John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

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.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, would the Chair inform us as to how much time remains on both sides?

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased now to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, who has worked with great diligence on this subject across the years.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen of the House, we have, this afternoon, a measure on the floor that will increase health risks to young women who choose to have an abortion, is clearly unconstitutional, is antifamily and antiphysician, and it goes way beyond limiting the travel rights of a young woman who would want or seek an abortion or forcing a physician to provide parental notices. This bill is really about stopping any woman from crossing a State line to obtain an abortion under any conditions and about preventing a doctor from performing an abortion at any time. It is a tragic bill. It is a mean-spirited bill. If the proponents really wanted to allow young women to ever cross a State line to obtain an abortion, would they pass a law so extreme as to prevent even the woman's grandparents, aunts or uncles, siblings or clergy from helping safeguard the woman's safety? Why else would they pass a law that criminalizes not only taxi and bus drivers but nurses or any health professional who even gives a young woman directions home? There is only one possible answer, and that is they want to prevent any young woman from being able to obtain an abortion, even if she is raped, or even if she is too afraid of her parents to confide in them. If the proponents of the bill really wanted to permit doctors to conduct abortions on young women under the proper circumstances, why would they force the doctors to travel in person across State lines to give actual written notice to parents? Why else would they fail to define what constitutes reasonable effort by a physician? Why else would they impose this burdensome requirement, even if a parent brought his or her child to the doctor's office to obtain this medical procedure? So if the proponents really cared whether the bill complied with the Constitution, they would add a health exception that has been frequently enumerated by the Supreme Court in Stenberg versus Cahart; they would provide for a judicial bypass, as is mandated in Hodgson versus Minnesota. Yet the proponents continue to ignore the letter of the law and then act surprised and complain about activist judges when the Court merely does its duty and strikes down blatant unconstitutional proposals like the one before us today. Unfortunately, this legislation constitutes yet another in a long line of shortsighted efforts to politicize tragic family dilemmas that does nothing to respond to the underlying problems of teen pregnancies, dysfunctional families, and child abuse. We in Congress should not be in the business of telling young women facing a terrible situation who they must confide in and that the Constitution does not apply to them. Please listen carefully and reject this unwarranted piece of legislation. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 additional minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), the subcommittee ranking member.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Texas, whose amendment, with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), helps to bring a little sensitivity, a little care, understanding, concern about the awful problem behind the necessity that is thought to be needed for this bill. The Jackson-Lee/Nadler amendment seeks to give the young women who are already in desperate situations an opportunity to turn to a trusted adult. Specifically, it creates an exception for grandparents and clergy members from civil or criminal liability. Now, one could almost, in a more rational circumstance, ask who could be against that. The alternative to this, without this amendment, would be to leave the young women at the mercy of their peers and adults who do not have their best interests at heart or leave them alone. So the amendment is absolutely vital. Even further, some young women justifiably fear they would be physically abused if forced to disclose their pregnancy to their parents. Nearly one-third of minors who choose not to consult with their parents have experienced violence in their family or feared violence or feared being forced to leave home. So enacting this legislation and forcing young women in these circumstances to notify their parents of their pregnancies will only exacerbate the dangerous cycle of violence in dysfunctional families. This is the lesson of Spring Adams, an Idaho teenager who was shot to death by her father after he learned she was planning to terminate a pregnancy he caused. It is clear that when a young woman believes that she cannot involve her parents in her decision to terminate a pregnancy, the law cannot mandate healthy, open family communications. I urge my colleagues to support Jackson-Lee/Nadler.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin), a distinguished member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez) who has worked tirelessly on the committee on this subject matter.

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

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, tonight I rise to remind the world that the 24th of April marked the 90th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide, a systematic and deliberate campaign of genocide of the Ottoman Empire. Also, it marked yet another year without the U.S. formally recognizing the atrocities that occurred. Considering how well documented the genocide is in the U.S. archives and through an overwhelming body of first-hand, governmental, and diplomatic evidence this is nothing less than a disgrace. I also rise to reaffirm my support for the adoption of the Genocide Resolution H. Res 193, which was introduced last Congress by Rep. Pallone. Unfortunately, even though this legislation passed unanimously out of my committee, had 110 co-sponsors and was placed on the House calendar, it was not allowed to be brought to the floor for a vote. The purpose of this legislation was prevent future genocides by stressing the importance of remembering and learning the lessons of past crimes against humanity, including the Armenian Genocide, Holocaust, and the Cambodian and Rwandan genocides in hopes of preventing future atrocities. In addition, this resolution strengthened America's commitment to the universal values of the Genocide Convention and asked the United States to commemorate the 15th anniversary of the Genocide Convention. As Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee, it was an honor to be instrumental in preparing the report last year which gained unanimous approval at the committee level. The report described the Armenian genocide in the following terms: ``Beginning in 1915, the Islamic Turkish state of the Ottoman Empire sought to end the collective existence of the Christian Armenian population. From 1915 through 1918, during World War I, the Ottoman Empire subjected the Armenian people to deportation, expropriation, abduction, torture, massacre, and starvation. The atrocities were renewed between 1920 and 1923. It is estimated that one and a half million Armenians were killed out of over two million Armenians who had lived in the Ottoman Empire. It should be noted that these activities ceased with the institution of the new Republic of Turkey in October, 1923.'' Two weeks ago, I signed onto a bipartisan letter to President Bush, asking him to properly recognize the Armenian Genocide. The Armenian Genocide is fully documented in U.S. history. In a July 24, 1915 cable, American Consul Davis noted that, ``I do not believe there has ever been a massacre in the history of the world so general and thorough as that which is now being perpetrated in this region or that a more fiendish, diabolical scheme has ever been conceived by the mind of man. What the order is officially and nominally to exile the Armenians from these Vilayets may mislead the outside world for a time, but the measure is nothing but a massacre of the most atrocious nature. It would be that even if all the people had allowed to perish on the road. As a greater part of them, however, have been actually murdered and as there is no doubt that this was done by order of the government, there can be no pretense that the measure is anything else but a general massacre.'' Now more than ever as the world is gripped by unrest and terrorism, the memory of the Genocide underscores our responsibility to help convey our cherished tradition of respect for fundamental human rights and opposition to mass slaughter. We owe it to the victims of the Genocide to acknowledge what happened and to teach our students and children about their suffering, so that we can fulfill our obligation to ensure that genocide will never happen again. Our future generation should be able to say, ``I learned, I acknowledge, and I will work to prevent it from happening again.''

Mr. CONYERS

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

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. I begin by thanking the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, and as well the committee leaders, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman), for moving this measure swiftly through the Committee on the Judiciary. On December 21 of last year, the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued its 500,000th design patent to the DaimlerChrysler Corporation for the design of the popular Chrysler Crossfire. House Concurrent Resolution 53, before us now, expresses the sense of Congress that the Patent and Trademark Office has contributed significantly to the Nation's economy and to the reputation in the United States that we enjoy worldwide for our technological innovation and ingenuity. This is a very distinguished commendation, and I am very proud of the Patent and Trademark Office, which has helped us in protecting and preserving intellectual property. As a senior member of the Committee on the Judiciary, I am well aware of the importance of intellectual property protection and what it means to our economy. Intellectual property rewards and encourages innovation and advancement. Without it, we would not have the high-tech, biotech and everyday numerous inventions that we have come to rely upon in everyday life, and that we have permitted to be exported to all the concerns of the planet. I am also proud of this patent because I happen to represent the automobile capital of the world still. It is no secret that Michigan boasts the finest automobile workers in the world, and it should be no surprise that it is the design of an American car that has received this award. So for these reasons and others, I am so proud of my colleagues who have joined me in this presentation, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak); the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the dean of the Congress; the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers); the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee); the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. McCotter); and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Schwarz), all. It is a proud moment for us, and we are glad to be honored. On a more personal note, my father was a worker and union organizer for the United Automobile Workers for Chrysler, Local 7. It was the first company, Chrysler, to be brought into collective bargaining, and so I urge that the Members favorably consider House Concurrent Resolution 53.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I have supported this legislation in the past because I am told it will improve the ability of Federal courts to handle complex multidistrict litigation arising from a common set of facts. But I do have some reservations about this bill. When Congress enacted the Multidistrict Litigation, MDL, statute 35 years ago, its purpose was not to impose an unfair burden on plaintiffs and their families. Congress made plain its insistence on preserving the ability of individual plaintiffs to have their eventual day in court in a Federal district courthouse reasonably close to their home. I want to make sure we continue to strike the right balance between emphasizing judicial economy and efficiency and preserving fundamental fairness during the critical trial phase. With this underlying goal in mind, I support this legislation. However, I hope the bill will continue to improve as it moves through the Senate and into Conference.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation with reservations about one part. At the outset, I strongly support efforts to make it more difficult to steal content and to encourage preservation of historic content. As I have said before, the content industries are a boon to our economy, providing this country's number one export. Their products, which include music, movies, books, and software, survive on the protection given by copyright law. Without protection from rampant copying and other infringement, creators would have no reason to keep creating and investing in new content. The success of copyrighted content, however is also its Achilles' Heel. People now camcord movies in theaters to sell online or in DVD format. They obtain pre-release copies of content and sell it online. Of course, this is illegal because it is done without the permission of the content owners and without payment to them. This bill clarifies that these two acts are illegal even if technology makes it easy and fast and cheap. While I believe we should do more to stop piracy, S. 167 is a step in the right direction. Having said that, I would like to clarify one issue. The civil enforcement said of the pre-release provision imposes a statute of limitations on certain copyright lawsuits. Because it imposes the limit only for infringements that occur no more than two months after pre- registered content is first distributed, it is clear that the bill does not impose any time limit on filing lawsuits for infringements that occur more than two months after distribution. The bill also contains two provisions that will encourage the preservation of historically-significant content. First, it reauthorizes the National Film Preservation Board and National Film Preservation Foundation, which review initiatives to ensure the preservation of valued films and issue grants to libraries and other institutions that can save films from degradation. The Directors Guild of America and the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences have applauded these efforts. The program expired in 2003, so S. 167 extends it until 2009. The second preservation piece, the ``Preservation of Orphan Works Act,'' will empower libraries and archives to make additional copies of musical works, movies, and other content. My one objection to S. 167, however, is with the ``Family Movie Act,'' which would allow private companies to sell movie editing software without permission from the filmmakers. This was proposed in response to a lawsuit between one company and filmmakers. From our consideration of this provision last year, we know this section inserts Congress into a private dispute and will take away the copyrights and artistic rights of filmmakers to the financial benefit of one private company. It is important to note that the bill does not immunize those who make fixed copies of edited content; such copies would still be illegal, as they are today, and the legislative history should reflect that. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this legislation.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), a distinguished member of the committee.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), the former ranking member of the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law. This is an 8-year-old bill, and the gentleman has been foremost in this process for all of those years.

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

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the dynamic gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey). (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. We should all be embarrassed that instead of repealing the biggest loophole in the bankruptcy code, we have had 8 years to study it, the homestead exemption, the bill places only weak obstacles in its path. Instead of protecting women and health care providers from those who would terrorize abortion clinics, we lay out a blueprint for them to avoid their debts. Instead of helping individuals who have lost their job or faced a health care emergency, we deny them the chance for a fresh start. By passing this measure in this form, the majority is telling the American people, Republicans are telling the American people, it is more important to help credit card companies than innocent spouses and children; that it is more important to protect corporate scam artists than workers losing their pension; that it is more important to protect unscrupulous lenders than disabled veterans. Mr. Speaker, I yield the remainder of my time to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the distinguished minority leader. (Ms. PELOSI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks, and include extraneous material.)