John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to appeal to the distinguished subcommittee chairman to consider withdrawing this bill. It is clear we need hearings. The smart thing for us to do at 12:20 in the morning is to take this thing back to the Committee on the Judiciary, where it has never been.

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

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt], the ranking minority member.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt].

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. To the distinguished gentleman from Texas, the chairman of the subcommittee, we never had hearings on this. This was introduced up in the Committee on Rules and shot through here like a bullet. This is a very important subject. Does the gentleman have any idea why we did not? It is our committee. It is the gentleman's subcommittee. We never had hearings. I guess that does not matter. Now he comes here in the middle of the night telling us this is a very critical matter. We have all kind of hearings all year long on everything in the gentleman's subcommittee. I, for one, if I have any sympathies for this measure, do not like the process that it was carried on in. I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2920, providing for a 1-year delay in section 110 of last year's immigration bill (requiring a border card on the Canadian and Mexican borders). No Member is more concerned about the potential problems caused by section 110 than I am. We can see Windsor, Canada from my district. Last year United States trade with Canada was over $355 billion making it the largest exchange between any two countries in the world. Of that figure, 57 billion dollars worth of goods were traded with Michigan-- giving it a larger share of trade with Canada than any other State. The State Department has stated, ``Section 110 represents a serious speed bump on the continued expansion of our economic relationships--one which could literally cause traffic across our northern land border to slow to a crawl.'' However, H.R. 2920 is the wrong fix at the wrong time. This is a difficult problem which involves sensitive and complex issues concerning trade, drug running, tourism, and illegal immigration. Yet, the bill comes to this floor without the benefit of any committee hearings, debate, or report. The bill is strongly opposed by the Canadian Government. They have written: In a nutshell, Canada opposes the bill because it would only postpone a problem that really needs to be eliminated . . . under the present circumstances, the best course of action would be to refer H.R. 2920 to Committee, in order for it to be properly debated before being brought before the full House for a vote. From my perspective, there are far preferable approaches available. The Senate has already conducted two hearings on the issue and Senator Abraham has introduced legislation (S. 1360) which provides for a full exemption from the land border crossing requirements while we study the problems of implementing this vast new bureaucracy. A counterpart bill (H.R. 2955) has been introduced in the House which is supported by the administration. In order to consider these and other responses, we need to vote this bill down today, so we can look at this issue in the Judiciary Committee with more than 24 hours notice. H.R. 2920 is a ``Band-Aid quick fix'' which does not provide the proper solution for our border control concerns. Section 110 is not scheduled to be implemented until October 1998. We have plenty of time to hold committee hearings and develop a practical bipartisan solution to this problem. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 20 seconds. To the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar], my ranking member on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, my best friend, No. 1, that guy with the girlfriend in Canada, one of them ought to move. No. 2, the Canadian Government, not that we give a hoot about their opinion, is totally opposed to what we are doing, not that that matters. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Reyes].

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. LaFalce]. (Mr. LaFALCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 20 seconds. There is not any trafficking across that part of the northern border, but there is plenty of drugs increasingly coming in at the northern border. And one more thing, my colleagues. This bill is being represented as a temporary fix. What the real deal is is that it is going to be permanent, and we will never get to the hearings on the bill that everybody is for or against it. It never had hearings.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds. Mr. Speaker, we need experts like that to testify at a hearing. You know, we are at midnight talking about all the experts on immigration at the northern border, and we have not had one hearing on this whole thing. I suggest this suspension be turned back and that the Committee on the Judiciary do its job. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota [Mr. Pomeroy].

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Lloyd Storey, a man whose contributions to the uniquely American art form known as tap dancing earned him the title of Detroit's Ambassador of Tap. Mr. Storey died September 21 at home in Detroit. He was 74. Mr. Storey was artistic director of the Tap Repertory Ensemble and a faculty member at Detroit's Center for Creative Studies. Born in Detroit, he grew up in New York where he spent countless hours watching tap dancers in vaudeville shows. He quickly picked up tap's intricate rhythms, fused them with his own gliding energy, and developed a style that seemed effortless in its execution. When he was 14 years old, he began dancing in New York's Apollo Theatre as a member of the famed Apollo Chorus Boys. Although his career was interrupted by World War II where he served as a member of the U.S. Navy shore patrol, Ninth Naval District, he quickly fell into step upon his return home. One of Mr. Storey's most notable accomplishments was his membership in New York's exclusive Hoofer's Club. Throughout his life, Lloyd Storey introduced the joy and the beauty of tap dancing to appreciative audiences around the globe. A social worker by training, he knew the cultural and historical significance of this indigenous dance form, and he dedicated his life to teaching others of its value. Indeed, he was a major contributor to the rebirth of tap in our country. It was because of cultrual legends such as Mr. Storey that I intoduced legislation to designate May 25 as National Tap Dance Day. The companion bill was introduced by U.S. Senator Alfonse D'Amato. May 25 was selected as National Tap Dance Day because it is the anniversary of the birth of Bill ``Bojangles'' Robinson who made outstanding contributions to this art form on both stage and film. On November 7, 1989, President George Bush signed the bill into law. The language in the House Joint Resolution 131 says that tap dancing reflects ``the fusion of African and European cultures into an exemplification of the American spirit, that should be, through documentation, and archival and performance support, transmitted to succeeding generations.`` House Joint Resolution 131 continues: ``it is in the best interest of the people of our Nation to preserve, promote and celebrate this uniquely American art form'' because of tap dancing's historic and continuing influence on other American art forms. I am proud to say, Mr. Speaker, that Lloyd Storey was able to testify before the U.S. Congress on this bill. His role in gaining national recognition for tap dancing was noted by his family in the remarks in his obituary. Our society lost a true culture bearer with the death of Lloyd Storey. Over the years, he performed with Fletcher Henderson at Chicago's Regal Theatre, with Count Basie and Andy Kirk at the Apollo, and with Gregory Hines at Detroit's Fisher Theatre and Orchestra Hall. I only have time to skim the list of the gifted performers with whom he appeared. He displayed his talent with the likes of Louis Armstrong, Cab Calloway, Duke Ellington, Redd Foxx, Peg Leg Bates and Tony Bennett. In Detroit, a city that proudly claims Lloyd Storey as its own, this legendary performer was living proof that greatness attracts greatness. His performances with such luminaries as Dr. Theodore Harris Jr., J.C. Heard, Marcus Belgrave, and Dr. Beans Bowles lifted audiences from their chairs in a swell of pure joy. In the early 1950's Mr. Storey and Fletcher ``T Bone'' Hollingsworth founded an ensemble know as the Sultans. Whenever he was asked to name the person who had the greatest impact on this career, Mr. Storey did not hesitate. He named his great friend and mentor Bill ``Bojangles'' Robinson. Not only did Mr. Storey dance with Bojangles' famed troupe, he learned from him the importance of passing his craft to the next generation of tappers. Mr. Sotry taught at the advanced level and provided lectures and demonstrations both at home and abroad. In the 1980's Lloyd Storey taught tap in Europe and Japan as part of a cultural exchange program. In addition to his dance career, Mr. Storey earned a bachelor of arts degree and a master of social work degree from Wayne State University. He was a program director for the Neighborhood Service Organization in Detroit until his retirement in 1989. Mr. Storey's last professional performances were in 1995 with the European tour of the Tony-Award-winning Broadway production of ``Black and Blue.'' He was taken ill while performing on stage in Zurich, Switzerland. Lloyd Storey was far more than a gifted dancer and dedicated community activist. He was a man whose elegance on the dance floor was a reflection of his innate grace and style. He was a loving husband and father and a trusted friend whose buoyant spirit and lively sense of humor rivaled the movement of his feet. Survivors include his wife, Joyce; five children and four grandchildren. Mr. Speaker, our Nation and our world are richer because a gentleman named Lloyd Storey was gracious enough to share his love of tap dancing with us.

Mr. CONYERS

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

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

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, is the gentleman aware of any city or State organizations that support the Gallegly bill, himself a former mayor?

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I do want to take this opportunity during the gentlewoman's time on the debate to praise her for the unstinting, unswerving commitment that she has shown on the floor, in the committee, in the Committee on Rules for preserving the University of the District of Columbia Law School. The gentlewoman has our undying gratitude.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Flake], my dear friend, Reverend Congressman Flake, whose career has been preeminent since I have been here, I hold a letter from Dr. Andrew Brimmer, I hold a letter from the Executive Office of the President of the United States. One begs us to support the Moran substitute; the other guarantees that the Gingrich bill will be vetoed if it ever gets near passage of law. Now, while the gentleman from New York is busy studying for the next 2 hours the Moran substitute, I want him to have this heavy on his heart. We need the gentleman's support. This is one of the most important final measures that the gentleman will pass on, and we want to remember him in all the spirit of excellence in which he has served in the Congress.

Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, as the debate nears to a close, I think just about everybody has figured out the Gingrich scheme. This Republican bill is supposed to fail. Of course it will fail, and of course the District will be plunged further into chaos. That is the whole idea, and that is why even moderate Republicans have to jump bail, and that is why our conservative Democrats are joining us in the Moran substitute. The whole idea is that we finally got a Republican measure in the substitute that the Republicans are attacking as if it was a Democratic bill. It is just the best we can do. I have never in my life supported a Faircloth measure, and I find myself doing it today. And it is not bad. Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to thank the gentlewoman for her leadership, not just today but year after year, on this subject matter. I am hoping somebody raises the fact that the AMA has switched its position, because I have got the letter they sent Newt Gingrich on the same day they switched their position, detailing what they wanted for the switch. That AMA, that is the American Medical Association. And what did they want? Well, they wanted some compromises. They detailed a plan to stall or minimize any cuts that might come from the physicians' incomes. Let us not wax lyrical about the AMA is now on the side of the conservatives in this country. They just sold out, very elementary, dear Watson, it happens in the Congress and in the body politic with great frequency. Once again, we all know that the issue is about the health of the mother. The opponents keep trying to hope they can override our resistance. The Supreme Court still states what the law of the land is, and for all the doctors on the Republican side that do not know the fifth amendment is severely connected to this subject matter, believe me, it is.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, of those 15 States that have passed the law the gentleman advocates, 9 have been found to be unconstitutional.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, imagine that you--or your wife--or your daughter, learned when she is 7 months pregnant that the fetus had a lethal neurological disorder and all of its vital organs were atrophying. After consulting with specialists and being told that the pregnancy is seriously jeopardizing the mother's health, and possibly her life, your are told that an intact D&E procedure has the best chance of preserving the mother's health and her ability to become pregnant again. Or imagine that the mother is 32 weeks pregnant when she learns that the baby has no brain. The fetus has no chance of survival. The mother is diabetic, so a Cesarian section and induced labor are more dangerous to her health and reproductive capacity than an intact D&E procedure. Would you want 435 politicians to tell you--or your wife--or your daughter, the type of medical procedure she could use in this painful situation? Should Congress be able to determine whether a woman will lose her capacity to reproduce and bear children? Well that is precisely the situation that Coreen Costello and Vicki Stella were in. And if we adopt this bill, we will be telling many, many other women that Washington knows best when it comes to terminating pregnancies that have resulted in tragic circumstances. H.R. 1122 is unconstitutional, because they contain no exception providing for the physical health of the mother. The Senate amendments on which we are voting today do nothing to correct that problem with the bill. Roe versus Wade, and its progeny, clearly hold that a woman's right to protect her life and health, in the context of reproductive choice, trumps the government, as big brother, in its desire to regulate. And recently, several similar State statutes banning this procedure have been found unconstitutional. In fact, in my home State of Michigan, on July 31, 1997, Judge Gerald Rosen struck down Michigan's partial-birth abortion ban, finding that the definition of partial- birth was so vague that doctors lacked notice as to what abortion procedures were banned. Moreover, the court found that the State law unduly burdened women's ability to obtain an abortion. It is clear that H.R. 1122 and the Senate amendments violate that well established constitutional law long-settled by Roe. The majority will try to tell you that this bill is OK, because they have the support of the American Medical Association. But don't let them fool you. The AMA had consistently remained neutral on this issue, and did not take a position on the bill when it was first introduced in 1995. And in mid-May of this year, the AMA stated that it did ``not support any [abortion] legislative proposals at this time.'' Yet, within weeks, the AMA board changed its position. Just like that. Why? Well, no one will really ever knew, but isn't it surprising that the very day that the AMA announced its switcheroo, its executive vice president, P. John Seward, sent an eight-page letter to Newt Gingrich that lists the AMA requests in the budget negotiations concerning Medicare spending. In that letter, the AMA laid out a detailed plan to stall or minimize any cuts that might come from physicians. All on the same day that the organization decided suddenly to support the partial-birth abortion bill. Well, well. So don't let them fool you. There was no substantive reason the AMA decided to vote for the bill. It was just another one of those political games. Yesterday, the minority testified before the Rules Committee seeking an open rule that would make in order two amendments dealing with the physical health of the mother. But our request was denied, and neither amendment was made in order. The first alternative, offered by Mr. Hoyer, would ban post-viability abortions unless a physician certifies that continuing of the pregnancy would threaten the woman's life or risk grievous injury to her physical health. The second alternative, an amendment offered by Ms. Lowey, would provide that the restriction on abortion procedures in the bill would apply only to post-viability abortions and include exceptions to preserve the life of the woman or to avert serious adverse health consequences to the woman. Both of these amendments comport with the standard established in Roe that the health of the mother should not be jeopardized in any circumstance. Either of them would have made the underlying amendment constitutional and the President would have signed it. But the President cannot, and will not, sign an unconstitutional bill that does not protect a mother's health, and has promised to veto this legislation if it passes. Of course, the Republican leadership has little interest in developing a credible and serious constitutional proposal that could be signed into law. Instead, they prefer a wedge issue that can divide the American people. That's why they wouldn't make a single amendment concerning health in order. But H.R. 1122 has no health exception, and we are led to believe that the reason is because its authors have determined that under no possible condition is a mother's health--no matter how serious--to be equated with the potential life of a fetus. To them, the partial birth abortion ban is merely a means of preventing any and all abortions, even where the mother's health is in jeopardy. But the reality is, the bill will do absolutely nothing to reduce the number of abortions performed in this country. Zero. It will only criminalize physicians for pursuing the safest alternative in dealing with a very painful, difficult, and terrifying circumstance when a pregnancy has gone bad, and the mother's physical health is in jeopardy. Let's take the politicians out of this intensely personal issue. When it comes to a woman's life or health, Washington doesn't always know best.

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

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the doctor, he is also a Congressman and there is a constitutional basis for this measure that we have. Look at the fifth amendment, then read the U.S. Supreme Court decision.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Mollohan amendment.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I would like to commend the leaders of the Committee on National Security. It looks like the B-2, which I was going to spend a lot more of my attention than is now going to be necessary, is moving toward its well-deserved fate, and all of you have had something to do with it. I still have problems with this two-war strategy that now fuels a $250 billion military piece. I think that is a little too much. The Seawolf submarine, the nuclear submarine, when I was the chairman, we were holding hearings on the Seawolf submarine. Star Wars has been reconfigured at least a half a dozen times. They throw it out, reinvent it, and come up with some more stuff. There are too many F-22s. In other words, there is way too much, $247 billion worth, in this kind of global situation that we find ourselves in. Madam Speaker, it is too much dough. We have got to cut it down. We have got to reduce it. I hope that you who lead this committee will continue to give that at least if not your undivided attention, more of your attention. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I support this very narrow and time limited change to the law which will allow guests of boat owners sailing on the Great Lakes to be exempted from the INS I-68 permit. The I-68, called the Canadian border boat landing permit, allows boaters to travel to and from Canada without inspection for the entire summer boating season. This bill will not exempt boat owners from I-68 permit requirements. It will merely permit a nonfamily member guest from having to apply for the I-68, paying $16 and waiting 2 weeks for the permit just to take a possible one time recreational ride on a boat on the Great Lakes. Guests will still be required to have a U.S. passport. This bill is not a carte blanche opening of the Great Lake borders, it is tailored very narrowly. H.R. 2027 will sunset in December 1998 and requires the Attorney General to make a report to Congress on the impact of the revised regulation. Therefore, next year, INS will be able to ascertain whether this limited exemption has had any adverse impact on illegal immigration or narcotics smuggling. In the meantime, this small but important change will enhance tourism on both sides of the border. The Great Lakes provide great summer recreation to many American citizens and Canadian nationals. In Detroit, we can see Windsor, Canada, and share the Detroit River with them. Many of my constituents vacation on the Great Lakes in the Upper Peninsula and frequently cross over to the Canadian shore. By modernizing the I-68 permit requirement we can ease the paperwork burdens on their travel as guests. I urge your support on this very narrowly tailored and practical bill.