John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

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

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this is a mandatory minimum sentences bill for bringing in and harboring certain aliens, and the bill to me does not pass muster because experience and numerous studies have shown that mandatory minimum sentences which are spread throughout our Federal statutes or blindly increasing sentences, as the managers amendment does, creates an unfairness and requires judicial and correctional expenditures that are disproportionate to any deterrent or rehabilitative effect that they might have. Studies have also highlighted the very high costs of the unnecessary incarceration resulting from mandatory minimums and increased sentences. In fact, scientific study has found that no empirical evidence linking increased sentences to reductions in crime. No empirical evidence linking increased sentences to reductions in crime have been found by scientific studies. Instead, we know that they distort the sentencing process, discriminate against minorities in their application and waste money. A Rand commission study has concluded that mandatory minimum sentences were less effective than either discretionary sentencing or drug treatment in reducing drug-related crime and far more costly than either. Mr. Speaker, and for the twelfth time, the Judicial Conference of the United States has once again reiterated its opposition to mandatory minimum sentencing. Many conservatives have joined us in recognizing the policy problems caused by mandatory minimums and increased sentences. Thus, for example, after realizing the damage and ineffectiveness of mandatory minimums at reducing crime, Democrats and Republicans, in a bipartisan effort repealed Federal mandatory minimum sentencing in 1970. Similarly, Chief Justice Rehnquist, who is not known to be lenient on criminals, has observed that mandatory minimums are frequently the result of floor amendments to demonstrate emphatically that legislators want to get tough on crime. Just as frequently, they do not involve any careful consideration of the effect that they might have on sentencing guidelines as a whole. Proliferation of harsh sentencing policies has inhibited the ability of the courts to sentence offenders in a way that permits a more problem-solving approach to crime. By limiting consideration of factors contributing to crime or to a range of responses, as the measure H.R. 238 does, such sentencing policies fail to provide justice for either victims or offenders. In light of these concerns, a less Draconian approach than H.R. 238 would be to enact a legislative directive to the United States Sentencing Commission to revise their existing sentencing guidelines to increase sentences for alien smuggling offenses. This would at least permit more informed consideration of aggravating and mitigating circumstances. Whatever the political benefits of increased sentences, they simply do not do what they purport to do. They do not deter criminal behavior by guaranteeing that a particular penalty will be imposed for a particular crime. Instead, they impose unfair and harsh results and unnecessarily increase the prison costs to all of us. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield such time as she may consume to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Barrett).

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald), the vice co-chair of the Women's Caucus who worked so hard on this.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I believe that this measure, passed unanimously out of the Committee on the Judiciary, has reached a point where we can pass it just in the nick of time before the September 30 expiration. As we celebrate this moment, could we remember that it is merely a step in the right direction. There is a lot more to do. There are still those in law enforcement and on the bench in the judiciary who still are not fully apprised of the seriousness of the violence against women, particularly wives and girlfriends who are still subject to so much violence. There is more we can do with our immigrant women who have been virtually ignored up until this legislation. There are steps yet to be made. I am hoping that all of those that support this measure will join with us to work in the next Congress on the next steps that we need to take to support the measure Violence Against Women. I thank all those who have participated. Our staffs have been remarkably effective in this. The Members have been enumerated already. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Romero-Barcelo), the former governor of Puerto Rico.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Indiana (Ms. Carson), who has worked very hard on the measure.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney), cochair of the Women's Caucus. (Mrs. MALONEY of New York asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the honorable gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) a distinguished member of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am so happy that the Violence Against Women Act is finally coming to the floor of the House of Representatives for a disposition, and just in the nick of time. The funding for Violence Against Women Act expires on September 30, 4 days from now. It is not clear what has taken us so long into coming to the floor with this measure, because it is a bipartisan measure with great support throughout the several States and the administration and the President as well. But I am finally glad that the leadership has realized what we have been saying all along, that violence against women is a priority, and we cannot let the funds or the programs run out. In 1994, the Congress passed the Violence Against Women Act to address the nationwide problem of domestic violence and sexual assault. VAWA provided funding to combat the violence that is visited upon almost 900,000 women each year by either their current spouse or former spouse or boyfriend. This is not a good scene. In addition, VAWA has made changes to our civil and criminal laws to address domestic violence and sexual assault. In part, as a result of Violence Against Women Act, intimate partner violence has decreased 21 percent from 1993 to 1998. Nevertheless, domestic violence is still experienced by hundreds of thousands of women each year. There are still demographic groups that need better access to services and the criminal justice system. Predominantly among them are people who have not had their immigrant status resolved and are not yet citizens but are subject to lots of unnecessary violence. This is where H.R. 1248, our bill, comes in. This bill continues funding for the Violence Against Women Act programs such as law enforcement and prosecution grants to combat violence against women, the National Domestic Violence Hot Line so necessary to anything we are doing in this area, the battered women's shelters and services, the education and training for, not only judges, but court personnel and police, the pro-arrest policies, the rural domestic violence and child abuse enforcement, the stalker reduction program, and others. Importantly, this bill takes preliminary steps to address dating violence, an area which was left out of the previous Violence Against Women law, and provides serious consequences for those who violate this provision. Young women between the ages of 16 and 24 surprisingly experience the highest rates of violence by current or former intimate partners. And 40 percent of the teenage girls between the ages of 14 and 17 report knowing someone their age who has been beaten or struck by a boyfriend. Although the majority cut back the original bill's dating violence program, we were at least able to preserve coverage for dating violence in the most critical areas. In addition, I hope that, as we move forward, we will be able to restore the bill's original protections for populations underserved because of alienage status, religion, and sexual orientation. In the Committee on the Judiciary, the majority stripped these groups from the bill's definition of underserved populations. I regret that very much. The majority also blocked amendments that would have added needed protections for battered immigrant women. I look forward to conferencing this bill with the Senate bill that contains many of these provisions. My last disappointment was that we were refused the ability to include any provisions to ensure that the civil legal remedy in Violence Against Women complies with the recent Supreme Court decision, U.S. v. Morrison, which struck down a provision in the original Violence Against Women Act that guarantees that all victims of gender- motivated crimes had unencumbered access to courts to seek civil damages against their assailants. So we have introduced another bill that restores the civil legal remedy of Violence Against Women, H.R. 5021. Although there is precious little time left in this session, I hope that the Republican leadership will join with all of us on both sides of the aisle that want this measure brought to the floor, just as they have done with H.R. 1248. I also want to commend the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) for his work on this and other measures during his 6 years as chairman of the House Committee on the Judiciary and which I have been privileged to serve as the ranking member. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) who has worked very hard on this measure. (Mrs. LOWEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary, who has been tireless on this measure.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. My colleagues, the one thing that I really want to make clear, and I think there has been a little misstatement here, no one has found in the committee during the hearings, or in the course of this discussion, any example of where this measure would change existing law. This bill has nothing to do whatsoever with ``Roe v. Wade.'' ``Roe'' deals only with pregnancy. This bill deals with newborns. And so, as we examine all of the Federal Code and the controlling Supreme Court cases, there is nowhere that we have found any changes that I could report to my colleagues. If there were, I would report them. If there were, other Members in this body would bring that to our attention. And so, I urge, even though there may not be changes, that this measure be supported.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson). (Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?

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

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), a distinguished member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey). (Mrs. LOWEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we have before us a measure which is one of the most puzzling bits of legislation to ever come out of the Committee on the Judiciary. To make it more interesting, the entire committee has supported this measure on a recorded vote except one person, one member of the committee. As of a very recent date, we have taken out the manager's amendment, which had been creating a considerable amount of confusion. Now, the question at a threshold level is why do we have this bill before us. I cannot answer that question clearly because we are not doing anything new that is not already stated very clearly in statute and in the Supreme Court cases. Roe v. Wade is not affected by this bill. As a matter of fact, Stenburg v. Carhart, notwithstanding many interpretations of this more recent Supreme Court case, does not affect this measure either. So I leave to more fertile imaginations why it is we are here in the first place. But we are here. And trying to ignore the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady), the manager on the other side's sometimes hyperbolic rhetoric, this is still the same measure that this Member voted for in committee. I stand by my position, and I will continue to support it. It is my belief that people who introduce legislation in the Congress do it to get people to support it, they do not try to introduce legislation to get people not to support it. We hope that that common rule of long standing still applies this evening in this measure. The bill makes a useful clarification of existing law. The bill clarifies existing law to ensure that every protection for a child or person in the United States Code applies to a born-alive infant. I support that. Most of us believe that this bill is probably unnecessary for the simple reason that born-alive infants are already protected by existing law. However, we have accepted the representations of the bill's sponsor that this change is needed, that this legislation has a purpose in fact. The sponsor has indicated that the bill would only protect an infant who is completely separated from its mother. This is a most unusual and, I think, significant concession by the chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary. I must wholeheartedly applaud the majority for realizing at last that there are different stages of life and that, at each stage, a mother's right to privacy must be balanced against a State's interest and fetal life. Now, this measure bipartisanly has overwhelmingly passed the committee, which is unusual given the strong feelings on each side of the issue and on each side of the aisle regarding issues of reproductive rights. But it seems to me that this measure is now back to the precise original condition that was voted out by the committee. This leaves the manager on this side with no other recourse but to support the same measure that we passed in the Committee on the Judiciary. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.