Tuesday, July 30, 2013

Conyers Joins Senator Cardin and Civil Rights Groups in Calling for Passage of the End Racial Profiling Act


(WASHINGTON) – Congressman John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich.) and Senator Ben Cardin (D-Md.) joined civil rights groups in calling for passage of their legislation, the End Racial Profiling Act. This legislation is designed to protect minority communities by prohibiting the use of racial profiling by law enforcement officials. The End Racial Profiling Act is supported by 136 national organizations including the NAACP, Rights Working Group, the ACLU, Blacks in Law Enforcement in America and the Sikh Coalition. Following his participation in a press conference announcing the introduction of this legislation, Rep. Conyers issued the following statement:

“Recent events demonstrate that racial profiling remains a divisive issue that strikes at the very foundation of our democracy. Though the death of Trayvon Martin was not the result of a law enforcement encounter, the issues of race and reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct are so closely linked in the minds of the public that his death cannot be separated from the law enforcement profiling debate.  Ultimately, Trayvon is one of too many individuals across the country who have been victimized by a perception of criminality simply because of their race, ethnicity, religion or national origin.  These individuals are denied the basic respect and equal treatment that is the right of every American,” said Conyers.

“To address this issue of racial profiling and criminal suspicion, I am pleased to introduce the End Racial Profiling Act of 2013, along with my longtime colleague Senator Cardin, to continue federal efforts at supporting good policing.  This legislation represents a comprehensive federal commitment to healing the rift caused by racial profiling and restoring public confidence in the criminal justice system at-large. This legislation is designed to enforce the constitutional right to equal protection of the laws by changing the policies and procedures underlying the practice of profiling.                            

“Decades ago, in the face of shocking violence, the passage of sweeping civil rights legislation made it clear that race should not affect the treatment of an individual American under the law.  I believe that thousands of pedestrian and traffic stops of innocent minorities and the killing of innocent teen calls for a similar federal response. The practice of using race as a criterion in law enforcement undermines the progress we have made toward racial equality. For these reasons, I will work with my colleagues in Congress to make the End Racial Profiling Act a reality.”

Rep. Conyers alongside Senator Cardin and supporters of the End Racial Profiling Act from the Rights Working Group, Blacks in Law Enforcement of America, the NAACP, and the Sikh Coalition.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Friday, July 26, 2013

Conyers, Larson, and Brady Sign Amicus Brief Urging SCOTUS to Uphold Contribution Limits


(WASHINGTON) – Today, Ranking Member John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) of the House Judiciary Committee, joined Congressman John B. Larson (D-Conn.), Chairman of the Task Force on Election Reform, and Ranking Member Robert A. Brady (D-Penn.) of the Committee on House Administration, in submitting an Amicus brief to the Supreme Court regarding the upcoming McCutcheon v. FEC case. The three leading members were joined on the brief by 82 fellow members of the House of Representatives in urging the Court to uphold portions of the “McCain-Feingold” Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. This act restricted the total dollar amount of aggregate contributions a donor may make to candidate committees and other non-candidate political entities, such as political parties and PACs.

Rep. John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich.): “The Supreme Court’s Citizen’s United decision has had an unquestionably corrosive impact on preventing corruption in our democratic process, and permitting corporate and special interests to make near limitless campaign contributions. To remedy this, I joined alongside 84 of my colleagues in the House of Representatives in submitting an amicus brief to the Supreme Court, in the case of McCutcheon v. FEC, urging the Court to support aggregate contribution limits. With our campaign finance laws under assault, I hope that the Supreme Court recognizes the importance of protecting one of the most important vestiges of electoral integrity.”

Rep. John B. Larson (D-Conn): "In the past few years, several high profile Supreme Court cases have opened the floodgates for special interest money to enter our electoral process by weakening long established regulations on campaign contributions. This fall, the Supreme Court will have another opportunity to either allow special interests a new avenue in their relentless pursuit to buy-and-sell our elections, or prevent further corruption by upholding contribution limits vital to the integrity of our system. I’m proud to have joined 84 of my colleagues in sending an amicus brief to the Supreme Court asking them to uphold aggregate contribution limits as they argue McCutcheon v. FEC, and continue this essential check on the excessive role of money on our elections.”

Rep. Robert A. Brady (D-Penn.): “I am proud to join my colleagues in supporting current campaign contribution limits. The Supreme Court has long held that contribution limits are a constitutional exercise of Congress’s regulatory authority. Contribution limits are necessary to guard against corruption and ensure that elected officials work to represent the constituents that elected them rather than further the narrow interests of wealthy contributors.  The unchecked influx of secret, unlimited money after the Court’s Citizens United decision continues to further erode the faith the American public has in its elected officials. Striking down aggregate contribution limits would be devastating to our democracy.”

McCutcheon v. FEC is scheduled for oral argument before the Supreme Court this October. Being challenged is the constitutionality of the current aggregate contribution limits that have been in place since the enactment of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. Currently, this places a $48,600 limit for individual contributions to federal candidate committees combined and no more than $74,600 to all PACs and parties combined in a two-year cycle. If the Supreme Court rules to end these limits, donors may directly contribute upwards of $3.5 million dollars to candidate committees and other non-candidate entities, such as national political parties, state political parties, and non-party committees. Many legal analysts believe a ruling striking down these aggregate limits could pave the way for a  future decision which could eliminate all contribution limits, including individual candidate contribution limits, leading to unlimited direct campaign contributions.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Conyers Floor Statement on Amendment Ending the NSA’s Mass Surveillance of Americans


(WASHINGTON) – Today, the U.S. House of Representatives considered H.R. 2397, the “Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 2014.” Congressman John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich.) and Congressman Justin Amash (R-Mich.) offered an amendment to this legislation that would curtail the blanket collection of telephone records by the National Security Agency (NSA). During the debate over this amendment Rep. Conyers delivered the following statement:

“I rise in support this amendment, which I am cosponsoring with my colleague from Michigan, Representative Justin Amash. This amendment will prevent mass collection of personal records, such as phone calling information, under Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act.  When Congress passed and later revised this provision, we did not intend for it to authorize the bulk, indiscriminate collection of personal information of individuals not under investigation.

“However, we have learned that this law has been misused to allow the collection of call detail information on every phone call made in the United States under a bizarre interpretation of the statute’s authorization to collect “relevant” information.  As my colleague and author of the statute, Representative Jim Sensenbrenner, has stated, ‘This expansive characterization of relevance makes a mockery of the legal standard.’

“This amendment will not stop the proper use of PATRIOT Act and FISA authorities to conduct terrorism and intelligence investigations.  All this amendment is intended to do is curtail the ongoing dragnet collection and storage of the personal records of innocent Americans.

“Our joining together on this bipartisan amendment demonstrates our joint commitment to ensuring that our fight against terrorism and espionage follows the rule of law and the clear intent of the statutes passed by Congress.  I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote for this amendment to demonstrate our bipartisan commitment to protecting individual liberty.”


Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Conyers: Judiciary Republicans Jeopardize Civil Rights Protections by Creating More Red Tape for Federal Agencies


(WASHINGTON) – Today, the U.S. House Judiciary Committee held a full committee markup of H.R. 1493, the "Sunshine for Regulatory Decrees and Settlements Act of 2013"; H.R. 2122, the "Regulatory Accountability Act of 2013"; H.R. 2542, the "Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Acts of 2013"; and H.R. 2641, the "Responsibly and Professionally Invigorating Development (RAPID) Act of 2013.” After his opening remarks, Congressman John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich.) issued the following statement:

“I am deeply disappointed that my Republican colleagues are squandering our limited legislative time to attack regulations that protect workers, and preserve the health, safety, and civil rights of all Americans,” said Conyers.

“Although the bills under consideration are damaging enough, I am disappointed that my colleague’s opposed an amendment by Rep. Steve Cohen which would have ensured that civil rights laws preventing discrimination based on race, religion, national origin, or any other protected category would be enforced effectively by federal agencies. This is very troubling to me.

“Specifically, absent Rep. Cohen’s amendment to safeguard civil rights, the ‘Sunshine for Regulatory Decrees and Settlements Act’ would greatly damage voting rights and other important constitutional protections. Under the Voting Rights Act, the Department of Justice routinely uses consent decrees in protecting the right to vote.  Similarly, the Department relies on consent decrees, such as with Section 14141 ‘pattern or practice’ violations of the law, to ensure that law enforcement agencies comply with the Constitution.   By enacting roadblocks to these protections, my Republican colleagues are seeking to turn the clock back on civil rights progress.

“All four of these bills would delay or completely derail the process by which federal agencies ensure that the American public is protected against everything from dirty air and water, to unsafe products and contaminated food, and even to reckless behavior by Wall Street banks. The four bills accomplish this unfortunate feat by bogging down all federal agencies with new bureaucratic requirements and hamstringing agencies from issuing new rules or from enforcing existing regulations. And, with the devastating across-the-board funding cuts to federal agencies being indiscriminately applied by sequestration, these bills would only further weigh down understaffed and underfunded regulatory bodies. This ‘starve-the-beast’ policy is cynical, and damaging to our communities and working families across the country.

“Civil rights, environmental, consumer, and worker protections should never become divisive, partisan issues. Rather than focus on this ideologically driven agenda, I urge my colleagues to abandon this approach and work in a bipartisan fashion to safeguard protections for all Americans.”


Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Wednesday, July 24, 2013

Conyers: Comprehensive Immigration Reform Should Keep DREAMers and Parents Together


(WASHINGTON) – Today, the Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security held a hearing entitled, “Addressing the Immigration Status of Illegal Immigrants Brought to the United States as Children.” After the first panel’s opening remarks, Congressman John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich.) issued the following statement:

“I am greatly encouraged by the tenor of today’s immigration reform hearing, and by my Republican colleagues’ increasing openness to meaningful reform for undocumented immigrants. Nearly 3 years ago, the House of Representatives passed the DREAM Act - legislation that would have taken a significant step toward eliminating injustice in our current immigration system by providing permanent residency for individuals brought here as young children illegally by their parents. After a 3 year lull in legislative action on behalf of these ‘DREAMers,’ I am heartened that we are revisiting the subject today,” said Conyers.

“However, following the moving testimony of several witnesses, I find it hardhearted for the House of Representatives to consider reforms to our broken immigration system that would allow ‘DREAMers’ the chance to become citizens but would do nothing to ensure that these DREAMers’ families stay intact. We cannot reform our immigration system in a piecemeal approach that comes at the expense of undocumented parents, often meaning deportation. Only through a comprehensive approach can we keep American families intact, instead of torn apart.

“Increasingly, my Republican colleagues have described resolving the status of DREAMers as an issue of ‘basic fairness’ and ‘of decency, of compassion.’ We must honor these values - of fairness, decency, and compassion - for DREAMers as well as for their parents. Immigration reform should never entail the breaking up of families.”

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Saturday, July 20, 2013

Congressman John Conyers, Jr. at BMI New York


JULY 18, 2013 Congressman John Conyers, Jr. visited BMI’s New York office on Monday, July 15, 2013. Pictured L-R: BMI Vice President Legal Affairs Joe DiMona, BMI Vice President New Media David Levin, BMI Senior Vice President Writer/Publisher Relations Phil Graham, BMI Senior Vice President Repertoire & Licensing Mike O’Neill, BMI Vice President Corporate Planning Jodi Saul, BMI Senior Vice President and General Counsel Stu Rosen, BMI Senior Vice President Performing Rights Alison Smith, Congressman John Conyers, Jr., BMI Senior Vice President International Ron Solleveld, BMI President and CEO Del Bryant, BMI Senior Vice President Corporate Strategy, Communications & New Media Richard Conlon, BMI Vice President and Head of Strategic Communications and Marketing Silvia Davi, and BMI Vice President International Operations & Information Technology Ed Oshanani.
Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Conyers Calls Upon Judiciary To Hold Hearings On Municipal Bankruptcy Petitions of Michigan

Ranking Judiciary Member John Conyers, Jr. requests Judiciary hearings on chapter 9 filings of bankruptcy relief by municipalities given that the Michigan court has ruled that the Detroit bankruptcy petition is unconstitutional based on impact on worker's pensions.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Thursday, July 18, 2013

Lawmakers take action to stem decline in bees and limit toxic pesticide use


Lawmakers take action to stem decline in bees and limit toxic pesticide use


Reps. John Conyers (D-Mich.) and Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) on July 16 introduced long-awaited legislation aimed at stopping the massive decline of bee populations by halting the use of toxic pesticides called neonicotinoids. Reports nationwide have consistently documented bee kills between 50 -70 percent just this year, with some beekeepers losing 100 percent of their operations. The issue took on fresh urgency after over 50,000 bumblebees were killed in an Oregon parking lot in June after exposure to neonicotinoids.
 
The lawmakers, with support from Center for Food Safety and a coalition of environmental and conservation groups, introduced legislation, H.R. 2692- Saving America's Pollinators Act of 2013. The law would suspend the use of systemic neonicotinoid insecticides linked to bee deaths as well as compel the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to conduct a full review of the scientific evidence before letting other neonicotinoids on the market. The legislation also calls for our government agencies to regularly monitor the health and population status of native bee populations.
 
Pollinator losses represent a serious threat to agricultural systems and food security. Without bees we would face an immediate food crisis. In North America, honey bees pollinate nearly 95 kinds of fruits such as almonds, avocados, cranberries and apples and their services contribute between $20 billion and $30 billion annually to U.S. agriculture. Pollination services are a vital part of global agricultural production, valued at over $125 billion annually.
 
It is grossly irresponsible to continue using neonicotinoids as they continue to decimate pollinator populations. Although recently suspended in Europe among growing concerns for adverse impacts to bee populations, neonicotinoids are the most widely used insecticides in the world. In the face of a growing body of evidence that these chemicals are leading to Colony Collapse Disorder, we must take swift action to protect our food supply.
 
While independent scientists and beekeepers have attributed recent bee population declines to a combination of factors, exposure to neonicotinoids has remained a key culprit, eliciting action around the globe.
 
EPA granted a conditional registration to the neonicotinoid clothianidin in 2003 without the required field study on pollinator impacts. This requirement has never been met, yet clothianidin remains one of the most commonly used insecticides more than decade after EPA found it had insufficient basis for registration requirements.
 
EPA is currently working under a 2018 deadline for reviewing the registration of clothianidin and other neonicotinoids.  Five more years of colony losses at this rate leaves little hope that beekeepers will survive this delayed timeline, seriously jeopardizing our agricultural economy and food supply.


Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-a-environment/312023-lawmakers-take-action-to-stem-decline-in-bees-and-limit-toxic-pesticide-use#ixzz2ZSOZQcM6 
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Opening Statement of the Honorable John Conyers, Jr. for the Hearing on the Voting Rights Act After the Supreme Court’s Decision in Shelby CountyBefore the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice


Opening Statement of the Honorable John Conyers, Jr. for the Hearing on the Voting Rights Act After the Supreme Court’s Decision in Shelby County Before the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice
Thursday, July 18, 2013, at 11:00 a.m.


     The Voting Rights Act is the crown jewel of our nation’s civil rights laws.
     Many members past and present hold the act in an almost sacred place. Some, like our colleague John Lewis, shed his blood in support of its passage. Others owe their careers as legislators to its vigorous enforcement.
     Without question, the act has been an unqualified success, helping to rid our nation of legal barriers to voting discrimination and paving the way for the election of the first African-American to the White House.
     These successes, however, did not mean that the work of the Voting Rights Act was complete.
     For that reason, then Chairman Sensenbrenner, and I on a bipartisan basis compiled a voluminous record in support of reauthorization of the act in 2006.
     This record, in many respects, greatly exceeded that compiled for previous reauthorization efforts.
     Most importantly, we carefully followed the parameters set out in City of Boerne v. Flores in updating the Act so that it would pass legal scrutiny and protect voters from well-documented, continuing discrimination.
     In response to legal challenges to the act following 2006, we asserted congressional authority to enact voting rights legislation under the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments of the Constitution in two separate amicus briefs.
     We were confident that the United States Supreme Court, following the precedents set inSouth Carolina v. Katzenbach and in City of Rome vs. United States, would uphold the constitutionality of the act.
     This explains why I, along with many of my colleagues in Congress and legal commentators, were so deeply disappointed by the Court’s 5 to 4 decision in Shelby County v. Holder, which invalidated the coverage formula or “trigger” in Section 4(b) of the Act as being outdated.
     As a result of Shelby, Section 5 of the Act – which requires preclearance for jurisdictions covered by Section 4(b) – is effectively suspended.
     Section 5 is the Act’s key provision.  It requires covered jurisdictions to obtain advance approval from the Justice Department or a three-judge panel before they can implement voting changes.
     The suspension of Section 5 preclearance deprives the Justice Department of a critical tool that has been used to protect the voting rights of minority citizens in jurisdictions with a history of discrimination.
     Although the Supreme Court has invited Congress to pass an updated coverage formula, the opinion left unresolved several important questions.
     The most immediate of these issues pertains to the current state of existing voting rights enforcement law during the interim between this ruling and enactment of any new coverage formula.
     Fortunately, today’s hearing provides an important opportunity for us to address this issue and others presented by Shelby.  And I thank Committee Chairmen Goodlatte and Subcommittee Chairman Franks for promptly scheduling this hearing.
     I have been a member of this committee for my entire career in Congress.  I joined the committee in 1965 so I could work on bills like the Voting Rights Act because I had seen firsthand the stain that discrimination in general and discrimination in voting in particular placed on our democracy.
     I know every member of this committee to be an individual of fairness and good faith, and I pledge to work with each and every one of you to respond to the Supreme Court’s decision on a bipartisan basis.
     It is therefore my hope that immediately after this hearing and over the recess we can begin the process of discussion with each other in order to protect our citizen’s voting rights to the fullest extent possible consistent with our Constitution. 2141 Rayburn House Office Building

Witnesses

Mr. J. Christian Adams, Election Law Center

Mr. Robert Kengle, Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law

Mr. Hans A. von Spakovsky, The Heritage Foundation

Mr. Spencer Overton, The George Washington University Law School


Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Opening Statement of the Honorable John Conyers, Jr. for the Hearing on the Administration’s Use of FISA Authority Before the Committee on the Judiciary


Opening Statements

Statement of the Honorable John Conyers, Jr. for the
Hearing on the Administration’s Use of FISA Authority
Before the Committee on the Judiciary
Wednesday, July 17, 2013, at 10:00 a.m.
2141 Rayburn House Office Building

       The House Judiciary is the committee of primary jurisdiction for both of the authorities we are here to discuss today—Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act, and Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act.
       Over the past decade—under the leadership of four chairmen with diverse political views—the members of this committee have vigorously debated the proper balance between our safety and our constitutional right to privacy. 
       We never—at any point during this debate—approved the type of unchecked, sweeping surveillance of United States citizens employed by our government in the name of fighting the war on terrorism.
       This is not and should not be a partisan issue.  Accordingly, I intend to work with Chairman Goodlatte to increase our oversight of these programs, and to increase the accountability of the government to the American people.
       As an initial step, we should work to make more information about government surveillance available to the public.
       Further, if the government cannot provide us with a clear explanation for its actions, I will urge President Obama to terminate these programs immediately.
       With the time I have left in my opening remarks, I want to address the administration’s arguments that it has given to justify these programs.
       Section 215 authorizes the government to obtain certain business records only if it can show to the FISA Court that the records are “relevant” to an ongoing national security investigation.
       Our committee added the “relevance” standard to Section 215 when we debated reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act in 2005.  The rationale for this requirement was explained in the committee’s report that accompanied this legislation:
“[Section 215] is similar to the widely-used grand jury subpoena authority in criminal investigations….  Under Section 215, only an Article III FISA judge can issue an order for business records; an investigation of a U.S. person cannot be based solely on activities protected by the First Amendment; the records must be for a foreign intelligence or international terrorism investigation; and minimization procedures must be used.”
       Unfortunately, nearly every one of these criteria has been violated by the programs we have read about in the Guardian and the Washington Post.
        For example, although we clearly intended Section 215 authority to resemble a grand jury subpoena—directed at a particular individual, and related to a specific investigation—the government instead collects records of every phone call made in the United States.
        Here’s another example:  grand jury subpoenas—indeed, most Article III court orders—are eventually satisfied.  Under Section 215, the government instead renews its demands for the production of phone records every 90 days, forcing companies to provide these records on an ongoing basis, apparently without end.
        And, here is yet another example: although Section 215 was reauthorized with specific, individual protections for First Amendment activities, those protections become meaningless when the government simply collects information on each of us, in bulk form, hoping to sort good citizens from bad citizens at a later date.
       In the present case, by the government’s own admission, there is no limit whatsoever on its collection of metadata under Section 215.
       I have therefore come to the conclusion that, if the government cannot provide a clear, public explanation for how its program is consistent with the statute, then it must stop collecting this information immediately.
       I want to distinguish this much-needed legal explanation from discussions about theeffectiveness of these programs.
       Various government officials have assured the public that these programs make us safer.  Those assurances have no bearing on the law.  Indeed, there are many unlawful steps the government could take to enhance our national security.
       I urge the witnesses to respond with substance, not anecdotes or theoretical cases. I do not want to hear the story about gathering “the haystack” today so that you can look for “the needle” later.
       Another concern that I have pertains to the administration’s track record of responding to criticisms of these programs.
       On March 12, Senator Wyden asked Director of National Intelligence James Clapper whether the government collects “information about millions of Americans.”  The answer, as we know, is yes.  Yet Director Clapper—incredulously—said no.
       Although he later apologized for his “erroneous” statement, he did so only after the scope of metadata collection was made known to the public.
       On June 26, National Security Agency Director General Keith Alexander retracted two public fact sheets related to electronic surveillance under Section 702.
       When pressed by Senators Wyden and Udall, he agreed that the document “could have more precisely described” the standards for collection.  But the public still does not know which misleading items led to the retraction.
       During his appearance before this committee last month, FBI Director Robert Mueller asserted that, had Section 215 surveillance been available in 2001, the attacks of September 11th might never have occurred.  Other senior administration officials have made similar statements.
       With all due respect to Director Mueller and his colleagues, none of us are empowered to rewrite history.
       The 9/11 Commission did, in fact, conclude that—had the government been able to identify certain suspects in time—we might have disrupted the plot.
       But the commission did not say that lack of surveillance capabilities prevented us from taking action.
        In fact, the 9/11 Commission came to the opposite conclusion: the government agencies in charge of tracking these suspects—the CIA, the NSA, and the FBI—failed to effectively communicate with each other and failed to draw conclusions from the evidence already available.
       President Obama has called for a “public discussion” about these authorities.  I agree.  But if we are to have that discussion, the people and their elected representatives need to know it is a frank, honest, and straightforward discussion.  Thus far, I am not able to say that is the case.
       Which leads me to my final point: our conversation should focus on improving both public scrutiny and congressional oversight of these programs.
       Over the past six weeks, the administration has asserted that it conducts this surveillance with congressional support—because they have briefed some members about these programs in the past.
       It seems that the government takes the position that the mere fact of briefing some members implies our unanimous endorsement of these activities.  I assure you it does not.
        Many of my colleagues have never had an opportunity to attend these briefings.  Others are critics of these surveillance programs precisely because of what we have learned about them in a classified setting.
       And we are all concerned about the “Catch-22” ramifications of a classified briefing.  If we receive classified information in a secure setting, we cannot discuss it with our constituents; if we skip the briefing, we risk being uninformed and unprepared.
       One simple solution to this problem would be to publicly release significant FISA court opinions or, at the very least, unclassified summaries of these opinions. 
       This solution would have the added benefit of subjecting the government’s legal claims to much-needed public scrutiny.
       Over the past decade, the court has developed a body of law that instructs the government about what it may do with the information it collects from U.S. citizens, even when it collects that information inadvertently.  There is no legitimate reason to keep this legal analysis from the public any longer.
       If we are to strike the right balance with these surveillance authorities, then we must bring the public into the conversation without delay.  Instead of simply asking our constituents to trust us, I am asking you, the executive branch, to trust them.
       I yield back.

Witnesses

Panel 1

Mr. James Cole, U.S. Dept. of Justice

Mr. John C. Inglis, National Security Agency

Mr. Robert S. Litt, Office of Director of National Intelligence

Ms. Stephanie Douglas, FBI National Security Branch

Panel 2

Mr. Stewart Baker, Steptoe & Johnson

Mr. Steven Bradbury, Dechert, LLP

Mr. Jameel Jaffer, American Civil Liberties Union

Mr. Kate Martin, Center for National Security Studies



Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Conyers: Bipartisan Consensus that Unchecked, Sweeping Surveillance Programs Must End


(WASHINGTON) – Today, the U.S. House Judiciary Committee held a full committee hearing on, “Oversight of the administration’s Use of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Authorities.”  The U.S. House Judiciary Committee is the committee of primary jurisdiction for both authorities principally discussed at the hearing today: Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act and Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act. Following his opening remarks, Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich.) issued the following statement:
“Over the past decade – under the leadership of four chairmen with diverse political views – the members of the Judiciary Committee have vigorously debated the proper balance between public safety and the constitutional right to privacy.  We never – at any point during this debate – approved the type of unchecked, sweeping surveillance of United States citizens employed by the federal government in the name of fighting the so-called war on terrorism.”
“This is not and should not be a partisan issue. The Judiciary Committee should work together in a bipartisan fashion to increase our oversight of these programs, and to increase the accountability of the federal government to the American people. As a first step, Congress should work to make more information about government surveillance programs available to the public. If the government cannot provide us with a clear explanation for its actions, I will urge President Obama to terminate these programs immediately.
“The administration has made various arguments to justify its use of these programs. Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act authorizes the government to obtain certain business records only if it can show to the FISA Court that the records are ‘relevant’ to an ongoing national security investigation. The Judiciary Committee added this ‘relevance’ standard to Section 215 when we debated reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act in 2005. Although we clearly intended for this Section 215 authority to resemble a grand jury subpoena – directed at a particular individual and related to a specific investigation – we now know that the federal government instead collects records on every phone call made in the United States.
“This widespread surveillance runs counter to the intentions of Congress. And, unfortunately, under Section 215 the government renews its demand for the production of all phone records every 90 days, forcing companies to provide these records on an ongoing basis, apparently without end. By the government’s own admission, there is no limit whatsoever on its collection of metadata under Section 215. I have therefore come to the conclusion that, if the government cannot provide a clear, public explanation for how its program is consistent with the statute, then it must stop collecting this information immediately.
“Various government officials have assured the public that these programs make us safer. But, those assurances have no bearing on the law; indeed, there are many unlawful steps that the government could take to enhance our national security. Unfortunately, I believe that the NSA’s communications surveillance programs fall into this unlawful category by even a cursory reading of the Fourth Amendment.
“This sentiment was underscored in the testimony of two witnesses appearing before the Judiciary Committee in the second panel today.
“Jameel Jaffer of the American Civil Liberties Union noted how, ‘The NSA cannot insulate this program from Fourth Amendment scrutiny simply by promising that Americans’ private information will be safe in its hands. The Fourth Amendment exists to prevent the government from acquiring Americans’ private papers and communications in the first place.’
“And, in addressing the unique concerns posed by the surveillance occurring over online and electronic networks, Kate Martin of the Center for National Security Studies explained, ‘…the notion that Fourth Amendment protections have no applicability to information about an individual held by third parties, no longer hold in the new world of massive electronic data about individuals held by Internet service providers, telecommunications companies and others.’
“President Obama has called for a public discussion about these surveillance authorities. I agree. But if we are to have that honest discussion, we should focus on options to improve both public scrutiny and congressional oversight of these surveillance programs. One option would be to publicly release significant FISA court opinions or unclassified summaries of these opinions. This would subject the government’s legal claims to much-needed public scrutiny.
“If we are to strike the right balance with these surveillance authorities, then we must bring the public into the conversation without delay.  Instead of simply asking our constituents to trust us, I am asking you, the executive branch, to trust them.”


Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©