Showing posts with label slavery. Show all posts
Showing posts with label slavery. Show all posts

Monday, September 25, 2017

CONYERS: HR 40: Deconstruction of Institutionalized Racism

 Since its introduction in 1989, H.R. 40, the Reparation Proposals for African-Americans Act, has sought to further a national dialogue on the plight of Africans-Americans in the context of slavery, Jim Crow, and other legally sanctioned forms of discrimination.

With a renewed dialogue on the issue of reparations, both on the domestic and international levels, this legislation presents a real opportunity to create an official government-based discussion.

This Braintrust will bring together commentators from a variety of positions to explore strategies for broadening the debate on reparations in an increasingly “post-racial” society


Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Saturday, September 16, 2017

CONYERS: Ahead Of Constitution Day, Conyers Introduces Resolution Urging Congress And The States To Reform The Electoral College


Washington, D.C. – In advance of Sunday’s Constitution Day, House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI) introduced H. Con. Res. 79, a resolution expressing the sense of Congress that it and the States should consider a constitutional amendment to reform the Electoral College and to establish a process for electing the President and Vice President by a national popular vote.  The resolution also encourages the states to further their efforts to form an interstate compact to award their Electoral College votes to the national popular vote winner.  Rep. Conyers released the following statement upon the bill’s introduction: 

Dean of the U.S. House
of Representatives
John Conyers, jr.
“This Sunday, September 17 is Constitution Day, which marks the 230th anniversary of the Philadelphia Convention’s approval of the Constitution.  We should rightly celebrate the day that the Framers endorsed the basic framework of our democratic system of government enshrined in our Nation’s governing charter.  Yet, we should also use this day as an opportunity to reflect on the fact that the Constitution still retains the Electoral College, a fundamentally anti-democratic process for electing our Nation’s highest federal officeholders.

“On five occasions in our history, the Electoral College has permitted the national popular vote winner to lose the presidential election, including the most recent election, where Hillary Clinton won nearly 3 million more votes than Electoral College winner Donald Trump. This occurs because a presidential candidate needs only 270 electoral votes and 48 states award their electoral votes on a “winner-take-all” basis.  As a result, the Electoral College creates perverse incentives for candidates that further distort the presidential campaign process in undemocratic ways.

“For example, the Electoral College encourages candidates to focus their campaign efforts on only a handful of so-called swing states.  During the last presidential campaign, for example, both major party candidates largely bypassed three of the four states with the largest populations and skipped campaigning in 12 of the 13 smallest states as well.  

“Additionally, the Electoral College is an anachronistic institution intended, in part, to protect the institution of slavery. According to Yale Law School Professor Akhil Reed Amar, who participated in a forum on Electoral College reform sponsored by House Judiciary Committee Democrats last year, the Electoral College was established, in part, to preserve the political influence of slaveholding states. Although enslaved populations were not allowed to vote, slave states insisted that three-fifths of enslaved persons be counted when determining a state’s representation in the House, which in turn affected the number of Electoral College votes allotted to the state.
           
“Given its history and undemocratic nature, it is clear that the Electoral College system must be replaced with a process that determines the election of the president and vice president by a national popular vote.  As such, Congress and the States should consider a constitutional amendment to reform the Electoral College.

“And, Congress should also encourage the States to reform the Electoral College through the formation of an interstate compact. Eleven states representing 165 electoral votes have already entered into an interstate compact to cast their electoral votes for the national popular vote winner.  When enough states – representing 270 electoral votes – join the compact, the presidential election will essentially be determined by national popular vote, obviating the need for a constitutional amendment.
               
“In a democracy, no person’s vote should be worth more than any other person’s vote.  Congress should affirm its commitment to this essential principle and definitively declare that the American people, not state-based Electors, should have the power to directly select the President and Vice President of the United States.”

Original cosponsors include,  Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX), Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN), Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA), Rep. Luis GutiĆ©rrez (D-IL), Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD), Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), Rep. Al Green (D-TX).

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Thursday, March 16, 2017

CONYERS Statement for the Hearing, “Combating Crimes against Children: Assessing the Legal Landscape,” by the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations

Dean of the U.S. House
of Representatives
John Conyers. Jr.
Today’s hearing by this subcommittee will discuss the serious and disturbing issue of the criminal victimization of children.  With all of our efforts to fight the various forms of child exploitation, it continues to be a threat to our young people. 

However, we have developed strategies to both prevent and respond to these crimes, and to assist the many children who are victims.  I trust we will learn about the strategies that are working and how we can do better. 

In April of last year, the Department of Justice reported to us that the main threats in this area in the next five years will be:  child pornography, sextortion, child sex trafficking, sex offender registry violations, and child sex tourism.

The response to these crimes involves an intricate network of federal, state, and local law enforcement and prosecutorial agencies, and private, nonprofit organizations and advocates, supported by direct federal funding authorizations and grant programs, all working together to keep our youngest constituents safe from harm.

Today we will hear from individuals, representing some of the entities involved in this very necessary mission.  Their roles illustrate the ways we can do more and do better. 

First, we in Congress must recognize that, while we can enact federal legislation, state and local law enforcement are on the front lines and we must support their partnerships with federal agencies.  The Internet Crimes against Children Task Force program, funded through the Justice Department’s Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, provides training and technical assistance and regularly conducts undercover online investigative operations.

Since Congress mandated creation of this program, 3,500 federal, state, and local law enforcement and prosecutorial agencies have joined to form 61 coordinated regional task forces.  These task forces are especially important now, because we are seeing a tremendous increase in crimes perpetrated against children on the Internet.

Detective Patrick Beaver, from the Loudon County Virginia Sheriff’s Office, will speak with us today about the successes his office has had working with the Northern Virginia Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force to conduct an operation targeting internet predators last year.

Next, we must provide specialized assistance to families, victims, and law enforcement to help prevent child abductions, recover missing children, identify and assist victims of child pornography and child sex trafficking.  That is the mission of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, and we will hear from their representative today about what they are experiencing in providing this assistance. 

As a former local and federal prosecutor, Ms. Francey Hakes will also help tell us about the challenges at the state and federal levels in fighting these crimes and enforcing our laws. 

All of this will help us as we consider legislation to amend and reauthorize important statutes such as the Adam Walsh Act and the Trafficking Victims Protection Act.  

Clearly, we must do more to prevent and investigate these crimes – and especially assist their many victims.  When we do apprehend and convict offenders, we must recognize that most of them will be released back into society at some point.  

The Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act is intended to establish a nationwide system of monitoring and tracking sex offenders, particularly after they are released from prison.  Currently, there are over 850,000 registered sex offenders in this country.

If we are going to have such a system, we must ensure that it is used in appropriate circumstances and in the most effective manner.  However, only 17 states are in substantial compliance with its requirements.

States, policy makers, researchers, and advocates continue to object to the requirements established by SORNA for many reasons.

One of the most pervasive criticisms of SORNA is the inclusion of juveniles on registries. Ms. Nicole Pittman is here with us today to discuss the real impact of juvenile registration – on the juveniles, their families, and the overall effectiveness of SORNA.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing on this important topic.  We all wish that child exploitation could be eradicated, but the problem persists.  With what we learn today, I hope we can work together to come closer to achieving our goal.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Tuesday, March 7, 2017

CONYERS Condemns Insulting Statement By Carson On Slavery

Dean of the U.S. House
of Representatives
John Conyers, Jr.
The concepts of “choice” and “agency” seem lost to some officials of the Trump administration.

First, it was Education Secretary Betsy DeVos’ insulting statement on Historically Black Colleges and Universities and now, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, Dr. Ben Carson, epically fails to address the impact of slavery and discrimination on the history and lives of African-Americans.

Enslaved Africans did not choose to come to the Americas, they were brought here in chains against their will and once here, fought for freedom despite tremendous odds.

The failure of Trump administration officials to recognize and acknowledge these very real facts shows a profound ignorance and lack of respect for the Black American experience.

Ben Carson Refers to Slaves as ‘Immigrants’ in First Remarks to HUD Staff




“That’s what America is about, a land of dreams and opportunity,’’ he said. “There were other immigrants who came here in the bottom of slave ships, worked even longer, even harder for less. But they too had a dream that one day their sons, daughters, grandsons, granddaughters, great-grandsons, great-granddaughters, might pursue prosperity and happiness in this land.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/06/us/politics/ben-carson-refers-to-slaves-as-immigrants-in-first-remarks-to-hud-staff.html?_r=1

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Thursday, February 16, 2017

CONYERS Speaks On The Need To Study Impact Of Slavery

As part of #BlackHistoryMonth, I spoke at briefing regarding my bill, H.R. 40, A Commission to Study and Develop Reparation Proposals for African-Americans Act. H.R. 40 is a crucial piece of legislation because it goes beyond exploring the economic implications of slavery and segregation. It is a holistic bill in the sense that it seeks to establish a commission to also examine the moral and social implications of #slavery. — at United States Capitol.

#FosterCare #Adoption #ChildWelfare 

Image may contain: one or more people, people sitting and indoor

115th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 40

To address the fundamental injustice, cruelty, brutality, and inhumanity of slavery in the United States and the 13 American colonies between 1619 and 1865 and to establish a commission to study and consider a national apology and proposal for reparations for the institution of slavery, its subsequent de jure and de facto racial and economic discrimination against African-Americans, and the impact of these forces on living African-Americans, to make recommendations to the Congress on appropriate remedies, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
January 3, 2017
Mr. Conyers (for himself, Mr. Serrano, Mr. Al Green of Texas, Ms. Norton, Mr. Hastings, Mr. Ellison, Mrs. Beatty, Mr. Lewis of Georgia, Mr. Nadler, Mr. Danny K. Davis of Illinois, Mr. Clay, Mr. GutiĆ©rrez, Mr. Cohen, Mr. Cummings, Mr. Meeks, Ms. Schakowsky, Ms. Jackson Lee, and Ms. Lee) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL
To address the fundamental injustice, cruelty, brutality, and inhumanity of slavery in the United States and the 13 American colonies between 1619 and 1865 and to establish a commission to study and consider a national apology and proposal for reparations for the institution of slavery, its subsequent de jure and de facto racial and economic discrimination against African-Americans, and the impact of these forces on living African-Americans, to make recommendations to the Congress on appropriate remedies, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the “Commission to Study and Develop Reparation Proposals for African-Americans Act”.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.
(a) Findings.—The Congress finds that—
(1) approximately 4,000,000 Africans and their descendants were enslaved in the United States and colonies that became the United States from 1619 to 1865;
(2) the institution of slavery was constitutionally and statutorily sanctioned by the Government of the United States from 1789 through 1865;
(3) the slavery that flourished in the United States constituted an immoral and inhumane deprivation of Africans’ life, liberty, African citizenship rights, and cultural heritage, and denied them the fruits of their own labor;
(4) a preponderance of scholarly, legal, community evidentiary documentation and popular culture markers constitute the basis for inquiry into the on-going effects of the institution of slavery and its legacy of persistent systemic structures of discrimination on living African-Americans and society in the United States; and
(5) following the abolition of slavery the United States Government, at the Federal, State, and local level, continued to perpetuate, condone and often profit from practices that continued to brutalize and disadvantage African-Americans, including share cropping, convict leasing, Jim Crow, redlining, unequal education, and disproportionate treatment at the hands of the criminal justice system; and
(6) as a result of the historic and continued discrimination, African-Americans continue to suffer debilitating economic, educational, and health hardships including but not limited to; having nearly 1,000,000 Black people incarcerated; an unemployment rate more than twice the current White unemployment rate; and an average of less than 116 of the wealth of White families, a disparity which has worsened, not improved over time.
(b) Purpose.—The purpose of this Act is to establish a commission to study and develop Reparation proposals for African-Americans as a result of—
(1) the institution of slavery, including both the Trans-Atlantic and the domestic “trade” which existed from 1565 in colonial Florida and from 1619 through 1865 within the other colonies that became the United States, and which included the Federal and State governments which constitutionally and statutorily supported the institution of slavery;
(2) the de jure and de facto discrimination against freed slaves and their descendants from the end of the Civil War to the present, including economic, political, educational, and social discrimination;
(3) the lingering negative effects of the institution of slavery and the discrimination described in paragraphs (1) and (2) on living African-Americans and on society in the United States;
(4) the manner in which textual and digital instructional resources and technologies are being used to deny the inhumanity of slavery and the crime against humanity of people of African descent in the United States;
(5) the role of Northern complicity in the Southern based institution of slavery;
(6) the direct benefits to societal institutions, public and private, including higher education, corporations, religious and associational;
(7) and thus, recommend appropriate ways to educate the American public of the Commission’s findings;
(8) and thus, recommend appropriate remedies in consideration of the Commission’s findings on the matters described in paragraphs (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), and (6); and
(9) submit to the Congress the results of such examination, together with such recommendations.
SEC. 3. ESTABLISHMENT AND DUTIES.
(a) Establishment.—There is established the Commission to Study and Develop Reparation Proposals for African-Americans (hereinafter in this Act referred to as the “Commission”).
(b) Duties.—The Commission shall perform the following duties:
(1) Identify, compile and synthesize the relevant corpus of evidentiary documentation of the institution of slavery which existed within the United States and the colonies that became the United States from 1619 through 1865. The Commission’s documentation and examination shall include but not be limited to the facts related to—
(A) the capture and procurement of Africans;
(B) the transport of Africans to the United States and the colonies that became the United States for the purpose of enslavement, including their treatment during transport;
(C) the sale and acquisition of Africans as chattel property in interstate and intrastate commerce;
(D) the treatment of African slaves in the colonies and the United States, including the deprivation of their freedom, exploitation of their labor, and destruction of their culture, language, religion, and families; and
(E) the extensive denial of humanity, sexual abuse and the chatellization of persons.
(2) The role which the Federal and State governments of the United States supported the institution of slavery in constitutional and statutory provisions, including the extent to which such governments prevented, opposed, or restricted efforts of formerly enslaved Africans and their descendents to repatriate to their homeland.
(3) The Federal and State laws that discriminated against formerly enslaved Africans and their descendents who were deemed United States citizens from 1868 to the present.
(4) The other forms of discrimination in the public and private sectors against freed African slaves and their descendents who were deemed United States citizens from 1868 to the present, including redlining, educational funding discrepancies, and predatory financial practices.
(5) The lingering negative effects of the institution of slavery and the matters described in paragraphs (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), and (6) on living African-Americans and on society in the United States.
(6) Recommend appropriate ways to educate the American public of the Commission’s findings.
(7) Recommend appropriate remedies in consideration of the Commission’s findings on the matters described in paragraphs (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), and (6). In making such recommendations, the Commission shall address among other issues, the following questions:
(A) How such recommendations comport with international standards of remedy for wrongs and injuries caused by the State, that include full reparations and special measures, as understood by various relevant international protocols, laws, and findings.
(B) How the Government of the United States will offer a formal apology on behalf of the people of the United States for the perpetration of gross human rights violations and crimes against humanity on African slaves and their descendants.
(C) How Federal laws and policies that continue to disproportionately and negatively affect African-Americans as a group, and those that purpetuate the lingering effects, materially and psycho-social, can be eliminated.
(D) How the injuries resulting from matters described in paragraphs (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), and (6) can be reversed and provide appropriate policies, programs, projects and recommendations for the purpose of reversing the injuries.
(E) How, in consideration of the Commission’s findings, any form of compensation to the descendants of enslaved African is calculated.
(F) What form of compensation should be awarded, through what instrumentalities and who should be eligible for such compensation.
(G) How, in consideration of the Commission’s findings, any other forms of rehabilitation or restitution to African descendants is warranted and what the form and scope of those measures should take.
(c) Report To Congress.—The Commission shall submit a written report of its findings and recommendations to the Congress not later than the date which is one year after the date of the first meeting of the Commission held pursuant to section 4(c).
SEC. 4. MEMBERSHIP.
(a) Number And Appointment.—(1) The Commission shall be composed of 13 members, who shall be appointed, within 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, as follows:
(A) Three members shall be appointed by the President.
(B) Three members shall be appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives.
(C) One member shall be appointed by the President pro tempore of the Senate.
(D) Six members shall be selected from the major civil society and reparations organizations that have historically championed the cause of reparatory justice.
(2) All members of the Commission shall be persons who are especially qualified to serve on the Commission by virtue of their education, training, activism or experience, particularly in the field of African-American studies and reparatory justice.
(b) Terms.—The term of office for members shall be for the life of the Commission. A vacancy in the Commission shall not affect the powers of the Commission and shall be filled in the same manner in which the original appointment was made.
(c) First Meeting.—The President shall call the first meeting of the Commission within 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act or within 30 days after the date on which legislation is enacted making appropriations to carry out this Act, whichever date is later.
(d) Quorum.—Seven members of the Commission shall constitute a quorum, but a lesser number may hold hearings.
(e) Chair And Vice Chair.—The Commission shall elect a Chair and Vice Chair from among its members. The term of office of each shall be for the life of the Commission.
(f) Compensation.—(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), each member of the Commission shall receive compensation at the daily equivalent of the annual rate of basic pay payable for GS–18 of the General Schedule under section 5332 of title 5, United States Code, for each day, including travel time, during which he or she is engaged in the actual performance of duties vested in the Commission.
(2) A member of the Commission who is a full-time officer or employee of the United States or a Member of Congress shall receive no additional pay, allowances, or benefits by reason of his or her service to the Commission.
(3) All members of the Commission shall be reimbursed for travel, subsistence, and other necessary expenses incurred by them in the performance of their duties to the extent authorized by chapter 57 of title 5, United States Code.
SEC. 5. POWERS OF THE COMMISSION.
(a) Hearings And Sessions.—The Commission may, for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this Act, hold such hearings and sit and act at such times and at such places in the United States, and request the attendance and testimony of such witnesses and the production of such books, records, correspondence, memoranda, papers, and documents, as the Commission considers appropriate. The Commission may invoke the aid of an appropriate United States district court to require, by subpoena or otherwise, such attendance, testimony, or production.
(b) Powers Of Subcommittees And Members.—Any subcommittee or member of the Commission may, if authorized by the Commission, take any action which the Commission is authorized to take by this section.
(c) Obtaining Official Data.—The Commission may acquire directly from the head of any department, agency, or instrumentality of the executive branch of the Government, available information which the Commission considers useful in the discharge of its duties. All departments, agencies, and instrumentalities of the executive branch of the Government shall cooperate with the Commission with respect to such information and shall furnish all information requested by the Commission to the extent permitted by law.
SEC. 6. ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS.
(a) Staff.—The Commission may, without regard to section 5311(b) of title 5, United States Code, appoint and fix the compensation of such personnel as the Commission considers appropriate.
(b) Applicability Of Certain Civil Service Laws.—The staff of the Commission may be appointed without regard to the provisions of title 5, United States Code, governing appointments in the competitive service, and without regard to the provisions of chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 of such title relating to classification and General Schedule pay rates, except that the compensation of any employee of the Commission may not exceed a rate equal to the annual rate of basic pay payable for GS–18 of the General Schedule under section 5332 of title 5, United States Code.
(c) Experts And Consultants.—The Commission may procure the services of experts and consultants in accordance with the provisions of section 3109(b) of title 5, United States Code, but at rates for individuals not to exceed the daily equivalent of the highest rate payable under section 5332 of such title.
(d) Administrative Support Services.—The Commission may enter into agreements with the Administrator of General Services for procurement of financial and administrative services necessary for the discharge of the duties of the Commission. Payment for such services shall be made by reimbursement from funds of the Commission in such amounts as may be agreed upon by the Chairman of the Commission and the Administrator.
(e) Contracts.—The Commission may—
(1) procure supplies, services, and property by contract in accordance with applicable laws and regulations and to the extent or in such amounts as are provided in appropriations Acts; and
(2) enter into contracts with departments, agencies, and instrumentalities of the Federal Government, State agencies, and private firms, institutions, and agencies, for the conduct of research or surveys, the preparation of reports, and other activities necessary for the discharge of the duties of the Commission, to the extent or in such amounts as are provided in appropriations Acts.
SEC. 7. TERMINATION.
The Commission shall terminate 90 days after the date on which the Commission submits its report to the Congress under section 3(c).
SEC. 8. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
To carry out the provisions of this Act, there are authorized to be appropriated $12,000,000.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Thursday, February 9, 2017

CONYERS Haiti Report (Unclassified)

PORT AU PR 00000451 001.2 OF 004 1. This message is sensitive but unclassified-please protect accordingly. Summary - - - - 2. (SBU) A Congressional Delegation led by House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers heard President Preval and Prime Minister Pierre Louis make the case that Haiti is at a turning point and needs additional help in the form of budget support. At the international donors conference in Washington April 14-15, Haiti will lay out its priorities of boosting road building and electricity and agricultural production. The President argued that foreign donors should channel more assistance through the Government rather than through NGOs. The Prime Minister praised HOPE 2 legislation for creating jobs. Her government's program focused on improving the lot of the Haitian people and reforming the dysfunctional judicial system. Chairman Conyers and his delegation promised the U.S. would continue to support Haiti. End summary. 3. (SBU) Chairman Conyers led a congressional delegation that included Lamar Smith (R-TX), Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Donna Christensen (D-V.I.), and Anthony Weiner (D-NY). Accompanying the delegation were Bob Creamer (Schakowsky spouse), and Judiciary Committee Professional Staff members Keenan Keller, Sean McLaughlin, Cynthia Martin, and Alli Halataei. Dr. Paul Farmer accompanied the delegation in their meeting with President Preval. The Ambassador and PolCouns (notetaker) attended for the Embassy. President Preval: Haiti Has Unique Opportunity - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4. (SBU) President Preval told the delegation in their April 6 meeting that he agreed with former President Clinton's recent statement that for the first time in thirty years, Haiti has an opportunity for making economic progress. The country had made important progress, achieving political stability and it was moving toward holding Senate elections. An impartial electoral authority, with representation from all political parties and churches, was organizing these elections. Now Haiti had to achieve economic progress. The President recalled that the 2008 hurricanes had dealt Haiti a severe blow, causing USD 1 billion in infrastructure losses. He professed not to know whether collapsed bridges were being rebuilt (Note: They are, with help from USAID and the World Bank). Haiti deserves international support, the President declared. International Support, Debt Relief - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 5. (SBU) Chairman Conyers said he was optimistic Haiti could move ahead with international support. We needed a comprehensive strategy to meet all Haiti's challenges, which had deep historical roots. International organizations gave Haiti a mere pittance and attached onerous conditions. These set Haiti up for failure. Haiti had an opportunity with the new U.S. Administration. Congresswoman Schakowsky asked about the possibility of debt relief. 6. (SBU) The President recounted that Haiti had worked with the IMF on fiscal and monetary reforms since 2006. Haiti would soon complete this program, resulting in the elimination of USD 1.1 billion in debt, which would remove USD 70 million in debt service per year. Yet Haiti continued to face severe economic challenges. It had brought inflation down from 40 percent in 2004 to 7 percent before the hurricanes in the summer of 2008. GDP growth had risen to 3.4 percent before the 2008 storms. Haiti now needed to create jobs through public investment and supporting the private sector. Donors Should Channel More Aid through Government of Haiti - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7. (SBU) Congressman Smith said that the omnibus bill the Congress had recently passed contained USD 250 million for Haiti. He asked what additional funds Haiti needed. Preval said Haiti needed a lot more. Paul Farmer remarked that a large part of foreign assistance had gone to NGOs. His NGO, Partners in Health, had immediately put this money back into the public sector. The President conceded that NGOs had to play in strong role in weak states like Haiti, but he urged that donors increase the amount of funding given directly to PORT AU PR 00000451 002.2 OF 004 government entities, so that Haiti would implement its own programs. He had heard that donor countries and IFIs were pouring billions into Eastern Europe and Gaza. It was a pity, he joked, that Haiti was not a former communist country, or a country at war or one that faced a guerrilla insurgency. The Corruption Factor - - - - - - - - - - - 8. (SBU) Congressman Weiner emphasized that the members of this delegation all support foreign aid. The U.S. provides a great deal of assistance through NGOs because of government corruption. Preval acknowledged that Haiti is prey to corruption because it was a weak state. But he was trying to strengthen the Haitian state and had introduced mechanisms for fighting corruption and smuggling. As an underdeveloped country, the corruption that plagued Haiti was on a petty scale. With wages so low ?-and President himself entitled to a pension of only USD 200 per month-? civil servants would inevitably accept illegal payments, because it was the only way to feed their families. Preval claimed that NGOs practiced just as much corruption as Haitian officials. There was less corruption in Haiti than in other countries. Haiti did not deserve its bad reputation on corruption and security. Foreign countries ''should not judge Haiti.'' In any case, his government had an unshakeable will to fight corruption. 9. (SBU) Dr. Farmer remarked that he had not experienced much corruption in Haiti. He had observed, however, that NGOs and church groups bringing aid were proliferating and operating with no coordination. His organization, Partners in Health (PIH), was relatively ineffective for its first 15 years in Haiti, but had then begun partnering with the Ministry of Health. It now treated three million patients per year. ''Privatization'' was not the answer: the bulk of Haiti's education system was private, yet Haiti had a very low literacy rate. It was better if NGOs worked with the government. Haiti's Aid and Development Priorities - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 10. (SBU) Preval said Haiti would try to mobilize international aid for three purposes: 1) building three strategic stretches of road, 2) building up farming in three major agricultural planes: the Artibonite, Torbeck, and the (Maribalai) area of the Northeast, and 3) increase Haiti's electrical generating capacity from 100 to 125 MW. Simply making the existing system more reliable would cost USD 13 million. The government's strategy was to pursue simple goals with quick, visible results that would help preserve social stability. Drugs - - - 11. (SBU) Congresswoman Christensen asked how the U.S. could better help the fight the flow of drugs through Haiti, and Preval replied that most effective step the U.S. could take was to reduce its drug consumption. Drugs corrupted Haiti's police, parliamentarians, officials, and judges. Half jokingly, Preval said that if Haiti's did not receive more counternarcotics help, the only solution would be to liberalize drug laws. Congresswoman Christensen said that the U.S. would work on drug demand reduction. Elections - - - - - 12. (SBU) Congresswomen Christensen also expressed concern about the exclusion of all Fanmi Lavalas candidates from the Senate elections. On the election issue, Preval said that the Provisional Electoral Council, Haiti's independent election authority, had simply applied Haitian law, which demands that a party's candidates be designated according to that party's internal statutes. Fanmi Lavalas had not followed those rules, and in fact had nominated three candidates for one Senate post. (Note: different wings of the party nominated different candidates for a few of the 12 Senate seats being contested in the April 19 elections. End note) 13. (SBU) Congresswoman Schakowsky stated that the new U.S. Administration clearly understood the need in Haiti for investment, PORT AU PR 00000451 003.2 OF 004 infrastructure, and bringing stability and development. President Preval closed by quoting former President Clinton to the effect that Haiti was at a turning point: failing to take advantage of this opportunity would set Haiti back 10 to 15 years. Prime Minister: HOPE 2 Creating Jobs - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 14. (SBU) The Ambassador hosted a breakfast April 7 for the Congressional delegation that include Prime Minister Michele Pierre-Louis, Minister of Justice Joseph Exume, and Minister of Economy and Finance Daniel Dorsainvil. The Prime Minister said that HOPE 2 trade preferences had already created 23,000 jobs, could create 50,000 by the end of 2009, and had the potential to create up to 250,000 jobs in total. Replying to Chairman Conyers' observation that factories should not come in to exploit cheap Haitian labor for a few years and then leave, the PM said that HOPE 2 legislation mandated a tripartite commission including the government, management and labor. Haiti needed to expand its base of investors to engage in areas beyond partial assembly. Haitian Government Priorities - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 15. (SBU) Chairman Conyers argued that Haiti needed a comprehensive plan integrating all critical issues. The Prime Minister said that that every element in her government's vision aimed to benefit the Haitian people. She mentioned the priorities of job creation and giving birth certificates and other identity papers to the 60 percent of the Haitian population that didn't have them. Immediate goals were to improve governance, fight corruption, and increase per capita income. Schools and health centers had to be rebuilt, road rebuilt, and agriculture stimulated. The country needed more doctors and teachers. This would require increased government expenditures. The government now is able to cover only 30-40 percent of its investment budget. The government needs to fill a USD 125 million budget gap this year, either through direct budget support or through swaps. The Prime Minister argued that drugs are the most destabilizing factor for Haiti. Traffickers sought political power by running for parliament and the immunity a legislative seat conferred. Drug money was a major factor behind corruption, especially for judges. Government Policy to Encourage Investment - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 16. (SBU) Minister of Finance and Economy Dorsainvil added that the judicial system must uphold the rights of investors. Public money would be very important to stimulate economic growth, build infrastructure, and make available industrial space for investors, especially outside the capital. Even if Haiti collected 25 percent of GDP in taxes (Note: it collects barely more than 10 percent. End note) Haiti would barely cover its current budget, which in any case was inadequate for the country's needs. The one bright spot was the drop in inflation. While month-on-month inflation had been 4.5 percent Feb-Mar 2008, during the peak of the energy and food price inflation, continuation of current trends would leave 2009 with an annual inflation rate of below one percent. Haiti's Judiciary - - - - - - - - - 17. (SBU) Responding to Congresswoman Christensen's question about what the Ministry of Justice needed, Minister of Justice Exume explained that the three elements under his control --judges/prosecutors, police and the penitentiary system-- failed to work together properly. Judges were corrupt. The judiciary was non-functional; many judges did not even show up for work regularly. The U.S. is helping Haiti re-make the judiciary, the correctional system, and the police. The large number of persons held in pre-trial detention was an indicator of the judiciary's failure to bring accused persons to trial. Although Haiti had a low incarceration rate --its 8,000 prison inmates were barely 1 percent of the population-- detention facilities were terribly overcrowded. There was less than one square meter of space per prisoner, whereas 2.5 was needed. Crime is Down PORT AU PR 00000451 004.2 OF 004 - - - - - - - 18. (SBU) The Prime Minister pointed out that kidnapping had decreased. A large-scale anti-kidnapping police operation last November had prevented the usual upsurge in kidnappings around Christmas. There had been 260 kidnappings in December 2007, but only 5 in December of last year. Role of Local Government - - - - - - - - - - - - 19. (SBU) Congressman Weiner suggested that Haiti allow a greater role for local government. The PM conceded that the complicated system of local government mandated by Haiti's constitution often produced conflicts. Each municipality had a mayor and two deputies, who often did not work well together. Justice Minister Exume pointed out that there was a high level of corruption in the municipalities. Minister of Economy and Finance Dorsainvil said that the municipalities suffered from lack of capacity, such as accountants. The Ministry of Interior was training 140 accountants to assign to municipalities. 20. (SBU) When Congressman Weiner suggested that high energy and transport costs gave an advantage to countries such as Haiti that lay close to their main export markets, the PM observed that the costs of operating were also high in countries that Haiti competed with. Haiti was at a turning point and still needed U.S. assistance, especially of the kind provided by HOPE 2. Chairman Conyers concluded by expressing ''cautious optimism'' about Haiti's future. 21. This cable was not cleared by Congressman Conyers' Professional Staffer Keenan Keller. Sanderson


Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Monday, December 19, 2016

CONYERS: Electoral College belongs in 1787

Under the right circumstances, the political will for reform can exist.

By John Conyers. Jr.

Dean of the U.S. House
'of Representatives
John Conyers, Jr.
With the Electoral College meeting Monday to formally elect Donald Trump as our 45th president, it is time that we reconsider whether a political compromise approved in 1787 bears any principled or practical reason for being today.

Several serious concerns were raised at a forum I organized earlier this month featuring leading experts in history, constitutional law and political science. Most obviously, we learned that the Electoral College is anti-democratic. Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton has so far received over 2.8 million more votes nationwide than Trump — the largest divergence between the popular and electoral votes in history. This is the second time there has been a divergence between the popular vote and the Electoral College in the last five elections, and the fifth time that a popular-vote loser won the White House.

We also learned that the Electoral College is rooted in slavery. At our forum, Yale law professor Akhil Amar explained that slave states opposed direct elections for president because “in a direct election system, the North would outnumber the South, whose many slaves . . . could not vote. But the Electoral College . . . instead let each Southern state count its slaves, albeit with a two-fifths discount, in computing its share of the overall count.”

Our forum also made clear that many of the arguments in defense of the Electoral College are anachronistic. Electoral College defenders argue that it serves to check the passions of ordinary voters, pointing to Alexander Hamilton’s view in The Federalist Papers that the Electoral College would help ensure “that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.”


However, the Electoral College does not meet to deliberate about who should be president. The general public does not even know the electors’ identities, and the Electoral College’s choice for president has largely been reduced to mere formality. Members of the Electoral College are party loyalists who are subject to various state laws, some of which prohibit them from even exercising independent judgment. This is why over time there have been very few faithless electors, and none that have decided an election’s outcome.

Rather than protect small-population states and rural areas from domination by large-population states and urban areas, the current system encourages candidates to overlook a majority of states and focus nearly all their campaign efforts on the small number of so-called swing states. In 2016, for instance, both major party candidates largely bypassed three of the four largest states by population during the campaign. They also skipped 12 of the 13 smallest states, from “Blue” Rhode Island to “Red” Wyoming.

Finally, some Electoral College defenders argue that direct elections for president could lead to messy nationwide vote recounts. Our experience in Florida in 2000, and Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin this year, have taught us that statewide recounts under differing and confusing rules bring neither clarity nor finality to our electoral process. By contrast, a national popular vote is historically far more likely to establish a clear winner, avoiding the necessity of recounts altogether.

Many voters have told me that the political obstacles to reform are insurmountable, with a constitutional amendment requiring a two-thirds vote in the House and Senate and ratification by three-quarters of the states. Yet in 1969 I was one of 338 members of the House of Representatives who voted on a bipartisan basis to amend the Constitution to eliminate the Electoral College. As that shows, under the right circumstances the political will for reform can exist.

However, other options are available, with 11 states accounting for 165 electoral votes having already entered an interstate compact to cast their electoral votes for the national popular vote winner. Legislation to enter the compact has been recently passed by at least one legislative chamber in four more states, potentially bringing us even closer to the 270-vote threshold needed for the interstate agreement to kick in.

The Supreme Court has long held that the “conception of political equality from the Declaration of Independence, to Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, to the 15th, 17th, and 19th Amendments can only mean one thing — one person, one vote.”

It is time that the election of our nation’s president and vice president reflect those principles as well. The greatest democracy on Earth deserves no less.


2016 National Popular Vote Tracker
Compiled from official sources by: David Wasserman @Redistrict, Cook Political Report @CookPolitical
*Denotes Official/Certified Results; "Swing State" defined as state that flipped from '12 or was decided by less than 5%.
StateClinton (D)Trump (R)OthersClinton %Trump %Others %Dem '12 MarginDem '16 MarginMargin ShiftTotal '12 VotesTotal '16 VotesRaw Votes vs. '12
U.S. Total65,844,59462,979,6167,804,20348.2%46.1%5.7%3.9%2.1%-1.8%129,075,630136,628,4135.9%
13 Swing States21,433,21422,249,3422,348,06946.6%48.3%5.1%3.6%-1.8%-5.4%43,939,91846,030,6254.8%
Non-Swing States44,411,38040,730,2745,456,13449.0%45.0%6.0%4.0%4.1%0.1%85,135,71290,597,7886.4%
13 Swing States
Arizona*1,161,1671,252,401159,59745.1%48.7%6.2%-9.1%-3.5%5.5%2,299,2542,573,16511.9%
Colorado*1,338,8701,202,484238,86648.2%43.3%8.6%5.4%4.9%-0.5%2,569,5212,780,2208.2%
Florida*4,504,9754,617,886297,17847.8%49.0%3.2%0.9%-1.2%-2.1%8,474,1799,420,03911.2%
Iowa*653,669800,983111,37941.7%51.1%7.1%5.8%-9.4%-15.2%1,582,1801,566,031-1.0%
Maine*357,735335,59354,59947.8%44.9%7.3%15.3%3.0%-12.3%713,180747,9274.9%
Michigan*2,268,8392,279,543250,90247.3%47.5%5.2%9.5%-0.2%-9.7%4,730,9614,799,2841.4%
Minnesota*1,367,7161,322,951254,14646.4%44.9%8.6%7.7%1.5%-6.2%2,936,5612,944,8130.3%
Nevada*539,260512,05874,06747.9%45.5%6.6%6.7%2.4%-4.3%1,014,9181,125,38510.9%
New Hampshire*348,526345,79049,84246.8%46.5%6.7%5.6%0.4%-5.2%710,972744,1584.7%
North Carolina*2,189,3162,362,631189,61746.2%49.8%4.0%-2.0%-3.7%-1.6%4,505,3724,741,5645.2%
Ohio*2,394,1642,841,005261,31843.6%51.7%4.8%3.0%-8.1%-11.1%5,580,8405,496,487-1.5%
Pennsylvania*2,926,4412,970,733218,22847.9%48.6%3.6%5.4%-0.7%-6.1%5,753,5466,115,4026.3%
Wisconsin*1,382,5361,405,284188,33046.5%47.2%6.3%6.9%-0.8%-7.7%3,068,4342,976,150-3.0%
Non-Swing States
Alabama*729,5471,318,25575,57034.4%62.1%3.6%-22.2%-27.7%-5.5%2,074,3382,123,3722.4%
Alaska*116,454163,38738,76736.6%51.3%12.2%-14.0%-14.7%-0.7%300,495318,6086.0%
Arkansas*380,494684,87265,26933.7%60.6%5.8%-23.7%-26.9%-3.2%1,069,4681,130,6355.7%
California*8,753,7884,483,810943,99761.7%31.6%6.7%23.1%30.1%7.0%13,038,54714,181,5958.8%
Connecticut*897,572673,21574,13354.6%40.9%4.5%17.3%13.6%-3.7%1,558,1141,644,9205.6%
Delaware*235,603185,12720,86053.4%41.9%4.7%18.6%11.4%-7.2%413,890441,5906.7%
District of Columbia*282,83012,72315,71590.9%4.1%5.0%83.6%86.8%3.1%293,764311,2686.0%
Georgia*1,877,9632,089,104125,30645.9%51.0%3.1%-7.8%-5.2%2.7%3,900,0504,092,3734.9%
Hawaii*266,891128,84733,19962.2%30.0%7.7%42.7%32.2%-10.5%434,697428,937-1.3%
Idaho*189,765409,05591,43527.5%59.3%13.2%-31.9%-31.8%0.1%652,274690,2555.8%
Illinois*3,090,7292,146,015299,68055.8%38.8%5.4%16.9%17.1%0.2%5,242,0145,536,4245.6%
Indiana*1,033,1261,557,286144,54637.8%56.9%5.3%-10.2%-19.2%-9.0%2,624,5342,734,9584.2%
Kansas*427,005671,01886,37936.1%56.7%7.3%-21.7%-20.6%1.1%1,159,9711,184,4022.1%
Kentucky*628,8541,202,97192,32432.7%62.5%4.8%-22.7%-29.8%-7.1%1,797,2121,924,1497.1%
Louisiana*780,1541,178,63870,24038.4%58.1%3.5%-17.2%-19.6%-2.4%1,994,0652,029,0321.8%
Maryland*1,677,928943,169160,34960.3%33.9%5.8%26.1%26.4%0.3%2,707,3272,781,4462.7%
Massachusetts*1,995,1961,090,893238,95760.0%32.8%7.2%23.1%27.2%4.1%3,167,7673,325,0465.0%
Mississippi*485,131700,71423,51240.1%57.9%1.9%-11.5%-17.8%-6.3%1,285,5841,209,357-5.9%
Missouri*1,071,0681,594,511143,02638.1%56.8%5.1%-9.4%-18.6%-9.3%2,757,3232,808,6051.9%
Montana*177,709279,24040,19835.7%56.2%8.1%-13.7%-20.4%-6.8%484,048497,1472.7%
Nebraska*284,494495,96163,77233.7%58.7%7.6%-21.8%-25.0%-3.3%794,379844,2276.3%
New Jersey*2,148,2781,601,933123,83555.5%41.4%3.2%17.8%14.1%-3.7%3,640,2923,874,0466.4%
New Mexico*385,234319,66693,41848.3%40.0%11.7%10.1%8.2%-1.9%783,758798,3181.9%
New York*4,547,2182,814,346348,56259.0%36.5%4.5%28.2%22.5%-5.7%7,072,0837,710,1269.0%
North Dakota*93,758216,79433,80827.2%63.0%9.8%-19.6%-35.7%-16.1%322,932344,3606.6%
Oklahoma*420,375949,13683,48128.9%65.3%5.7%-33.5%-36.4%-2.8%1,334,8721,452,9928.8%
Oregon*1,002,106782,403216,82750.1%39.1%10.8%12.1%11.0%-1.1%1,789,2702,001,33611.9%
Rhode Island*252,525180,54331,07654.4%38.9%6.7%27.5%15.5%-11.9%446,049464,1444.1%
South Carolina*855,3731,155,38992,26540.7%54.9%4.4%-10.5%-14.3%-3.8%1,964,1182,103,0277.1%
South Dakota117,442227,70124,90431.7%61.5%6.7%-18.0%-29.8%-11.8%363,815370,0471.7%
Tennessee*870,6951,522,925114,40734.7%60.7%4.6%-20.4%-26.0%-5.6%2,458,5772,508,0272.0%
Texas*3,877,8684,685,047406,31143.2%52.2%4.5%-15.8%-9.0%6.8%7,993,8518,969,22612.2%
Utah*310,676515,231305,52327.5%45.5%27.0%-48.0%-18.1%30.0%1,017,4401,131,43011.2%
Vermont*178,57395,36941,12556.7%30.3%13.1%35.6%26.4%-9.2%299,290315,0675.3%
Virginia*1,981,4731,769,443231,83649.8%44.4%5.8%3.9%5.3%1.5%3,854,4893,982,7523.3%
Washington*1,742,7181,221,747401,17951.8%36.3%11.9%14.9%15.5%0.6%3,125,5163,365,6447.7%
West Virginia*188,794489,37134,88626.5%68.6%4.9%-26.8%-42.2%-15.4%670,438713,0516.4%
Wyoming*55,973174,41925,45721.9%68.2%10.0%-40.8%-46.3%-5.5%249,061255,8492.7%

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©