John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of our time. We have a lot less than the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady].

Mr. CONYERS. The gentlewoman could not be more correct. The Republican platform of 1996 reads that the constitutional protection of women's right to choice should be revoked by constitutional amendment. Here are bills that are pending in the Committee on the Judiciary for doing it, at least the legitimately correct way, through a constitutional amendment. But here they are coming through the back door again with Canady's partial-birth abortion bill.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Maloney] an additional 30 seconds and I ask her to yield to me.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Maloney].

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, before I yield back to the gentleman I just want to remind him, and I thank him for his agreement, that the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] tried to offer a physical health limitation amendment and was precluded by the gentleman's party's leadership. That is why we cannot come to closure on this issue. And the gentleman will have on the chance for recommittal to vote for precisely that provision that he has articulated, and I yield to the doctor.

Mr. CONYERS. Exactly right.

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

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to ask the distinguished doctor and Member of Congress a question. If we add a doctor, the health exception, we would agree with the gentleman, and this bill could possibly become law. Would the gentleman have any objection to that?

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the deputy whip of the minority, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Lewis].

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Capps].

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from the District of Columbia [Ms. Norton].

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Lofgren], a distinguished member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado [Ms. DeGette] and remind our membership that she is replacing Pat Schroeder, our distinguished ranking member on the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman from New Jersey be reminded that we do not call each other liars in the course of the debate?

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Delahunt], a distinguished member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon [Ms. Furse].

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. McCarthy].

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee], a distinguished member of the Committee on the Judiciary. (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Woolsey].

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey].

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, this is implied from the Federal court decision in Ohio that the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady] does not like on Roe versus Wade. The contention that H.R. 929 falls outside of the restriction of Roe because the fetus is ``almost'' born is fallacious on its face. The intact D&E procedure targeted by the bill, and by the way, D&E procedure is the correct term, the D&E procedure targeted by the bill falls within the general understanding of abortion. The definitions used in the bill and even the title of the bill, repeatedly utilize the term ``abortion.'' To attempt to assert that the abortion procedures covered by the bill are somehow exempt from the constitutional protections of Roe is to abandon legal credibility. Indeed any arguments to such effect have already been implicitly rejected by the Federal court in Ohio, which has found unconstitutional a State law ban on intact D&E procedures absent an adequate health exception.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Scott]. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I say to my colleagues of the 105th Congress, we assemble again to take up an issue that we have dealt with in the previous Congress, the President has dealt with by vetoing it, the Congress has dealt with the attempt to override by not being able to override, and so we gather today with the same piece of legislation attempting to do the same thing. Why? Well, it just so happens that notwithstanding my good friend, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady], whose desire and commitment to this subject matter has led the Congress into this situation for two Congresses in a row, we are faced with a constitutional problem. Let us spell it out right at the beginning of this debate, shall we? It is a constitutional problem that we did not invent, and it is embodied in two parts of the Constitution, the 5th amendment and the 14th amendment, in the parts of those amendments that are known as the due process clauses. In the due process clauses, it has been found by the U.S. Supreme Court on more than one occasion that a right of privacy to the woman that has a reproductive choice is grounded in constitutional guarantees. Now, that is the state of the American law as we meet here this afternoon in the House of Representatives. Unfortunately, I say to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady], there is only one way we can change that, and that is through a constitutional amendment that would alter the Supreme Court's repeated findings on this subject. So my colleagues might ask that since we have been through this exercise in the 104th Congress, why do we not just introduce a constitutional amendment? Good question. Why do we not just amend the Constitution if we are trying to stop abortion? Well, the reason I believe is patently clear. Most Americans and certainly most women and certainly a far majority of the doctors realize that some abortions are necessary, and they also realize that some abortions are not necessary. As a matter of fact, most of the States have already outlawed the gruesome drawing that was first brought forward by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady] because that is a late-term abortion, banned by statute in 40 States and the District of Columbia, prohibited entirely. And so we want to talk about not trying to inflame this discussion. So I say to my colleagues, we are coming back on a constitutionally protected question in which the health and the life of the mother is constitutionally protected. Elementary. In the Canady proposal before us there is a safeguard of life; there is not a safeguard of health. Why will we not put in health? Well, ask the gentleman. But because it is not in here, we are not able to move this forward as a constitutional proposition, whether myself or the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady] like it or not. It is unconstitutional. Most legal scholars have said that. The President has said that. Most of the Congress, in failing to override the veto, have conceded that. So why are we doing it again? Why? Well, because the only way we can get to this problem if we do not want to introduce a constitutional amendment, as we ought to, is to go at ending abortion in this country procedure by procedure, and where else to start but the inaccurately, politically named partial-birth abortion ban. Is there such a term in medical dictionaries? No. Used in medical circles? No. Used in political circles? Yes. Invented for the purpose of this debate? Yes. So here we are again. The fact of the matter is, the health of the mother is what prevents the President from supporting a congressional ban. As long as we leave that out, President Clinton will veto this bill. He has told us that repeatedly, and he is telling us that again today. I am explaining it again today. I do not care how many Congresses we use, how many times we reintroduce this bill, how many times the House Committee on the Judiciary votes this to the floor, it is unconstitutional. Please understand that. So we are here confronted with whether the health of the mother should be overridden or whether it should not. Well, we say that unless you put health in, we will have to respectfully oppose this proposition as it was in the other Congress. The President will respectfully veto this proposition as he did in the other Congress. The override is probably going to be as unsuccessful as it was in the other Congress. So we gather here today to follow the Canady mission. No matter how legal, no matter how constitutional, we are going to do this anyway. We are going to get a vote, we are going to debate it, we are going to put up inaccurately rendered depictions. Of course, there are doctors that agree with the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady]. Of course there are doctors, and the Anerican College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, that do not agree with the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady], and so here we are to begin the debate. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.