CONYERS: In The Wake Of Vegas Mass Shooting, Top Judiciary & National Resoures Dems Call On Speaker Ryan To Pull Gun Silencer Bill From House Floor

Washington, D.C. – Following the tragic shooting in Las Vegas, Nevada, that has taken the lives of 58 people and injured more than 500, House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI) and House Natural Resources Committee Ranking Member Raúl M. Grijalva (D-AZ) sent a letter, below, to House Speaker Paul Ryan calling for him to remove H.R. 3668, the so-called “Sportsmen’s Heritage and Recreational Enhancement Act,” from the House calendar indefinitely.

The firearms-related provisions of H.R. 3668 would (1) weaken regulation of the interstate transportation of firearms; (2) make it easier for private citizens to obtain silencers by removing silencers from the protections in the National Firearms Act (NFA), which currently restricts the possession and sale of certain particularly dangerous firearms and accessories; and (3) remove the “sporting purposes” clause, which restricts the importation of firearms with certain features, and eliminate the ability of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to reclassify certain ammunition as “armor piercing ammunition.”

In their letter, the Members wrote, “…we ask that you immediately announce that this legislation will not be taken up by the House of Representatives.  It is not enough to simply hold a moment of silence, or place U.S. flags at half-staff; rather we believe that, in the wake of the horrific shootings last evening in Las Vegas, you must clearly state that the House will not seek to make matters worse by passing this legislation, which includes a number of provisions that would make us more vulnerable to mass shootings and subject our citizens and law enforcement personnel to an increased risk of gun violence.”

The Members continued, “…In active shooter situations, law enforcement must respond quickly to locate the shooter in order to prevent the carnage from continuing.  Silencing or muffling the sound of gun shots would make this more difficult, preventing quick response, such as the brave actions of law enforcement to quickly locate and take action against the shooter last night and those of the police officers that located and took down the man who shot and killed five officers in Dallas last year.  This situation illustrates the danger posed by the proliferation of silencers, particularly when the regulation of them is proposed to be weakened substantially – even allowing them to be sold with no checks whatsoever in some circumstances. ”

House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Conyers and Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations Ranking Member Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) also sent a letter, below, to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte to renew their call for hearings on these issues.

Judiciary Letter to Ryan on Sportsmen’s Heritage and Recreational Enhancement Act Hr 3668 by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Second Letter to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte to renew their call for hearings on firea... by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

CONYERS: House Judiciary Committee To Consider Sessions' Recusal and Comey Firing Resolution

Washington, DC – On Wednesday, July 26, 2017, the House Judiciary Committee will consider Representatives Pramila Jayapal (WA-07) and David Cicilline’s (RI-01) resolution of inquiry requesting the Trump Administration to release any and all information pertaining to Attorney General Sessions’ involvement in the firing of FBI Director James Comey in violation of his recusal and related matters. The full text of the Resolution of Inquiry can be found, below.

Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr., issued the following statement:

 

Dean of the U.S. House
of Representatives
John Conyers, Jr.

“The Majority has shown itself to be in complete lockstep with President Trump.  Rather than talk about a crisis at the Department of Justice, our colleagues would rather re-litigate the 2016 election and question the credibility of a long list of public servants who no longer work for the government.

“There is simply no excuse for our Committee’s failure to hold a single oversight hearing on these matters.  Their attempt to hide behind stale conspiracy theories is both tone deaf and counterproductive.  It makes the Majority complicit in the actions of President Trump and his associates.

“I am disappointed that the Republicans denied us an opportunity to debate our resolution, but we will not be deterred.  Whether the crisis comes to the Committee or the Committee comes to the crisis, we will conduct oversight of the Trump Administration.”

BACKGROUND:  A resolution of inquiry is a legislative tool that has privileged parliamentary status, meaning it can be brought to the floor if the relevant committee hasn’t reported it within 14 legislative days, even if the Majority leadership has not scheduled it for a vote.

House Judiciary Committee Democrats have long been calling for House Judiciary Republicans to provide proper oversight over Trump and his Administration. Democrats have written to Chairman Goodlatte four times to request hearings on Russian interference with the 2016 election, potential collusion with Russia, the firing of James Comey and Attorney General Sessions’ recusal. 

 Democrats have also sent several letters to Speaker Paul Ryan, the Department of Justice and the White House requesting related information. 

Despite Judiciary Republicans’ attempts to block Democratic efforts, resolutions of inquiry should be the proper next step in the Committee’s oversight of the Trump Administration.  House Judiciary Republicans have so far blocked Rep. Jerrold Nadler’s (D-NY) resolution of inquiry and Reps. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) and Ted Lieu’s (D-CA) resolution of inquiry, from reaching the House floor.  

House Judiciary Committee Resolution Of Inquiry Requesting Trump Administration To Release Information On S... by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

House Judiciary GOP Skip Out On Trump-Russia Resolution Debate; Vote To Kill Two Dem Requests For Information From WH & DOJ

Majority Once Again, Refuses Dem Attempts to Conduct Basic Oversight

Washington, DC – Today, House Judiciary Committee Republicans voted to kill H. Res. 184, below, a resolution of inquiry introduced by Reps. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) and Ted Lieu (D-CA), that would have required the White House and Department of Justice to release information about contacts between Russian officials and Attorney General Jeff Sessions, among other Trump Administration figures. Republicans on the committee also voted down H. Res. 203,  (second below) introduced by Rep. Mike Quigley (D-IL), that would have required the White House and Justice Department to provide information, if any, on Trump’s unsubstantiated allegation that President Obama “wiretapped” him.  

House Judiciary Republicans Appear Uninterested in Oversight: During the markup, Republicans refused to engage in debate on the resolutions.  The Majority’s side of the room was largely empty.  Chairman Goodlatte repeatedly referred to the resolutions as a “waste of the committee’s time.”  Both resolutions failed on party line votes.

Judiciary Republicans were mostly absent from today’s debate.

House Judiciary Republicans Reject Amendment to get Information on Nunes’ Visit to the White House:  During the markup, Vice Ranking Member Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) offered an amendment to H. Res. 203 to request information related to Chairman Devin Nunes’ secretive visit to the White House.  On March 23, 2017, Chairman Devin Nunes of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence told reporters that, “on numerous occasions, the intelligence community incidentally collected information about U.S. citizens involved in the Trump transition.”  Chairman Nunes then traveled back to the White House to share his findings with President Donald Trump.  He still has not shared those findings with his colleagues on the Committee.  Republicans voted down this amendment on a party line vote.

House Judiciary Republicans Limit Debate on Trump’s Lies, Nunes’ Behavior, and Sessions’ False Testimony:  Several times during the markup, Chairman Goodlatte threatened to “take down” the statements of Members attempting to describe the factual record—in effect, forcing them to withdraw their words from the record or lose their speaking privileges for the day.  House Rules prohibit impugning the character or motives of the President—but it is true, as Ranking Members Conyers stated, that “President Trump has a long and colorful history of saying things that are simply untrue.”

House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI), House Judiciary Committee Members Reps. Hakeem Jeffries and Ted Lieu, and House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Member Rep. Mike Quigley, today released the following statement after the markup:

“Once again, Republicans have proven that they’d rather become complicit with scandals than engage in proper oversight of the Trump Administration. Today, Republicans on the Judiciary Committee took their second and third votes to block Democratic efforts to obtain basic information about interactions between Trump’s inner circle and Putin’s Russia. Republicans can no longer sit idly by and pretend that none of these matters of vital national security importance are real. The American people expect more and the future of our democracy requires it.”

Background

House Judiciary Committee Democrats have long been calling for House Judiciary Republicans to provide proper oversight over Trump and his Administration. On March 10^th, every Democratic member of the Committee called on Chairman Goodlatte to “get moving on Trump oversight.”

Despite Judiciary Republicans’ attempts to block Democratic efforts, these resolutions of inquiry should be the proper next step in the Committee’s oversight of the Trump Administration. They follow two letters to Chairman Bob Goodlatte—both signed by every Democratic member of the Committee—requesting hearings about federal conflict-of-interest and ethics provisions that may apply to the President.  Democrats have also sent several letters to Speaker Paul Ryan, (third below) the Department of Justice and the White House requesting this and related information concerning Trump’s ties to Russia. 

Just a few weeks ago, House Judiciary Republicans blocked Rep. Jerrold Nadler’s (D-NY) resolution of inquiry from reaching the House floor.  The Nadler resolution would have provided Congress with information relevant to President Trump’s conflicts of interest, his potential violations of the Foreign Emoluments Clause, and ties between his advisors and the Russian regime.  During that markup, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) and Chairman Goodlatte (R-VA) indicated that the Nadler resolution was unnecessary because the Majority was drafting a bipartisan letter to Attorney General Sessions.  To date, no such letter has been sent.

H.R. 184 Inquiry Requesting President and Attorney General To Turn Over Documents To Congress on Russian Co... by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Letter to House Judiciary Chairman Goodlatte on Congressional Oversight of DOJ Trump-Russia Investigation... by Beverly Tran on Scribd

House Ranking Members to Speaker Ryan On President Trump Violating Emolument Clause 1-12-2017 by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

HOUSE JUDICIARY GOP VOTE TO KILL TRUMP CONFLICTS & RUSSIA TIES RESOLUTION

Washington, DC – On February 28, 2017, House Judiciary Committee Republicans voted to kill Rep. Jerrold Nadler’s (D-NY) resolution of inquiry, H. Res. 111. The resolution would have directed the Department of Justice (DOJ) to provide the House of Representatives with information relevant to President Trump’s conflicts of interest, his potential violations of the Foreign Emoluments Clause, and ties between his campaign advisors and the Russian regime.  The full text of the Resolution of Inquiry can be found here.

House Judiciary Republicans Offer Excuses Instead of Oversight: During the hearing, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) attempted to justify his opposition to H. Res 111 by claiming that he plans to send a letter to request information from DOJ.  Chairman Goodlatte (R-VA) also indicated that he was working on a letter to DOJ. However, there is nothing that would prevent Members from voting for a resolution as well as sending letters.   

GOP arguments ignored the fact that the resolution already follows two letters to Chairman Bob Goodlatte—both signed by every Democratic member of the Committee—requesting hearings about federal conflict-of-interest and ethics provisions that may apply to the President.  Democrats have also sent several letters to Speaker Paul Ryan, the Department of Justice and the White House requesting this and related information concerning Trump’s ties to Russia.

House Judiciary Republicans Won’t Acknowledge Concerns over Clear Russia Ties:During the hearing, Rep. Darrell Issa mischaracterized statements by Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), Ranking Member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, suggesting that he had reviewed evidence and found nothing to suggest contacts between the Russian government and the Trump campaign.  In reality, the intelligence committee has not yet received any new information, a point that Rep. Schiff made clear yesterday and confirmed to Democratic Members today.

During the markup, Rep. Steve King (R-IA) questioned the unanimous conclusion of the Intelligence Community that the Russian government attempted to influence the recent election--a conclusion that even President Trump has come to accept.

House Judiciary Republicans Reject Critical Amendments: House Judiciary Committee Republicans rejected an amendment offered by Rep. Ted Deutch (D-FL) that would have requested the Department of Justice to disclose information concerning inappropriate contacts between the White House and the FBI. The amendment failed on a party line vote of 15-18.View amendment text here.

The Majority also rejected an amendment offered by Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) that would have asked the Department of Justice to provide information about the possible recusal of Attorney General Sessions, in light of his personal and political connections to the Trump campaign. The amendment failed on a party line vote of 15-16. View amendment text here.

During the markup, Republicans also moved to “take down” from the Committee transcript (or censor) Rep. Ted Lieu’s words even though he had merely sought to state that President Trump was responsible for repeated lies and misstatements.

House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI) released the following statement after the markup:

“Today’s vote is part of a concerted effort by Republicans, from Donald Trump and his White House staff to the Congressional Majority, to block efforts to expose the truth about alleged wrongdoing by the Trump campaign and the Trump administration.  I’m deeply disappointed in the Majority’s refusal to provide proper oversight over President Trump and his Administration. If passed, this resolution would have granted us access to information on Mr. Trump’s conflicts of interest and alleged ties to Russia. It’s long past time for the Majority to do their jobs and hold the Trump administration accountable.  I am hopeful that the American people will continue to make their voices heard in their pursuit of the truth.”

Background: A resolution of inquiry requesting information to be provided by the Administration can be brought to the floor if the relevant Committee fails to report it within 14 legislative days.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Ryan Calls Ferguson Painting ‘Disgusting’

House Speaker Paul D. Ryan is siding with his party and wants the painting of police-community relations in Ferguson, Missouri, that depicts police officers and others as animals to be taken down.

“This is disgusting and it’s not befitting the Capitol,” Ryan said Thursday on “The Mike Gallagher Show,” adding that “this isn’t a question of First Amendment rights.”

Missouri Democratic Rep. William Lacy Clay, who sponsored the painting and has consistently fought for it, fired back.

- See more at: http://www.rollcall.com/news/hoh/speaker-ryan-calls-ferguson-painting-disgusting#sthash.XZSTPBZ0.dpuf


Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

HOUSE JUDICIARY DEMS RELEASE LETTER FROM MORE THAN 35 LAW PROFESSORS EXPRESSING CONSTITUTIONAL CONCERNS OVER GOP STREAMING BAN PROPOSAL COMING TO HOUSE FLOOR TODAY

Background: House Judiciary Committee Democrats today released a letter led by former

constitutional law professor and newly elected Congressman Jamie Raskin and signed by more than 35 law professors and scholars from across the country, which expresses constitutional concerns over Republican leadership’s proposal to allow administrative officers to impose fines on Members of Congress for using an electronic device to photograph or record House floor proceedings. This proposal is part of a rules package that will come to the House floor today and is an apparent reaction to the Democratic sit-in on the House floor last June.

House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI), House Committee on Rules Ranking Member Louise Slaughter (D-NY), House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution Ranking Member Steve Cohen (D-TN), and Subcommittee on Intellectual Property Ranking Member, and former chair of the Subcommittee on the Constitution Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) released a joint statement last week on the proposal.

Conyers, Slaughter, Nadler & Cohen: New Republican Rule Is a Modern Day Gag Rule

Washington, DC – House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI), House Committee on Rules Ranking Member Louise Slaughter (D-NY), House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution Ranking Member Steve Cohen (D-TN), and Subcommittee on Intellectual Property Ranking Member, and former chair of the Subcommittee on the Constitution Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) today released a joint statement on the proposed Republican Rules package, which, among other things, would delegate to the Sergeant-at-Arms the  authority to impose fines of up to $2,500 per offense against any Member who uses an electronic device to photograph or record House floor proceedings. 

This is an apparent reaction to the Democratic sit-in on the House floor last June over the Republicans’ failure to bring up common sense gun safety legislation in the wake of the Orlando night club shootings.

“House Republican Leadership, as one of its first priorities for the incoming Congress, seeks to impose a modern day and unconstitutional gag rule to restrict the First Amendment rights of Members to protest and engage in other forms of expression on the House floor as well as deny them due process."

This unprecedented rule change, which appears to violate several fundamental constitutional protections, clearly is intended to undermine the rights of Members in the Minority to freely express their views on the House floor, which is a critical means by which Members communicate to the American public. 

It is particularly egregious that such a controversial and potentially unlawful change is being implemented in the complete absence of hearings or input from legal experts, let alone the Minority.

“In effect, this proposed rule change would empower a protocol official to unilaterally impose a fine against a Member who uses an electronic device to photograph or record House floor proceedings without affording the Member any due process."

Even the threat of this fine would have a chilling effect on the right of Members to express their views on the House floor, which is one of the most fundamental protections under the Constitution’s Speech or Debate Clause as well as the First Amendment. 

"As the U.S. Supreme Court recognized more than 50 years ago in Mills v. Alabama, ‘Whatever differences may exist about interpretations of the First Amendment, there is practically universal agreement that a major purpose of that Amendment was to protect the free discussion of governmental affairs.’

“In addition, the proposed rule change fails to provide a Member any due process to contest the imposition of the fine before it is automatically deducted from the Member’s salary, the diminution of which is protected by the 27th Amendment."

“Rather than ensuring greater transparency and promoting full and fair debate, the House Republican Leadership has chosen to do the very opposite by authorizing ‘speech police’ to restrict the First Amendment right of the Minority to express their dissent on the House floor. Surely this could not happen on the floor of the U.S. House, given that we’re sworn to uphold the Constitution.”

114th Congress

HOUSE JUDICIARY DEMS RELEASE LETTER FROM MORE THAN 35 LAW PROFESSORS EXPRESSING CONSTITUTIONAL CONCERNS OVE... by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

CONYERS Swears In Paul Ryan As Speaker Of The House For The 115th Congress

As the Dean of the U.S. House of Representatives, I had an opportunity to swear in House Speaker Paul Ryan for the 115th Congress. I thank the people of Southeast Michigan for entrusting me with this great honor to serve them in Congress. Our fight for jobs, justice and peace is far from over.

Dean of the U.S. House
of Representatives
John Conyers, Jr.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) Demand Assistance for Flint Recovery in GOP Funding Bill

WASHINGTON, D.C. – CBC Chairman G. K. Butterfield (D-NC), Rep. John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI), and Rep. Brenda Lawrence (D-MI) issued the following response to Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R-WI) and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) regarding the Republican spending bill:

Dean of the U.S. House
of Representatives
John Conyers, Jr.

“Flint’s citizens have suffered unacceptable damage and continue to suffer because Republicans are more interested in providing lip service than they are resources,” said Congressman Conyers. “Water is a basic human right and it’s shameful that many Flint residents are stuck with using water bottles to bathe, cook, drink and care for themselves and their families; some not having access to any clean water at all because they are homebound or cannot afford transportation. With funding for Flint omitted from the continuing resolution, it’s clear: minority and low-income communities are not even the slightest priority for our Republican-led Congress. We must ensure Flint’s water is made fully safe, its children and families made whole, and justice is served to those who stripped Flint’s citizens of the right to protect themselves.”

“The Congressional Black Caucus was early to call for immediate funding to assist in the recovery of the Flint, Michigan water crisis, and we are deeply concerned that such assistance is not included in the Republican’s bill to fund the government,” said CBC Chairman Butterfield. “Clean drinking water is a basic human right. Yet, since April 2014, tens of thousands of American children and families in Flint have been drinking and bathing in poisonous water –thousands of families have been harmed—and it is simply outrageous to think that Republicans have moved in a direction to not find a remedy for those who are most affected. Members of the CBC have been outspoken regarding Flint, we have traveled to the city where we met with families to hear their concerns, and we stand united in this effort to call upon our Republican colleagues to help these families recover. Flint still lacks safe water, and as elected officials, we all have a responsibility to ensure the safety of our constituents.”

“The people of Flint, Michigan have suffered enough,” said Congresswoman Lawrence. “A continuing resolution (CR) that fails to address the man-made crisis in Flint demonstrates our lack of commitment to helping the 100,000 citizens that have been poisoned by lead in their drinking water supply. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do the right thing and include funding for the residents of Flint.”

Today, the CBC delivered this letter to House Speaker Ryan and Senate Majority Leader McConnell further addressing concerns for the lack of funding for the City of Flint.

Members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) Demand Assistance for Flint Recovery in GOP Funding Bill Le... by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

A Dangerous Rush to Impeach John Koskinen

First, the House must prove that the IRS commissioner acted in deliberate bad faith.

Dean of the U.S. House
of Representatives
John Conyers, Jr.

The power of impeachment is a responsibility entrusted to the House of Representatives by the Constitution and to the House Judiciary Committee by our peers. I take this charge very seriously—and, for the most part, so do my colleagues in the majority.

I have served on the House Judiciary Committee long enough now to see impeachment done right and to see impeachment done wrong. I have participated in six of the 19 impeachments approved by the House since its inception. I voted in favor of five of them. In the early 1970s I helped to draft articles of impeachment against President Richard Nixon. I joined with 20 Democrats and six Republicans to send three of those articles to the House floor.

But I have never seen anything quite like the obsession of a few House members determined to impeach IRS Commissioner John Koskinen—without much evidence to back their claims, without an independent investigation by the House Judiciary Committee, and without even basic due process for the accused.

To be successful, the impeachment process must transcend party lines. Part of this is by design. Article I of the Constitution requires two-thirds of the Senate to convict on each article of impeachment—a threshold that has always required some degree of consensus.

Consensus matters in the House as well. We have built decades of precedent around the notion of formal, rigorous due process in impeachment proceedings. According to House rules, impeachment does not begin until the House approves a resolution that authorizes the Judiciary Committee to investigate whether impeachment is warranted.

The Judiciary Committee must carefully and independently review the evidence—even if it has already been analyzed by our colleagues on other committees. And we can only address allegations that are supported by the record and proven, not inferred.

Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R., Va.) summarized the importance of this practice in 2010, when the committee’s Task Force on Judicial Impeachment unanimously recommended four articles of impeachment against a federal judge. Mr. Goodlatte said: “This recommendation was the culmination of an exhaustive investigation by the task force, which included reviewing the records of past proceedings, rooting out new evidence that was never considered in previous investigations, conducting numerous interviews and depositions with firsthand witnesses, and conducting hearings to take the testimony of firsthand witnesses and federal scholars.”

This process is hard work. It takes time. But it is designed to separate truly substantive charges from merely expedient ones. And when the House Judiciary Committee follows its own precedent, we generally arrive at the right conclusion. In almost every modern case, a bipartisan consensus on impeachment in the House leads to a swift and successful impeachment in the Senate.

In the past few days, the actions of a small group of conservative House members threaten to break from this precedent and to lead us down a dangerous path. Earlier this year, they delivered an ultimatum to Speaker Paul Ryan (R., Wis.): Hold impeachment hearings in the House Judiciary Committee, or face a vote on this matter on the House floor. Speaker Ryan and Chairman Goodlatte opted for the hearings.

In May and June, the Committee held Parts I and II of a hearing to “Examine the Allegations of Misconduct against Commissioner John Koskinen.” As the carefully worded title would suggest, these were not formal impeachment hearings.

Last week this group struck again and attempted to force a vote on impeachment on the House floor. In the 11th hour, when it appeared they would fall short of the necessary votes, they withdrew the measure—and a third hearing was held Wednesday. This hearing was titled “Impeachment Articles Referred on John Koskinen, Part III.” Despite the name change, this hearing also was not an actual impeachment hearing. It was one more exploratory hearing in the series, with none of the hallmarks of real impeachment.

On the merits, Mr. Koskinen’s critics have simply failed to make their case. They have been unable to produce evidence that the commissioner acted in bad faith at any point in his tenure. The Senate Finance Committee, the Justice Department and the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration have all concluded that there is “no evidence” of intentional misconduct of any kind.

But even if there were some evidence of Mr. Koskinen’s wrongdoing, the push to impeach him without due process in the House Judiciary Committee is dangerously misguided. Never, in the history of this body, have we impeached a government official without first proving he has acted in deliberate bad faith.

Never, in modern practice, have we declined to provide the accused with the most basic due process: the right to counsel, the right to present evidence, and the right to question the evidence against him.

In this case, Mr. Koskinen has actually been denied access to the transcripts of interviews conducted by the House Committee on Government and Oversight Reform—interviews that we are told were key in forming the charges against him.

If the commissioner’s critics have their way, I fear we will have a new rule going forward: The House may impeach any government official, for any reason, without supplying evidence of deliberate wrongdoing, without an independent investigation, and without regard to basic fairness toward the accused.

Forcing a vote on impeachment in this manner will certainly not result in the removal of Commissioner Koskinen. Even if his critics succeed in the House, Senators of both parties have already stated their intent to bury the matter. So for all their efforts they will have profited nothing. And in the process they will have turned impeachment from a constitutional check of last resort into a tool of political convenience.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

CONYERS & JOHNSON: Republicans' Anti-Regulatory Agenda Is Not Only A "Better Way" For Big Business, Not Working Americans

Dean of the U.S. House
of Representatives
John Conyers, Jr.

Washington, D.C. – Earlier today, House Speaker Paul Ryan’s Task Force on Reducing Regulatory Burdens introduced the anti-regulatory portion of their so-called “Better Way” agenda.  House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI) and Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law Ranking Member Henry C. “Hank” Johnson, Jr. (D-GA) today released the following statements in response to this report:

“Congress needs to focus on finding real solutions to real problems facing the Nation, such as gun violence, the erosion of voting rights, and growing economic inequality. But once again, House Republican leaders reveal they have no new ideas to help create jobs and improve the lives of ordinary hardworking Americans.  Instead they rebrand old, discredited anti-regulatory proposals designed to benefit big business,” said Congressman Conyers.  “Economic studies have shown that regulations help our economy, not burden it.  More importantly, regulations ensure better working conditions, a cleaner environment, and safer and more innovative products.

Congressman Conyers continued, “Americans want the benefits that regulation provides.  House Republican leadership should stop attacking federal regulatory agencies and admit that their decades-old, anti-regulatory agenda simply prioritizes corporate profits over people.”

“This report is more evidence that Republicans would rather govern by tired and unfounded rhetoric than through sound policy,” said Congressman Johnson. “Few, if any, of these anti-government reforms are new ideas. We have held more than 30 hearings on many of these dangerous proposals; each are designed to unduly constrain agencies from protecting the public interest by keeping our water, food, and air safe. At this point, the record is etched in stone: regulatory reform is a handout to the donor class designed to insulate reckless corporations from public accountability in any form.”

On the House Judiciary Committee alone, House Republicans have held 33 anti-regulation hearings since the start of the 112th Congress, but not a single hearing this Congress on:

o   Gun violence;

o   Voting rights;

o   The impact of overwhelming student loan debt on families and the economy;

o   The mortgage foreclosure crisis, which still is hampering the economic recovery of millions of American families;

o   or how we can better help struggling American families regain their financial stability.

Fact Sheet...Gop’s Anti-regulatory Agenda is Only a “Better Way” for Big Business, Not Working Americans

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©