John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. The idea of us now going back into habeas, the gentleman from North Carolina has just reminded us that we have already passed a habeas bill overwhelmingly.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, why does the gentleman need to have habeas here if we have already done it?

Mr. CONYERS. I just want to tell you that that statement combines all of our work for months on the committee, and it effectively recaptures what went on on the floor yesterday and gives everyone a chance to come back together on this antiterrorist bill.

Mr. CONYERS. We are delighted to find that the gentleman is moving right along. Now, Mr. Chairman, for the law lesson. These have to come on the Committee on the Judiciary, between lawyers. All right, class, turn to title 18, U.S.C. 111. What you will find is that the murder penalty exists for a whole list of crimes. Also, class, turn to 18 U.S.C. 119, the murder penalty. Also, class, turn to 18 U.S.C., and staffers for Members, turn to that, also, 18 U.S.C. 1117. The last lesson for the afternoon, turn finally to 18 U.S.C. 1114. OK. What do these four laws provide? Murder, in the first instance, willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing will get you the death penalty, I say to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], and my Republican friends, in the United States of America. It will also, under the second title I cited, for foreign murder of U.S. nationals, that will get the death penalty. You can also get the death penalty--not whether we like it or how we voted for it, what our philosophy is, this is the law. Conspiracy to murder will get you the death penalty. Also, the murder of an officer or employee of the United States, my fourth illustration, will get you the death penalty. If Members do not believe the instructor in this class, go to the current Attorney General of the United States, who explains for everybody who will not do their homework that the Oklahoma bombers, if convicted, will get the death penalty. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman to tell me, if habeas was so important, why was it left out of the Hyde-Barr bill when it came to the floor? The answer is they had antiterrorism on their minds. So we have, even though my dear friend, the gentleman from Illinois, is feeling much better today, we still have a baloney sandwich without any meat in it. We only have the Conyers-Nadler-Berman substitute to deal with.

Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. CONYERS. The assistant law professor from Texas is precisely on point.

Mr. CONYERS. How will habeas corpus of any kind deter a single terrorist act?

Mr. CONYERS. I am in its present form, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Sheila 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. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to our colleague, the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, 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. Chairman, I begin by throwing away my Chairman Hyde's remarks of yesterday. He did not mean it. It was a moment of passion. He was maybe even ticked off, as we say. He said, ``With the Barr amendment, this is not an antiterrorism bill.'' On reflection today and maybe talking with the Speaker, what the heck, we have to do the best with what we have. Were I in his position, maybe I would have to say the same thing.

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

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

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, let us look at the nature of the people that we have castigated for months and months that commit these heinous offenses. Suicide bombers, are they looking for which habeas we are using and whether it exists, since, as we have just learned now, habeas has nothing to do with whether the death penalty exists? Habeas is the protections--constitutional--that are given to you if you are under the death penalty. I do not think so. Members of the other side, I do not think that suicide bombers care what we do with habeas or what we do not do with it. But why let them raise funds in the United States? That is in my bill. We prevent them from raising funds to get the bombs to blow up Americans. Please, we have a very serious, important matter that requires us to bring our common sense and leave our political partisanship outside the door. This is an incredibly important matter. I hope that all of us will recognize that we only have one measure that deals with antiterrorism, and it is the substitute which we will shortly vote on. I urge your favorable consideration of this provision.

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

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman promise to do his homework after I do this one more time? I mean, suicide bombers do not care about the Conyers provision or the Hyde provision. Suicide bombers are not afraid of habeas corpus, sir. They have no concern. The problem is that these are madmen who do not obey or care about laws. The reason I cited the gentleman four specific death penalty amendments is to suggest to him that for all of those reasons, the Attorney General of the United States is right in telling us that upon conviction, the Oklahoma bombers will get the death penalty, regardless of your view or my view on habeas corpus.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes. Mr. Chairman, we now are down to one antiterrorist crime bill before this body, and that is the one that is now before us in the form of substitute brought forth by myself, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler], and the gentleman from California [Mr. Berman], both members of the Committee on the Judiciary. I say that we are down to one, because the Committee on the Judiciary reported out a bill that the majority supported, and many of us had an alternative view. As of yesterday afternoon we are now down to one antiterrorist bill, and that is the substitute offered by myself, the gentleman from New York, and the gentleman from California. What else remains is a low-grade crime bill, cats and dogs from the Committee on the Judiciary that have been pasted together, commissions, blue-ribbon, at hat, and other things that have nothing to do with fighting terrorism. Mr. Chairman, what we have now is the only antiterrorist bill before the House of Representatives in the form of a substitute. We have, in addition to many groups that have already been with us, the American Jewish Committee, the American Jewish Congress, we had the Union of American Hebrew Congregations. Mr. Chairman, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler], who is a cosponsor of the substitute.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank], who has been on the committee since he arrived in the Congress, has worked on these matters with great diligence.

Mr. CONYERS. But the fact of the matter is, sir, that New York does now have a death penalty. So if the gentleman's excuse for supporting this was because of the past, it is no longer appropriate.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I doubt it very seriously. But may I use the few seconds that I have to gain the attention of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas] with whom I worked for many years on the Committee on the Judiciary? See, New York, I would say to the gentleman, has a death penalty now. But the gentleman is living in the past. Sir, I am not going to yield, I regret.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt].

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Bryant], I do not know where the gentleman has been practicing law, but even in the gentleman's State, I can assure the gentleman, and I hope we can get some statistics for the gentleman for his benefit, but the lawyers who represent people in bankruptcy law, the corporation lawyers, the litigators, the trial lawyers, all of those who represent transnational, if the gentleman would talk to them about representing corporations, inanimate objects, at $175 an hour, they would laugh the gentleman off the floor of the House of Representatives. If the gentleman has been a lawyer, the gentleman knows it, just like I do. Now, I know capping is the big thing in the 104th Congress; whatever it is, we want it cap it. But these are death penalty cases. This is a human being's life that hangs in the balance. Mr. Chairman, do my colleagues know the one reason that the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] can cite all these years that cases went before getting a final disposition in death penalty cases? The reason is there were young lawyers, new lawyers, untrained lawyers.