John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for bringing this amendment forward. It must have a useful purpose besides filling the gap in the anti-terrorist legislation. Is this directed at terrorists, sir?

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. CONYERS. I know we are grabbing for votes, sir, but I do not know if the Bartlett amendment will help in this quest or not. Well, one person has volunteered that the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Bartlett] is doing the work of the Lord on this bill. Well, if we need it, fellows, what the heck. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. CONYERS. May I say, my colleague from New York is always temperate in his remarks and is thoughtful in analyzing the contributions or problems that other organizations raise that lobby us all the time. I just think that this would strike a blow at the confidence in our judicial system and criminal justice system that Chairman Hyde reiterated his strong confidence in only a few hours earlier. I have got confidence in this system. Doggone it, it has been wrong a lot of times, but do we really think a blue-ribbon commission of ladies and gentlemen appointed by the Speaker and the minority leader would get to the bottom of this?

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, the reason Attorney Generals Levy, Richardson, Katzenbach, and Civiletti have explained they tried hard to explain that what the Members are trying to do is unconstitutional. I know you want to fry them as soon as you can, I know that any time is too long. How dare a Member of Congress that serves on the committee that makes the law on this get up and say in broad daylight that it takes too long to execute a person in America, under the process we have? And instead of bringing this up on its own merits, we wait until we get an emotionally charged piece of legislation and bring up habeas corpus, which has no relationship to terrorism whatsoever. How long is too long? Mr. Chairman, by the way, Attorney General Edwin Meese, did he join the gentleman on that, too?

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, this is a bill that is supposed to be dealing with terrorists. It is an antiterrorism bill. Mr. Chairman, habeas corpus got onto the antiterrorism bill in the following way. Everybody thought that this was a fast train that could take on anything that was hanging around the Committee on the Judiciary. As it turned out, antiterrorism is not a fast train to anywhere, because it is really a crime bill. Now it is a gutted antiterrorist bill. Now we have a gutted antiterrorist bill, and habeas corpus reform that we have been trying to get through, restricting constitutional rights, for years. It has never gotten anywhere. Mr. Chairman, it would not do for the ranking member on the Committee on the Judiciary to explain that again for maybe the 25th time in my career, but what about a former Attorney General named Ben Civiletti? What about the comments of a former Attorney General named Nicholas Katzenbach? What about of the comments of a former Attorney General named Edward H. Levy? What about the comments of an Attorney General, former Attorney General, named Elliott L. Richardson? Two Republicans, two Democratic former Attorney Generals. Here is what they say: ``The habeas corpus provisions which the House will soon take up are unconstitutional.'' They did not say that maybe they will be found unconstitutional, or that they could be challenged for unconstitutionality. They said ``They are unconstitutional,'' four Attorneys General. ``Though intended in large part to expedite the death penalty review process, the litigation and constitutional rulings will in fact delay and frustrate the imposition of the death penalty.'' Do Members understand that? Is this partisan? Are these liberals? Is this the left? Four Attorneys General are telling us this provision is going to be ruled unconstitutional. Mr. Chairman, what that means, non-lawyers in the Congress, is that it will then take longer to execute people than it does now. Mr. Chairman, I get a little tired of hearing somebody telling me about one 14-year case. If we check the one 14-year case, it was not because the judges were sleeping, it was not because the prosecutors were not prosecuting. There might have been some reason that one case took 14 years. There are a lot of cases where people get executed, and if we had had more time, they would be alive today. Mr. Chairman, let us get off of this unusual example of three people whose cases took years and years and years. Mr. Chairman, the same person who is telling me not to believe in this process was the same person that just told me on the previous amendment that we ought to believe in the system.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I want the gentlewoman to know we have examined the amendment, we find it important, and we are very pleased to support it.

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

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. We are now in the portion of the bill where we are now combining four amendments that have been agreed to by the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary and myself. We support them, and I would like to allow at least one of the sponsors to be recognized, and I will shortly recognize the gentleman from Florida. But before I do that, I would like to clarify where we are in the proceedings on the antiterrorist bill. Because with the last vote cast, we have just eviscerated the heart and soul of the antiterrorist bill. Here we are, the House of Representatives, with the last vote cast on this bill, we have now eviscerated the antiterrorist bill that was brought by the Committee on the Judiciary. There are no new penalties. Terrorist organizations can now raise funds on our shores, inside of the United States. There are no new tools for Federal law enforcement agencies. And with the National Rifle Association, we have just put to rest the parts that I supported in the bill brought by the committee. We now have only the Conyers-Nadler-Berman substitute that will have any hope, if we really want to respond to the victims of Oklahoma, the other tragedies that have been recounted almost with Members with tears in their eyes, and now we have turned around and done this. I continue to move forward to better provisions of the bill. Mr. Chairman, in that regard, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Hastings].

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 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. Is the gentleman suggesting that the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary does not understand that, that the chairman of the Subcommittee on Crimes does not understand, that all the members on the Committee on the Judiciary do not understand what the gentleman alone understands? Of course we have got to denominate that. We have got to denominate them as terrorists. That is why we are having--I am not yielding anymore, I am not yielding anymore. That is why we are here today, I would say to the gentleman, legislating an antiterrorist bill, not a criminal law bill, but an antiterrorist bill. And for the gentleman to hold up an orange book and tell me that it is already in the law, I think I understand what I am going to do with the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. CONYERS. And is that why the gentleman left it out of the bill, of his amendment?

Mr. CONYERS. Well, if the gentleman would listen to me, I will repeat it again so the gentleman can respond to me. Does he know that the Islamic Jihad would be not denominated a terrorist organization under his provision? Does he understand that?

Mr. CONYERS. Does the gentleman know what I think? I think I can come to my own conclusion, then, with the gentleman declining to explain this. Mr. Chairman, I have two conclusions. One, he intended to do it this way; and, two, it was sloppy draftsmanship. Who knows? But we have got a problem, I would say to the gentleman, and it has been delineated very carefully in the discussion so far. Five minutes from now the gentleman will never have a chance to explain anything about this before 435 people vote on it. It is a very important subject matter. Some people are saying that whether this amendment succeeds or fails will determine the fate of the antiterrorist bill in the House of Representatives. We have a lot of things floating around here, and I just think that the gentleman might want to make us at least understand what he is doing. He is a respected person, a former leader in the Department of Justice. What in the world is going on here? Does the gentleman know that he would allow the Islamic Jihad to come into the United States and not be denominated a terrorist organization in his bill? May I get the gentleman's attention? If the gentleman does not want to talk to me, he does not have to, but does the gentleman know that? That is a fact.

Mr. CONYERS. The gentleman does not have much time left. My colleague, I am being super-generous this afternoon.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4\1/2\ minutes. Mr. Chairman, I am not quite sure where the gentleman whose amendment this is is coming from because of his very strong prosecutorial and law enforcement background, and it leaves me confused that his amendment does not stop the FBI from intercepting stored e-mail and electric funds transferred information, although he does prevent the FBI from obtaining information from 10 registers which record the numbers dialed on a telephone. Was there some law enforcement reason that the gentleman drafted his amendment in that way? Mr. Chairman, I would yield to the gentleman if he chooses to make a response about it.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Heineman], a distinguished member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the manager's amendment is not all bad. There are parts of it with which I think those of us on our side would agree. It does, however, raise issues which were not debated or even discussed during the committee markup. Why do we stay for weeks and months in the committee and then come on the floor to get the latest version? I agree that obligation to require pretrial arbitration and lawsuits against terrorist states where terrorism occurs outside our Nation's borders is a good idea. But why not go all the way and eliminate this procedural obstacle completely, as does Conyers-Nadler? That is the difference. We are not talking about whether these are good points or bad points. We are talking about which one is better, which one is more complete, how one deals more effectively with antiterrorism. Here is a very compelling example. In Conyers-Nadler- Berman, we have the stronger protections for United States citizens who are the victims of violence in terrorist states like Libya by allowing the suits against the terrorist nations to be brought directly in the United States court. Notice that, please. Mr. Chairman, this is not fine print. This is a huge, enormous difference in dealing with the people that everybody keeps decrying that we have to deal with. This is not rhetoric. We are talking about whose bill is going to be more effective. Currently, Mr. Chairman, the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act prevents suits against foreign governments, even if they sponsor terrorism. This manager's amendment by my friend, the chairman, will allow such suits against foreign terrorists in some instances. We allow it in the U.S. courts in all instances. Please, this is a very important distinction. I therefore, reluctantly, oppose the manager's amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. I do, Mr. Chairman.

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

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds because our distinguished colleague from New York was not on the floor. I want to commend to him Anthony Lewis' op-ed of March 11, 1996, which pointed out how terrorism wins when we undermine the Constitution, and today's New York Times editorial, which is entitled ``The Wrong Answer to Terrorism,'' and I think they were referring to the bill that he champions.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer] who has served as the chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime for many years and is still its ranking member, and a distinguished member of the Committee on the Judiciary. (Mr. SCHUMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)