conyers: i thank the speaker. i'm pleased now to yield to my friend from california, the eshoo, for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. ms. eshoo: i thank the distinguished ranking member of the judiciary committee and my friend for yielding two minutes to me. madam speaker, i rise in strong support today of this legislation, the permanent internet tax freedom act. , as stated l that before, will permanently eliminate any barriers created by the tax case of -- taxation of internet access. the current tax moratorium is going to inspire -- is going to expire shortly on november 1 which would open the doors to taxation on internet access. and i think it's very important to make this very clear. this really protects consumers because the taxation would fall to them. and that this issue should not be confused with the issue of sales taxes collected by others. ions and this is clearly, i think, a consumer issue. whether for commerce, business, education, research, the inte

conyers for years in trying to rectify that. but i think there's a bigger problem here today and i would like y'all to comment on it from your respective positions starting with his cash. if in fact the intent has always been exclusive right, and i'll read that backpacks wards, right to exclude, belongs to the author or the to performer or to be honest, the many people that are part of that collective process that we'll just call a right, if that right were to be restored, wouldn't we essentially eliminate all of these court decisions, all of these consent judgments and most of the laws we helped perpetuate, and including exclusions? we could down to congress determining fair use under free speech and so on. we want that sampling but not sampling as a ring tone necessarily, those kinds of things? wouldn't we then empower all of you to come together, mr. williams, come together and decide to collectively you're going to offer your rights through pooling or individually you're going to retain your rights if you're just say, the be

conyers for his questions. >> thank you, mr. chairman. would you discuss director rodriguez, the sheer numbers we are talking about? how many young people have come across our southwest border so far this year and last year and the year before? >> congressman, i apologize that as i sit before you, i can't tell you the specific numbers. certainly those numbers have grown over time. they remain essentially in the tens of thousands, but it is the fact that those numbers continue to grow. >> well, i have 50,000 for 2013, 25,000 for 2012, and even lesser number for 2011. does that figure in agreeably with your thoughts on this? >> my general understanding is that the trend until very recently was an upward trend. i think that trend has begun to level off. one thing i would notice i actually started reading latin american newspapers in honduras, guatemala and el salvador. spanish is actually my first language. there are increasingly stories in the media, one about individuals being returned, two about the fact daca offers no benefit to these in

thank you. >> thank you, chairman conyers. i mean, ranking member conyers. i wanted to remind everyone that our committee, the criminal law committee, did have authority from the judicial conference to make a decision regarding retroactivity, and at our june meeting of the criminal law committee, we voted by a large majority in favor of making the drugs minus 2 amendment retroactive. >> thank you. mr. patton, would you comment on th this? >> i think it's safe to say that offenders would strongly encourage the commission to make -- and for congress to make any changes retroactive. it really does not serve the interest of justice for the amount of time somebody serves to just depend on the fortuity of when the law goes into place. if it's an unjust sentence, it's unjust for the people serving the time now in addition to people who will be sentenced tomorrow. and it would, i think, greatly help to emiliorate the crimes we see in the system. >> my next question is to judge saris, judge keeley and judge patton. here it is. congress recommended mandatory minimums

conyers: i thank the gentlelady. and members of the house, as the former chairman of the house judiciary committee, i rise in strong opposition to house resolution 676, which would authorize the speaker to file suit against the president of the united states for failing to enforce the affordable care act, which has been attacked more than 51 times unsuccessfully in the house. now, why? why do i oppose this serious, flawed measure? one, the fact that it addresses a nonexistent problem. two, that it violates constitutional requirements and fundamental separation of power principles. and three, that it diverts congress from focusing on truly critical matters that require prompt legislative responses. i ask unanimous consent, mr. speaker, to include in the record a letter received only today signed by eight constitutional law scholars explaining the reasons why a lawsuit filed pursuant to house resolution 676 is likely to fail. without objection. the letters will be part of the record. mr. conyers: h.r. 676 seeks to solv

thank you. >> thank you, chairman conyers. i mean ranking member conyers. i wanted to remind everyone that our committee the criminal law committee, did have authority from the judicial conference to make a decision regarding retroactivity, and at our june meeting of the criminal law committee, we voted by a large majority in favor of making the drugs minus 2 amendment retroactive. >> thank you. mr. patton, would you comment on this this? >> i think it's safe to say that offenders would strongly encourage the commission to make -- and for congress to make any changes retroactive. it really does not serve the interest of justice for the amount of time somebody serves to just depend on the fortuity of when the law goes into place. if it's an unjust sentence, it's unjust for the people serving the time now in addition to people who will be sentenced tomorrow. and it would, i think greatly help toie emiliorate the crimes we see in the system. >> my next question is to judge saris, judge keeley and judge patton. here it is. congress recommended mandatory minimum

conyers for his questions. >> thank you, mr. chairman. would you discuss director rodriguez, the sheer numbers we are talking about? how many young people have come across our southwest border so far this year and last year and the year before? >> congressman, i apologize that as i sit before you, i can't tell you the specific numbers. certainly those numbers have grown over time. they remain essentially in the tens of thousands, but it is the fact that those numbers continue to grow. >> well, i have 50,000 for 2013, 25,000 for 2012, and even lesser number for 2011. does that figure in agreeably with your thoughts on this? >> my general understanding is that the trend until very recently was an upward trend. i think that trend has begun to level off. one thing i would notice i actually started reading latin american newspapers in honduras, guatemala and el salvador. spanish is actually my first language. there are increasingly stories in the media, one about individuals being returned, two about the fact daca offers no benefit to these in

>> well, the mechanism, as i say in the article, the bill that john conyers introduces every year, saysld study the issue. it's like saying we should study it is not very gratifying. you want a specific number, write the check... >> stephen: or just study and go no further. >> right, right, right. the idea of studying before you do it is not actually new. >> stephen: i go from the gut. too i want to give you any of my money? no. that's my gut. en that is my gut on that. >> there it is. there it is. [applause] that's good policy, but in the case of japanese-americans, we did the same thing. we had a study before we cut a check. >> stephen: well, it's a much smaller group of people. it is. it's smaller group of people, so the damage is less and the specific moment of hurting them is so contained in the... it starts with slavery and... >> what if we just took it from 1860. >> stephen: we get a mulligan on slavery. >> right. >> stephen: that's tempting. that's not bad idea. dutt your losses on slavery. >> we could do jim crow. steep we just do 20th century crimes. >> we'll just do lynching,

conyers for his statement. >> thank you chairman goodlatte and members of the committee. in a nutshell, the united states citizenship and immigration service services are vital in examining the young people that are coming across our southern border. and i want to suggest that before we leave for five weeks that we try to ease the deportation of children and appropriate emergency funds. bus we have too few judges, too few asylum offices. we have 243 immigration judges. for 375,000 cases. we're talking about a more than four-year backlog, my colleagues. and, so, youngsters with valid claim should have a speedier way to have that determined. now, more -- those without valid claims, i'm sorry to say, should be sent back. but that determination is what democracy is all about. and it's our responsibility. to be careful in how we do this. i know the strong feelings about these youngsters pouring over here. but the question is how do we dispose of it consistent with democratic principles that will guide us. and nowhere should this be more keenly felt than the house judiciary com

conyers for his statement. >> thank you chairman goodlatte and members of the committee.s citizenship and immigration service services are vital in examining the young people that are coming across our southern border. and i want to suggest that before we leave for five weeks that we try to ease the deportation of children and appropriate emergency funds. bus we have too few judges, too few asylum offices. we have 243 immigration judges. for 375,000 cases. we're talking about a more than four-year backlog, my colleagues. and, so, youngsters with valid claim should have a speedier way to have that determined. now, more -- those without valid claims, i'm sorry to say, should be sent back. but that determination is what democracy is all about. and it's our responsibility. to be careful in how we do this. i know the strong feelings about these youngsters pouring over here. but the question is how do we dispose of it consistent with democratic principles that will guide us. and nowhere should this be more keenly felt than the house judiciary committee itself. so, we must deter

thank you. >> thank you, chairman conyers. i mean, ranking member conyers. i wanted to remind everyone that our committee, the criminal law committee, did have authority from the judicial conference to make a decision regarding retroactivity, and at our june meeting of the criminal law committee, we voted by a large majority in favor of making the drugs minus 2 amendment retroactive. >> thank you. mr. patton, would you comment on th this? >> i think it's safe to say that offenders would strongly encourage the commission to make -- and for congress to make any changes retroactive. it really does not serve the interest of justice for the amount of time somebody serves to just depend on the fortuity of when the law goes into place. if it's an unjust sentence, it's unjust for the people serving the time now in addition to people who will be sentenced tomorrow. and it would, i think, greatly help to emiliorate the crimes we see in the system. >> my next question is to judge saris, judge keeley and judge patton. here it is. congress recommended mandatory minimums

you can't lump in john conyers with barack obama. but at the end of the line, they're still linked with the democratic party. it has no structural tie to these people in their tents. so it's a loose relationship and a relationship where the democrats will if left to their own devices always move right. it's a really difficult to keep up the pressure constantly, especially with a globalized economy and the defeat of those political movements as we discussed before. >> you hit the nail on the head. if both parties are bought and lost by big money and big business, how do we ever, any of us, have a voice who don't have money, much less the progressive left? >> right. i think, for example, if you look at seattle and the rise of the victory official the $15 minimum wage, you see the left is confident enough to run its own candidate, to really say decisi decisively, we should break with the democratic party. it difficult to get back. in some situations, it's not the thing we need to do right away. elect orally, you can't put the cart befor

conyers referred to, that loophole includes terrestrial radio as well as -- >> i appreciate that. let me get to mr. christian who said something earlier i appreciated, mr. frear. i think it helps us focus a lot on what we're dealing with. you said in your testimony that with particular reference to the recurring demand by the recording industry for sound recording performance right to be imposed on terrestrial radio, understand, you said, that the radio industry is not some vast pot of riches that can tapped as a bailout for a recording industry that's failed to execute a digital strategy that addresses a decline in its own brick and mortar income. congress unambiguously intended that in exchange for unique support, terrestrial radio should be treated differently from other platforms, and you say that premise hasn't changed. and then you go on to explain that any change in our approach will be met with opposition because it would cripple a radio industry that's been financially treading water for years now. i'd respectfully suggest that this is what we're trying to get at today. t

conyers: i thank you, mr. speaker. members of the house, i rise 49th to celebrate the anniversary of the medicare bill. the impact of medicare on the lives of millions of americans over the past 49 years has been extraordinary. as a result of this program, millions of americans have lived longer, more productive, and healthier lives. i'm very fortunate and honored to be able to say that i was one of the few members still here who cast a vote for medicare in 1965. earlier that year, i joined with the gentleman from california, cecil king, and i introduced as my very first piece of legislation a bill that would have provided health care under social security and an increase of benefits. i said at that time, our senior citizens have far too long been neglected in this, the most prosperous society on earth. many of them, after leading productive lives prior to their twilight years, have been so overburdened with medical costs that they've been denied the rewards that should come with retirement. i'm proud to say that in my

conyers: thank you. i thank the floor leader for his generosity. i, like my colleague from new york, mr. nadler, rise in support of this bipartisan legislation for several reasons. to begin with, section 119 of the copy write act expires -- copyright act expires on december 31. it's particularly important for unserved households, namely customers who can't receive an over-the-air signal of a local network. thus, if congress fails to act, millions of americans stand to lose access to their broadcast television service. h.r. 4572 responds to this problem in pertinent part by extending for five years the section 119 license authorization. thereby ensuring continued service to millions of americans. the other reason that i support this bill is that it's a good example of how congress can work on a bipartisan basis and produce legislation offering effective solutions. there are many issues regarding the relationship between broadcast television stations and distributors that would benefit from similar efforts

john conyer said some of our republican colleagues are willing to exploit a humanitarian crisis to attackum pumadministration. and benghazi barbara boxer said it is a political witch hunt and a campaign tactic to gin up their base. >> and i don't think there is any doubt about it, it is a tactic that the republicans are trying to employ. and the republicans are trying to to unsuccessfully to link this scandal to the white house. that is from a member of the investigating committee. are both sides trying to score points. a b stoodard and jenna goldberg with the national review. welcome to you. jona h. the flood of immigration now the president is trying to turn it on the republicans. do you think that the president will escape? >> i don't think he will escape. the president lost credibility with everybody but his base and that's all he's talking to at this point. he is talking to the people who he needs to show up in the 2014. he lost the independents and lost republicans a really long time ago. and now just spinning his wheels. it is important to point out, they have done this since the b

. >> congressman john conyers said he's going take the issue to president obama. but there may be new hope for residents this morning. i want to bring in hang winchest winchester. a reporter who has been covering the story from the beginning and marine taylor. thank you for being with us. >> michigan's department of human services has been overwhelmed with complaints about financial assistance in the crisis saying, quote, we are working to process. we are working to process those requests as quickly as possible. we're also hearing from citizens concerned about children living in conditions without water and we are investigating these cases. how many people at risk in detroit's water crisis here, hank? >> we're talking about thousands of people. the number growing every day. here is why. because the water department is continuing to shut off water to those who have the huge outstanding bills. again, to be very clear. we're talking about people who owe thousands of dollars who have ignored the bill for months. some of these people have a desperate need. they simply

you know, they're involved with the militia also, and this was in eljay georgia, conyers georgia, springhilllorida, around in the tampa area, poke county, lakeland. it's very prevalent, more than you would imagine. >> they were at these meetings while they were active officers in fruitland? >> absolutely. i knew james elkins was an officer because he let everyone know. i did not know mr. borest was. he introduced himself as david, friends, always there with pamela elkins, but myself and my undercover partner joe got this investigation started back in 2004 and 2005, and as you can see, it has continued for so long, and you can believe other officers are going to be implicated. and that story that they were telling us, how they worked undercover, come on. something smells fishy up there in norway. >> i'm going to get back to the fishy norway part, but james elkins, the officer who was outed as a klan member five years ago, was he a prominent presence in the white supremacist groups in this area? >> absolutely. in hillsborough county, polk county, those areas. like i said, it was with the klan,

. >> congressman rigell, i promised carol in conyers, georgia, what has the president done that you think is positive? >> on the local level, he made fort monroe a national monument. there's so much history there, the first folks who kind of were protected in the civil war, african-americans were protected by general butler there and he described them as contraband, as a legal theory to hold and protect those who were -- had run from the south and this american history needed to be preserved and i appreciate that. >> i think that the president's intent with respect to setting our country on a better fiscal path is genuine. i had the opportunity to speak to him directly about this for about 10 or 15 minutes, but i shared with him at that time that i was un -- i'm convinced that his assessment of the risks that we're taking on as a country is different than mine. i hope he's right, but i see us as in an extremist situation. we've got to make meaningful wise reforms to medicare, medicaid, and social security so they can be there for the next generation, and i don't see the leadership needed

conyers and -- [inaudible] all these individuals have taken time and are here with us today, and we're very appreciative. as the panel -- [inaudible conversations] as people arrived, we will turn to them for them to if they have any questions of the witnesses or any reactions to the testimony. with that, let me welcome you and welcome these three fine, brave, courageous young people that are here with us today. let me begin with -- [inaudible] 15 years old, she's from guatemala. she lives on long island with her two younger sisters, her mom and step dad. she grew up for much of her youth in guatemala without her parents. her father died when she was just 2, and her mother traveled to the united states when she was young because she could not support her two daughter cans as a single -- daughters as a single mom in guatemala. she was almost sexually abused by a man working on her uncle's house. when she told her mom what happened, she immediately left for the u.s. to bring her two daughters to safety. dulce also witnessed the attempted murder of a woman who sold food door to door in the

conyers. your time is now. >> this is our 10th hearing and both of you have been here before. this is a good place and a good point to begin with and that is how do you see the cumulative effect and impression and understanding that we have gleamed from the ten hearing this year and last year. dr. baker, why don't you start us off than that. >> if i compare back to trials from when i was a law clerk and federal trials now the shift of power is what stands out and how the power shifted toward federal law enforcement to the point where, not everyone, but there is a certain arrogance that prevades the prosecutors. and it goes with the territory unfortunately. when you give anybody too much power they will use it. and i don't mean they are using it for what they perceive to be bad things. they believe what they are doing is the right thing. when they resign and become criminal defense attorneys they get a different perspective and they realize maybe we were too aggressive. i have been on panels with former asas and they have said that. there are three perspectives: the prosecutor,

in addition, i would like to recognize eric conyer, ron nuss balm for their leadership of the organization as well as the rest of the moose lodge's membership as they begin their next 100 years of service to the angola community. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from nevada seek recognition? ms. titus: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. titus: in two days, we'll go home, leaving behind a long list of unfinished business. but it's not for lack of trying on the part of democrats. we have introduced bills, signed discharge petitions, protested on the steps of the capitol, fasted on the mall. all to try to prompt or at least shame the republicans into some kind of action. but they are shameless. apparently, they just don't care. they don't care if women get paid less, as long as c.e.o.'s get record salaries. they don't care if children stack up at the border and families are divided as long as they can sue the president. they don't ca

that statement was made by then judiciary chairman john conyers. he was right. -- theouse democrat house democrats follow the lawsuit to obtain this testimony , in which they ultimately prevailed. house and senate democrats were unequivocally in the support of requiring that white house officials testified before congress. thenis a quote from speaker of the house nancy pelosi. " by filing this lawsuit, house numbers recognize the need to defend congress's subpoena power against the efforts of an administration to hide information in order to prevent the exercise of congresses oversight and lawmaking responsibility. this action is completely again, the words of speaker pelosi. scrutinized the president's political office. he close the office and generate 2011 in anticipation of a critical report by the office of special counsel released just days later. both democrats and republicans -- commended his decision. president obama decided to reopen the office in january of this year, after three years of operating without the office, committee had some q

that statement was made by then judiciary chairman john conyers, and he was right. the white house democrats -- sorry, the senate democrats follow the lawsuit in which they ultimately prevailed. they were unequivocally in support of white house officials testifying before congress. here is a quote from nancy pelosi. here's a quote from then speaker of the house nancy pelosi. i filing this lawsuit, house members -- in order to prevent the exercise of lawmaking responsibility. this action is completely nonpartisan. again, historically democrats and republicans alike have scrutinized the white house political office. president obama close the office in january 2011, in anticipation of a critical report by the office of special counsel released just days later. both democrats and republicans condemned -- commended this decision. when president obama decided to reopen the office in january of this year after three years of operating without the office, the committee have some questions. and rightfully so, the ranking , and i quote, skeptical about the office reopening gi

john conyers laid out the dangers to which you are exposing detroit residents in a statement saying,ilure to reinstate water service means malnutrition and disease for babies, the sick, and the elderly. this forcing the most vulnerable people to try and eke out an existence without water only 0 doubles the disgrace. you are attempting to collect a debt for those who paid the greatest debt, the economy has been crippled by a 40% poverty rate. a population decline of 1 million people since the 1950s. those left behind have had to shoulder the burden of the crumbling infrastructure of the water and sewage system. as their abbott to pay bills declines, the coast of water has only gone up. 119% over the last decade. aisle not saying that detroit's water department doesn't have the right 0 to try and collect what it's owed. it does. why not start with the 57% of the commercial users who still haven't paid their bills or the 55% of the industrial users who are also delinquent? between the two of them that's nearly $30 million in outstanding payments or, here's a thought, maybe try saving mo

conyers, as soon as this part of the transition is done.[inaudible conversations] >> while we are transferring over the next panel could have a seat so we can -- let me, i want to take time from representative chu's office, for the work in putting this together, kelsey and others from our office and the communication folks, for their fine work in putting this together. job well done, and i want to thank you for all that work. thank you very much. we are going to start. [inaudible conversations] >> let me welcome the second panel, and thank you very much. as leader pelosi said, dinner on many organizations that have been so helpful, not only in this hearing but the cause of making sure we provide the protections that these children deserve. and let me begin with jessica jones, children use policy advocate, lutheran immigration and refugee services, and with that, let me turn the floor over to you. >> thank you. thank you for the opportunity to speak your and thank you for your organizers of this hearing and for the members of the congression

that statement was made by then judiciary chairman john conyers, and he was right. the white house democrats -- sorry, the house democrats followed the lawsuit to obtain this testimony in which they ultimately prevailed. house and senate democrats were unequivocally in the support of requiring the white house officials to testify before congress. here is a quote from then speaker of the house nancy pelosi. here is a quote from then speaker of the house nancy pelosi. by filing this lawsuit, house members recognize the need to defend congress's subpoena power against the efforts of an administration to hide information in order to prevent the exercise of congress's oversight and law making responsibility, and i quote. this action is completely nonpartisan. again, the words of speaker pelosi. historically democrats and republicans alike have scrutinized the white house political office. president obama closed the office in january 2011 in anticipation of a critical report by the office of special counsel released just days later. both democrats and republicans condemn

congressman john conyers in letters to the federal government and detroit's water and sewage board stressed consequences of denying those rights saying, quote, the failure to reinstate water service means unsanitary conditions, malnutrition, and disease for babies, the sick sxeld early. this isn't, for example, electricity, which while a useful modern convenience allowing to you watch me on television or internet right now is not a necessity to sustain life. this is water. the substance without human beings cannot exist. your body is unable to function without it. without water you cannot bathe or prepare food for yourself or your family or use the toilet. making it not only a necessary resource to preserve public health but also human dignity. in detroit those who are being denied their water and the right to that dignity are also those who are least empowered to defend it. according to the environmental protection agency, on average most american households pay about $300 a year for water. but according to detroit water and sewage, average water bill if you live in the motor city is $65 a

conyers. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank both of you gentlemen and this is our tenth hearing, and both of you have been here before. so this is a good place and a good point to begin with is, how do you see the cumulative effect and impressions and understanding that we've gleaned out of these ten hearings this year and last year? dr. baker, why don't you start us off on that. >> well, i -- if i compare back to federal criminal trials that i sat back through when i was a law clerk and federal trials today, biggest thing that strikes me is the imbalance of power. and how the power has shifted so dramatically towards federal law enforcement to the point where not everyone but there's a certain arrogance that pervades the prosecutors. and it goes with the territory. unfortunately. when you give anybody too much power, they're going to use it. and i don't mean that they're using it for what they perceive to be bad things. they believe that what they are doing is the right thing. of course, when he this he then re

was wrong, and weren't you relitigating the exact same thing that president bush had lost in the conyers case? >> we were stating -- everybody litigates positions constantly in -- >> okay, so you're part of an administration that can relitigate that which has been decided. just yesterday you decided that there was an inherent -- your administration decided there was an inherent right not to deliver a federal employee, even though in the harriet miers bolton case it was made clear that depositions and witness subpoenas were, in fact, binding. so the strange thing is, when is you talk about legal opinions, and i appreciate the former solicitor general and how well he's held in regard. but what you're saying is, you pick an opinion and the opinion can be wrong but your opinion that is you don't fall under us, that in fact our oversight is irrelevant, that you don't have to answer our questions, you don't have to produce documents, and you can withhold -- that's been a consistent pattern in this administration. and just yesterday, the president of the united states asserted a brand-new right

this bill was introduced by congressman john conyers and congressman jim sensenbrenner, demonstrating the bipartisan support for restoring a crowning achievement of the civil rights movement. i'm a strong supporter of the voting rights amendment act and i'm encouraged that members of both parties see the need for this legislation. as a country that have made incredible progress in expanding the vote to right for previously disenfranchised populations, now is not the time to turn the clock back. we should instead be moving forward, ever ford and encouraging legal, -- ever forward, and encouraging legal voters to participate in government, in democracy and in voting, not working to exclude them. epshuring the ballot boxes in our nation and democracy remain open to all. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from alabama, mrs. roby, for five minutes. mrs. roby: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to share with this congress and with this nation a story of mismanagement, malfeasance, negligence, and cover-up at the central a

legislator plaintiff in a lawsuit against president bush, was brought by on the name of congressman conyers in 2005 challenging the constitutionality of the deficit reduction act. >> let me just say, i restate that this is a political stunt given the fact that a couple weeks ago no one knew what they were going to sue about and they focused in on this. secondly, all i'm asking -- i'm just trying to figure out the discrepancies here. i read your footnote. you said the title of your article was that you didn't write it. i went back to your article that you wrote. you said congress probably can't sue the president either. the supreme court is severely restricted so-called congressional standing creating a presumption to sue the president merely because he fails to faithfully execute its laws. look, so obviously -- i just have a little whiplash trying to follow all the different interpretation here. i realize you wrote multiple articles and maybe some of your views have changed, but i do -- >> my views have not changed. >> i'd like to ask unanimous consent these be put into the record, mr. spea

when representative conyers, for instance, was chairman of the judiciary committee, and i quote, we are co-equal branch of government. if our systems of checks and balances is going to operate, it's imperative we understand how the executive branch is enforcing or ignoring the bills that are signed into law, unquote. representative nadler for his part cautioned, and i quote this, and i hope that anyone who thinks that inquiring into excesses of the executive branch and into what appears to be a concentrated effort in every different aspect of law to destroy the power of congress and the judiciary and to limit our power to protect the liberties of the american people against encroachments by the executive are a waste of time, i hope that they will rethink what they are doing here, unquote. mr. speaker, i read these quotes to illustrate the concern of the executive branch overstepping its authority isn't confined to just one party or one president. the legislative versus executive issue is not a democrat versus republican issue. to be frank, the legislative branch has been on the losing e