John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes to inquire of the distinguished manager of the bill, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady), if it is not true that he has circulated a letter about the same bill, then numbered 1833, to our colleagues in which he said that ``this bill bans any abortion in which the person performing the abortion partially vaginally delivers a living fetus before killing the fetus and completing the delivery. The ban would have the effect of prohibiting any abortion in which a child was partially delivered and then killed no matter what the,'' he calls, ``abortionist decides to call his particular technique.'' In other words, the gentleman is saying that his ban would apply to any abortion method. Does the gentleman recall the letter that was circulated?

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey). (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee). (Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, this is a general description that is being used, and the ban would, as the gentleman said, have the effect of prohibiting any abortion in which a child was partially delivered.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel)

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen). (Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt). (Mr. HOLT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) who has worked long and hard on this measure. He is a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. My colleagues, we should make no mistake, this bill is not about legislating, it is a game designed to thumb Congress' nose at the constitutional bedrock of Roe vs. Wade, which gives a woman the right to choose. And so this is a game designed to provoke a veto, which will surely occur. Now, we would all like to end unnecessary partial-birth abortions. Indeed, had the majority really wanted to do this, we could have started working together to pass legislation some 15 months ago when this session started. Democrats would have worked to pass such legislation. But, instead, we have a charade. We wait 15 months, no hearings, no markup in subcommittee, no markup in full committee, no amendments allowed to be offered on the House floor. Why? Because the sponsors of this legislation do not want us to offer a real proposal that could get signed into law and pass constitutional muster. On their part, this is not a good-faith effort. Instead, they want a bill that they cannot pass into law or meet the requirements of the Constitution. They do this because they want an issue, not a law that will ban unnecessary late-term procedures. What does this mean? The majority wants to trample the constitutional rights of a woman to obtain certain procedures when she needs them to protect her health. It wants to force women, like Kim Custis, to carry their pregnancies to term. Ms. Custis wanted to have a baby, but she found out not once but twice that the fetus she was carrying had no brain tissue. The first time this happened, the Nebraska law that has now been enjoined was still in force, and there was no way for her to have a safe, legal abortion. The sponsors of this bill would have Ms. Custis carry this fetus, who had no brain. If anyone has any doubt about the game that is being so crudely choreographed here today, it will be dispelled if they look across the street at the Supreme Court, which is set to hear arguments on the constitutionality of an earlier version of the same measure. Under normal circumstances, we would be loathe to get out ahead of the Supreme Court in a case concerning virtually identical language. That is because ever since the Supreme Court decision in Marbury v. Madison, nearly 200 years ago, we have recognized that the Supreme Court has the last word on the constitutionality of our laws. Not us, but them. But it is an election year, and the Republican leadership cannot wait for the Supreme Court to fulfill its constitutionally mandated role. The reality is this bill is unconstitutional because it contains no exceptions providing for the physical health of the mother, and that is why we should vote against it. Roe vs. Wade clearly holds that a woman's right to protect her life and health in the context of reproductive choice trumps the Government as Big Brother in its desire to regulate. Medical and legal experts who have viewed the legislation note that it is extremely vague and broad and, as a result, may outlaw abortion procedures at any stage of pregnancy. In fact, in Michigan, on July 31, 1997, Judge Gerald Rosen struck down Michigan's partial- birth abortion ban, in the first case finding the definition of partial birth so vague that doctors lacked notice as to what abortion procedures were banned. Moreover, the court found that the State law unduly burdened women's ability to obtain an abortion. It is clear that this bill violates that well-established constitutional law long settled by Roe. Even one of the most leading conservative jurists in the 7th Circuit, Chief Judge Richard Posner, who was appointed by President Reagan, has himself said of these legislative end runs, ``These statutes are concerned with making a statement in the ongoing war for public opinion, though an incidental effect may be to discourage some late-term abortions, the statement is that fetal life is more valuable than women's health.'' So for heaven's sake, let us not force by legislative fiat the Kim Custises of this world to bring to term fetuses that cannot survive. Let us stop trying to usurp the duties of the United States Supreme Court. Let us take the politicians out of the bedrooms. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner), a member of the committee.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

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

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky). (Ms. SCHAKOWSKY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, the House passed the Lofgren motion a week ago instructing the conferees to insist that the comatose gun safety conference meet. A week later, the silence is deafening. The silence you hear, Mr. Speaker, is the NRA, National Rifle Association, running out of arguments against gun safety. First they said the gun laws do not work, but the Brady law stopped 500,000 felons, fugitives and stalkers from buying guns. Then they said we need to enforce the laws. So now everyone supports enforcement. But when you hear the NRA cry its misleading statistics, remember, it is a trick, a trick to divert attention from their opposition to closing the gun show loophole, a trick so that the NRA does not have to explain why it supports laws that allow criminals to get their guns back, and it is a farce. The NRA opposed the laws they now want so badly enforced, and the NRA has made sure that the agencies that enforce the gun laws can only do so with one arm tied behind their back.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for this substitute, particularly the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt). H.R. 2372 would radically unbalance the playing field between local governments and large landowners. It allows big developers to threaten local governments with expensive litigation in federal court if the localities do not approve their plans. For example, a large developer may apply for a permit to build 800 homes on a parcel of land. A zoning official may deny that request, and a zoning board may as well. Under the bill, if that zoning board is elected, the matter is then ripe for Federal district court. The costs of litigating this issue in Federal court would overwhelm--if not bankrupt--many small towns and counties. Ninety-seven percent of the cities and towns in America have populations under 10,000. Virtually without exception, these towns have no full time legal staff. As a result, these small communities are forced to hire outside legal counsel each time they are sued--imposing large and unexpected burdens on small governmental budgets. The bottom line is that these localities can't afford a Federal court battle, so under H.R. 2372, they would be pressured into approving plans that are not in the interests of the entire community. The bill also undermines the ability of locally elected officials to protect public health and safety, safeguard the environment, and support the property values of all the residents of the community. Because a large developer can threaten a local community with Federal court litigation, local officials may be forced into the position of either having to approve their projects or face daunting legal expenses. Developers would have less incentive to resolve their disputes with neighbors or negotiate for a reasonable out-of-court settlement. The costs of defending unjustified federal takings litigation would threaten local community fire, police, and environmental protection services. The substitute offered by Representatives Boehlert and Delahunt would remedy this glaring problem with the bill. By limiting the bill's scope to Federal takings, only, the substitute protects the independent decisionmaking of local officials. We want our local communities to make their decisions of the merits--not based on whether they can afford to fight a lawsuit in Federal court. It is ironic, indeed, that the majority purports to respect ``States' rights'' yet supports legislation that would undermine local decisionmaking and authority in an area traditionally left to local control. The substitute also eliminates H.R. 2372's onerous and over- burdensome requirement that a Federal agency give notice to the owners of private property whenever an agency's action may ``affect'' the use of that property. The Department of Justice has stated that this mandate could apply to countless Federal programs and regulatory actions that prohibit illegal activity or control potentially harmful conduct. For example, a Federal prohibition on flying an unsafe airplane ``limits'' the use of the plane. Emission controls for a hazardous waste incinerator ``limit'' the use of the incinerator, and so on. It is also unclear how property owners could be identified--let alone notified--in cases where Federal action affects large numbers of people. The Federal Government would need to keep a ``Big Brother'' data base of property owners--just to comply with this portion of H.R. 2372. The substitute wisely eliminates this unwieldy requirement. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Boehlert-Delahunt substitute.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, as I previously stated, I think this legislation is ill-advised because it assumes that the Federal judiciary knows better than State and local officials and judges when it comes to issues of local land use. I disagree. Nevertheless, if we are going to give property owners the ability to ``jump the line'' into Federal court, it seems only fair that we should extend this same right to other section 1983 plaintiffs. As a result, the Watt-Conyers amendment would allow all section 1983 plaintiffs bringing actions for constitutional violations to utilize the bill's provisions concerning ripeness and abstention--not just big corporations bringing actions. As currently drafted, H.R. 2372 permits developers and polluters with taking claims against the government under section 1983 to avoid most State legal procedures, but ordinary citizens whose civil rights have been violated would be placed in a relative position of inferiority. This turns the very purpose of section 1983 actions completely on its head. Section 1983 was adopted as part of the Civil Rights Act of 1871 in the wake of the Reconstruction amendments to the Constitution. Known as the ``Ku Klux Klan Act,'' it was specifically designed to halt a wave of lynchings of African-Americans that had occurred under guise of state and local law. The bill elevates real property rights over the very civil rights section 1983 was enacted to protect--civil rights such as the right to counsel, protected under the sixth amendment, the right to be free of ``cruel and unusual punishment'' under the eighth amendment, and the right to exercise one's parental rights. In cases involving these constitutional rights--and many others--Federal courts have abstained from deciding the constitutional claims brought under section 1983 and have sent these cases back to State court for adjudication. To those Members who say this does not occur, I would like to quote the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service which stated that ``[a]bstention is indeed invoked by federal courts to dismiss or stay non-real-property-related section 1983 claims.'' CRS then goes on to cite a number of cases to support that point. Why will the majority refuse to acknowledge that Federal courts invoke the abstention doctrine against all section 1983 claims--not just those that involve takings of property? The Watt-Conyers amendment would create an equal playing field for all claims brought under section 1983 and grant all of these plaintiffs expedited access to the Federal courts. I urge the House to support this common-sense amendment.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the manager of the bill for yielding me this time. I rise in opposition to this measure because we have a proposal on the floor today in the Congress that is specifically directed at our local elected officials. As a prominent lobbyist has uttered, ``This measure would be a hammer to the head of local zoning boards and community planning agencies.'' In doing that, we have had revealed to us the real effect of the bill, which will be to intimidate communities into approving ill-advised development plans out of fear that they will be hauled into Federal court if they do not. Because what we are doing is providing property developers and other corporations with special procedures created in H.R. 2372 that grant them expedited access to the Federal courts for property-taking claims exclusively. Now, if that is what my colleagues want to do, that is fine. I object to it, but I think that it would be a terrible misuse of an important part of our Federal law which was originally created ironically to deal with civil rights claims. As a result of any kind of proposal like the one before us, again in the Congress; this was up before in I think 1997, we would, for example, allow a corporation which seeks an oversized commercial development and is dissatisfied with the initial land use decision by a small town, it could immediately threaten to bring suit in the Federal court against a town. The costs of litigating this issue in Federal court could overwhelm, if not bankrupt, thousands of small towns and counties around the country if that were to happen. So what we would allow under the incredible premises of this bill, this case could proceed even if there were insufficient facts available for the Federal court to make a reasoned takings decision. If there were important unresolved State legal issues, it would not matter. In essence, we are going to be telling the States that the Federal judiciary knows best when it comes to local land use decisions. Please, let us not be a part of such a giveaway here today in the House of Representatives.