John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), who finds it, as do many of us, ironic that this House apparently does not demonstrate the same concern for the dangers of interstate shipment of firearms as they claim to have about the interstate shipment of alcohol. If we opened the Federal courts to State alcohol suits, we should at least do the same for firearms. I thank the gentlewoman for making the connection in this debate.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. CONYERS. There is no other way we can do that. I want to assure the gentleman that from my point of view there is no other way we can proceed without withdrawing this and advancing the other, and because I know the gentleman's good faith is no less than mine, I am prepared to go that way.

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

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my friends who have introduced this. I had an amendment quite similar to it, and I do not think it will be necessary to offer it now. But the perfecting amendment I am offering will clarify that Internet service providers and electronic communication services will be exempted only where they are used by another person to engage in activity covered by the act. Thus, for example, if Yahoo or another Internet provider goes into the business of selling or shipping liquor, they would not be exempted from liability. Now, Mr. Chairman, Internet commerce has opened new doors of opportunities for entrepreneurs around the country as well as provided consumers with a vast array of new choices of goods and services; and with the expansion of commerce over the Internet comes the added benefit of greater competition which will lead to lower prices for consumers. Of course, we do not want people to use Internet to violate the law, but we also do not want to create unnecessary and burdensome regulations that will hinder this emerging new marketplace, nor do we want to hinder the types of commercial transactions that permit direct contact between producers and consumers. The best marketplace is one that promotes robust competition, and therefore we want to encourage new entrants to the market and not erect barriers blocking them. As is currently written, the legislation could have negative repercussions for the emerging Internet marketplace. State alcohol laws often target liquor sold over the Internet, and therefore I urge that we proceed cautiously when we grant a Federal forum for these types of State actions to ensure the Internet service providers and other telecommunication services do not bear the brunt of the liability. Another problem is that the bill gives and encourages the imposition of new Internet taxes by giving States another forum in which to collect those taxes from out-of-State defendants. This is a bipartisan and non-controversial improvement, and I hope that my perfecting amendment will be accepted, which remedies these problems. What we are doing here, I believe, is clarifying that this measure cannot be used as a tool to bring actions against Internet providers and other wired telecommunications services. It seems to me we can all agree that we do not want Internet carriers to be the targets of State attorney general actions to enforce our State alcohol laws. The amendment also clarifies that the legislation does not modify or supersede the Internet Tax Freedom Act, in which Congress placed a moratorium on new Internet taxes. We do not want to undermine Congress' prior legislation and permit selective carveouts to that important commitment. This amendment is supported by many groups and organizations, America Online, Bell Atlantic, Bell South, the Commercial Internet Exchange Association, Prodigy and PSInet. Whether or not one ultimately supports 2031, this very important amendment deserves your vote. Although these changes do not address all of my concerns, this is an important improvement to the legislation, and I urge that the perfecting amendment be accepted and the amendment be supported. Among other things the Cox amendment makes it clear that neither this act nor Webb Kenyon are in anyway designed to supersede any other provision of the Constitution, such as the first amendment or the Commerce clause (including the so-called ``dormant'' Commerce clause). In this regard, the amendment reaffirms the Supreme Court's 1984 decision in Bacchus Imports v. Dias, 468 U.S. 263 (1984), which held that a state law which imposed an excise tax on sales of liquor but exempted certain locally produced alcoholic beverages violated the Commerce clause. The Court concluded that this state legislative scheme was clearly discriminatory legislation and constituted ``economic protectionism.'' The Court noted that ``one thing is certain: The central purpose of the [Twenty-First Amendment] was not to empower States to favor local liquor industries by erecting barriers to competition.'' The Court held that the state's law was not designed to promote temperance but was ``mere economic protectionism.'' The Court has adopted this line of reasoning in striking down numerous other state liquor laws. See e.g., Brown-Forman Distillers Corp. v. New York State Liquor Authority, 476 U.S. 573 (1986) (relying on Bacchus); Healy v. Beer Inst., 491 U.S. 324 (1989) (relying on Brown-Forman). See also Capital Cities Cable versus Crisp (holding that a state statute which banned the transmission of out of state alcoholic beverage commercials by cable television stations in the state violated the Commerce Clause and was outside of the state's Twenty-First Amendment power); California Retail Liquor Dealers Ass'n v. Medcal Aluminum 445 U.S. 97 (1980) (holding that a state wine pricing system violated Sherman Antitrust Act and noting that the ``Federal Government retains some Commerce clause authority over liquor); Hostetter v. Idlewild Bon Voyage, 377 U.S. 324, (1968) (holding that the Commerce clause prohibited the State of New York from interfering with the sale of alcohol to departing international airline travelers at a New York airport and that the argument that the Twenty-First amendment trumps the Commerce clause where states regulate alcohol is ``patently bizarre,'' ``an absurd oversimplification,'' and ``demonstrably incorrect''). August 2, 1999. Re amendment to H.R. 2031. Hon. John Conyers, Ranking member, House Judiciary Committee, Rayburn House Office, Washington, DC. Hon. Bob Goodlatte, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Representative Conyers and Representative Goodlatte: We write to express our strong support for the amendment you intend to offer tomorrow to H.R. 2031 to clarify that injunctive relief under the bill is available against certain shippers of alcohol, and not against providers of communications services. This important clarification will avoid confusion and needless litigation against internet service providers and other providers of communications services who are not engaged in the sort of shipments that are the subject of the bill. Thank you very much for your leadership on this issue. Sincerely,

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer a perfecting amendment to the amendment.

Mr. CONYERS. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CONYERS. I thank the gentleman, Mr. Speaker. I urge the Members to support the motion to recommit.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I am sure that is consistent with the bill. I mean, I hope we do not have a germaneness problem. Secondly, it makes pretty good sense. It would seem that those who support the bill might want to make this improvement merely because it makes more efficacious the whole process. Point of Order

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, we assure the gentleman that there is nothing but fairness exuding from this side of the aisle, no underhanded motives, and the impact study of the legislation, nothing could be more neutral than that.

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

Mr. CONYERS. Absolutely.

Mr. CONYERS. Yes, we are looking at an impact of this entire legislation. So we have taken out the specific references.

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

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

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). If I understand the amendment, all she is asking is that the outside package have some identifying label that this is alcohol. Is that correct?

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, let me comfort the gentleman by saying that I am sure that the Attorney General has one or two or three people who could conduct a study here that would be negligible in the budget of the Department of Justice. I think cost would be no immediate concern whatsoever.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman would continue to yield, plus the signature when it is received to determine that it is going into the proper hands.

Mr. CONYERS. Of course.

Mr. CONYERS. Absolutely. I am trying to save time actually, I am trying not to go to a vote and all of that, if we could merely have the impact of the legislation studied, which is not inconsistent with anything in the bill, nor anything that either of us on either side have debated in this matter.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I say to the chairman, it is not binding, that we are going to do our best to accomplish that. Mr. Speaker, as disappointed as I have been about the senseless delays that have prevented this Congress from sending to the President's desk reasonable and moderate gun safety measures, I am pleased that we are finally ready to appoint conferees. On August 16, in just a few weeks, the children who attended Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado, will be returning to school. It has been over 3 months since the tragedy in Columbine occurred. But because of the delaying tactics by the National Rifle Association and its allies, we have only 1 week to settle the gun safety issues before we adjourn for the summer recess. We should not delay longer. How can we do nothing when 13 children are killed as a result of gun violence in this Nation every single day? Nine people were shot to death in Atlanta, Georgia, yesterday, and 12 were wounded. We do not know all the facts, but this was clearly a disturbed man who should not own a gun. We need a comprehensive system of background checks to keep this kind of person from buying a gun. We need to plug the loopholes. We still have time to make this back-to-school season free from worries about gun violence for our Nation's children and their parents. Kids should not have unsupervised access to guns. Teachers and parents should know that their children are carrying books, pencils and paper in their backpacks, not guns. No dangerous criminal should be allowed to buy a gun at a gun show. That is all that we are asking for. My motion to instruct conferees is simple: Number one, it says that a conference report should include measures that prevent criminals from getting guns at gun shows. A murderer, rapist or batterer should not be able to buy a gun at a gun show. It should not matter whether a murderer tries to buy the gun from a licensed or an unlicensed dealer. The murderer should not get the gun. This is common sense. Number two, it says that a conference report should not weaken current gun laws. After the tragedies in Littleton, Colorado, and Conyers, Georgia, American parents cried out for measures that do more to protect their kids from gun violence. How can we as a Congress do less? Number three, it says that a conference report should provide more school resource officers and counselors for our schools. We need to prevent gun violence in schools before it happens. We need to give teachers, school administrators, and parents the tools they need to make schools safer. Number four, it says that we need to have a fair and open conference. This House should be ashamed that so much of the House debate on gun safety took place in the dead of night while American families were sleeping and unaware that new loopholes that would give more criminals access to guns were being written. The NRA and its allies should not be allowed to hide any longer. Mr. Speaker, the young people are going back to school. It is time for this Congress to get back to work and pass modest and reasonable gun safety legislation. With nearly 5,000 of our children being killed by gun violence this year, we certainly cannot afford to put this legislation on hold any longer. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the Law Enforcement Trust and Integrity Act of 1999, along with additional cosponsors. This legislation adopts a new approach to the dilemma of police misconduct. Rather than focusing on episodic incidents, this legislation targets hiring and management protocols much farther up the chain of causation that can stop incidents of misconduct long before they occur. Moreover, this bill focuses on the long-term improvement of the law enforcement profession. Further, it strengthens our federal prosecutorial tools with demonstrated effectiveness at sanctioning misconduct. This bill seizes upon the opportunity to initiate reforms that would restore public trust and accountability to law enforcement. This legislation provides a direct contrast to other proposals that merely provide, without any selection criteria or performance benchmarks, a select number of police organizations more money-- proposals which have been widely criticized by the Administration, civil rights group and even law enforcement organizations. Our bill makes seven concrete steps toward improving law enforcement management and misconduct prosecution tools and has the support of a broad range of groups, from the NAACP to the Southern States Police Benevolent Association: 1. Accreditation of Law Enforcement Agencies--The bill requires the Justice Department to recommend additional areas for the development of national standards for accreditation of law enforcement agencies in conjunction with professional law enforcement accreditation organizations, principally the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies (``CALEA''). The bill further authorizes the Attorney General to make grants to law enforcement agencies for the purpose of obtaining accreditation from CALEA. 2. Law Enforcement Agency Development Programs--The bill authorizes the Attorney General to make grants to States, units of local government, Indian Tribal Governments, or other public and private entities, and multi-jurisdictional or regional consortia to study law enforcement agency operations and to develop pilot programs focused on effective training, recruitment, hiring, management and oversight of law enforcement officers which would provide focused data for the CALEA standards promulgation process. 3. Administrative Due Process Procedures--The bill requires the Attorney General to study the prevalence and impact of any law, rule or procedure that allows a law enforcement officer to delay for an unreasonable or arbitrary period of time the answer to questions posed by a local internal affairs officer, prosecutor, or review board on the investigative integrity and prosecution of law enforcement misconduct. 4. Enhanced Funding of Civil Rights Division--The bill authorizes appropriations for expenses related to the enforcement against pattern and practice discrimination described in section 20401 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 14141) and authorizes appropriations for expenses related to programs managed by the Community Relations Service. 5. Enhanced Authority in Pattern and Practice Investigations--The bill amends section 21041 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C.A. 14141) to create a private cause of action for declaratory and injunctive relief relating to police pattern and practice discrimination. 6. Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law--The bill amends section 242 of Title 18 of the United States Code to expressly define excessive use of force and non-consensual sexual conduct as deprivations of rights under color of law. 7. Study of Deaths in Custody--The bill amends section 20101(b) of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C.A. 13701) to require assurances that States will follow guidelines established by the Attorney General for reporting deaths in custody. Given the litany of incidents--Rodney King, Amadou Diallo, Abner Louima--it should now be clear to all members, and the nation at-large, that this issue must be addressed in a bipartisan manner. Faced with such compelling evidence, we cannot recommend yet another study of problems that we all know to exist. The energies of Congress should be focused on the adoption of legislative priorities that address the substance of law enforcement management and strengthen the current battery of tools available to sanction misconduct. As a Congress we have been enthusiastic about supporting programs designed to get officers on the street. We must be just as willing to support programs designed to train and manage them after they get there. The current national climate requires decisive action to implement solutions. This legislation initiates the reforms necessary to restore public trust and accountability to law enforcement.