CONYERS: After Texas Shooting, Conyers Renews Call For Judiciary Committee To Address Gun Violence

Washington, D.C. – After the horrific shooting in Sutherland Springs, Texas, House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI), renewed his call for the House Judiciary Committee to investigate gun violence in America and called for a private Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) briefing to be conducted as an official public hearing with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).

Ranking Member Conyers delivered the following remarks during today’s Judiciary hearing:

I hope that the @HouseJudiciary will take up the issue of #gunviolence, including an examination of #bumpstocks, as soon as possible. pic.twitter.com/vhYGMQYhx5

— John Conyers, Jr. (@RepJohnConyers) November 7, 2017

Mr. Chairman, before I discuss the important topic of today’s hearing, I want to raise another issue that we must unfortunately confront with urgency.

On Sunday, a gunman shot and killed 26 churchgoers in Sutherland Springs, Texas.  All of us were shocked by this horrific act and express condolences to the victims and families.

We now know that information concerning his court martial for domestic abuse should have been submitted by the Air Force to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.  He should have been prevented from purchasing firearms from licensed gun dealers via the Brady background check system.

Yesterday, before this information came to light, I wrote to the Chairman, requesting that the briefing planned for our Members tomorrow afternoon by ATF on the issue of bump stocks be expanded to include the FBI to discuss the background check issues related to Sutherland Springs, and that the briefing be conducted as a formal hearing, open to the public.

Now that we have even more information that there has been a breakdown in the implementation of our background check system, I ask that we include relevant officials from the Department of Defense and the Air Force. 

I believe we should proceed quickly to learn what happened, and the public deserves to hear answers directly. 

Therefore, I reiterate and expand my request concerning tomorrow’s briefing.

Yesterday, Ranking Member Conyers and Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations Ranking Member Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) sent a letter, below, to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte to request that the Committee’s ATF briefing be conducted as a public hearing, and that the FBI be included to discuss background check issues. 

On November 1^st, Conyers  led a letter signed by every Democratic member of the House Judiciary Committee to Chairman Bob Goodlatte, urging him to hold hearings on gun violence in America.

At an October 12^th markup, Ranking Member Conyers called on the House Judiciary Committee Majority to investigate gun violence in America.

On October 2^nd, immediately following the Las Vegas shooting, Ranking Member Conyers and Subcommittee Ranking Member Sheila Jackson Lee sent a letter to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte to renew their call for hearings on these issues.

U.S. House Judiciary Ranking Member Conyers and Jackson Lee Second Request For Hearings On Gun Violence to... by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

CONYERS Joins Bipartisan 16 Veteran Member Statement On Dangers Of Ground Invasion In North Korea

Conyers’ Bipartisan, Bicameral Legislation Reaffirms Congress’s Constitutional Power Over A First Strike On North Korea

Washington, D.C. – Korean War veteran Congressman John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI), issued a bipartisan joint statement with fellow veterans Rep. Ted W. Lieu (D-Los Angeles County), Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), Rep. Ruben Gallego (D-AZ), Rep. Carbajal (D-CA), Rep. DeFazio (D-OR), Rep. Brown (D-MD), Rep. Rush (D-IL), Rep. Jones (R-NC), Rep. Panetta (D-CA), Rep. Pascrell (D-NJ), Rep. Thompson (D-CA), Del. Sablan (D-Mariana Islands), Rep. Gabbard (D-HI), Rep. Scott (D-VA), Rep. Moulton (D-MA) on a potential ground invasion in North Korea. The statement follows a CRS report and a letterfrom the Joint Chiefs of Staff addressing questions raised by Reps. Lieu and Gallego about the Pentagon’s plan for military action against North Korea.

In the statement, the Members wrote:

“The Joint Chiefs of Staff has now confirmed that the only way to destroy North Korea’s nuclear arsenal is through a ground invasion. That is deeply disturbing and could result in hundreds of thousands, or even millions of deaths in just the first few days of fighting.

As Veterans, we have defended this nation in war and we remain committed to this country’s security. We also understand that entering into a protracted and massive ground war with North Korea would be disastrous for U.S. troops and our allies. The Joint Chiefs of Staff, it appears, agree. Their assessment underscores what we’ve known all along: There are no good military options for North Korea. Invading North Korea could result in a catastrophic loss of lives for U.S. troops and U.S. civilians in South Korea. It could kill millions of South Koreans and put troops and civilians in Guam and Japan at risk. The Joint Chiefs said they have no reason to believe North Korea would resist using their stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons. It is our intent to have a full public accounting of the potential cost of war, so the American people understand the commitment we would be making as a nation if we were to pursue military action.

A nonpartisan report by the Congressional Research Service indicates conflict on the peninsula could impact as many as 25 million people on either side of the border, including more than 100,000 U.S. citizens. We must pursue every other option before even considering a massive ground invasion. The Administration has also failed to articulate any plans to prevent the military conflict from expanding beyond the Korean Peninsula and to manage what happens after the conflict is over. We’re still engaged in the longest war in U.S. history in Afghanistan with no end in sight.

With that in mind, the thought of sending troops into harm’s way and expending resources on another potentially unwinnable war is chilling. The President needs to stop making provocative statements that hinder diplomatic options and put American troops further at risk.

The Joint Chiefs’ assessment and the CRS report clearly demonstrate that every diplomatic and economic option must be exhausted before military options are considered. If President Trump does intend to pursue a military option against North Korea, he must come to Congress as required by our Constitution. The stakes are too high and the potential outcome too grave for President Trump to violate his constitutional duty to come to Congress to authorize and oversee use of force.”

In a video statement, Conyers also said, “We want to send a clear message to President Trump as he embarks for his Asia trip:  to the extent that you can, sir, please refrain from any further escalation.  We appreciate Secretary Tillerson pursuing a diplomatic approach, and Secretary Mattis saying that war in Korea would be catastrophic. Please listen to them and spend your time in Asia seeking a peaceful resolution to this dispute.”

Ahead of President Donald Trump’s travel to Asia, Conyers hosted a press conference with Senators Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) and Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) to reaffirm Congress’s Constitutional power over approving a first strike against North Korea. 

In October 2017, Congressman Conyers and Senator Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) led more than 60 members of Congress in introducing new bipartisan, bicameral legislation to ensure that President Donald Trump cannot attack North Korea without the approval of Congress by prohibiting any expenditure of funds for such a strike. The No Unconstitutional Strike Against North Korea Act of 2017 restricts funds available to the Department of Defense or to any other federal department or agency from being used to launch a military strike against North Korea without the prior approval of Congress or the imperative to respond to an attack against the United States or its allies. The bipartisan House version of the legislation, H.R. 4140, is co-led by Congressman Thomas Massie (R-KY) and has 61 co-sponsors. 

In August 2017, Conyers led more than 60 Members of Congress in sending  an urgent letter to Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to express “profound concern” over “irresponsible and dangerous” statements made by President Trump regarding North Korea and to urge Tillerson to do everything in his power “to ensure that President Trump and other Administration officials understand the importance of speaking and acting with the utmost caution and restraint on this delicate issue.”

In May 2017, Conyers led a letter signed by 64 Democratic Members of the U.S. House of Representatives, to rebuke President Trump’s inconsistent and dangerous statements regarding U.S. policy towards North Korea, notify him that military strikes without Congressional approval would violate the Constitution, and urge him to instead adhere to the diplomatic approach recently articulated by his Secretary of State Rex Tillerson. The 64 signers represented the 64 years since the Armistice Agreement was signed to end hostilities in the Korean War.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

CONYERS: Ahead Of DOJ Oversight Hearing House Judiciary Committee Democrats Put Sessions On Notice

Washington, D.C. – Today, ahead of Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ testimony before the House Judiciary Committee on November 14, 2017, House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI) led a letter, below, signed by every Democratic member of the House Judiciary Committee to Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

The letter, below, was signed by every Democratic member of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee, including: Representatives John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI), Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX), Steve Cohen (D-TN), Hank Johnson (D-GA), Ted Deutch (D-FL), Luis Gutierrez (D-IL), Karen Bass (D-CA), Cedric Richmond (D-LA), Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), David Cicilline (D-RI), Eric Swalwell (D-CA), Ted Lieu (D-CA), Jamie Raskin (D-MD), Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) and Brad Schneider (D-IL). 

The hearing will take place in 2141 Rayburn House Office Building and will be webcast live at judiciary.house.gov. On the day of the hearing, media will be allowed access to the committee hearing room at 9:30 a.m.

Congressionally credentialed members of the media MUST RSVP to their respective Press Gallery no later than 5:00 p.m. on Monday, November 13. Gallery contact information is below:
 

House Radio/TV Gallery:	radiotv@mail.house.gov 202-225-5214
House Periodical Gallery:	periodical.press@mail.house.gov 202-225-2941
House Daily Press Gallery:	dailypressgallery@mail.house.gov 202-225-3945
Photographer Gallery:	press_photo@saa.senate.gov 202-224-6548

U.S. House Judiciary Democrats Notice To AG Sessions On Congressional Hearings, Letter 11-07-2017 by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

CONYERS: Voter suppression, the blueprint to a broken democracy

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

Numerous false narratives have been advanced to sow division in the American electorate, with few more pernicious than the myth of voter fraud. Created as a tactic to justify discriminatory voter suppression practices, this mythos threatens our most fundamental constitutional right and undermines the core democratic values of republican government.

The myth that voter fraud is rampant and our elections are infiltrated by undocumented immigrants was used as a pretext for state legislatures across our nation to make it harder for minorities to vote. Against the tide of reforms to expand the franchise for all voters, states like North Carolina began to repeal common sense legislation designed to ease the inconvenience of antiquated voting practices. In 2013, the state enacted a law allowing election boards to cut voting hours. The state Republican Party even informed election officials that “Republicans can and should make party line changes to early voting.” Consequently, 23 counties reduced early voting, accounting for half of all registered voters. 

The North Carolina law also included strict voter ID requirements and banned same-day voter registration, but was later stuck down by an appeals court. A Federal District Court found that the law was written with “discriminatory intent” that surgically targeted African Americans who use early voting more than whites. However, despite successful legal challenges, this voter suppression strategy has served as a blueprint for states across the county, producing in predictable results.

The real objective of the voter fraud strategy was suppression of the votes of minorities to achieve a cynical, partisan political outcome. Researchers from U.C. San Diego and Bucknell University measured the consequences of voter ID laws and found that they have a dramatic and discouraging effect on minority turnout. In primaries in states with strict voter ID laws, Latino turnout decreased by nine points, African-American turnout by 8.6 points and Asian-Americans by 12.5 points.

Despite these sobering statistics, courts remain divided on voter ID requirements, creating significant voter confusion. A federal judge has twice struck down Texas’ voter ID law because it was “enacted with discriminatory intent” and unfairly burdened hundreds of thousands of Hispanic and African-American voters, given that only two instances of fraudulent voting were found in Texas in the preceding decade out of 20 million votes cast. Conversely, though Wisconsin’s voter ID law was invalidated after a finding that it would disproportionately disenfranchise working-class Americans and minorities who could not afford photo IDs, that decision was reversed by a federal appeals court just before the 2016 election, making it difficult for hundreds of thousands of Wisconsinites to vote.

A nation that hails itself as a beacon of democracy should not tolerate tactics that suppress voter turnout. Numerous studies have proven that the claim of widespread voter fraud is in fact a fraud itself. In one example, Lorraine Minnite, author of The Myth of Voter Fraud

, found only one case of voter fraud from 2000 to 2005. Similarly, President George W. Bush’s Justice Department also enthusiastically investigated voter fraud claims, but found no coordinated fraud effort. That these plans were intended to target voters on the basis of party-line, race and class is even more anti-democratic and destructive to our system of government. 

As a core American value, we must be committed to expanding the right to vote and eliminating structural barriers to participation. A series of reform policies can and should be enacted at the federal level to apply equality and fairness across our elections: eliminate strict voter ID laws that discriminate against the working class and minorities; make election-day a national holiday; extend voting hours and increase the number of early voting days; and automatically register all eligible voters.

Every eligible American deserves to exercise their constitutional right to vote, have their voices heard, and strengthen the political market place of ideas. Polling has shown that a bipartisan majority of Americans support practices to make voting more convenient. The battle of ideas, not cheap political tactics, will protect and strengthen our democracy. Both sides of the aisle should feel confident enough that their ideas can appeal to the majority without having to disenfranchise those who might vote against them.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

CONYERS Statement For The Hearing On "Oversight Of The Executive Office For Immigration Review,: Before The Subcommittee On Immigration And Border Security

U.S. House Judiciary Democrats

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

Before we begin today’s hearing, I want to note the passing of Juan Osuna, who served as the Director of the Executive Office for Immigration Review and who testified before this Subcommittee in that capacity. 

Mr. Osuna was a model public servant who devoted the last 17 years of his extraordinary life to the Department of Justice.  He was a consummate professional known for his great leadership and ability to balance access to justice with court efficiency.  I am sure he is deeply missed by the Department and his colleagues.

Now, turning to the focus of today’s hearing, we have an important opportunity to consider the current challenges facing the Executive Office for Immigration Review, particularly under the current Administration.

To begin with, it appears that anti-immigrant ideology, rather than the rule of law, is guiding immigration court policies under the Trump Administration. 

After all, since the earliest days of his campaign, now-President Trump has shown troubling disregard for that rule.  He has attacked the judiciary; issued an unprecedented pardon of a sheriff convicted of criminal contempt of court; and fired the FBI Director during an ongoing investigation by that agency into his own campaign.

Unfortunately, the Executive Office for Immigration Review appears to have not escaped this broad erosion of rule of law principles based on the Administration’s policies that threaten judicial independence, due process, and fundamental fairness within our immigration courts.

First, media accounts report that the Trump Administration could impose numerical and time-based case quotas on Immigration Judges. 

All of us – Democratic and Republican alike – support commonsense measures for reducing immigration court backlogs.  But quotas are not the solution.  Their implementation would force already overstretched judges to hurry through lengthy dockets regardless of the circumstances of individual cases. 

Hearings would become lightning fast, fundamentally unfair, and devoid of due process. In short, a quota system would turn immigration courts into a forced march toward deportation.

Second, the Administration issued a memorandum effectively pressuring judges to deny motions for continuances, which often represent a vulnerable immigrant’s only chance for obtaining counsel essential to protecting his or her rights. 

           

Together with case quotas, this will force many respondents, even young children, to face Immigration and Customs Enforcement prosecutors without counsel, which all but ensures their unjust removal.

Third, the Executive Office for Immigration Review has moved to strip children in immigration proceedings of other vital protections. 

           

In a callous break with prior policy, the agency’s Office of General Counsel issued an opinion concluding that Immigration Judges may revoke minors’ “Unaccompanied Alien Child” status and associated legal safeguards.  As with the first two measures, this will substantially increase removals of minors.

The common denominators among these three measures are clear: far less due process and fairness, far more deportations, which is anything but the rule of law.

Instead, these policies undermine that rule in the service of the President’s anti-immigrant ideology intended to drive immigrants out of the United States. 

Our task today must be to gain a greater understanding of how this Administration’s  Executive Office for Immigration Review policies concretely advance that agenda and how they serve to further his mass deportation plan.

I thank Acting Director James McHenry for his appearance before the Subcommittee and look forward to a substantive dialogue with him on these critical matters.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

CONYERS: House Judiciary Committee Democrates Urge Goodlatte To Hold Hearings On Gun Violence

U.S. House Judiciary Democrats

Washington, D.C. – House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI) today led a letter, below, signed by every democratic member of the House Judiciary Committee to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, urging him to hold hearings on gun violence in America.

In their letter to Chairman Goodlatte, the Members wrote, “To be clear, we are not writing simply because of the high toll of death and injuries in Las Vegas, but because – despite progress we have made in decreasing crime in our country over the past two decades – on average, more than 11,000 people are murdered with guns in America ever year, and more than 60,000 individuals are injured in an attack.  Congress has a responsibility to find a way to help prevent tragedies like Las Vegas, as well as the daily incidence of gun violence in our communities.  That responsibility starts in this Committee, and we are disappointed that this Committee has not addressed this issue at all this Congress.”

At an October 12^th markup, Ranking Member Conyers called on the House Judiciary Committee Majority to investigate gun violence in America.

On October 2^nd, immediately following the Las Vegas shooting, Ranking Member Conyers and Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations Ranking Member Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) sent a letter, below, to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte to renew their call for hearings on these issues.

Today’s letter was signed by every Democratic member of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee, including: Representatives John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI), Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX), Steve Cohen (D-TN), Hank Johnson (D-GA), Ted Deutch (D-FL), Luis Gutierrez (D-IL), Karen Bass (D-CA), Cedric Richmond (D-LA), Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), David Cicilline (D-RI), Eric Swalwell (D-CA), Ted Lieu (D-CA), Jamie Raskin (D-MD), Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) and Brad Schneider (D-IL). 

U.S. House Judiciary Ranking Member Conyers Letter to Chairman Goodlatte Request For Firearms Hearings - 11... by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

CONYERS Statement For The Hearing On "Net Neutrality Ant The Role Of Antitrust" Before Teh Subcommittee On Regulatory Refore, Commercial And Antitrust Law

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

The Judiciary Committee has a central role in studying the issue of net neutrality and, more generally, competition on the Internet.

As the Committee considers today the specific question of whether antitrust law would be a better tool than regulation to ensure Internet competition and innovation, we should keep several factors in mind.

To begin with, failure to guarantee net neutrality is not an option.

As I have previously observed at prior hearings on this topic in 2008, 2011, 2014, and 2015, there are many areas in the United States where consumers have the choice of only one or two broadband Internet service providers. 

As a result, these broadband providers effectively function as monopolies or duopolies. 

Their control over the broadband access market gives them the incentive and ability to provide differential treatment of content, depending on factors like how much a content provider pays or whether the broadband provider also offers competing content.

Such discrimination can lead to less consumer choice, less innovation, higher costs, and more power to control the flow of information and ideas in the hands of fewer broadband providers.

Enforcement of existing antitrust law as the exclusive or primary means of ensuring an open Internet, however, would be insufficient.

Under current antitrust law, there is relatively little that regulators can do outside the merger review context to address the conduct of a regulated industry, such as broadband Internet service with respect to enforcing net neutrality principles.

Through a series of decisions, the Supreme Court has limited the potential to successfully pursue claims under the Sherman Antitrust Act with respect to net neutrality.

In addition, antitrust enforcement alone would be a cumbersome, more limited, more resource-intensive, and after-the-fact way than regulation to develop a regulatory regime for net neutrality.

Moreover, antitrust law is not sufficiently broad in scope as it fails to address the non-economic goals of net neutrality, including the promotion of innovation and the protection of free speech and political debate.

While I welcome the recent efforts of some progressives to restore the original understanding and purpose of antitrust law to better account for the political implications of the excessive concentration of corporate power, antitrust law nonetheless will remain a necessary, but insufficient tool with respect to ensuring net neutrality.

           

In light of the foregoing, the Federal Communications Commission’s 2015 Open Internet Order provides a strong and vital set of rules for ensuring an open Internet, and the Commission should not rescind it.

Rules to address net neutrality have the benefit of addressing potential threats to an open Internet before they fully materialize.

Additionally, having a set of best practices enshrined in rules would provide certainty for industry.

I am particularly pleased that the Open Internet Order contains key provisions that I and many others long called for, including:

●          a rule preventing broadband providers from blocking or throttling Internet access or from imposing paid prioritization of Internet traffic; and

●          a prohibition on any other practices that unreasonably interfere with or disadvantage users’ ability to access broadband service or lawful content applications, or services.

These measures are the best way to protect the virtuous cycle of innovation – which net neutrality fosters, and which ensures both competition and innovation among broadband and content providers – to the ultimate benefit of consumers.

I thank the Chairman for holding this hearing and I look forward to our witnesses’ testimony.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©