quagmire. Officials resigned, the program was riddled with errors, it was shut down for several weeks, officials rushed to the hospital to ask a sick man to reauthorize it over his deputy's objections, and vital prosecutorial resources were diverted. Most importantly, our own citizens questioned wheher their own government was operating within the confines of the law. Two months ago, when that scheme appeared to be breaking down, the administration forced Congress to accept an equally flawed statute. This new law gutted the power of the FISA court. It granted the administration broad new powers to engage in warrantless searches within the U.S., including physical searches of our homes, computers, offices and medical records. The law contained no meaningful oversight whatsoever. The legislation before us today seeks to once again strike the appropriate balance between needed government authority and our precious rights and liberties. It tells the government they need no warrant when foreign agents communicate with other foreigners. It reiterates that warrants are needed when Americans are being targeted. The bill also allows the interception of communications of foreign targets who may communicate with U.S. persons. However, it insists that procedures be in place--approved by the FISA court--to insure that no American is being targeted, and that his or her privacy is protected. The bill also provides for several critical safeguards. We include periodic audits by the Inspector General, we narrow the scope of the authority to protect against threats to our national security, and we protect the privacy of Americans traveling abroad. We also sunset the legislation in December 2009. The RESTORE Act, which has received careful consideration by the Judiciary Committee and by the Intelligence Committee, addresses the needs of the intelligence community for flexibility and the ability to deal with modern communications networks. It meets every concern that our intelligence agencies have raised and does so consistent with the rule of law, our Constitution, and our values. Let me be clear on a few things this bill will NOT do: The RESTORE Act will never require our intelligence agencies to stop listening to the bad guys. Never. There are emergency provisions and the ability to get a warrant after the fact. No one will ever have to stop listening to a terrorist plotting an attack. It will not make our intelligence agencies get thousands of warrants for terrorists outside of the country. Instead, they can get a basket authorization to surveil the entire foreign terrorist organization. This is the most effective way to target Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda, and other threats. The RESTORE Act does not give the government free rein to listen in to Americans. As has always been the case under FISA, this bill requires the government to get a warrant if it wants to target an American. The Managers' Amendment also reflects the RESTORE Act's goals of intelligence flexibility and oversight, while ensuring both safety and civil liberties. It makes it clear that the protections of the Act will not inhibit gathering intelligence against present dangers, such as Osama bin Laden or threats to our troops in the field. It provides guidelines to flesh out what should be considered when determining whether a significant purpose of collection is to acquire information about a U.S. person, such that a FISA warrant would be required. The Manager's Amendment also provides important safeguards on dissemination of information about individual Americans when it is acquired under the RESTORE Act's more flexible structure. Dissemination of U.S. person communications acquired under the RESTORE Act's basket authorities can only happen when an SES-Ievel supervisor determines that the identity of that person is needed to understand or assess the importance of the foreign intelligence, and to protect the national security of the United States. This is not a blanket authorization to unmask everyone intercepted, but must be done on a person-by-person basis. Importantly, the bill has no retroactive immunity for telecommunications carriers. Until we receive the underlying documents relating to their conduct from the administration--and we have been waiting for more than ten months--we cannot even begin to consider this request. Sending a small set of the documents to a subcommittee of the other body does not begin to meet this test. There is one of the grave concerns about the Protect America Act that bears mention as we consider the RESTORE Act. The Protect America Act was overbroad in the types of entities from which the government could compel information, reaching into business or medical records or libraries. We have narrowed the scope of the acquisitions in the RESTORE Act to ensure that the government can only seek information under the ``basket authorizations'' from telecommunications service providers and related companies. I share the concern of our library community that believes their mission and the chance to bring knowledge and freedom of expression abroad will be diminished if the U.S. government can indiscriminately monitor American libraries when they serve foreign users. This is not a hypothetical concern in an age of distance learning. While a library certainly is not the same kind of ``communications service provider'' as AOL or AT&T, it may allow patrons to access the internet, to send emails, and to conduct research on-line, so it literally ``provides'' these communications services to patrons. The Judiciary Committee report indicates that these now-standard library services do not make them ``telecommunications service providers'' for a 105B or 105C acquisition, but let me be clear--nothing in the bill is intended to leave libraries outside of the protections of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The legislation before us today is a much needed start to restoring our system of checks and balances, to preserving our precious liberties, and to insuring that our government has all the tools they legitimately need to combat terrorism. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this common sense and balanced legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. I thank the chairman. I am really moved by the sudden concern for immigration rights that the other side has begun to display, to my surprise. I yield now to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. CONYERS. I can't give you time. I have got less than anybody here. No. I reserve the balance of my time. Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to recognize a very effective member of our committee, Mr. Schiff of California, as well as the gentleman Mr. Flake of Arizona, and I would yield them 2 minutes.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, it is very important that we understand that Mr. Lungren in his dramatic presentation about the cumbersomeness and the protections that we are affording bin Laden almost begs the question here. We have been on this bill for several times. We have got a carve-out here. Nothing prevents conducting lawful surveillance that is necessary to, one, prevent Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda or any other terrorists, Mr. Lungren, or any ally of those persons from receiving any of these protections. We can operate against them without giving them any rights, and I think you must know that by now.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am stunned by my friend from California's comments, but I yield now 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), the chairman of the Constitution Subcommittee in Judiciary.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure now to recognize the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz), a member of the Judiciary Committee, for 1\1/4\ minutes.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Would the former Attorney General of California yield?

Mr. CONYERS. That is why I seek to have you yield to me, sir. Osama bin Laden is never going to have any rights superior to any citizen.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott). (Mr. SCOTT of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to yield 1 minute to the Speaker of the House, the gentlewoman from California, Nancy Pelosi.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentlemen of the House, here we are again at another one of these so-called motions to recommit. Approach them with great care. I strongly oppose this motion. The minority has just made it clear that they are not seeking to change the bill; they are seeking to kill the bill. The tactic is getting pretty old in the House of Representatives. If they wanted to vote on their proposal today, they would have used the word, doesn't everybody know it now, ``forthwith,'' as I have suggested. But they have refused under well-established House rules and precedents. Other words do not have that effect, even if they sound like they should. The minority used the word ``promptly.'' It's no accident that they chose that word. The authors of this motion know full well the effect of choosing this word, and so do we. That is why they chose it. They wanted to send the bill back to the graveyard, which is what will happen if this motion is adopted. I would now yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order, and I object to waiving the reading of the motion to recommit.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield to the distinguished chairman of the Intelligence Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I do not insist upon my point of order.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to respond to the motion to recommit.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3915, the Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act of 2007, legislation to combat abusive practices and improve oversight of the mortgage industry. The Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act of 2007 will reform mortgage practices in three areas. First, the bill will establish a Federal duty of care, prohibit steering, and call for licensing and registration of mortgage originators, including brokers and bank loan officers. Second, the new legislation will set a minimum standard for all mortgages which states that borrowers must have a reasonable ability to repay. Third, the legislation attaches limited liability to secondary market securitizers who package and sell interest in home mortgage loans outside of these standards. However, individual investors in these securities would not be liable. Finally, the bill expands and enhances consumer protections for ``high-cost loans'' under the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act and includes important protections for renters of foreclosed homes. Passage of H.R. 3915 could potentially help hundreds of thousands of homeowners across this Nation who are facing home foreclosures, and need more flexible terms in paying back their mortgages given that we are experiencing increased job layoffs; especially in Detroit and the State of Michigan. According to the Michigan Association of Realtors, the State of Michigan is in deep systematic recession. The auto industry has lost tens of thousands of jobs in the past few years, and there are more cuts to come. In fact, Michigan saw 11,554 new foreclosures filings in February 2007. That put one of every 366 Michigan households at risk of losing a home because of missed mortgage payments. The Wayne County/Detroit area reported 6,653 new foreclosures in January of 2007, more than twice the number reported in December 2007. That amounts to one new filing for every 124 households. H.R. 3915 would create a more progressive and equitable home mortgage loan policy that will help scores of working families across this Nation and Michigan keep their homes; and prevent them from becoming homeless. This legislation will address the ongoing practice of routing unsuspecting borrowers into loans that are not appropriate for their needs and that they can't afford. H.R. 3915 will also stop the practice of creative loan financing by unscrupulous brokers who may unnecessarily increase the fees and costs to write the loan. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson called the housing downtown ``the most significant current risk to the U.S. economy.'' Last week Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said the situation will get worse before it gets better. Many believe that faulty mortgage lending practices have precipitated this credit crisis, and that the situation will get worse before it gets better. Therefore, I believe that this legislative remedy is a much needed remedy in a time of crisis. I want to thank my friend Chairman Barney Frank and my Republican colleagues for their bipartisan work to create an outstanding piece of legislation that moves us in a proactive direction. In conclusion, let me say that this comprehensive bill brings sweeping and much-needed changes to the mortgage market. It will reform many of the flaws in the current system that has led to the mortgage foreclosure crisis. The American people have asked us to provide the tools and oversight necessary to address this crisis and we have been able to achieve that goal. I whole heartedly give my complete support to this legislation. It is my belief that this bill reflects the principles of the Democratic Party which historically has ensured that the Federal Government will provide a safety net and protection for working families in a time of need.