Congressman Nadler Urges Senate Judiciary Committee to Question Sessions on Donald Trump's Conflicts of Interest

"Unless he makes clear that he will order a thorough and independent investigation of Mr. Trump’s conflicts of interest, and commits to pursuing any violations of law that are uncovered, he should be deemed unfit for the office of Attorney General, and his nomination should be rejected."

U.S. Representative Jerrold Nadler

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- On Friday, Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), senior Member of the House Judiciary Committee and former Chairman and Ranking Member of the Constitution Subcommittee, sent a letter to Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee urging them to question Senator Jeff Sessions on issues pertaining to Donald Trump’s conflicts of interest and possible violations of the Constitution. Starting tomorrow, the Senate Judiciary Committee is set to begin confirmation hearings with President-elect Trump's nominee for Attorney General. On Monday, Congressman Nadler authored an Op-Ed urging the Committee to ask Senator Sessions how he intends to address these outstanding concerns over Mr. Trump’s business conflicts and guarantee compliance with the law.

U.S. Representative Jerrold Nadler Letter To Senate Judiciary on Jeff Sessions Confirmation on Trump Confli... by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

CONYERS JOINS CLARK & DEMOCRATS TO INTRODUCE BILL TO REQUIRE PRESIDENT & VICE PRESIDENT TO FULLY DIVEST PERSONAL FINANCIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

Washington, DC – Today, House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI) joined Congresswoman Katherine Clark and Democratic members of Congress to introduce bills in the U.S.  House and Senate that would require the President and Vice President to disclose and divest any potential financial conflicts of interest. The Presidential Conflicts of Interest Act would require presidential appointees to recuse themselves from any specific matters involving the President's financial conflicts of interest that come before their agencies. The bill’s primary sponsors are Representatives Katherine Clark (D-MA), John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI), Richard Neal (D-MA), Elijah Cummings (D-MD), Peter Welch (D-VT), David Cicilline (D-RI).  At the time of introduction, 82 members in the House have cosponsored this legislation.

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

"President-elect Trump campaigned on the promise that he would 'drain the swamp' and put an end to self-dealing in Washington. Just days before he takes office, his actions speak louder than his words. Mr. Trump has failed to take even modest steps to resolve his conflicts of interest, let alone explain to the public how he will avoid using his office to his own financial benefit.  If the president-elect will not act, it is imperative that Congress do so.  I urge my colleagues in the majority to act on this important legislation without delay," said Committee on the Judiciary Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr.

“The President of the United States has the power to affect how our tax dollars are spent, who the federal government does business with, and the integrity of America’s standing in a global economy,” said Congresswoman Clark. “Every recent president in modern history has taken steps to ensure his financial interests do not conflict with the needs of the American people. The American people need to be able to trust that the President’s decisions are based on the best interests of families at home, and not the President’s financial interests.”

"President-elect Donald Trump claimed last year he would hold a big press conference to explain to the American people exactly how he planned to resolve his vast conflicts of interest, but he never did it,” said Rep. Elijah E. Cummings, Ranking Member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. “Both Republican and Democratic experts have warned repeatedly that President-elect Donald Trump must completely divest his ownership interests in his companies around the world and place the assets in a truly independent blind trust, or else he will breach federal contracts and violate the United States Constitution.”

“On January 20, Donald Trump will take the oath of office to become the 45^th President of the United States.  At the appointed time, he will raise his right hand and swear to ‘Preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.’ This legislation will ensure that President Trump will follow through on the requirements of this solemn oath,” Rep. Welch said.  “The American people should have every confidence that actions taken by our new president are in the country’s best interest rather than his own.” 

“The American people should always have confidence that their elected officials are acting only in the public interest,” said Congressman Cicilline. “This is especially true for the President of the United States and his appointees. I’m proud to join Congresswoman Clark and our colleagues today to improve transparency, enhance disclosure and divestiture requirements, and ensure that the President of the United States is always acting in our nation’s best interests.”

Original co-sponsors of this legislation in the Senate include Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Ben Cardin (D-Md.), Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Chris Coons (D-Del.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), Bob Casey (D-Pa.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Al Franken (D-Minn.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Gary Peters (D-Mich.), and Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.).

Presidential Conflicts of Interest Act of 2017 by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

CONYERS Statement In Opposition To REINS Act

Washington, DC – House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI) submitted the following statement for the Congressional Record in opposition to the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2017 (REINS Act):

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

Mr. Chair, H.R. 26, the “Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2017,” otherwise known as the REINS Act, would amend the Congressional Review Act to require that both Houses of Congress pass and the President sign a joint resolution of approval within 70 legislative days before any major rule issued by an agency can take effect.

Simply put, H.R. 26 would impose unworkable deadlines for the enactment of a major rule under procedures that could charitably be referred to as convoluted.

Under this bill, the House may only consider a resolution for a major rule on the second and fourth Thursday of each month.  Keep in mind that typically 80 major rules are promulgated annually.  Yet, there may be as little as just 15 days available to consider such measures based on the Majority’s legislative calendar for the current year. 

Furthermore, Congress may only consider such resolutions within 70 legislative days of receiving a major rule. This process would constructively end rulemaking as we know it.

           

Now, Mr. Chair, the reason why my friends on the other side of the aisle say we need this kind of gumming-the-works legislation -- is because they claim regulations stifle economic growth.

           

For example, they point to the outgoing Administration and say that regulations promulgated during its tenure have hurt our Nation’s economy.

           

What they fail to tell the American people is that it was the Republican George Bush Administration’s economic policies that caused the Great Recession.

           

Without question, it was the lack of regulatory controls that facilitated rampant predatory lending, which nearly destroyed our Nation’s economy.

           

It led to millions of home foreclosures and devastated neighborhoods across America.  In fact, it nearly caused a global economic meltdown. 

           

Nevertheless, as a consequence of strong regulatory policies implemented by President Obama through such measures as the Dodd-Frank Act, our Nation has recovered to a point where the unemployment has been cut nearly in half to less than 5%.

           

Yet, the REINS Act would reverse these gains by empowering Congress to control and override the rulemaking process, even in the absence of any substantive expertise.

More than 80 of the Nation's leading professors on environmental and administrative law have warned in connection with substantively identical legislation considered in the last Congress, that without this expertise, any congressional disapproval is more likely to reflect the political power of special interests.

           

Lastly, by upending the process for agency rulemaking so that Congress can simply void major rules through inaction, the REINS Act likely violates the presentment and bicameralism requirements of article I of the Constitution.

           

As a leading expert on administrative law states:  “The reality is that the act is intended to enable a single House of Congress to control the implementation of the laws through the rulemaking process. Such a scheme transgresses the very idea of separation of powers, under which the Constitution entrusts the writing of the laws to the legislative branch and the implementation of the laws to the executive branch.''

           

The REINS Act will further encourage corporate giants to hold our country hostage through a deregulatory, profits-first agenda and facilitate a political influence process rivaling the destructive industrial monopolies from the past century.

           

In sum, H.R. 26, like the “Midnight Rules Relief Act” we considered yesterday on the House floor, is yet another blatant gift to big business to weaken the critical regulatory protections that ensure the safety of the air we breathe, the cars we drive, the toys we give our children, and the food we eat. 

               

Accordingly, I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this ill-conceived bill and I reserve the balance of my time.

CLOSING REMARKS

Mr. Chair, we need real solutions for real problems. 

           

In stark contrast, however, the REINS Act attempts to address a non-existent problem with a very dangerous solution. 

           

We need legislation that creates middle class financial security and opportunity.

           

We need sensible regulations that protect American families from economic ruin and that bring predatory financial practices to an end.

           

We need workplace safety regulations that ensure hardworking Americans who go to work each day are protected from hazardous work environments.

           

We need strong regulations that protect the safety of the food we eat, the air we breathe, and the water we drink. 

           

Unfortunately, H.R. 26 does nothing to advance those critical goals. 

This explains why more than 150 organizations strongly oppose this legislation, including:

·         Americans for Financial Reform

·         The American Lung Association

·         Consumers Union

·         The Humane Society of the United States

·         The League of Conservation Voters

·         Public Citizen

·         The American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees

·         Earthjustice

·         The Coalition for Sensible Safeguards

·         The American Public Health Association

·         The Environmental Defense Action Fund

·         The Center for American Progress, and

The Trust for America’s Health.

I therefor urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 26 and I yield back the balance of my time.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

CONYERS House Floor Statement In Opposition To H.R. 21, The So-Called “Midnight Rules Relief Act"

LEGISLATION WOULD EMPOWER CONGRESS TO ROLL BACK MORE THAN 6 MONTHS OF CRITICAL PROTECTIONS

I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 21, the so-called Rules Relief Act of 2017.”

This sweeping measure would empower Congress to undo virtually every regulation submitted to Congress since mid-June of last year through the end of 2016.

The bill accomplishes this end by authorizing Congress to disapprove these rules through a single joint resolution thereby depriving Members to consider the merits of each individual regulation.

H.R. 21 presents numerous concerns.

To begin with, this bill would provide special interests with yet another opportunity to block critical, life-saving regulations.

Long before regulations are submitted to Congress, agencies often take many years to ensure that these rules are carefully vetted through a deliberative process based on extensive analysis, public notice, and comment. 

As one recognized administrative law expert has observed, much of modern rulemaking involves a “very detailed analysis of legal, factual, and policy issues, many of them highly technical. This work is better suited to the subject matter specialists in the respective agencies.”

Yet, H.R. 21 would effectively force Congress to rely on industry input when presented with an up-or-down vote on a long list of complicated and often highly technical rules.

David Goldston of the Natural Resources Defense Council warns that this would result in special interests descending on “Congress with even greater fervor than is currently the case.”

I am also concerned that H.R. 21 is based on the fundamentally flawed premise that rules finalized during the final year of a President’s term are somehow rushed or improperly vetted.

The nonpartisan Administrative Conference of the United States, for example, conducted an extensive study in 2012. 

It concluded that “a dispassionate look at midnight rules issued by past administrations of both political parties reveals that most were under active consideration long before the November election.”

The Conference also reported that many of these rules involved purely routine matters initiated before the Presidential transition period or as the result of deadlines outside the agency’s control, such as year-end statutory or court-ordered deadlines.

Indeed, so-called midnight rules often take longer to promulgate than other rules.

For example, Public Citizen reports that rules adopted during a presidential transition period were typically proposed 3.6 years prior to their adoption, while other rules adopted in non-transition periods took nearly 2.8 years to complete.

The Center for Progressive Reform likewise concludes that concerns about midnight rulemaking are overstated, stating that “there simply is no reason to believe that a rule released at the end of an administration is worse than those that are released at any other point.”

Perhaps this is because Congress already has the tools to vacate an unreasonable rule under current law—the Congressional Review Act.

Lastly, as with the many other anti-regulatory bills we considered in the last congress, this legislation completely ignores the benefits of regulation and is premised on the unsubstantiated belief that regulations undermine employment or economic growth.

This also explains why H.R. 21 is opposed by a broad coalition of organizations, including the AFL-CIO, the Consumer Federation of America, Consumers Union, and the Natural Resources Defense Council. 

           

As the Obama Administration stated in connection with its veto threat of an identical version of this bill considered last November, the legislation “would create tremendous regulatory uncertainty, potentially impose additional costs on businesses, and represent a step backwards for applying sound regulatory principles to protect public health, safety, the environment, and other critical aspects of society.”

If we care about clean water and air, if we care about the safety of the toys we give our children, if we care about the environment, then we must oppose this bill.

Accordingly, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in rejecting this legislation and I reserve the balance of my time. 

CLOSING FLOOR STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOHN CONYERS, JR. IN OPPOSITION TO H.R. 21, THE SO-CALLED “MIDNIGHT RULES RELIEF ACT”

With so many other pressing issues for the Congress to act on, it is a disservice to the American people that we, as one of our first legislative actions in the 115^th Congress, take up H.R. 21, a bill that has far-ranging consequences in the absence of anydeliberative process.

Even though just yesterday more than 50 new Members of the House were sworn in and even though there was not a single legislative hearing on this bill in the last Congress, the Majority has chosen to rush this bill literally on the second day of this new Congress.

And, as further insult to all Members, this bill is being considered under a closed rule, depriving our colleagues of any opportunity to offer amendments.

But, most importantly, this bill jeopardizes public health and safety because it will further empower special interests that prioritize profits over lives to derail regulations they just do not like. 

So, in closing, I must oppose H.R. 21, a bill that is utterly unnecessary, unwarranted, and ill-conceived.

I yield back balance of my time.  

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.©

House Republicans vote to weaken Congressional ethics watchdog

U.S. House Judiciary Chair, Bob Goodlatte and
Dean of the U.S. House of Representatives, John Conyers, Jr.

WASHINGTON, Jan. 2 (UPI) -- Republican members of the House voted Monday to strip the independence from the Office of Congressional Ethics, bringing the non-partisan watchdog under the oversight of the House Ethics Committee -- some of the people it is designed to keep an eye on.

The House Ethics Committee will now have jurisdiction over the Office of Congressional Ethics, which also will be restricted from investigating anonymous tips against lawmakers, must keep information about investigations secret and sets a statute of limitations on how long the office can investigate members of Congress.

The unexpected changes to the OCE are part of the House Rules to govern the new Congress that representatives will vote to adopt on Tuesday and represent a move some say increases the chance for corruption and wrongdoing.

Va. Rep. Bob Goodlatte, who proposed the amendment, announced its adoption for the new rules package after a meeting of the House Republican Conference.

While Speaker of the House Paul Ryan and House majority leader Rep. Kevin McCarthy opposed the measure, stripping the OCE of its independence was approved by an overwhelming 119 to 74 vote at the conference.

"The amendment builds upon and strengthens the existing Office of Congressional Ethics by maintaining its primary area of focus of accepting and reviewing complaints from the public and referring them, if appropriate, to the Committee on Ethics," Goodlatte said in a statement Monday. "The O.C.E. has a serious and important role in the House, and this amendment does nothing to impede their work."

The ethics panel was created after a series of corruption and lobbying scandals in Congress by Nancy Pelosi when she was speaker of the house, and was maintained by former Speaker John Boehner, to keep an eye on members of Congress. Before its creation, many had concerns that the House Ethics Committee was not strong enough in its pursuit of ethical violations.

"Gutting the independent ethics office is exactly the wrong way to start a new Congress," Chris Carson, spokesperson for League of Women Voters, told CNN. "This opens the door for special interest corruption just as the new Congress considers taxes and major infrastructure spending."

Where the OCE currently considers allegations brought to it, and releases reports on its investigations after they have been presented to the House Ethics Committee, the new rules require OCE not to disclose information from investigations.

The rule expected to be adopted Tuesday also sets a statute of limitations for OCE, restricting it from investigating reports older than the previous three Congresses, amounting to a six-year window.

The investigative body has been criticized harshly by some members of Congress, often those who have been investigated by it, with some attempting to take legislative measures to limit its actions. For some, the potential passage of a rule bringing OCE under Congressional oversight -- effectively allowing members of Congress to police themselves -- raises some serious concerns.

"Republicans claim they want to drain the swamp, but the night before the new Congress gets sworn in, the House GOP has eliminated the only independent ethics oversight of their actions," Pelosi said Monday night in a statement. "Evidently, ethics are the first casualty of the new Republican Congress."

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2017/01/02/House-Republicans-vote-to-weaken-Congressional-ethics-watchdog/7171483405670/

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©