John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the g entlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey). (Mrs. LOWEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky). (Ms. SCHAKOWSKY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez). (Ms. VELAZQUEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley). (Ms. BERKLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro). (Ms. DeLAURO asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Yes. I do, Madam Chairman.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley), chair of the Entertainment Caucus.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment that I speak to with some disappointment that the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary would launch an unparalleled assault on the first amendment without committee deliberation. Now, we are all concerned about the impact of depictions of violence on children, but to try to approach a very difficult cultural problem in this way is, I think, to ignore at least two Federal court decisions, Reno versus ACLU, and yet another, the Video Software Dealers Association versus Webster, cases that clearly make it abundantly plain that creating a vast new Federal cultural police that overlaps with State law enforcement creates, honestly, a logistical nightmare for the Justice Department, which would have to apply local community standards in determining whether the material is sexual or violence. Also, since the statute does not have a specific intent requirement, the only alternative available for video and drug store clerks who are the poor mensches that will be prosecuted under this and would want to avoid prison, is to watch every movie, read every book to determine their content and then determine whether the community standards would prohibit the sale of these movies or books to minors. So just briefly, and I have a letter of explanation, the amendment is patently unconstitutional. I would remind my colleagues that, in our substitute, we have both the antitrust exemption and the industry guidelines that would start us on a more normal course of action. Please reject the amendment. The letter of explanation I referred to is as follows: House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC, June 16, 1999. Vote No on Hyde's Federal Censorship Amendment amendment is unconstitutional, unworkable, and unnecessary Dear Colleague: Today, Rep. Hyde will offer an amendment (Amendment 31) providing for a sweeping new Federal censorship regime that generally prohibits the dissemination of ``explicit sexual material'' or ``explicit violent material.'' This is a transparent attempt to turn the focus of the debate away from common-sense gun-safety legislation and instead scapegoat our nation's newspaper, magazine, book, television, movie, and video industries, and I urge a NO vote. the hyde amendment is unconstitutional The Hyde amendment violates the First Amendment because it is both vague and overbroad. Recently the Eighth Circuit struck down a similar state obscenity statute on vagueness grounds, observing that ``to survive a vagueness challenge, a statute must `give the person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited' and `provide explicit standards for those who apply [the statute]' '' Video Software Dealers Ass'n v. Webster, 968 F.2d 684, 689 (8th Cir. 1992). The Hyde amendment is unconstitutionally vague because among other things, it does not define the terms used to reference violence, namely, ``torture,'' ``flagellation,'' or ``mutilation.'' Failing to define ``multilation'' means that even pricking someone with a pin might fall within meaning of the term. The Supreme court has held that restrictions on speech will be held unconstitutional also where they are overbroad. The Hyde amendment is overbroad in several respects. For example, it goes so far as to prohibit newspapers and magazines from accepting such basic advertisements as those for underwear. The amendment would also preclude minors from seeing a movie such as Home Alone, which contains slapstick violence and appeals to the ``morbid'' interest in minors who want to see people get hurt. Further, because there is no exception in the amendment for parents, the amendment would also subject a parent to prison for up to five years for showing his or her child a movie or book with supposedly--sexually-explicit or violent content. The Majority's track record on these issues are not very good--it was only two years ago that their statutory restriction on Internet access to materials with sexual content in the form of the Communications Decency Act was struck down by the Supreme Court by a vote of 9-0 as being overbroad. Reno v. ACLU, 117 S. Ct. 2329 (1997). the hyde amendment is unworkable Creating a vast new Federal ``cultural police'' that overlaps with state law enforcement creates a logistical nightmare for the Justice Department, which would have to apply local ``community standards'' in determining whether the material is sexual or violent. Also, since the statute does not have a specific intent requirement, the only alternative available for video and drug store clerks who want to avoid prison is to watch every movie or read every book to determine their content and then determine whether the ``community standards'' would prohibit the sale of those movies or books to minors. The creation of a Federal censorship statute threatens to cultivate a generation bereft of literary enrichment and enlightenment. As a matter of fact, there are numerous materials that were at one time considered to have too much sexual or violent content but now are regarded as classic pieces of literature. For example, works that were considered too sexually-explicit include Nathaniel Hawthorne's ``The Scarlet Letter'' in the 1850's by Reverend Arthur C. Coxe (a judge noted that, while the book was criticized when it came out, it was fully accepted in 1949); and J.D. Salinger's ``The Catcher in the Rye'' by school boards in Pennsylvania (1975), New Jersey (1977), Washington (1978), and Iowa (1992). Ernest Hemingway's ``The Sun Also Rises'' was considered ``offensive'' by the school boards of San Jose and Riverside, California (1960's), and by the Watch and Ward Society of Boston (1927); and William Golding's ``Lord of the Flies'' was found to be excessively violent by critics in Texas (1974), South Dakota and North Carolina (1981) and Arizona (1983). the hyde amendment is unnecessary Perhaps the most hypocritical aspect of the Amendment is its internal inconsistency. Other provisions of the proposal would institute an NIH study of the impact of violence on children and grant members of the entertainment industry an antitrust exemption so they could voluntarily agree on appropriate community standards. Yet the censorship proposal would take effect before the study is completed. Moreover, there are already several guidelines, methods, and studies addressing violence in entertainment. For example, the Motion Picture Association of America already rates each movie for content and exhibits the rating every time a movie is advertised. The National Association of Theatre Owners has just initiated a new national ID-check policy for admission to ``R''-rated films. And the video game industry puts on its products the ratings that the Entertainment Software Rating Board devises for games so that purchasers of such games can be aware of their content. Some networks have agreed not to air commercials for R-rated movies with violent content before 9 PM. And just recently, the Clinton administration and Democratic Members of Congress successfully pushed for mandating the V-chip on television sets, thereby letting parents block out television programs and movies having certain ratings. All of these provisions will be redundant and unnecessary if we put the cart before the horse and mandate Federal obscenity and violence standards before we give these approaches an opportunity to work. I urge you to vote ``no'' on the Hyde cultural amendment. Sincerely, John Conyers, Jr., Ranking Member.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. (Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his response. I happen to recall that the juvenile justice markups were canceled on one, two, three, maybe four different occasions, and I do not think that whatever the objection that anybody on the Committee on the Judiciary may have had to any of the substance, I do not think this would have run into any difficulty. I do not think the gentleman imagines that this was part of whatever the problem was.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, in view of that then I would like to state that we on this side have no objection to this amendment and withdraw any opposition to it. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, could I point out to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Quinn), the author, I am glad he had these discussions earlier. I do not know anything about them, of course. I am not sure, but it is suggested that the gentleman's amendment is stronger than the language he is referring to that appears in Mr. McCollum's amendment. Is that correct? Mr. Chairman, under my reservation of objection, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Quinn).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his explanations, and I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, this proposal by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum), the subcommittee chairman, actually openly reneges on his pledge to pursue a substantive bipartisan juvenile justice bill. He is now, with one amendment, loading this bill, H.R. 1501, up with more than two dozen criminal penalties, including the death sentence. It is now clear that these provisions were rejected and certainly not supported during the orderly subcommittee process that he himself chaired. I want to bring forward now one part of this that cannot be unremarked as we go forward. I want to thank Senator Paul Wellstone and David Cole for their assistance. Because what the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) is doing is repealing the Federal law that requires States to identify and improve disproportionate incarceration of members of minority groups, a law that has been in place since 1992 and has had more than 40 States develop programs to reduce minority involvement in the juvenile justice system. It is now under attack. The resulting Republican juvenile justice bill with this amendment would repeal the existing mandate, effectively closing our collective eyes to racial disparity in the juvenile justice system. Consider with me for one moment, although African American juveniles ages 10 through 17 are 15 percent of the population, they are 26 percent of the arrests, 32 percent of the referrals to juvenile court, 41 percent of the juveniles detained in delinquency cases, 46 percent of juveniles in correctional institutions, and 52 percent of juveniles transferred to adult criminal courts after judicial hearings. In short, African American youths start off overrepresented in juvenile justice, and the problem gets worse at every step. With this amendment, it will continue to proceed in the wrong direction. This policy of creating a long-term custody rate for African American youth five times the rate of white youth must stop in the House of Representatives. I suggest to my colleagues that we do not even address the problems but plan to make them far worse. In addition, and I will conclude on this note, the McCollum amendment requires the implementation of the armed criminal apprehension program, similar to the one in Richmond, Virginia that has been described by a United States district court judge as expensive, unnecessary, racially biased, and a misuse of the Federal court system. Now, if we do nothing else here today, I urge that we reject the McCollum amendment, which will begin to increase the racial disparity of youngsters that are caught up in this process in a huge way, more than two dozen criminal penalties. It is the wrong way. It is too much. It was not accepted even in his own committee.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), the senior member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, he is absolutely correct. We support H.R. 1501. But we have never had hearings on any of the other accompanying amendments.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am deeply disappointed to see the abandonment of bipartisanship with reference to the juvenile justice legislation, that we abandon the orderly process to pursue legislation by ambush, and abandon our commitment to the American people, and follow instead the lead of special interests. Now, how do we know the Republican majority has played politics with juvenile justice? They now advocate policies that, just weeks ago, they even acknowledged lack merit. In March, the Subcommittee on Crime chairman stated, ``Taking consequences seriously is not a call for locking all juveniles up, nor does it imply the housing of juveniles, even violent hardened juveniles, with adults. I for one am opposed to such commingling.'' Yet, today, the majority is pushing legislation which tries more children as adults, houses more juveniles as adults, imposes a whole slew of new mandatory minimum penalties, and, yes, the death penalty that Republicans shunned only a month ago and which clearly will not work. What is really extraordinary about these proposals is just how meaningless they are. There are fewer than 150 prosecutions in the Federal system each year, and such changes are likely to affect only a small percentage of these cases. So these proposals do not represent serious attempts at legislation. Rather, they are a transparent attempt to legislate by sound bite and kill a bill that they themselves only recently agreed was the best approach to juvenile justice. Housing juveniles in adult prison facilities means more kids likely to commit suicide, to be murdered, physically or sexually abused, than their counterparts in juvenile facilities. As a matter of fact, children in adult jails or prison have been shown to be 5 times more likely to be assaulted and 8 times more likely to commit suicide than children in juvenile facilities. So the repeated studies of prosecuting juveniles as adults indicate that rather than serving as a deterrent to juvenile crime, prosecuting more juveniles as adults merely leads to greater and more serious recidivism. If we are truly interested in juvenile justice reform, we must begin by rejecting unprincipled amendments allowed by the rule that would cut the heart out of this bill and stick to the principles of H.R. 1501. This was the bill produced by a bipartisan process, unanimously approved by the Subcommittee on Crime. In the wake of the recent school tragedies in Littleton, Colorado, Conyers, Georgia, and other places, the American people now deserve and expect reform. We cannot and should not allow false arguments about getting tough on crime and prosecuting juveniles as adults to prevent us from achieving these important goals. Let us carefully review and reject most of these amendments that will send us further backwards instead of moving us forward as the American people would wish. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. (Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Barcia).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the ranking member of the subcommittee, who is the coauthor of the underlying bill, H.R. 1501.