John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

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

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support the motion to instruct the conferees to engage the administration and the congressional leadership of both parties in a substantive discussion to make every effort possible to produce a Y2K bill that President Clinton can sign. The information technology community, as we know, has legitimate concerns due to the unique nature of the Y2K problem that should be and could be addressed through legislation. This legislation would first encourage remediation, it would then encourage mitigation, and finally, deter as much as possible frivolous lawsuits. We are all interested in legislation that will solve the concerns of the high-tech community as we recognize the possible implications of the Y2K date change on the high-tech community and on the Nation's economy. We are optimistic that the conference will result in a bipartisan compromise through a substantive discussion of the concerns of the information technology community, the administration, and the congressional leadership, and that we will address the unique nature of the Y2K problem. I urge this cooperation on the part of all the different forces that will be part of this conference. We on the Democratic side are willing to engage in a deliberative conference that makes every effort to avert an impasse and to produce a bipartisan bill. Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to support this motion to instruct, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the dialogue coming from both the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), and I would say to the gentleman from Wisconsin, many of those issues that he mentioned, as good as we were about working them out, they are more largely peripheral issues. Now, some have made it clear that the conference's only purpose is to take up the Senate bill, and that is the troublesome part of our job in front of us, strip the Hollings language and send it to the President. Now, we are not looking for veto bait. What he will do almost surely, if his word can be relied on, and I think that it can, is that he will veto the bill as he has suggested. Now, the truth of the matter is that I do not think that the sides, the two sides are that far apart. I think that we can work something out. That is my desire and my hope. But let us confront what the larger differences are. The first point is the extent to which punitive damages are capped. That has not been worked out. It is one that we need to give our most vigorous attention to. Then there is the situation, the extent to which joint liability is limited. That has yet to be resolved. But I think that we are, we are, within close proximity to which we can move forward on it. Then we have the extent to which we will federalize State class actions, another matter that needs to get our careful and cooperative attention. Now, these are issues that can be resolved. They can be resolved between Republicans and Democrats, and they can be resolved between the administration. Now, I want a bill, and I think all of us here on the floor do. If we want a bill, we are going to resolve these issues. I hope that we will. I know that we can. If there is any desire on anyone's part to kill the bill, then we can engage in a campaign, a season of finger pointing, and we will end up having a conference that does not attempt real negotiation. So the question that this motion poses is, which road will we take? How are we going to move here, serious and sincere negotiation which will result in a bill within a week or weeks or an insincere process which will result in failed legislation and probably a veto? I am confident that we can do the former. I am prepared to bring to the table conferees that will be working very sincerely on accomplishing that. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds. I want to say to my good friend from Virginia (Mr. Davis), let us keep hope alive. Let us not assume that the White House has shut down negotiations or the process. That is not the case at all. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).

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

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the chairman of the Committee on Rules for what he said here, because his remarks have underscored what I think we are saying: compromise. We have to move to another position. We can do it. A week or so would be adequate. And I am just putting that on the table. But the whole point is that the gentleman is right. A legislative process that ends in a veto would be a huge setback, and that is what I think the Coalition was trying to tell us in the letter.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I still commend the chairman of the Committee on Rules. I just wanted to caution him that a couple of things remain, and they may not be tiny. Joint liability, class action, and punitive action do not sound like small issues that can be resolved easily or quickly. That is why we want to move forward, and that is why we come to my colleague and support this motion. We want conferees appointed. We want to begin our work. But it seems to me not totally accurate to say that the administration has not been involved in the process. They have not been silent. They have been working with us. The high-tech community says that they want us to work together to resolve the differences. I want to conclude before July 4, but I would rather conclude with something we can take back to both bodies if it takes a little longer than that then to end up in a veto position. We do not want to serve up veto bait. I think the warnings of the administration's representatives have been pretty clear in that regard. I hark back to this letter that has been re-interpreted here. ``A legislative process,'' this is the Year 2000 Coalition, ``that terminates in a veto would be viewed as a complete failure.'' I could not agree more. And I think we are all in agreement with that. So let us get to it, gentlemen. Let us roll up our sleeves and let us start moving along. Let me pose this question to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte). Are the issues of joint liability and class actions and punitive damages really on the table, or are these issues really not on the table and we are going to end up with the Senate bill minus Hollings? Because it seems to me that is the heart of how we move forward and make sure there is no impasse.

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

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, can the gentleman assure us that the conference will have a serious discussion on these three items? Because I know everything is on the table, but not everything is in dispute.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, then will we be able to negotiate not only with ourselves but with the administration on these subject matters?

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, the problem is that framework that the President has said that he would veto.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, let me ask the gentleman, can we negotiate with the administration? Maybe they were talking to so many staff that they did not know that the staff of the gentleman was not there.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 45 seconds to ask my friend from Virginia if he supports the principle of compromise that we have argued, that all parties, not just the House and the Senate, but the White House, too, has to indulge in for us to accomplish our goal? This is where we are at now.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, just a couple corrections. One is that the White House has communicated to every member on the committees and the leadership, indeed every Member in the House. So they have not heard back. If my colleagues have not communicated with them, I mean these letters are to initiate communication. So that the communication may have been one way, but it certainly is not the White House's responsibility after they have reached out. Secondly, the Department of Justice sought to testify in the House Committee on the Judiciary and they were put in a very difficult position and were not able to do that. So it is not the White House that has not been out of communication. But that is not the issue here today. What we are talking about is whether or not the questions of joint liability, class action, and punitive damages caps are really on the table. I think I have heard from the Members on the other side of the aisle that they are. If they are, we are all set to take care of the real problems. And if we do that, we will be able to take care of a conference that will, I think, reflect confidently and positively on both Houses. The main thing that we want to do is not end up in a situation where we have ignored one branch of Government that would force them into a veto situation. And that is the only reason I am mentioning them today in this debate. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In conclusion, we have made it clear that, first of all, we want everyone to support the Conyers-Lofgren motion to instruct. Secondly, if we want a bill, then we will resolve these outstanding issues. Everyone has spoken in the spirit of compromise. The question that this motion poses is which road we will take. Are we going to engage in serious, sincere negotiation which will result in a bill in a week or so or an insincere process that will lead to the finger-pointing that will be inevitable with a veto? I urge my colleagues to support the motion to instruct. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. The problem with the assertions of the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Bryant) that a drug courier is either carrying money or drugs is quite correct. But the problem is, unless they are drug couriers, we could end up with a person with large amounts of money on them that they have to then prove where and how they got the money, which is a little bit out of line. And if they are carrying drugs, that is patently illegal, too, so they will be arrested. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), a law enforcement prosecutor of many years and a valued member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner.)

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I want to express my gratitude to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) for agreeing to manage this bill. He is the ranking member on the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary, and I appreciate the hard and continuing work he has put in on this subject matter. I would like to join in this discussion to begin by asking the question that must be asked of all legislation that comes on the floor: What is the problem? In other words, why are we here today? When we deal with questions of civil rights, when we deal with questions of police abuse, when we deal with questions of international policy, when we deal with the crisis in Haiti, we are all brought here because there is a problem. Does anyone know how many cases of flag-burning have occurred in this year or last year, or any of the years? Well, I am glad I asked that question, because I will provide my colleagues with the answer. The answer is that since 1990, we have had 72 reported cases of flag burning that I can bring to my colleagues' attention. I do not know of any in recent times. I think it is important that we consider in the midst of all of the issues that weigh upon the House of Representatives why this measure keeps coming back up time and time again. The issue is really around the First Amendment and the Bill of Rights, not flag burning because the test that we will be putting the Members of this great body to is whether we have the strength to remain true to our forefather's constitutional ideals and defend our citizens' rights to express themselves, even if we disagree vehemently with their method of expression. Madam Speaker, I have always deplored flag-burning as a tactic, as a strategy, as a policy. But I am strongly opposed to this attempt to amend or start the process to amend the Constitution of the United States because it simply goes against the ideals and elevates a symbol of freedom over freedom itself. How ironic that we would now take the symbol and forget the message, the purpose which this symbol represents. For if this resolution were adopted, and thankfully it has never been finally processed out of the legislative system, it would represent the first time in our Nation's history that the people's representatives in this House voted to alter the Bill of Rights to limit the freedom of speech of our citizens. So what we are considering here, notwithstanding the explanations that it is very popular to do this, is that we are saying that now, in the year 1999, over 200 years after the Bill of Rights, we have now decided that there was a flaw in the Bill of Rights and we now need to make a change. There was a mistake. I resist that argument, and it would it seem to me that if we were going to alter the Bill of Rights, it would have to be over a measure far, far more grave and threatening than merely the conduct, one particular form of conduct that we might resent. What about burning the Bible? Does that not raise Members' temper a few degrees? How obscene it would be to burn a Bible publicly. Of course, someone might say, well, sure, we ought to include that, too, or we ought to look at that next. But these acts, as despicable as they are, are protected speech under the First Amendment. So I would say to the Members that the true test of any Nation's commitment to freedom, to this freedom of expression, lies in the inability to protect unpopular expression, the kinds of things, the conduct that we do not like, exactly like flag-burning and Bible- burning. Remember what Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes stated: ``The Constitution protects not only freedom for the thought and expression we agree with, but freedom for the thought we hate, the conduct and action we seriously dislike.'' So what we are really doing is saying that since this is such a repulsive act, we are going to take it out from under the protection of the Bill of Rights, from the First Amendment. So by limiting the free speech protections and the First Amendment, I suggest we are setting the most dangerous precedent that has ever come out of the Subcommittee on the Constitution in the Committee on the Judiciary. If we open the doors to criminalizing constitutionally protected expression related to the flag, I am afraid that there will be further efforts to limit and censor speech or conduct that we do not like. We do not like it, we do not like flag-burning. That is why we want to stop it. But guess what, there are some other things that we do not like and we may want to start curbing just as well. Once we decide to limit freedom of speech in any respect from a constitutional point of view, the limitations on freedom of the press and limitations on freedom of religion may not be far behind. This is not a road that I would like to go down. The courts have ruled. The ultimately deciders of what is constitutional, they have said that. They have said that flag-burning, as despicable as it is, is protected freedom of speech. So it is tempting for us, the only people in government that have the power, to say we will show the court who is boss, we will show that Supreme Court. We will amend the Constitution to outlaw flag-burning. We will pass this amendment through the States, and then they will not be able to write any more decisions about this conduct that we dislike so much. However, if we do, we will be carving an awkward exception into the document designed to last for the ages, and that with only 27 amendments, has never been modified. We will be undermining the very constitutional structure that Thomas Jefferson and James Madison designed to protect our rights. In effect, we will be glorifying the very people in our national community who disrespect the flag and what it stands for while we will be denigrating the constitutional vision of James Madison and Thomas Jefferson. The concern about the tyranny of the majority led the Framers to create an independent judiciary, free of political pressure, to ensure that the legislative and executive branches would honor the Bill of Rights. A constitutional amendment like this banning flag desecration flies in the very face of this carefully balanced structure. Madison warned against using the amendment process to correct every perceived constitutional defect. I repeat that warning here, because it applies to what we are considering, particularly concerning issues which easily inflame public passion. Unfortunately, there is no better illustration of Madison's concern than this proposed flag-burning or anti-flag-burning amendment. History has proved that efforts to legislate respect for the flag only serve to increase flag-related protests, as few as they are, and a constitutional amendment would be far more inflammatory than even a statute. Almost as significant as the damage this resolution would do to our own Constitution is the harm it would inflict upon our international standing in the area of human rights. Consider the demonstrators who ripped apart Communist flags before the fall of the Iron Curtain and committed crimes against their country. Yet, freedom-loving Americans applauded their brave actions. If we pass this amendment, we will be beginning to align ourselves with autocratic regimes such as those in Iran and the former South Africa, and diminish our own moral stature as a protector of freedom in all its forms. Let us not do it. For those who believe a constitutional amendment will honor the flag, I just want to read them the two sentences from the Supreme Court's 1989 decision on the subject, Texas and Johnson: ``The way to preserve the flag's special role is not to punish those who feel differently about these matters. It is to persuade them that they are wrong. We can imagine no more appropriate response to burning a flag than waving one's own; no better way to counter a flag-burner's message than to salute the flag. We do not consecrate the flag by punishing its desecration. For in doing so, we dilute the freedom that this cherished emblem represents.'' Madam Speaker, I close with only one additional comment. That is, as soon as the polls that are taken on this subject let our citizens know that this would be the first time in our Nation's history to cut back the First Amendment freedoms of speech and expression, then, guess what happens? They do not support the flag-burning proposal. So please join with those of us who are patriots in a perhaps deeper sense, who really believe that protecting freedom of speech includes the kind we abhor, the kinds we like least, the kinds that we detest. Join me in opposing this flag desecration amendment. Madam Speaker, I thank the ranking member of the subcommittee who is now managing the bill. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my name removed as cosponsor of the bill H.R. 815.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Vento).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), who is an old friend of mine from Chicago. (Mr. DAVIS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).