John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Just a moment. Madam Speaker, I will be happy to yield to the gentleman from Arkansas, but before I do, I just wanted to remind him and the gentlewoman that the case that I cited, U.S. v. Lopez, requires and says that the statute in a bill must cite the authority. The authority must be cited. And in this bill, it is not cited. That is the question that still remains.

Mr. CONYERS. I am happy to yield.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I am delighted to yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, if I might continue, is the gentlewoman familiar with the fact of the limited role of the Federal Government with respect to the State function? The New York v. U.S. and the U.S. v. Lopez cases limit the role of the Federal Government with respect to State function unless there is an explicit jurisdictional requirement satisfied. Madam Speaker, I raise the question to the gentlewoman, or anybody on the floor, what is the jurisdictional authority in this bill?

Mr. CONYERS. How much time is remaining, Madam Speaker?

Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida.

Mr. CONYERS. Even when there is no report?

Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from Arkansas.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, it has been said that legislative redundancy is a common sin on the House floor but this bill makes that sin unusually self-indulgent. The execution of pregnant women is already illegal under Federal law, and it is doubtful that this Supreme Court would acknowledge our jurisdiction to impose that dictum on State courts. Let me read from Title 18, section 3596, implementation of death sentence: In general, a person who has been sentenced to death pursuant to this chapter shall be committed to the custody of the Attorney General until exhaustion of the procedures for appeal of the judgment of conviction and for review of the sentence. When the sentence is to be implemented, the Attorney General shall release the person sentenced to death to the custody of a United States Marshal, who shall supervise implementation of the sentence in the manner prescribed by law of the State in which the sentence is imposed. If the law of the State does not provide for implementation of the death sentence, the Court shall designate another State, the law of which does provide for the implementation of a death sentence and the sentence shall be implemented in the manner prescribed by such law; B, pregnant woman, a sentence of death shall not be carried out upon a woman while she is pregnant. So I suggest to the members of the committee that this bill is likely to affect no one, but it is rushed through in lightning speed in an effort to satisfy some particular cause for the moment. By contrast, the hate crimes legislation has been bottled up in the Committee on the Judiciary by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) for over 3 years now. We know that there are nearly 8,000 hate crimes in America each year; but that legislation, by contrast, has not seen the light of day. Our gun safety legislation continues to be blocked by the Congress; nearly 26,000 innocent people dying on the wrong end of a barrel each year. This Congress has not even shown the fortitude to stand up to the NRA on something as simple as closing the gun show loophole which makes guns available to criminals, but we can pass this legislation that in all likelihood will help no one. This is a leadership that cannot pass a Patients' Bill of Rights; that cannot pass the minimum wage; that cannot pass prescription drug benefits for seniors; that cannot pass a marriage tax that will help middle-class Americans; cannot really do much of anything to help people. So if we really wanted to protect innocent life, we would pass the bipartisan Innocence Protection Act already introduced, which would provide DNA tests and competent counsel for death row inmates. This legislation was introduced in the wake of widespread evidence across the country that innocents have been wrongly committed of capital crimes. But instead, we pass legislation that in all probability will assist no one. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of H.R. 4700, to grant the consent of the Congress to the Kansas and Missouri Metropolitan Culture District Compact. This bipartisan legislation would allow the metropolitan area of Kansas City, Kansas, and Wyandotte County to continue the progress of successful arts and cultural initiatives. Extending the present compact, which is set to expire in 2001, would include sports facilities in the cultural definition. It would also correct the inequity created by the consolidation of the governments of the City of Kansas City, Kansas and Wyandotte County, Kansas which gave Missouri and advantage of two votes over Kansas. Finally, the extension would give states the authority to continue local revenue stream of a .125% sales tax used to support cultural activities in the bi-state region. I commend Representative McCarthy from Missouri for her hard work and dedication to moving this legislation through the legislative process. This an excellent example of a bi-state, private-public, local-federal partnership which works well. The continuation of the compact will allow the metropolitan area to further this productive alignment for successful arts and cultural initiatives in the bi-state region and I strongly support the effort.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of H.J. Res. 72, a Joint Resolution granting the consent of Congress to the Red River Boundary compact. This bipartisan legislation will re-enforce the eroding Red River south bank and establish a new boundary between the states of Texas and Oklahoma. The new boundary is a vegetation line that is not as susceptible to the forces of nature and is substantially the same as the gradient line used to originally determine the states' boundaries. Initially, three tribal nations, the Kiowa, the Comanche, and the Apaches expressed concerns regarding this legislation's effect on the status of land from which the tribes derive oil and gas royalties. To remedy that issue, language, approved by officials from Texas, Oklahoma, the Indian Tribes, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs, was put into the legislation confirming that neither the rights of the Indian nations nor the boundaries of the Indians lands will be altered by the compact. I commend my colleagues for working together in a bipartisan manner to resolve this important issue and I strongly support the effort.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Speaker, let me say from the outset that I believe that it is highly inappropriate to consider a controversial deeply flawed bill on the Suspension Calendar. This is the wrong process because I and other Members have amendments we want to offer that we are foreclosed from offering in this process. So on that basis alone, I believe this suspension ought to be rejected. The most controversial aspect of it are the carve-outs for the powerful special interests. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, I would hope that this vote would turn only on the question of whether or not there are exemptions created in the bill. This is the administration's beginning statement. ``The administration strongly opposes H.R. 3125, which appears to be designed to protect certain forms of Internet gambling that are currently illegal while potentially opening the floodgates for other forms of illegal gambling. The administration is especially troubled by the exemptions included in the bill for parimutuel wagering on activities such as horse races, dog races and Jai-Alai. These exemptions could have the effect of allowing individuals to bet on dog and horse racing from their homes, giving children and other vulnerable populations unsupervised, unlimited access to such gambling activities.'' That is an exemption. There is no policy justification for such exemptions.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds, merely to advise my friend from Louisiana as well as the gentleman from Virginia that the changes that they made made the expansion of gambling worse. That came from the Department of Justice, whom you thought you were trying to satisfy. The Department has received a copy of the language, they say, which we believe constitutes the amendment intended to resolve concerns over the exemption of horse racing, dog racing, and Jai-Alai. It is our position that this amendment may be even more problematic than the current version of the bill.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds. It may be that my friend from Virginia is not aware of the latest version of his bill that eliminates the requirements that wagers on horse racing, dog racing, and Jai-Alai be initiated from a State in which such betting or wagering is lawful and received in a State in which such betting is lawful. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds, mainly to remind my friend from Virginia that the gambling commission advocated a ban on Internet gambling without exception. And that is not this bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the ranking member of the subcommittee.

Mr. CONYERS

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

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to be here to see so many Haiti experts on the floor including, my good friend the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) and the gentleman from New York (Chairman Gilman), both of whom I have traveled there with many times. I propose that we strike the language because it creates a double standard against Haiti and it, further, is premature. What the language does that I am objecting to is ask that the Committee on Appropriations get a report from the Secretary of State to say that Haiti has held free and fair elections to seat a new parliament and, secondly, that the Office of National Drug Policy should determine that the Government of Haiti is fully cooperating with the United States to interdict drug traffic through Haiti. Now, let us take the second one first. Nobody in the Caribbean cooperates with the U.S. drug interdiction policy interfering with transshipments of drugs that go on throughout the Caribbean more than Haiti. It gives our Government total full operating license. And, in addition, I have heard our Coast Guard say that they have total cooperation. Further, the Haitian Government has no navy, so they are anxious to have the continued support of the U.S. Now, with the idea of holding up appropriations until the Secretary of State declares free elections, just a couple of things we need to understand. This is a double standard that does not apply to anybody else. And we have had far more seriously defective elections than Haiti. Haiti had a great election. We admitted it. I was an international observer. It was reported in the paper. Record turn out. Record registration. Nonviolence at the election. There was only one problem. There was a disagreement about the counting methodology after the election. Now, how does that qualify for considering fraud? There was an honest disagreement of the counting process which our own State Department, the White House says can be resolved and is in the process of being resolved. So lighten up. Let us give Haiti a chance. There is absolutely no reason for us to do that. Now, the other reason is that we are sending in Federal observers for U.S. elections 200 years after this country. They have to come into Flint, Michigan, and many places throughout the country to protect the voters and their right to vote and to make sure that there is no fraud. So we do not want to apply the standards of the U.S. to our country. Furthermore, Peru had elections that closed out international observers. Those of us who went as international observers were able to see with our own eyes the fairness and the appropriateness of the election. So let us let the Haitian Government, the election commission of Haiti, do its job before we start issuing these extremely punitive activities. Now, remember what we did for Peru was prospective. After they had a not-so-good election, we said in the future they have got to do this and that. So please, to the chairman of this committee and the subcommittee chairman, let us give them a break. Our Government is in the process of negotiating as we speak. A U.S. delegation is on the way to Haiti, I think they left last night, to work it out with the Government; and here we are calling the shots as if we know what is going to go down. Let us give Haiti, the newest developing democratic nation in the western hemisphere, a small chance by striking this amendment.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) and I have been to Haiti together. We know there is no military in Haiti. At our insistence, they have only a national police force and no navy. We have met with the President of Haiti. The government is working as well as they can. The election will bring the parliament back to action.

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

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, all I am suggesting, we are in agreement we want to move Haiti forward, but we should not be acting punitively before the election results are resolved. That is all I am saying is let us wait.