John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the gentleman on his latest observation. Now, with the woman that visited his office, and his asking her unsolicited opinion, did the gentleman ask her what she thought about the Lofgren substitute?

Mr. CONYERS. Did the gentleman ask her?

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I just wanted to comment on the gentleman's argument about other States having similar laws, and so why can we not do the same thing? The reason we have not done the same thing is that many of these State laws are obviously drafted differently. They do not use controversial terms, some of them, as ``unborn child'' or ``child in utero.'' The second thing is that none of these State laws have been validated or upheld in a Federal court, let alone a Supreme Court decision. They have not been tested. So I do not think that gives us a presumption that we can copy State law. I say to my colleagues, we should be creating Federal law that States may want to pattern themselves after. Then, we might want to take into consideration the experience with State laws that have not been very favorable on this subject. Some of these laws have been used as excuses to justify prosecuting women for their conduct while they are pregnant. A whole host of problems arise this way. In South Carolina, ironically, now they prosecute women whose babies are found to have drugs in their system; the mothers are prosecuted. In another case, the court ordered into custody a pregnant woman who refused medical care because of religious convictions, in an attempt to ensure that the baby be born safely. We had a National Public Radio case about a pregnant woman being forced into custody at a State medical facility in Massachusetts to ensure that her baby was born safely. In another case, a court sent a student to prison to prevent her from obtaining a midterm abortion. So I say to my colleagues, let us stop pointing recklessly to all of these laws in State courts as if they are giving us a reason to make the same kind of untested legislation that they are doing. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I just want to remind my friend, who is a former member of the Committee on the Judiciary, who assured us that Roe v. Wade was not under attack, well, most people understand that it is under attack. That is why the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League is opposed, Planned Parenthood Federation of America is opposed, the National Abortion Federation is opposed, the National Women's Law Center is opposed. Does the gentleman think they do not understand this bill very much? I think they do. The National Partnership for Women and Families, they are opposed. The Center for Reproductive Law and Policy, they are opposed. The American Civil Liberties Union, they are opposed. The Feminist Majority, they are opposed. The American Association of University Women, they are opposed. The National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association, they are opposed. The American Women's Medical Association, they are opposed. The National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, they are opposed. The National Council of Jewish Women, they are opposed. The National Organization for Women, they are opposed. The Physicians for Reproductive Choice in Health, they are opposed. The People for the American Way, they are opposed. Now, they do not understand what the Members are trying to do, do they? They do not get it? They have misunderstood the bill of the gentleman from South Carolina? All of these organizations, a dozen of them, they should relax, Roe v. Wade is not under attack. The gentleman in the well on the Republican side just told us so. It is okay. Relax. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield the balance of my time to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), a ranking subcommittee member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to thank my colleague, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), for the splendid substitute that she has let me help her work on, that we hope will bring us all back together. Just a couple of points: Please let everyone that is voting on this measure know that the substitute is not a penalty enhancement. Lofgren- Conyers is not a penalty enhancement. It provides a new and separate offense for harm to a pregnant woman that can cause injury or termination of her pregnancy. It contains two separate offenses. We got that out of the way. Okay, next. The substitute is tougher on criminals than is H.R. 503. Under the substitute, if a pregnancy is terminated, even unintentionally, the assailant can be sentenced to life in prison. By comparison, H.R. 503, the criminal must intentionally terminate pregnancy in order to get a life sentence. There is a big, big difference there. Now, to the reality of the matter. Because the major bill, H.R. 503, undermines Roe v. Wade, the Senate is not going to take it up. The Senate is not going to take up H.R. 503. We must come to that reality. They did not take it up in the last Congress; they will not take it up in this Congress in its present form. So if my friends on the other side of the aisle really want to protect unborn children, they will join us in supporting the substitute. So we are begging that our colleagues put policy above the normal abortion politics. Now, there is still the heart of the matter here that under the 14th amendment, as provided in Roe, ``person'' as used in the 14th amendment does not include the unborn. We cannot change that. We are not here to change it today. In the 28 years since Roe, the Supreme Court has never afforded legal personhood to a fetus. So in the name of all of the women and the men in this country that support a woman's right to choose, please join with me in supporting the Lofgren-Conyers substitute. We think it would be a beautiful day forward, and we will give this bill the life that it needs to go to the other body. Mr. Speaker, I urge the support of the substitute and the rejection of the base bill, H.R. 503.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Here is a new piece of historic information just in about James Madison that may appeal to my colleagues. Actually, they tried a supermajority, and I think they will all find this very interesting. Because under the Articles of Confederation in the 1780s, there was a provision for a supermajority. Adopting a supermajority tax requirement would repeat the very same mistakes made in the 1780s under the Articles of Confederation between the Declaration of Independence and the adoption of a constitution. Under these articles, it required a vote of nine of the 13 States to raise revenue, a supermajority. It is because the system worked so poorly that the Founding Fathers sought to fashion a national government that could operate through majority rule. So, Mr. Speaker, we would be ignoring a very important fundamental part of our history if we were to give in this area James Madison too hard a way to go. In fact, in the present circumstances, this amendment would take more votes to close a tax loophole engineered by powerful interest groups than to cut Social Security, Medicare and education programs. The amendment would also make the major deficit reduction measures much harder to pass when they are needed. Remember that five of the six major deficit reduction acts that were enacted since 1982, within the memory and experience of many Members here on the floor, included a combination of revenue increases and program cuts. President Reagan, Ronald Reagan, signed three of these measures into law. Presidents George H. Bush and President William Jefferson Clinton signed one each. None of these five measures received a two-thirds majority in both Houses. So, Mr. Speaker, had this proposed constitutional amendment been in effect during this period, substantial budget deficits would still be with us today. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), a senior member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, that is an interesting question that the chairman poses. If he would entertain hearings on my reparations bill, H.R. 40, which has been pending since 1989, I would be delighted with other witnesses to go in to him with a discussion of what the Members of States from the South who were all slave holding States did. Mr. Speaker, I did not mean to imply that James Madison or even Thomas Jefferson, perish the thought, was right every time on every issue. But I am referring to the question of whether a supermajority requirement on this subject should be put into the Constitution. Now, James Madison made many mistakes. By the way, so did all the other Founding Fathers. I mean, do you want to start with George Washington and come forward? The compromise to include slavery was only made, sir, because it was the only way we could form a Nation. The southern leaders all said that without that compromise they would not do it. What I am saying here is that on the requirement for a supermajority James Madison was entirely correct then and those who cite him, including myself, are entirely correct now.

Mr. CONYERS. Could I just point out a little bit of history? I do not think Madison was around when the 15th amendment was being debated, sir. I do not think Madison was around when the 14th amendment was being debated. I do not think he was around when the 13th amendment was being debated. But let us take Madison out of the picture. Apparently there is some problem with Madison. Let us go to the present day. I never thought I would find myself on the floor defending James Madison's positions, but let us talk about what would happen if this amendment were to actually come into our Constitution. The amendment would permanently enshrine some $450 billion of special corporate tax favors into the Constitution, nearly three times as much as all the means-tested entitlement programs combined, something we have been trying to deal with for many years. Now, Madison does not have anything to do with that. That is a present day, 21st century problem. Another point that we may want to take into present consideration, it would be impossible to change the law to require foreign corporations to pay their fair share of taxes on income earned in this country or to repeal the loopholes which encourage United States corporations to relocate overseas. Now, Madison aside, do we really want to do that? Or is this an example of conservative elitism carried to an extreme? Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Of course I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, apparently, Members of the Congress now all very simplistically refute James Madison. The gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart), the previous speaker, a very important and valuable member of the Committee on the Judiciary, just told us in effect, who cares what Madison was thinking? I mean, that was then, and this is now.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, to the ladies and gentlemen of the House, I want to begin by thanking the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, for requesting that this measure pass through the committee of jurisdiction since this is a constitutional subject. In many years passed, that has not been the case. So we begin in a very important way on that point. Now, I have to presume that the subject of a constitutional matter is being done seriously, that this is a serious discussion about amending the Constitution of the United States. If it is, then I think it is important, that for all of the Members that may not have the seniority that comes from being here for many years, that they understand that this is the sixth time that we have taken up this measure which has been soundly rejected on each prior occasion, not by the Senate, but by ourselves. So every year, this exercise is one that is brought to the floor and that we have to deal with it in good faith and using up the time of the House of Representatives to determine whether we want to put a tax limitation constitutional amendment in the Constitution. Now, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Committee on Rules, has coined a phrase that this proposal may be nothing more than elitism gone conservative; that this is a conservative elitist idea; that the Republicans, as a party, know better than the Founding Fathers and the people's will as reflected by the majority of the Congress. They have a better idea. We go through this every year. But not even within our body do we find that there is a serious enough amount of support to move it to the other body where we think we could predict what would happen there as well. So I oppose the amendment because it is bad for democratic procedure, but it is also horrific for tax policy. By requiring a two-thirds amendment, a majority to adopt certain legislation, we undercut the majority rule and diminish the vote of every single Member of the Congress. Now, this matter was taken up when our Founders were together. The framers wisely rejected a rule requiring a supermajority for basic government functions. James Madison argued that, under a supermajority requirement, the fundamental principle of free government would be reversed. It would no longer be the majority that would rule. The power would instead have transferred to a minority. It is on that basis that I apply the same logic now as James Madison applied then in determining whether a supermajority would be appropriate in the Constitution. The amendment is unsatisfactory because it is an undemocratic one. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), a distinguished member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that the majority leader of the Congress has come to the floor. Unfortunately, he did not mention how many times the majority, under his leadership, has waived their own House rules requiring a supermajority vote to increase taxes. Maybe he forgot. I would remind my colleagues that during the 104th Congress, we had to suspend the House rules imposed by the Republican majority when we dealt with H.R. 1215, the Contract with America Tax Relief Act. We then had the supermajority vote suspended, this is under the leadership of the majority, under the leadership of the distinguished majority leader that just left the well, in the Medicare Preservation Act of 1994, H.R. 2425; in the Budget Reconciliation Act of 1995, H.R. 2491; in the Health Insurance Reform Act, H.R. 3103; and in H.R. 3734, the Welfare Reform Conference Report. The majority, under the Republican leadership, has frequently waived its own rules requiring a supermajority vote to increase taxes. The unworkability of House Joint Resolution 41 is illustrated by the fact that they frequently ignore their own rule preventing tax rates from taking increase, unless approved by three-fifths of the House, and this was done in the 104th Congress, many times, on six separate occasions. It led our distinguished colleague the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) to write, ``The final blow to any hope that the vote on the supermajority tax requirement might be for real comes from the dismal adherence Republicans have made to their own internal House rule requiring a three-fifths vote to raise taxes.'' This is from the leadership of the gentleman who just left the well. After much fanfare during the organization of the 104th Congress, the House leadership has waived its own effort to restrain itself in every potential instance but one. In an attempt to avoid these problems at the beginning of the 105th Congress, the rule was significantly narrowed to limit its application to increases in particular tax rates specified under the Internal Revenue Code, rather than tax rate increases generally. Now, that narrow application does not apply to the constitutional provision; it only applies to what we do in the House of Representatives. So, such experiences highlight the unworkability of setting forth special procedural rules concerning tax laws and tax rates, and these problems would be greatly compounded in the constitutional context that we face in H.J. Res. 41. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, there is another problem that has not been discussed about the amendment that we may want to take into consideration, and that is the possibility that a constitutional amendment of the nature under debate could lead to large cuts in Social Security and Medicare and a return to deficit spending. No constitutional debate on this subject could be concluded without some discussion about this. These reductions, large ones, in Social Security and Medicare benefits, have been observed by The Washington Post, in which they noted that when baby boomers begin to retire not many years from now, as a matter of fact some have already begun to retire, the country will be in an era of constant fiscal strain. To avoid destructive deficits, there will have to be tax increases or spending cuts or both. So by making it harder to increase taxes, the amendment would compound the pressure on major spending programs. As a matter of fact, that is what is going on now. We are noticing that with the unprecedented large tax cut we are squeezing many programs that are very valuable and dear to many, if not most, of the people in the country. What are these major spending programs? Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and others. Is this really what the Congress wants to do? The pressure on the programs is great enough as it is. Now Democratic members offered an amendment in the Committee on the Judiciary to ensure that measures designed to secure the financial solvency of Social Security would not be subject to the supermajority requirement, but the Republicans defeated this measure on a party line vote of 8 to 16. So we have on the record that they do not want to exempt the Social Security and other valuable programs from the possibility of financial insolvency by making an exemption to this Draconian proposal that we have before us. I think that that should deal a telling message to anybody whose mind may not yet be made up. Also, the proposed tax limitation would rule out measures to raise Medicare premiums for higher individuals, high-income individuals, as well as modest measures to shore up Social Security and Medicare. They would all be caught by the supermajority requirement. Example, if Congress attempted to make Social Security payroll taxes more progressive by imposing higher tax cuts on higher-income individuals, there would be an increase in the revenue laws and the supermajority requirement would be triggered, no doubt about it. Indeed, when the Republican budget reconciliation bill reached the House floor in the fall of 1995, it became more than clear that its proposed increase in Medicare premiums for those at higher income levels constituted, guess what, a tax increase. Similarly, legislation expanding Social Security to include State and local government employees, which no less than the Advisory Council for Social Security has already proposed, would result in a revenue increase and would therefore be subject to the two-thirds requirement. Do we really want to do that? Do we really want these kinds of provisions caught in this supermajority requirement? Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.