John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I have a series of unanimous consent requests to revise and extend remarks, and I yield such time as they may consume to: the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the gentlewoman from Missouri (Ms. Mcarthy), the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Ms. Christian-Green), the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Roybal-Allard), the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Furse), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald), the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown), the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen). (Ms. DeLAURO asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 40 seconds to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 20 seconds to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutsch).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 20 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner.) (Mr. FILNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 20 seconds to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Baldacci).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize three more persons in the same time frame as before: The gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek), the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Baldacci), and the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner). Mr. Speaker, I yield 20 seconds to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink) who came to this body at the same time as I did, a distinguished lawyer in her own right. (Mrs. MINK of Hawaii asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, very, very few people have argued their cases in the United States Supreme Court. Eleanor Holmes Norton, our delegate from the District of Columbia, has. I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton). (Ms. NORTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, with all apologies to my colleagues on this side of the aisle, without objection from the chairman of the committee, I would like to call on three of my colleagues for 20 seconds each consecutively: I would call on the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick), and the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hefner) for that amount of time, if that is permissible. Mr. Speaker, I yield 20 seconds to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel). (Mr. ENGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, this conference report is a shocking disappointment for two reasons: First of all it unjustly strips away well-deserved rights from a small group of Haitians in the United States. The Senate bill included relief for 40,000 Haitians who had arrived in the United States by the end of 1995 by granting them the right to apply for legal permanent residency. These Haitians were paroled in upon the invitation of the attorney general. Due to bipartisan, bicameral support the House receded to the other body. Now a small minority here in Congress wants to kill this issue. This is totally unacceptable. Second of all, this conference report deletes the Lowey language which requires that Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) plans cover prescription contraception, just as they cover other kinds of prescriptions. The Lowey Amendment was approved by the full Appropriations Committee, twice by the House, once by the Senate unanimously by voice vote, and was included in the conference report. The problem is that the vast majority of FEHB plans fail to cover the full range of prescription contraceptives which prevent unintended pregnancy and reduce the need for abortion. In fact, 81% of FEHB plans do not cover all five leading reversible methods of contraception and 10% have no coverage of contraceptives at all. Women of reproductive age spend 68% more in out-of-pocket health costs than men and much of this is due to the cost of contraception--we need to narrow this gender gap in insurance coverage. The federal government needs to provide a model for private health plans by providing this very basic health benefit for women insured by FEHB plans. I urge my colleagues to reject this conference report.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, this Curt Flood Act is an important piece of legislation. I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) for his very charitable comments. As two baseball aficionados, we know that the right thing is being done as we move this to finality. Professional baseball is the only industry in the United States exempt from the antitrust laws without being subject to regulatory supervision. This circumstance has resulted from a rather sorry Supreme Court decision in 1922 holding that baseball did not involve interstate commerce and was beyond the reach of antitrust laws. For some reason, we in the Congress have failed to rectify this, despite subsequent court decisions holding that all the other professional sports were fully subject to these same laws that baseball claimed to be exempt from. There may have been a time when baseball's unique treatment was a source of pride and distinction for many loyal fans who loved our national pastime. But with baseball suffering more work stoppages over the last century than all the other sports combined, including a 1994 strike which ended the possibility of a world series for the first time in 90 years, and depriving many of our cities of tens of millions of dollars in tax revenues, we can now no longer afford to treat professional baseball in a manner enjoyed by no other professional sport. And that is what S. 53 and H.R. 21 attempt to do. I am very pleased to be a major sponsor of this legislation, because concerns have been previously raised that by repealing the antitrust exemption we would somehow be disrupting the operation of the minor leagues. That, my colleagues will remember, was the defense that was always raised. An ugly specter. Or professional baseball's ability to limit franchise relocation might also occur. This legislation carefully eliminates these matters from the scope of new antitrust coverage. In the past, some of us in this body objected to legislating in this area because of their hesitancy to take any action which could impact an ongoing labor dispute. But because the owners and the players have recently agreed to enter into a new collective bargaining agreement, that objection no longer exists. Additionally, the baseball owners are now in full support of this legislation, as of course the Major League Players Association has always been. This bill was introduced by myself in honor of a very courageous and beautiful ball player, center fielder, Curt Flood, who passed away earlier this year, in January, and, unfortunately, is no longer with us to see the fruit of his work. Mr. Flood, one of the greatest players of his time, risked his career when he challenged baseball's reserve clause after he was traded from the St. Louis Cardinals to the Philadelphia Phillies. Although the Supreme Court rejected the 1972 challenge of Flood, we all owe a debt of gratitude for his willingness to challenge the baseball oligarchy. And he paid the price, too. By the way, at his funeral in California, George Will, perhaps the supreme baseball nut of all, was there, and Reverend Jesse Jackson, Senior was there as well. It was a very touching event. Now, this bill has gone through many changes over the years and was introduced originally in the 103rd Congress by our former beloved member of the Judiciary, Mike Synar, of Oklahoma. In order to address the concern of the minor leagues, it contains many redundancies and, accordingly, a court may have questions about how the provisions of this bill will interrelate. Any court facing such questions would be advised, if I may dare suggest, to return to the purpose section of the bill for aid and interpretation. The purpose section states what Congress intends; that is, that it is no longer subject to question that major league baseball players have the same rights under antitrust laws as do other professional athletes. This is a simple proposition, yet it is indeed startling that 26 years after this brave and eloquent player, Curt Flood, stood alone before the Supreme Court to seek an answer to a question whose answer seemed obvious to him, that it is only just now being addressed by this branch of government. I am very proud of the Congress for this. If a court has any doubt as to the meaning or purpose of any provision of this act, it should be guided by our purpose, which is, at long last, to give the answer that Mr. Flood indeed knew to be the correct one. The legislation is not intended to have an adverse effect on any ongoing litigation nor intended to limit the ability of the United States Government to bring antitrust actions. It is overdue. I hope it will be quickly passed for the good of the game, which has once again demonstrated why we love it, why baseball is on a resurgence, and we are just delighted that now that McGwire and Sosa have brought new enjoyment and life to the game that we now have this legislation to accompany it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I neglected to mention that the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Jim Bunning), Hall of Famer, worked diligently on this bill with myself and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), and he was also a Detroit Tiger, where his greatest playing took place, and we still claim him, although he represents the great State of Kentucky. And, Mr. Speaker, he has a baseball in his hand now, as we watch. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. I thank the Speaker, and I will not talk about the Starr report anymore, because nobody knows what is in the Starr report; nobody knows about how disgusting it has been to many Americans; nobody knows what the allegations are, and we do not want to talk about it in advance for any reason. So I, with great reluctance, return the balance of time to the gentlewoman from Texas and thank her very much for her important contribution.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire respectfully of the Speaker, may we refer to the Starr report referred to the Congress of the United States?

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I just want to tell the gentlewoman that the Speaker of the House has said just the opposite. He has said that this might go into the millennium. In other words, he has no intentions of working with the Committee on the Judiciary to bring this to a reasonable close within the end of the year. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding yet again.

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

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I was listening to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) and felt compelled to come to the floor to join in this tremendously useful discussion that she is having with our colleagues about this very awesome event that is under consideration, the investigation of a sitting President of the United States, and how the Committee on the Judiciary, which has jurisdiction over this matter, should deal with it. I must say that her discussion was compelling, and it is as thorough as she always is found to be as we work through the complex matters that confront the Committee on the Judiciary. There have been many, but none as towering as the one that we are burdened with at this moment. So I say to the gentlewoman that I enjoy her discussions, and I am pleased to join in with a comment or two. I do not have any particular purpose but to share this discussion with her. But it seems from a initial point of view that the American people are of a nearly singular accord to move this question away from the Congress and, as a matter of fact, out of their sight and hearing at the earliest possible moment. Overwhelmingly, people have asked me, written me, called me, stopped me on the streets and said, please get rid of this matter. I explain to them that it is the objective of most of us here, and I include Republican colleagues in this, who are very concerned that we dispose of this as rapidly as possible and yet keep order. So the question that originally confronts us is, how do we do that? Well, one way that we do not do it is to dump, I have lost track of how many, tens of thousands of pages of material from the independent counsel on to the American people and in the public, not to the Congress, in particular, and this is very much contrary to the 1974 Watergate impeachment inquiry, not to the attorneys representing the President of the United States who is being investigated so that he might prepare a decent response, but to the American people. If there is a logic for this, I have not heard it yet. It escapes me as to why these tens of thousands of pages of salacious material that quite frankly border on the obscene, which the independent counsel has gratuitously sought to put into the public domain, in other words, through the government at taxpayers' expense, we have now had the most pornographic government document ever printed in the 209 years of our existence. The question to Mr. Starr is why? The answer is that the Speaker of the House chose, upon receiving them, to make them public. For what purpose, I do not know. There are many suggestions that there may have been political motivation. But the point of the fact is that we now have many citizens, many parents, and even young people themselves saying why did they do it? What are they trying to prove? What does this have to do with any inquiry on the Congress, much less an impeachment inquiry by giving all of this material to the public, and, incidentally, not giving one page to the President of the United States or his representatives. So the referral that has been referred to and the releases that have come afterward, and we just made some more this week, another several thousand pages, all have to do with the relationship of the President with one other person. In the fifth year of his investigation, which we are still not sure if it is concluded or not, and to that end, the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) and I jointly sent a letter to him asking him in effect, for goodness sakes, if there are any other materials, you could not be holding them back at this date in your fifth year. This is not a game. This is not a poker escapade. This is not casino or roulette wheel. If you had dozens of attorneys and investigators and members of the Federal Bureau of Investigation working, and you come up with nothing, nothing on Whitewater, nothing on Filegate, nothing on Travelgate, nothing on China, nothing on campaign finances, nothing about Vince Foster's suicide, only the President and one person, we must presume, contrary to the Speaker of the House, that that is all they have. I have never heard of members of the bar releasing something that is second or third importance and not saying that they had something more significant. So it is only reasonable for us to assume that this is it. But if this is not it, would the Office of the Independent Counsel be polite enough to let the Members of Congress know that that is the case. I am sorry to report that, to this moment, we have not had a response from our letter. Now, the question of why the Speaker chose to do it this way is after the horse has left the barn. He did it. People resent it. Now they want to know what it is the Committee on the Judiciary is going to do now that, according to the independent counsel statute, Mr. Starr has referred the matter to the Speaker who has, in turn, referred it to the Committee on the Judiciary. So yesterday we met to discuss what it is we should do, the Committee on the Judiciary, on a vote, in which all of the Republicans voted to move forward on a resolution recommending an inquiry that is glaringly deficient in one major aspect. The resolution does not call for a threshold decision to be made that describes what the grounds and standards for impeachment should be, and this is still left to be determined. In other words, as the gentlewoman from Texas and the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) noted during the committee, and I quote him, ``The majority party has an obligation to recognize that high crimes and misdemeanors has a meaning. It was not just carelessly flung into the Constitution. And at Article II Section 4, it is described that an impeachment proceeding is an appropriate act for the President, the Vice President, and other certain high officials when there is involved treason, embezzlement, and other high crimes and misdemeanors.'' Well, not even Mr. Barr has suggested that treason is involved. No one has suggested that embezzlement is involved. So the question that gripped our full committee is, are there other high crimes and misdemeanors? Now, note the Founding Fathers' phrasing: Treason, embezzlement, and other high crimes and misdemeanors. So treason is a high crime and misdemeanor, embezzlement is a high crime and misdemeanor. But they said there are others. Well, the threshold question, if we look at the Starr referral, is marital infidelity, if there is any, a high crime and misdemeanor. Is personal misconduct that does not deal with the violations of the office or the abuse of the powers of the President, is that a high crime and misdemeanor? Mr. Speaker, I must say that I have commissioned our attorneys on the Committee on the Judiciary to find out not only in American jurisprudence, and we have only had 13 cases of impeachment, most of them were with judges, and there were none that ever included or involved themselves with marital infidelity, personal conduct, or sexual relations of any kind, none of them; so the question is, perhaps in the English common law out of which this whole notion of impeachment came, maybe there is something there. We find nothing there. In other words, just as a common sense threshold inquiry, I say to my colleagues, there is nothing within the report of our distinguished former Judge Kenneth W. Starr that even touches within the parameters of Article 2, Section 4.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, may I respectfully point out that I did not attribute that to the President of the United States. Now, we have the report. The Starr report is not only a matter of public record, it is a matter of congressional notice. I am a little bit at a loss as to why I cannot refer to what is in the government report that probably the gentleman voted for to have released, and now is telling me and suggesting that there is something inappropriate about me discussing it on the floor of the House. We are not the children of America.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman will yield, this begins to further outline the travesty. Every young person with a computer in his house has now seen the very things that the Speaker at this moment precludes us from discussing because they are pure allegations and they are, in effect, untested. There have never been any cross-examination of who may have alleged them. Mr. Starr has never been before the committee. We do not know where or how he got them. And yet, while they are common fare for citizens and young people, this material has now been served up by the Republicans in this body to everybody in America. I know that one 2-year-old has asked his father, who is Monica Lewinsky? Mr. Speaker, 2 years old. I know another teacher who has been asked by a third grader, teacher, what is an orgasm? This is offensive to parents, teachers, mature people who realize that this being put on the Internet has absolutely no salutary purpose. By the way, I was reminded recently from a call from Memphis, Tennessee from a person in the music industry that these are the same people, I say to the gentlewoman, that have criticized rap artists for their obscenity and for their profanity, and now, they have outdone them tenfold by spreading thousands of pages of salacious, obscene, pornographic material, for no purpose. This is not the Committee on the Judiciary's finding, these are merely allegations which were not even necessary to support whatever conclusions the Office of Independent Counsel came to. Mr. Speaker, I go back to an observation by our friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) who said that whatever the Rules of Procedure are that we adopt, our first order of business should be to resolve, if the events and allegations portrayed in the Starr report, rise to the level of an impeachable offense. Now, not only do lawyers and constitutional authorities agree, but common sense and American citizens would think that we would take that simple precaution before we rush to vote out and recommend to this House, which will vote on Friday of this week, an inquiry of impeachment without ever having one instruction about what is this great constitutional language, high crimes and misdemeanors, the only thing in which these allegations can apply. Is perjury an impeachable offense? Well, I am not sure. Is lying an impeachable offense? I doubt it seriously. Fortunately, Members of Congress are not subject to impeachment proceedings, or the whole legislative branch of government could be brought to a standstill, possibly. Is concealing a personal affair an impeachable act? Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, in other words, we can talk about it in the Committee on the Judiciary, Mr. Starr can dump it into the public domain; but on the floor of the Congress it is not discussable because of what? I am sorry, I do not follow the distinguished Speaker's logic.

Mr. CONYERS. In general terms, yes. And may we quote from the Starr report referred to the House of Representatives?

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I merely wanted to comment on the continuing brilliance of the gentlewoman from Texas. She is a respected lawyer, an experienced litigator, a proven public servant, and she makes me proud of the fact that she is currently sitting as a member of the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives. I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Reclaiming my time, now the gentleman has said something that the gentleman never said in the committee, and certainly it goes against any negotiations with whomever the gentleman entered into them with. If the gentleman is now telling me we should cover all items in the market, then I guess, if I can quote the gentleman on that in my handout, I think that will take care of it for today. The gentleman thinks everything should be covered; not just these items not covered, but all items should be covered, everything in commerce? If that is the gentleman's position, that just reinforces my opposition to it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, today the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary held a press conference in which he made announcements which I had, until I read the report, known nothing about. There are comments here that I think require us to examine this quite carefully. First of all, the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) has indicated his intention to vote for an inquiry of impeachment of the President of the United States, quite within his scope of his duties, or any other Member, for that matter. But to suggest that Democrats ought to vote in the committee along with him to show bipartisanship I think stretches the bounds of reasonableness to a breaking point. Every Member in this body has their own responsibility and inquiry within themselves to determine, especially on the Committee on the Judiciary, whether or not there should be an inquiry. The fact that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) has decided that there should be, should not influence anybody else in this body. For him to suggest that Democrats should show bipartisanship by voting with him is, indeed, an incorrect position which I hope he will repair immediately tomorrow. I just left his office, and he was not there. The office was closed. But one of his staffers was nice enough to inform me that I am on his schedule to meet with him tomorrow. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) cannot dictate what the Committee on the Judiciary's Members, 21 Republicans and 16 Democrats, are going to vote a week from now. He cannot do it. Neither can I. Neither can the Speaker. To announce to the press unilaterally that that vote will take place a week from today begs common sense. We are out until Thursday. There is a weekend of 2 days. We are supposed to come back on Monday, and the most important vote of the Committee on the Judiciary in its recent history is supposed to happen between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. a week from today. I suggest that is an incorrect way to proceed. It is unilateral. I am reading about it. When by chance does the committee get a chance to examine the materials for something other than looking for redactions to send out to the American people? We still have not finished. Because we sent over staffers to find out that there are even more boxes in the independent counsel's office in which he said he deemed them irrelevant and of no consequence to the Committee on the Judiciary. Well, thank you, Mr. Starr. But I think that is within our jurisdiction to make the determination whether anything is irrelevant or not. He sent us 37 boxes. Send it all and let us examine it all. But let us not be deceived. Going through materials for redactions that may contain 6(e) materials, that is Grand Jury materials that are accorded privacy, or that there may be defamatory materials that will harm innocent Americans, or that women's phone numbers and addresses should be redacted is a completely different matter from examining the materials with an eye to whether or not we should have an inquiry of impeachment.