John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. It is up to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum]. That is what I thought. I would like to appeal to the gentleman from Florida again, a distinguished and able member of Judiciary with whom I have worked ever since his first day in the House of Representatives. Would the gentleman please take the bill off of the floor until such time as he gets a report? Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman to say yes or no.

Mr. CONYERS. I did not ask for the rest. I just wanted a yes or no. Mr. Speaker, I object to the procedure on the floor, and I would like to press my objection to the Speaker.

Mr. CONYERS. Is someone supposed to trust the gentleman in the meantime?

Mr. CONYERS. I said will he withdraw this bill now? We are asking everyone to get a report sometime in the future, sir. That is not according to the rules of the House?

Mr. CONYERS. Could I ask my good friend if he would withdraw this bill until such time there is a report for all of the Members?

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

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I support the provisions in the bill. Could I inquire of my good friend, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime, why this bill has no report?

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

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, to my astonishment, I just heard my good friend, the gentleman from Ohio, Martin Hoke, the distinguished member of the Committee on the Judiciary from Cleveland, OH, make an incredible link between illegitimacy and welfare. I think he knows what he is talking about, because he is a very brilliant Member of this body. Perhaps his 1-minute was so truncated that we were not able to get to the bottom of what it was that was bothering him. But I would like to invite him privately to join with me to discuss this serious matter of welfare, because I do not want the kind of assumptions that were linked together in a 1-minute presentation to be taken as a serious point of view by my good friend, the gentleman from Cleveland, OH.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I have a number of serious reservations concerning H.R. 2428. Although I am supportive of the impetus behind the legislation--encouraging private entities to donate food to nonprofit organizations who distribute food to the needy--I question whether preempting traditional State law prerogatives in this area is desirable. For more than 200 years tort law has been considered to be a State law prerogative. The States are in the best position to weigh competing considerations and adopt negligence laws which best protect their citizens from harm. The area of food donations is a good illustration of this dynamic. According to the Congressional Research Service's American Law Division, all 50 States have enacted special statutory rights concerning food donations. Not surprisingly, the States have crafted a variety of liability rules--ranging from those who subject all negligent parties to liability, to those who limit liability only to grossly negligent or intentional acts. Unfortunately, with adoption of this bill, the House will be seeking to impose a one-size-fists-all legal standard for food donors based on the Model Good Samaritan Food Donation Act, 42 U.S.C. Secs. 12671- 12673, despite the fact that since its enaction in 1990, only one State has adopted the Model Act's language. This is exactly the type of reckless federalism so many in Congress purport to oppose. Worse yet, in federalizing this standard, Congress will be selecting the most lenient possible standard of negligence. In particular, I would note that the term ``gross negligence'' is so narrowly defined that it may not include a failure to act which one should have known would be harmful. I believe a standard so loosely drawn constitutes an open invitation to harm to our poorest citizens. I would also note that Congress is acting on this measure at a time when there has been no demonstrated legal problem. There is no outbreak in frivolous litigation. The proponents arguments for a uniform Federal standard are more based on anecdote than fact. I am also concerned that to date the legislative process has completely bypassed the Judiciary Committee, which traditionally has had primary jurisdiction for any tort law matters. We should not be in such a rush to pass legislation that we fail to consider the opinions of those Members with relevant expertise. It is because of concerns such as these that the conference committee on H.R. 2854, the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996, determined to reject adopting legislation similar to that before us today. The managers' statement to that legislation wrote: [t]he Managers declined to adopt a provision that would convert the Model Good Samaritan Food Donation Act (Pub. L. 101-610) to federal law. . . . While the Managers commend the philanthropic intent of such legislation, the Managers understand possible implications of preempting state laws and acknowledge jurisdictional complications. See House Report 104-94 at 405. It is my hope that as the process moves forward these and other problems can be addressed.

Mr. CONYERS

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

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this slimmed-down revision of section 3 to allow the States, which enact their own same- sex marriage laws, to have those marriages respected by the Federal Government. Surely, Members on the other side of the aisle can support this amendment. I hope they can. Mr. Chairman, I hope that the excellent job of whipping up the populace into a frenzy will subside somewhat and we can consider what we are dealing with. For my good friend, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady], the subcommittee chairman who keeps laying this 70-percent population figure on us, may I remind the gentleman that 70 percent of the population was against ending segregation when the civil rights laws passed in the United States of America in the sixties. The gentleman shakes his head negatively, but he is incorrect. Now, I wish my good friend from Wisconsin who made his very impassioned remarks would have included in the reasons for marriage being in trouble in America, if it is, that it is because of joblessness. I do not know what is going on between all the spouses, but joblessness is a huge driving force. And finally, for ex-Senator Bob Dole, who I give advice on occasion, why is he so angry that President Clinton agrees with him on this issue? What is the beef, Bob? I mean, after all, you forced him to do this. Mr. Chairman, we are going to stick with the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Lewis]. Eventually we will all come around and realize where this is going. I thank the Members for their kind attention. I rise in strong support of the gentleman's amendment revising section 3 of the bill to allow States, which enact their own same sex marriage laws, to have those marriages respected by the Federal Government. Around this body we hear a lot of talk about States rights. Well this amendment gives all of the Members a chance to back up their rhetoric. For more than 200 years Congress has allowed determinations of marriage status to be a purely State matter. Yet, unless this amendment is adopted, we in the Congress will be telling the States how to run their business. We will be saying a marriage that they have blessed is not good enough for Federal recognition. This amendment serves to illustrate the blatant hypocrisy which characterizes the entire legislation. The entire matter has very little to do with the Federal Government. It is black-letter law that the States are free to reject marriages approved by other States which violate public policy. It is pursuant to this authority that States have invalidated marriages consummated in other States which are incestuous, polygamous, based on common law, and involve under-age minors. Ironically, by enacting this law, Congress will, by implication, be limiting the States authority to reject other types of marriage which may be contrary to public policy. It seems clear to me that the only reason we are here even debating this issue is that Republicans are intent on creating a political issue completely out of thin air so they can demonize gay and lesbian individuals and further divide the American people. The Contract With America has been a flop, the Repubican Party is behind in the polls, and their leadership is desperately trying to manufacture widge political issues. If there were any other reason, they would slow this bill down, wait for the courts and the State of Hawaii to act, and seriously analyze the legal implications of what they are doing. Fortunatley, I don't think the American people will be fooled by this legislative red herring. They want real solutions that improve their every day lives, not legislative placebos. We can begin doing so by voting for this amendment and returning power back to the States. announcement by the chairman

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, the ill-named ``Defense of Marriage Act'' is little more than a half-baked effort by the Republicans to find yet another issue which they can use to divide the country in a desperate search for votes, deep in an election year. Before we rush head long to judgment on yet another divisive social issue, we ought to at least consider the following: There is no reason to act on this issue now. The Hawaii Supreme Court decision that the supporters of this bill are so fearful of took place way back in 1993. And the trial proceeding, which is expected to take place shortly, will be subject to appeal to the intermediate and State supreme court--no final binding decision is expected for two years at the earliest. The States are completely free to act on their own on this issue without any help from Congress. It is black letter law that the States are free to reject marriages approved by other States which violate public policy. It is pursuant to this authority that States have invalidated marriages consummated in other States which are incestuous, polygamous, based on common law, and involve under-age minors. Ironically, by enacting this law, Congress will by implication be limiting the States' authority to reject other types of marriage which may be contrary to public policy. The full ``faith and credit'' hook on which this bill is based is nothing less than a legal charade. The second sentence of the full faith and credit clause merely grants Congress the authority to specify how certain acts, records, and judicial proceedings may be authenticated. There is nothing in the full faith and credit clause which permits Congress to place a break on the application of sister States policies, as opposed to their judgments. Enacting a law of the nature before us today would be nothing less than unprecedented. Given these problems, why are we acting today? Why has a bill gone from introduction, to hearing, to subcommittee, full committee, and now the floor in a mere two month's time? The only possible answer is that Republicans are intent on creating a political issue completely out of thin air so they can demonize gay and lesbian individuals and further divide the American people. The Contract with America has been a flop, the Republican party is behind in the polls, and their leadership is desperately trying to manufacture ``wedge'' political issues. If there were any other reason, they would slow this bill down, wait for the courts and the State of Hawaii to act, and seriously analyze the legal implications of what they are doing. Fortunately, I don't think the American people will be fooled by this legislative red herring. They want real solutions that improve their every day lives, not legislative placebos. This is legislation by mob rule and is wrong.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary for his excellent clarification. I commend him personally for the way that, as the sponsor of this measure, he was worked with all the Members, not only on the committee but in the Congress, and I might commend the House itself for the enormous rapidity with which we have acted. I think that the action this Congress has taken and the speed with which we have moved serves notice to all would-be terrorists of the domestic variety that the Federal and State governments will use all of their activities and resources to prosecute these destroyers of houses of worship. They can run but they cannot hide, and when found, they will be vigorously prosecuted. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I want to associate myself entirely with the remarks of the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt] and let him know that my sentiments are his.

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

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

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I, of course, do not intend to object. I make this reservation so that we may have an opportunity to clarify how this text, which has been substituted by the other body, differs from the House-passed version of the legislation. It is my understanding, Mr. Speaker, that this bill makes abundantly clear the jurisdiction federally under the Constitution's interstate commerce clause and the 13th amendment, increases maximum penalties for church arsons where bodily injury occurs, includes religious fixtures and objects as covered property, provides $5 million in HUD loan guarantees and reauthorizes the Hate Crimes Statistic Act. I wonder if this is the chairman's understanding, Mr. Speaker, and I will yield to the gentleman from Illinois for the purpose of elaboration on this point and observe that the unanimity of our cause has been underlined by the gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. J.C. Watts, in the work that he and other Members on the gentleman's side have been doing, along with the gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Sheila Jackson-Lee, the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Sanford Bishop, and the gentlewoman from North Carolina, Mrs. Eva Clayton.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Ken Bentsen. (Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to conclude the time that has been afforded us on this side by reminding all of our colleagues that the President of the United States has involved himself in this matter in a very important way. First of all, he urged that there be some legislation that could deal with this subject matter. Then he used his weekly radio address to direct to the Nation the deepness of the injury that these kinds of attacks on churches commit. Then he went to the South himself, and tomorrow he will be meeting with Governors of the several States. I think the President of the United States has handled this at the Federal level remarkably well.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] for his generosity, and I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller].

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Fields] in whose State there have been arsons.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Thomas Foglietta, one of the distinguished Members who have worked on civil rights matters across the years.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the foreign operations bill, H.R. 3540. This bill contains a provision regarding Haiti which I, along with many members of the Congressional Black Caucus, oppose. The foreign operations bill contains a provision, known as the Dole amendment, which prohibits Haiti from receiving any nonhumanitarian assistance from the United States unless the President certifies quarterly that democracy is secure in Haiti. Additionally the provision points to the investigation of three murders in Haiti and the status of their investigation. It is unnecessary and unreasonable for the United States to require this certification every 3 months. Democracy is blossoming in Haiti, and we can point to the peaceful transfer of power there last year as a sign that democracy and democratic principles are spreading in that nation. The elections there last summer were peaceful and successful. This year the committee has identified three murders that they claim were political and suggest this is a sign of a feeble government. More than 4,000 murders which occurred during the time when former President Aristide was deposed are under current investigation, along with the three in question. All crimes in Haiti deserve equal scrutiny under the law--not just the three murders identified by the committee. The United States should do all we can to help solve these murders. But placing this unnecessary burden on the Haitian Government does not serve the United States or Haiti well when the Haitian investigators are concentrating on solving these crimes. The United States must continue to support the implementation of Haiti's economic revitalization so that we can see democracy fully mature in that nation.