John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I want to observe the pro-consumer part of this bill a little more carefully, because this is generally a pro-consumer bill. Could we have provided greater reforms in the area of retransmission consent? I think so. Currently, large broadcasters can enter into sweetheart deals with large cable and satellite companies. That is why I supported including strong antidiscrimination language which would have allowed new firms to more fairly compete against the entrenched monopolies. Although the final language prevents exclusive contracts, it could have been tougher. It could have done more to prevent discriminatory contracts. I think we will have to continue to watch for that. I am also a strong supporter of those provisions dealing with patent reform and cybersquatting. The patent provisions will help prevent the deceptive practices of submarine patents, extend the length of patent terms and provide for a more streamlined patent office and patent examination system. The Patent and Trademark Office is a critical cog in our high-tech economy, and the changes will help keep our country at the forefront of innovation. The cybersquatting changes will help prevent abusive registration of Internet domain names and ensure that trademark rights are respected in cyberspace. This is a good conference report. I encourage its support by all of the Members.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds, because the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler), I thought I misunderstood him at first when he said the Fourteenth Amendment did not apply to the States but he repeated it at least one more time so that I do not have any doubt of that now. Now that that is confirmed, I suppose we can move on back to the debate. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time. Mr. Speaker, there has been a discussion here that has been premised upon some things that we probably are not as sure about because we have not had any hearings. I am surprised to hear one Member say that this is a very important matter; but, yet, it skips over the subcommittee and committee of jurisdiction. We rush it to the floor, and then we end up with Members complaining to me repeatedly that the 14th amendment does not apply to the States. Now, we prepared a lot of material to try to point that out to him, that this has been pretty well settled in constitutional law. But then I said, why? Why do we need to do this? We are not talking about the right of students not to pray. It is how it is done. Students can pray at games. They do all the time. They do it in Texas even. So this is not an issue about whether one has the right to pray or not. It is under what circumstances can prayer be allowed. Now, Mr. Speaker, pretty conservative members of the court have found that the Constitution forbids school-sponsored prayers, not out of a hostility to religion, but to protect the religious freedom of each student. In other words, one cannot use the State and the school as a State to promote any religion over the other. The entire premise of the Bill of Rights is that individual liberty must be safeguarded and must sometimes trump the desires even of the majority. So it is in that spirit that I close the debate on this side by pointing out we are not against students praying, athletes praying, prayer at games. That is not the issue. The issue is under what circumstance can State-supported institutions use their facilities to promote any one particular prayer. I urge that Members reject the measure that is now before the House.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, religious freedom has been one of the cornerstones of American democracy since the founding of our Nation, and, like most Members in the body, I remain committed to preserving religious freedom. However, there are serious reservations whether this resolution offers us the best means of protecting our citizens' religious liberties. To begin with, we have had no deliberative process whatsoever on this complex issue. I was hoping that someone on the other side may enlighten me as to why this could never have come before a subcommittee or a committee for hearings and markup. There has been no opportunity to gauge the seriousness of the problem or determine whether this resolution is an appropriate or reasonable response. Secondly, the text of the resolution comes very close to not only protecting religious expression, but crossing over and violating the establishment clause. The Supreme Court has consistently held that the coercive mechanics of the State cannot be used to endorse any particular set of religious beliefs. I think we all know that. For public school sporting events, courts have been very generous and have allowed student-led prayers, but have drawn the line at coach-led prayers or using the mechanics of the State, out of fear of a coercive effect. This resolution appears to go beyond this line, finding that organized and State-led prayer may be constitutional. Finally, I am concerned that the resolution threatens to abridge our precious separation of powers. The Congress has had enough trouble doing its own business and passing the Nation's budget on time, let alone taking the time to tell the Supreme Court how to resolve highly complex and serious sensitive constitutional arguments. Under the present constitutional structure of a Bill of Rights protected by an independent judiciary, the courts have done fine in sorting out these issues. Religion is alive and well in America. We have greater religious diversity and more religious observance than any country on the face of the Earth. I seriously question whether this sense of Congress can improve this situation. Mr. Speaker, if we want to truly protect religious freedom in this country, please reject this well-meaning but flawed resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to join in the comments of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the dean of the House of this body. Of course we would all like to see passage of an e-commerce bill that would promote commercial transactions over the Internet. But an e- commerce bill should not be a grab bag for insurance, financial, or other special interests to hurt consumers. I think that is the underlying discussion that has been developed here today. It should not be a vehicle for Congress to tell the States that all of a sudden they are unable to enact contract law on their own in the area of e-commerce. Consumer laws requiring notice and disclosure in writing are being undermined. This measure would allow unsavory merchants to trick consumers into clicking away many of their rights under the laws. The measure, H.R. 1714, stands for the proposition that States are unable to enact their own laws and may not reinstate many additional consumer protections. It further undermines key Federal and State regulatory requirements to prevent fraud and abuse. And so an e- commerce that would be a win-win situation for all, that should make it easier for consumers to buy goods and services more quickly from a broader group of businesses and should allow businesses new methods of reaching more people, doing all these things, frankly, is not a hard bill to write. But the bill that the Commerce majority seeks to put on the floor at this time is not such a bill. Rather than a carefully drawn bill that balances the equities, the bill unnecessarily undermines key laws that protect consumers and prevent fraud, all to please the special interests. Join me in a negative vote on this measure.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want everyone in the chamber to know that this bill requires that two doctors and a patient, who has the understanding to make the decision, would make this decision for the taking of his life, physician-assisted suicide. So the tragedies and scare stories about other countries has nothing to do with this. This legislation really represents a new hypocrisy by the majority who claim to support States' rights but would prevent the United States Attorney General from giving effect to State laws that allow physician- assisted suicide. They do not say anything about that. The Supreme Court has said, quote, ``Americans are engaged in an earnest, profound debate about the morality, legality, and practicality of physician-assisted suicide. Our holding permits this debate to continue.'' This bill prevents and excludes that debate by coming to a Washington-knows-best solution coming from those who claim to support States' right. I support States laws. Although Republicans who have often claimed that citizen initiative is the most revered form of democracy, repeatedly sponsor bills that treat them as a higher form of law than others, they bring a measure to the floor today that would overturn an Oregon initiative that has been approved twice by large margins. The 10th amendment, well, that is someone else's problem. It has reserved to the States those rights not given to the Federal Government. This is not a Federal issue. So, today, to consider a bill that has no grounding in interstate commerce or any other cause in the Constitution, in direct violation of the 10th amendment, compounded by the fact that they directly intend to override Oregon's law and would not give them a chance to make that exception in the Committee on Rules, this measure intrudes severely upon the essential relationship between a doctor and a patient. Moreover, numerous medical associations have already told us that this bill, ironically, will deter doctors from treating pain because they fear they may be subject to criminal prosecution at the Federal level if their patients die. So it is especially disturbing considering that doctors are already undermedicating approximately 80 percent of their terminally-ill patients because they believe the current drug laws are too strict. Let us not move in this direction. I commend to my colleagues the substitute of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Stupak) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rothman), which will come up later. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims of the Committee on the Judiciary. We have worked out the differences in this measure. I have to let the Record show that it would have been nice to have held hearings on this measure; but, nonetheless, H.R. 3111 is a bill supported by myself, introduced by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary. We think that the Federal Reports Elimination and Sunset Act of 1995 requires the end of the submission of various periodic reports to Congress by December 21 of this year. The Act forces Congress to reexamine the usefulness of the various reporting requirements that have been mandated of Federal agencies, including the Department of Justice. This review process is important and a practical exercise in that we must be sure that Federal dollars and personnel time are not being wasted on obsolete reports to Congress. But all reports are not obsolete. So together we have reviewed and have been able to agree on a reduced list of reports from the Department of Justice that will continue to provide information important to the legislative and oversight process. One should not minimize the importance of these reports. For example, we have retained reports on pen register orders and wiretap applications to monitor the activities of the Department to ensure that its activities do not invade our society's expected right to privacy. Other reports help Congress monitor the Department's undercover operations, the conduct of various justice programs in areas including immigration. These should not sunset. So, again, my commendations to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), the subcommittee chair, for the spirit of cooperation in working out this measure. The review process required to produce this bill represents an essential function of good government that we can all support on a bipartisan basis. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I come to indicate my strong support for H.R. 576. I want to thank the gentleman from Texas, our colleague from Houston, and also the gentleman from Florida, the chairman of the subcommittee of the Committee on the Judiciary, for moving this forward with the speed at which it has come. I appreciate that very much, and on behalf of all of those in this country who realize that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. is probably the most significant figure in the 20th century, not only in America but in the world in terms of the understanding that he has brought to human rights and peace and justice. Dr. King has been a very strong force in my life. He has been a good friend of Rosa Parks, who came from Montgomery, Alabama to Detroit to associate herself with my efforts for many, many years, and in the course of it, I had the honor of getting to know Mrs. Coretta Scott King and indeed the entire King family. There exists in Atlanta now a Martin Luther King Center for Nonviolence which is still a shrine to which people come from around the world to join in the understanding of justice and peace and humanitarian, the reaching out, and also to reflect on the civil rights struggle. Dr. King will forever remain a symbol of what the best of America can be, and in a way what Charles Spain and the gentleman from Texas have done is really in the wake of and in the spirit of Dr. King himself. This is a small but critical correction. Every holiday encourages us to display the flag except this one, inadvertently left out. How it got left out after 15 years of struggle to get the bill passed, heaven only knows. And so I am very delighted to join in what I am sure will be unanimous support for the measure that is before us now. I thank again all of the sponsors and those that have made it possible.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to jazz great, Milt Jackson. Milt Jackson was a wonderful person and magnificent talent who played the vibraphone in a way that emitted rich, warm sounds like no one else. Milt Jackson was born in Detroit and played many instruments prior to playing the vibraphone. Blessed with the gift of perfect pitch, he originally sang with the Detroit gospel group, the Evangelist Singers. He started playing jazz in high school with the Clarance Ringo and the George Lee Band but his new found jazz career was interrupted by a short stint in the Army. Upon discharge, Mr. Jackson founded his own jazz quartet called the Four Sharps. Dizzy Gillespie, while in Detroit on a mid-western tour, spotted the quartet in a Detroit bar and promptly asked Mr. Jackson to join his band. By the time Mr. Jackson joined Gillespie's band, he was deeply under the influence of Charlie Parker. Jackson tried to emulate Parker's rhythmic traits and tried to achieve a hornlike quality to his sound. Jackson went on to create a new sound in the 1940's slowing down the motor on his Vibraharp's oscillator by one-third the speed to create a rich vibrato sound very similar to his own voice. Mr. Jackson was also knowledgeable in classical music and was involved in the jam sessions with Miles Davis and Gerry Mulligan which led to the ``Birth of the Cool.'' One of the most significant musical achievements in Jackson's career was his over four decades of work as a member of the Modern Jazz Quartet which was formed in the early 1950's. Milt always responded positively to my invitations to come and share his significant knowledge and talent at the annual Congressional Black Caucus Foundation jazz issues forum. The jazz issues forum was established to enhance and perpetuate the art form, emphasize cultural heritage, and forge awareness and pride within the African-American community. In 1987, the jazz issue forum in the United States Congress passed House Concurrent Resolution 57 which designates jazz to be ``a rare and valuable national American treasure.'' He will be missed greatly as Milt Jackson was one of the world's preeminent improvisors in jazz. His special brilliance will be enjoyed by jazz fans for all the ages. [From the N.Y. Times, Mon., Oct. 11, 1999] Milt Jackson, 76, Jazz Vibraphonist, Dies (By Ben Ratliff) Milt Jackson, the jazz vibraphonist who was a member of the Modern Jazz Quartet for 40 years and was one of the premier improvisers in jazz with a special brilliance at playing blues, died on Saturday at St. Luke's-Roosevelt Hospital in Manhattan. He was 76 and lived in Teaneck, N.J. The cause was liver cancer, said his daughter, Chyrise Jackson. All the best jazz musicians know how to take their time, and Mr. Jackson was no different. Originally a singer in a Detroit gospel quartet, he created a new sound in the 1940's by slowing down the motor on his Deagan Vibraharp's oscillator to a third of the speed of Lionel Hampton's; a result, when he chose to let a sustained note ring, was a rich, warm smoky sound, with a vibrato that approximated his own singing. ``He came closer than anyone else on the instrument to making it sound like the human voice,'' said the young vibraphonist Stefon Harris yesterday. ``It's a collection of metal and iron, and we don't have the ability to bend notes and make vocal inflections like a saxophone. But Milt played the instrument in the most organic way possible--with a warm, rich sound. He set a precedent that this instrument can speak beautiful things, and that it's not just percussive.'' Mr. Jackson, who was born in Detroit, had become an impressively broad musician by the middle of his teen-age years. He had perfect pitch, and he began teaching himself guitar at the age of 7, started piano lessons at 11 and in high school played five instruments: drums, tympani, violin, guitar and xylophone; he also sang in the choir. By the age of 16, he had picked up the vibraphone as well, encouraged by a music teacher, and sang tenor in a popular gospel quartet called the Evangelist Singers as well as beginning his jazz career, playing vibraphone with Clarence Ringo and the George E. Lee band. Out of high school, he almost joined Earl Hines's big band, but his draft notice intervened. In 1944, back in Detroit after two years of overseas military service, he set up a jazz quartet called the Four Sharps. (He admitted that he got his nickname, Bags, from the temporary furrows under his eyes incurred by a drinking binge after his release from the Army.) Dizzy Gillespie saw the quartet at a Detroit bar on a swing through the Midwest, and called upon Mr. Jackson in 1945 to join his band in New York. Mr. Jackson's style, then and later, came from Charlie Parker, rather than Mr. Hampton, his most prominent precursor on the instrument; he not only tried to achieve a hornlike legato with his mallets, but he adopted many of Parker's rhythmic traits as well. He was the first bona fide bebop musician on the vibraphone, and became one of the prides of Gillespie's own band. Gillespie also brought him to Los Angeles to fill out his sextet at Billy Berg's club, hedging against the probability that Parker, who was in the band and at the low point of his heroin addiction, would fail to show up. Back in New York in 1946, Mr. Jackson recorded some of bebop's classics with Gillespie's orchestra--``A Night in Tunisia,'' ``Anthropology'' and ``Two Bass Hit.'' Mr. Jackson, the pianist John Lewis, the bassist Ray Brown and the drummer Kenny Clarke were the rhythm section of Gillespie's band. ``Dizzy had a lot of high parts for the brass in that group,'' remembered Mr. Brown. ``So he said, `I have to give these guys' lips a little rest during concerts, and while they're resting, you should play something.' '' The development of this rhythm section's relationship led to some recordings for Gillespie's own label, Dee Gee, by a new band known as the Milt Jackson Quartet. Mr. Jackson left Gillespie and came back to him again for a period in the early 1950's. And in 1951, with Thelonious Monk, he made recordings that would further the idiom again, weaving his linear improvisations around Monk's abrupt, jagged gestures on pieces including ``Criss Cross'' and ``Straight, No Chaser.'' Mr. Lewis, the pianist, began to have ideas about forming a new group, one that would go beyond the notion of soloists with a rhythm section. He had an extensive knowledge of classical music, had been involved in the sessions with Miles Davis and Gerry Mulligan that would become known as ``Birth of the Cool,'' and he envisioned a more deliberately formal feeling for a small band. In 1952 the Modern Jazz Quartet began, with Clark as drummer and Percy Heath as bassist. Connie Kay replaced Clarke in 1955. After a while, Mr. Lewis became the group's musical director. The group wore tailored suits and practiced every aspect of their public presentation, from walking on stage to making introductions to the powerfully subdued arrangements in their playing. They wanted to bring back to jazz the sense of high bearing it had been losing as the popularity of the big bands was slipping and jazz became more of a music predicated on the casual jam-session. Through two decades of immaculately conceived and recorded albums on Atlantic Records, beginning in 1956, their vision was borne out. Initially, they found that audiences were somewhat startled by the authority of their quietness; eventually the group would be one of the few jazz bands embraced by an audience much wider than jazz fans. Mr. Lewis economized, playing small chords and creating a light but sturdy framework for the music, and Mr. Jackson was the expansive foil, letting his tempos crest and fall, luxuriating in the passing tones and quick, curled runs of bebop. It was often supposed that he grew frustrated with his role in the band; in a recent interview Mr. Jackson said he felt that Mr. Lewis suppressed the group's sense of swing. In 1974 he left, dissolving the band until it reunited for the first of several tours in the 1980's. Mr. Kay died in 1994, and the Modern Jazz Quartet, with Mickey Roker sitting in for him, gave its last performance the following year. Besides being widely acknowledged as one of the music's greatest improvisers, Mr. Jackson wrote a lot of music--most famously the blues pieces ``Bags' Groove,'' ``Bluesology'' and ``The Cylinder.'' He recorded widely. He made small-group and orchestral records in the early 1960's, collaboration albums with John Coltrane and Ray Charles, and a large number of records on the Pablo label during the 1970's and 1980's with Mr. Brown on bass, as well as Gillespie, Count Basie, Oscar Peterson and others. In 1992 he began a series of albums produced by Quincy Jones for the Qwest label; the most recent, from this year, was ``Explosive!,'' recorded with the Clayton-Hamilton Jazz Orchestra. The last collaboration with Mr. Brown and Mr. Peterson, ``The Very Tall Band,'' was issued this year by Telarc. In addition to his daughter, of Fort Lee, N.J., he is survived by his wife, Sandra, of Teaneck, and three brothers: Alvin, of Queens, and Wilbur and James, both of Detroit.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the time. I would begin the close of our comments by observing that my friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady), at least recently, has not denied as I have listened to the remarks of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) in particular, the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, that the problem that we have with the bill is not whether we can understand the language or whether it is incomprehensible or not, but whether or not it is a back-door attack on Roe. I mean, that is the question. Is the major bill that has caused us to create a substitute a back-door attack on Roe v. Wade? We think that it is, for the following reasons: until recently, the law did not recognize the existence of the fetus except for a very few specific purposes. As stated by the Supreme Court in Roe: ``The unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense.'' That is a quote. And the law that has been reluctant to afford any legal rights to fetuses quote ``except in narrowly defined situations and except when the rights are contingent upon live birth.'' So Roe specifically rejected the suggestion that a theory of life that grants personhood to the fetus and that the law may override the rights of the pregnant woman that are at stake. So what I am suggesting is that the issue is not really the language of the substitute, but it is really the deeper problem of whether an unborn child should be entitled to legal status that is unprecedented in the Federal system. I hope to gain the attention of the learned attorney from South Carolina, and that is that in the 26 years following Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court has never recognized an unborn child as having legal status. In State courts and State law, yes, and many times it has not been challenged. But on the two occasions that this came before the United States Supreme Court, they have never recognized an unborn child as having legal status. The two cases that I would suggest are the Burns case in 1975 and the Webster v. Reproductive Health Services in 1989. These are the only two cases since Roe in which the Supreme Court has been asked to recognize the unborn child as having legal status, and in both cases the Supreme Court refused to do so. Now, what does the substitute do? The substitute accomplishes the same thing that the major bill does without reaching a conclusion contrary to Roe v. Wade that has never recognized the unborn child as having legal status. That is precisely the difference. Punishment, the same. Objective, the same. Abhorrence of pregnant women having their pregnancy terminated involuntarily, the same. But the difference in the substitute is that our substitute keeps Roe v. Wade intact in that it maintains that the recognition of an unborn child as being entitled to legal status has never yet occurred in the law, and the Congress this evening is about to attempt to change that. That is why we say, gentlemen of the Republican persuasion, this is a backdoor attack on Roe v. Wade. And what we are trying to do is accomplish the same objective as the major bill without interrupting the status of Roe v. Wade.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from California for her leadership in this very sensitive discussion. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to point out to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the previous speaker, a good friend of mine on the Committee on the Judiciary, that we all want to punish people who attack women who are pregnant. That is not the question. There is no one in the House that does not want to add punishment. The only difference is that our substitute applies to acts which cause the interruption in the normal course of the pregnancy, thereby avoiding the entire controversy concerning independent fetal rights. Now, that is really what the substitute and the whole bill is about. I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the chairman of the committee, for making it clear that that is what it is about. I mean, he makes it clear. That is what he talks about. He gave his usual speech about abortion, against it, and what the people mean and think and how bad choice is. The gentleman from Illinois has made it clear. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady), the leader and manager of this bill, my good friend, has done everything in his power to conceal the fact that that is what we are doing. We are making incursions on Roe versus Wade. The New York Times has figured it out in a very good way. The bill sponsors assert the measure has nothing to do with the abortion issue. Can my colleagues imagine that? That is all we have talked about is the abortion issue. But that view is disingenuous. By creating a separate legal status for fetuses, the bill supporters are plainly hoping to build a foundation for a fresh legal assault on the constitutional underpinning of Roe. We all know that. That is why we offer a substitute for those who want to punish people who attack women who are pregnant.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to be here today, and I compliment the authors of the bill and the leadership on the Committee on the Judiciary on the Republican side for their calm and deliberate tem- peraments, their civil attitudes, but we have here a problem that the New York Times has pointed out is a very important part of the abortion bill debate. We are now going to make a criminal act out of nonconsensual termination of a pregnancy even if the person that terminates the pregnancy did not even know that the woman was pregnant. This will be the first criminal law in which intent will be irrelevant. It will be murder, Mr. Chairman, but they did not know they were committing murder. So I, as a crime fighter myself, am reluctant to oppose the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, but it is another abortion bill that is being sold to us as an important criminal law in the making. On its face, the bill appears to be a tool for protecting pregnant women from assault and the nonconsensual termination of pregnancy, but on closer examination, we are chipping away at Roe versus Wade, another stage is being set for an assault on Roe versus Wade. How? By treating the fetus and all other stages of gestational development, Mr. Chairman, as a person with rights and interests distinct from the mother. That is why I recommend to my colleagues the Lofgren-Conyers substitute that will come shortly afterward, and I thank the Committee on Rules for granting it. So this bill raises profound constitutional issues in that it implicates a foundational premise of Roe v. Wade. This bill identifies a fetus as a separate and distinct victim of crime which is unprecedented as a matter of Federal statute and plunges the Federal Government into the most difficult and complex issues of religious matters, of scientific consideration, and into the midst of how a variety of State approaches already exist in handling the matter. So there simply can be no argument by anyone that a pregnant woman and her fetus should be protected from criminal attack through aggressive use of our criminal laws, and that is what we propose. So let us admit it, Republican members and supporters of the bill. Let us confess that we are taking another little few baby steps forward to eat away at the fundamental premises of Roe versus Wade; and if that is the case, then this bill does not deserve to be called an exercise of our criminal jurisdiction in the Committee on the Judiciary. I rise in opposition to H.R. 2436, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. This bill attempts to cloak yet another abortion bill as a legitimate exercise of our Federal criminal jurisdiction. On its face, this bill appears to be a tool for protecting pregnant women from assault and the non-consensual termination of a pregnancy. On closer examination, however, the bill sets the stage for an assault on Roe versus Wade through the legislative process by treating the fetus, and all other stages of gestational development, as a person, with rights and interests distinct from the mother. This bill raises profound constitutional issues in that it implicates a foundational premise of Roe versus Wade. H.R. 2436's identification of a fetus as a separate and distinct victim of crime is unprecedented as a matter of federal statute and plunges the federal government into one of the most--if not the most-difficult and complex issues of religious and scientific consideration and into the midst of a variety of State approaches to handling these issues. There simply can be no argument by anyone that a pregnant women and her fetus should be protected from criminal attack through the aggressive use of our criminal laws. For that reason, a majority of states have statues or court decisions that allow criminal prosecution and sentencing enhancement for causing death or injury to a developing pregnancy. However, despite the fact that a fetus cannot be injured without inflicting harm to the mother, this bill ignores the interests of the pregnant women. H.R. 2436 switches our attention from an overt attack on a women to the impact of the crime on the pregnancy--diverting attention from the issue of domestic violence. The vast majority of attacks on women that harm pregnancies arise in the context of domestic violence, as the majority has supplied in amply reference. If the majority were truly concerned about protecting pregnant women and preventing harm to developing pregnancies, they would reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (``VAWA''), or mark up the ``Violence Against Women Act of 1999'' (H.R. 357) which expands protections for women against callous acts of violence regardless of their pregnancy status. Recognizing the fetus as an entity with legal rights independent of the pregnant woman makes it possible to create future fetal rights that could be used against the pregnant woman. This is not some idle fear. We already seen some of these measures introduced at the state level. If this trend continues, pregnant women would live in constant fear that any accident or ``error'' in judgment could be deemed ``unacceptable'' and become the basis for a criminal prosecution by the state or a civil suit by a disenchanted husband or relative. Perhaps the most foreboding aspect of allowing increased state involvement in pregnant women's lives in the name of the fetus is that the state may impose direct injunctive regulation of women's actions. Absent an increased awareness of the costs to women's autonomy, these intrusive fetal rights provisions will almost certainly continue to expand. This bill stands as yet another transparent attempt to score points in the perennial abortion debate. If you care about protecting a fetus, you must care about protecting the mother. This bill does not enhance the welfare of mothers; it creates a climate of intrusive government intervention on their bodies and their reproductive choice. We should vote no and stop wasting time on regressive, rhetorical measures like H.R. 2436. Rather than seeking to score points, we invite the majority to join us in crafting legislation that protects woman and mothers from violence that threatens all those under their care.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I would like to commend my colleagues for their hard work on this important resolution. Although the language was changed to accommodate opinions from the other body, I believe it still carries the appropriate positive message about Haiti's democratic progress. After all, October 15 will mark only 5 years that have gone by since the restoration of the legitimate government of Haiti and its elected president, Jean-Bertrand Aristide. Haiti has come a long way since the dark days when General Cedras and Colonel Francois ruled the streets of Port-au-Prince with an iron fist of terror. I had the opportunity to make my own first hand evaluation 2 weeks ago when I led a bipartisan delegation to Haiti accompanied by my good friends Representatives Campbell, Payne, Hilliard, Christensen, and Faleomavaega. I would also like to thank the gentleman from Illinois, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, for authorizing the CODEL to travel. Today we are releasing our findings in a comprehensive trip report. While we found that elections probably will not happen in December as hoped, a brief delay may end up being in the best interests of broad participation in the process. Haiti remains one of the world's poorest countries, with a per capita income of $380 per year. However, it has taken some important steps. Inflation is down to 8 percent, from about 50 percent in 1995. The budget deficit declined to less than 2 percent of GDP in 1998 and the exchange rate is stable. The economy has benefitted from a growth both in the assembly sector and in increased agricultural exports such as mangos and coffee; these factors contributed to an impressive growth rate of 4 percent last year. Haiti is also trying hard to tackle a drug transshipment problem. In the last 3 weeks, the police leadership has made several arrests in several drug busts ranging from 13 pounds and 15 pounds of cocaine, to another one believed to amount to over 1,500 pounds. The police leadership are making admirable efforts to keep its ranks clean, arresting four of its own officers in connection with that last incident. I believe today's resolution keeps Haiti in proper perspective and embraces the spirit of democratic progress. It encourages the United States and the international community to provide assistance to the elections, urges the government of Haiti to remain engaged with civil society, and asks all elements of Haitian society to help promote a climate of peaceful environment for the elections. This last part is important because a group of Haitian business representatives led by Mr. Lionel DeLatour reminded me during my trip, no one sector holds a monopoly on blame for transgressions. The resolution commends the Provisional Electoral Council, whom I also met with 2 weeks ago, for its efforts to resolve the controversial 1997 elections. I urge your support of this resolution and I commend our report to your attention, which I am inserting into the Record. Haiti Trip Report, September 10-12, 1999 Congress of the United States, Washington, DC, September 27, 1999. Hon. Madeleine K. Albright, Secretary of State, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC. Dear Madame Secretary: On September 10-12, a House Judiciary Committee congressional delegation traveled to Haiti led by the Ranking Member, Representative John Conyers, Jr. Other members of the codel included Representatives Tom Campbell, Donald Payne, Earl Hilliard and Delegates Eni Faleomavaega and Donna Christian-Christensen. The trip focused on three general areas of interest: (1) The pending elections and the preparations necessary to undertake them; (2) the Department of Justice's ongoing role in police training and judicial reform; and (3) counter- narcotic activities. The Congressional delegation's report contains specific recommendations for actions by the Executive Branch and the object of continuing your progress in the consolidation of democracy in the nation of Haiti. Respectfully Submitted, John Conyers, Jr. Tom Campbell. Eni Faleomavaega. Donald M. Payne. Earl F. Hilliard. Donna M. Christensen.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute before yielding to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) because both the previous speakers supporting the bill have talked about the ability of courts to allow the certifying of class actions before the defendants have had an opportunity to respond, and I would like to point out that not only is this barred by the Constitution, that there is a Supreme Court case on it preventing it; and the two Alabama State court cases have both held that classes may not be certified without notice and full opportunity for defendants to respond, and the class certification criteria must be rigorously applied. So I just want to lay that chestnut to rest as the debate goes on. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Chairman, I would point out to my distinguished friend, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), that the limit was raised from $50,000 to $75,000 for diversity jurisdiction by the Federal court system itself. They were trying to make it a higher level to prevent gaming, not to encourage gaming. Then I should point out to the gentleman that the Judicial Conference of the United States, the chief justice himself presiding, pointed out that 1875 creates a couple of problems. One is that, in effect, they do not have the ability to deal with increased caseload. And they expressed opposition to these class action provisions and also the conflict between these provisions of the bills and longest recognized principles of federalism, and they encourage further deliberate study of the complicated issues raised. So although the gentleman thinks this is new material, it has been very carefully considered by the Federal judiciary. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), who serves on the Committee on the Judiciary and who has worked very vigorously on this subject.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), who is opposed to the bill and who serves on the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that as we weigh the intelligence and ability of the Federal judges versus the State judges, it is the Federal judges and the Judicial Conference of the United States that do not want this bill. They have used the most delicate language imaginable: ``Concern was also expressed about the conflict between these provisions of the bill and long-recognized principles of Federalism.'' Get it? That is what they are saying: Please do not give us this. They demean the State court judges, but the Federal judges to whom they are giving this do not want it. But since they insist on giving it to them, the Frank-Conyers-Berman- Meehan amendment, this amendment, merely gives the State court the opportunity to reject or accept a class certification determination. The debate that has been going on here assumes that anything that comes back to the State court is going to automatically be certified as a class action. The State court has the option of determining whether there will be a certification. They may well turn it down. What it does do, this amendment, is to stop the merry-go-round effect of always allowing any State court determination to be removed to the State court. So this amendment provides simply that if, after removal, the Federal court determines that no aspect of an action that is subject to its jurisdiction may be maintained as a class action under rule 23, the court shall remand the class action to the State court, without the opportunity to be removed again to the Federal court. The State could then proceed with a class certification determination. After the determination, if the district court determines that the action subject to its jurisdiction does not satisfy the rule 23 requirements, then the court must dismiss the action. This has the effect of striking the class action claim. While the class action claim may be refiled again, any such refiled action may be remanded again if the district court has original jurisdiction. Therefore, even if a State court would subsequently certify the class, it could be removed again, creating a revolving door between the Federal and State court. Mr. Chairman, all we are doing is stopping the revolving door action. It is a modest improvement to a measure that is likely not to be kindly received by the administration. This would make it a little bit better. This provision unfairly prohibits class action lawsuits from being certified by State courts under the State class action rules, which could be more lenient than Federal rule 23. As a result, individual actions could be the only recourse for the plaintiff, and this will eliminate the benefits of a class action in the first place. This is why class actions were created, to seek compensation as a class from the industry because individual lawsuits are too costly. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment, which will allow the Federal courts the first opportunity to review a class action, but not cut off other class action rights in the State courts.