John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney), the leader of the equal rights amendment.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette), a distinguished lawyer in her own right.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of the bill just passed, H.R. 3193, will the Members of the House of Representatives be allowed to bring concealed weapons to the floor of this body?

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I am delighted to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the whip of the Democrats, who has been a strong civil rights advocate throughout his career, and who I have been pleased to work with.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I just wonder if the gentleman is aware that many States have asked for this assistance; that this merely amends the Federal nexus that already exists; and that the civil rights organizations and more than half a dozen police and law enforcement organizations have all strongly supported the request and the Department of Justice has not taken the point of view that is brilliantly argued by my friend from Alabama?

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

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I am delighted to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin), a former Secretary of State in his State.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I am delighted to yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin), an excellent member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to 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. Madam Speaker, this is the only civil rights measure that we will be considering in this Congress, and it is the first civil rights measure, as distinguished from voter rights, that we have handled on this floor since 1968 when 18 U.S.C. 242 was amended. Please, let us understand that we have witnessed a dramatic increase in hate-motivated violence. The definitions are very clear. To my friends who have wondered what a hate crime is, there are 8,000 hate crimes each year. I want my colleagues to know that we have already approved of this. The House has voted on this measure. The Senate has voted on this measure. And now, we are doing the same thing again. For all of my colleagues who want to know where law enforcement stands on this, please know that the Police Foundation endorses the measure. The National Sheriff's Association endorses this measure. The International Association of Chiefs of Police endorses the measure. The Police Executive Research Forum likewise. So we have law enforcement realizing that we need a comprehensive law banning hate crimes, and what this bill essentially does is modify the Federal nexus that is connected with it. Please, let us understand that this is the only opportunity we will have to go on record to show that we want to assist States in prosecuting their hate crimes by re-endorsing and re-supporting this measure. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I am delighted to yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the ranking member of the Committee on Armed Services. (Mr. SKELTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the debate we have had here today. I close with a reminder from the International Association of Chiefs of Police in the United States: this is not a door-opener for State prosecutors to get rid of cases or get into the Federal jurisdiction. They can only bring these cases if the Department of Justice agrees that they can be brought. Without that, the Department of Justice wants to make sure that they need this help and in some cases will grant programs to the State and local law enforcement to cover the costs of investigating and prosecuting. So this hate crimes law will greatly assist law enforcement officers in investigating hate crimes. Mr. Speaker, 175 organizations, law enforcement, civil rights, Hispanic national law groups, the Presbyterian Church, the Episcopal Church, Anti-Defamation League, Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the NAACP, National Council of La Raza, American-Arab Anti- Discrimination Committee, National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium, Sikh Mediawatch and Resource Task Force, Human Rights Campaign, the American Association of People With Disabilities, and the National Center For Victims of Crime pray that we will take action today.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) who has worked with the civil rights community in her State and Nation since she has come to Congress.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher), a civil rights leader from California.

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

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) that his position is a perfectly legitimate one, and for anyone to attack him as a racist on that regard I would take issue with. I want the gentleman to know that would not be the sentiments of anyone I know here in the Congress on this side of the aisle, and we apologize for any misunderstanding which may have resulted from that.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill but with strong opposition to section 112. While the bill contains numerous anti-copyright piracy provisions that I helped draft, I oppose section 112 because it is an anti-copyright, special interest provision that will interfere in a pending lawsuit. The content industries provide this country's number one export; in fact, copyrighted content provides a positive trade balance of approximately $89 billion. Clearly, our content is a valuable resource that deserves protection. Unfortunately, the same technologies that have enhanced our lives and globalized trade have made it possible to obtain digital content for free; the same technology that enhanced the lives of so many is harming the lives of people--the artists, musicians, writers, etc.--whose work we value so much. While there are laws on the books that protect copyrighted content from theft, they do not go quite far enough. New file swapping programs and sites appear every day on the Internet, each one better than its predecessor. These sites do not develop their own content but rely upon the popularity of content created by others and allow that content to be distributed to millions with the click of a mouse. These sites also create security and privacy risks, in that they open up the entire hard drives of average consumers for the world to see, financial and personal information included. I was a cosponsor of Chairman Smith's bill, H.R. 2517, but felt that we could do even more to thwart piracy. That is why Ranking Member Berman and I introduced H.R. 2752, which provided for increased enforcement of the piracy laws. For the past several months, we have been working in bipartisan fashion to craft language that is non-controversial and workable. In that regard, I am pleased that the compromise bill incorporates numerous provisions from the original Conyers-Berman bill. H.R. 4077 clarifies that it is a federal offense to camcord a movie in a theater. This is a major means by which movies end up on the Internet for free. I think we can all agree there is little legitimate reason for engaging in this conduct and need to send a clear message that we will not tolerate this theft. It also ensures that theaters owners are exempt from liability if they attempt to enforce this prohibition. The bill contains a sense of the Congress recognizing the potential dangers of misused peer-to-peer services (such as spreading worms, viruses, making personal computer files available to the public). Third, the bill provides additional tools to prosecute those who upload copyrighted content to the Internet unlawfully, and I was pleased the content and Internet industries were able to compromise on this provision. It also provides an authorization of $15 million for the Justice Department's piracy fighting efforts, an increase over the traditional $10 million. Finally, the legislation includes language similar to a provision in an earlier bill of mine, H.R. 4643 from the 107th Congress, saying the distribution of unpublished or pre-release works can constitute infringement. This is important for industries whose content ends up on the Internet before it is even released to the public. Unfortunately, I am disappointed that our year-long bipartisan effort has been tainted by the addition of section 112, which is identical to H.R. 4586. H.R. 4586, the ``Family Movie Act of 2004,'' is an anti- content creator proposal that interferes in a private lawsuit. It puts Congress on one side of a private business dispute that is properly left to the litigants and the court. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this legislation.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, the Jackson-Lee amendment is needed to make sure that the bill does not prevent religious minorities who are coerced into reciting the Pledge, in violation of their religious beliefs from having access to the Federal courts. As presently drafted, the bill would prevent not only persons who believe that voluntary recitation of the Pledge is unconstitutional from seeking relief in Federal courts, but also those persons who assert that they are being forced into recitation of the Pledge in violation of their religious beliefs. Cases of this nature are not infrequent. For example, in the landmark Supreme Court decision of West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnett; the Supreme Court struck down a West Virginia law that mandated schoolchildren to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. Under the West Virginia law, religious minorities faced expulsion from school and could be subject to prosecution and fined, if convicted of violating the statute's provisions. In striking down that statute, Justice Jackson wrote for the Court: If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high, or petty can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. To argue that the State courts would still be bound by this precedent as the Chairman asserts, misses the point. Unless the State courts know the Supreme court can and will enforce its precedent, the State courts are free to ignore it. And there will be no further appeal. Moreover, just this year, in striking down a Pennsylvania law mandating recitation of the Pledge as violating free speech the Third circuit in Circle School v. Pappert court found: The rights embodied in the Constitution, particularly the First Amendment, protect the minority--those persons who march to their own drummers. It is they who need the protection afforded by the Constitution and it is the responsibility of federal judges to ensure that protection. As presently drafted, the bill would strip the parents of those children of the right to go to court and defend their children's religious liberty. If this legislation is passed, schools could expel children for acting according to the dictates of their faith and Congress will have slammed the courthouse door shut in their faces. We need this amendment to make sure religious minorities continue to have access to the Federal courts in cases of religious coercion. For these reasons I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment, which would preserve Supreme Court review of appeals related to the constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance. As presently drafted the legislation precludes any federal judicial review, either by a lower federal court or the Supreme Court, of any constitutional challenge to the Pledge of Allegiance. Aside from the obvious constitutional flaws inherent in the bill, the idea of Congress unilaterally cutting off constitutional review by the Supreme Court constitutes both a poor and dangerous legal precedent. As presently drafted, the legislation not only degrades the independence of the federal judiciary and the Supreme Court, but eliminates any possibility of developing a single uniform policy with regard to the recitation of the Pledge from the 50 state supreme courts. Since H.R. 2028 strips the Supreme Court of the ability to review state court decisions, including those involving federal questions, a lack of uniformity in the law is an imminent threat. One's federal rights would depend on the vagaries of location. Ultimately, coercing children to recite the Pledge may be permitted in one state and not in another. This is why it is so important that we pass the Watt amendment. The complete, unprecedented, and unnecessary stripping of Supreme Court jurisdiction inherent in the current bill would be totally at odds with the policy of checks and balances envisioned by the Nation's founders. As a matter of fact, the legislation would bring us far closer to the balkanized scenario envisioned by the Articles of Confederation, than the unified nation brought forth by the Constitution. It is ironic that in the very same year that Congress celebrated Justice John Marshall by authorizing a commemorative coin in his honor, the Judiciary Committee would disparage him by passing legislation such as the bill that is totally inconsistent with Marshall's seminal legal opinion, Marbury v. Madison. We should not use the issue of the constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance to permanently damage our courts, our constitution, and Congress. At a time when it is more important that ever that our nation stand out as a beacon of freedom, I cannot support a bill which undermines the very protector of those freedoms--our independent federal judiciary. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this important amendment.