John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, may I ask the chairman of the committee how many speakers he has remaining.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman), a member of the House Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), our minority leader.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds. I want my friend, a member of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Feeney) to understand it is not about anything in the debate that took place to which we were objecting. It is about the entitlement of the amendments which were totally misconstrued. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren), a member of the committee.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt), a member of the committee.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, we have been called here today to raise a question of the privileges of the House. A very serious matter. A prerogative rarely used by the Members of the House of Representatives. But we have to deal with the mischaracterizations of the titles of the amendments, which is what this debate is about. It is incredible to me that the case of the other side is so weak that all they can do is continue to talk about the bill itself. We are not here to debate H.R. 748, we are here to talk about the power and the abuses of the majority party that sets the agenda, that writes the reports, and that entitles the amendments submitted to the members of the Committee on the Judiciary. The amendment titles of three members were twisted and distorted and their meaning was rendered so that the entitlement of the amendment was not, indeed, accurate. I believe the majority has failed the Congress but, more importantly, the American people. Now, what we are doing here right now is hoping to raise this question of the privileges of the House regarding the blatant abuse of power; Republicans' mischaracterizing the description of numerous Democratic amendments, when some of the amendments had been considered in previous Congresses. These are the same amendments that were properly entitled in other Congresses. So it is with great reluctance that I come before you to ask that we make sure this never happens again; that this deliberate mischaracterization of amendments be stopped here and now; that it does not happen and that the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary issue a supplemental report and apologize to the House of Representatives. Support the resolution. Motion to Table Offered by Mr. Sensenbrenner

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on each side?

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, in accordance with my request of last Thursday, I offer a privileged resolution (H. Res. 253) as to a question of the privileges of the House and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes. (Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

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

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to offer a resolution concerning the privileges of the House. The deliberate misrepresentation of Members of the House of Representatives' amendments is unprecedented. And I do this because the Committee on the Judiciary report on H.R. 748 mischaracterized amendments offered by Members in a way that distorted both the effect of the amendments and the intentions of the Members. I offer this resolution to protect the rights of every Member in this body. None of us wants to see our amendments mischaracterized in a way that undermines our good faith. None of us wants to see our legislative work distorted in a way that diminishes our motives. I am not eager to bring this matter to the floor of the House, but I do so as a last resort to achieve a resolution that is fair and just. There is little doubt in my mind that the amendment characterizations included in the committee report were distorting and damaging. Taking an amendment written to exclude grandparents and describing it as one protecting sexual predators crosses a line of good faith and comity so essential to the operation of this House. Descriptions this pejorative are not only inappropriate; they are without precedent. This has never happened before in my memory. If we look at the Record, we will see that the three previous committee reports describing these amendments use neutral and objective terms. The same is true of the amendment descriptions prepared by the majority staff on the Committee on Rules as well as the majority staff on the Republican Conference. I cannot agree with the contention that the obligation should have been on the Members to draft these amendments more narrowly. The amendments were drafted in a careful and straightforward manner as they have been for each of the last four Congresses. The duty should not be on us to exclude categories of persons who have nothing to do with the underlying amendment. Let me close by stating that the majority will not control this body forever. There will come a time when members of another party are the ones interpreting the rules, writing the committee reports, and explaining the amendments. Whoever controls this body tomorrow or next year, we will all be better off today if we do not rewrite each other's words or disparage each other's intentions. I support this privileged resolution and urge the rest of my colleagues to do the same. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, can we inquire of the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, who has not used any of his time yet, how many speakers he has?

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), a member of the Judiciary Committee. (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 2(a)(1) of rule IX, I rise to give notice of my intent to raise a question of the privileges of the House. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be considered as read and printed in the Record.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remaining time to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am now pleased to yield the remaining time to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette), chair of the Pro- Choice Caucus.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis), cochair of the Women's Caucus.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. It is very critical that we understand whose side everyone is on. The Center for Reproductive Rights, the American Medical Association, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, who are all opposed to this bill, the American College of Physicians, the American Public Health Association, Planned Parenthood, all have longstanding policies opposing mandatory parental involvement laws because of the dangers they pose to young women and the need for confidential access to physicians. We have yet to have anyone explain why it is that the exception for health is not included in this law. So the dangers that are posed to young women in H.R. 748 underscore the need for confidential access to physicians. It is absolutely critical that we realize that this is about developing more human regulations of this very terrible circumstance. Very little has been said on the other side about the constitutional concerns and the fact that we refuse to recognize that the lack of parental notification provisions raise at least three serious constitutional concerns. So I urge the Members to consider how much more Draconian this law is than the previous bills that have been on the floor. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.