John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the measure, H.R. 1240, which would direct the U.S. Sentencing Commission to increase penalties for child obscenity violations. This bill does not modify the statutory maximum penalties for these crimes, nor does it create mandatory minimum penalties. It directs the Sentencing Commission, created by the Congress in 1984, to serve as an independent entity within the judicial branch to increase the offense levels for certain crimes involving child obscenity. I want to congratulate the Members of the other side, particularly the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, in working with us to resolve a troubling criminal RICO provision in the bill through a manager's amendment, so that we were able to make this a truly bipartisan measure. RICO would have weighed down and complicated this measure beyond the ability to get the support of some of the Members on this side, had that compromise not been worked out. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that while the Republican majority is giving back what it took away from the fight on child pornography and abuse just 3 weeks ago during so-called commonsense reform, that bill wiped off the books statutes providing for unlimited punitive damages for sexual abuse against children. It was one of the many unforeseen consequences that the House-passed legal reform bill wrought, in the speed that it has hastily passed through both the committee and the House. Therefore, today it is my view that we are back on track in the fight against child sexual abuse. This is an important improvement, and I urge Members of this body to support the measure. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank], who has worked a great deal on the measure.

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

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Hefner]. (Mr. HEFNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS

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

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, it has been a long day. We have had an excellent debate. I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank], our ranking member on the Constitutional Subcommittee, to close the debate for our side.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Flake]. (Mr. FLAKE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Hawaii [Mr. Abercrombie].

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Montana [Mr. Williams].

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Salmon].

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I think that is very interesting because it leaves it wide open. It might have been more settling for the decisions of many of the Members had you put it in one way or the other, but just leaving it to be decided. Griffin Bell was an OK attorney general. I am not sure where he will go down in the record of attorneys general, but at any rate, we see what a slim reed you are using here in this instance and for this part of your amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Minge] who has sought the floor constantly.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. I would like to ask my colleagues, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] if I can gain his attention, please, your proposal before us tonight, the final one, is silent on the question of States' preemption. I presume that that means that there will not be State preemption. Does the gentleman agree with that?

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object we agree to the request, and I withdraw my reservation of objection.

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

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, may I extend to the gentleman my serious congratulations because he is the fourth person who is dedicated enough to impose term limits upon himself. The gentleman is to be congratulated.

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

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I enjoyed the debate on the most mixed up term-limit proposal of all, and that is the one that we are going to vote on in just a few minutes. Why is it mixed up? Well, it says not only will we put a 12-year Federal limitation on, but we will also allow each State to put six, five, four, three, two, one, yes, one term, if they choose, on, and it gives the States, as the gentleman from Florida pointed out, powers that are not presently in the Constitution. I am also delighted to hear the increasing number of Members that realize that the constitutional dodge, which is what all this is tonight, is not going to be adhered to because they are going to voluntarily impose limitations on themselves. And I got up to the magnificent number of three people that I have recorded that have admitted that they would do that. There may be a fourth or a fifth around, I am not sure, and if they are, we want them to identify themselves. I will still be earnestly soliciting the fervent supporters of constitutional amendments to find out who is going to impose it on themselves. You will not have to wait seven years. You will not have to take it through State legislatures. In closing, on polls, the assault weapons ban poll says that there are a lot of people in America that want an assault weapon ban, and it is not stopping about half the Members of this Congress. Vote this amendment down.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am trying to move the debate along as quickly as we can, and I would like to reach across the aisle and yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum], the distinguished member of the Committee on the Judiciary. (Mr. McCOLLUM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Mfume], the distinguished former chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Serrano], a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, with some pleasure, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank], the comanager of this bill and the ranking member of the Constitution Subcommittee.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased now to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin]. (Mr. DURBIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 6 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt], our colleague on the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, this amendment calls for a 12-year national term limit but at the same time allows the States to adopt shorter term limits and then apply them retroactively. Ladies and gentlemen, this is a 12-year term limit that allows each State in the Union to adopt a shorter than 12-year term limit if it so chooses. Do you have any idea what kind of chaos we are suggesting under a term limitation of this nature? It is the most undemocratic and unconstitutional choice of term limits that we could possible make. The Supreme Court will shortly decide the constitutional question of whether the States are prohibited from determining qualifications for Members of Congress, as I believe they are, but Congress should not adopt a proposal as patently undemocratic and unfair as this. This takes the cake. Voters in some term-limits States will be denied the right to elect experienced and effective legislators but those limits may not apply in other States. Do you realize what that would mean in terms of seniority and chairmanships across this Congress if some States would have shorter term limits than other States? I think it would become a nightmare that we would not want to contemplate. Some current Members, then, would gain seniority and others would be unable to. Lack of uniformity means unequal rights. The present Speaker of the House has said that 6 years was not enough time for him to understand what is needed to be an effective Member of this body. But this proposal would allow the States to adopt a 6-year limit, or maybe even a 2-term limit, or maybe, as in Mexico, a 1-term limit. There is no prescription, no prohibition from each State adopting whatever term limit they might choose. Who will be elected to Congress if people who want to devote their careers to public service are discouraged from seeking office? Remember our Judiciary colleague Don Edwards of California who said it best: Term limits would establish a Congress of lame ducks, rich people who could afford to spend a few years away from their life's work, corporation executives sent by their employers for business purposes, and men and women with a single passionately held goal. What is strikingly absent from this list is the person whose public service is marked by commitment to the best ideals of the Nation, who is not captive to special interests and who has gained the experience and expertise to best serve the people who elected him or her to Congress. Term limits is a narrow slogan that offers a ``magic bullet'' solution to a set of concerns that the voters have already resolved through the ballot box by giving the Republicans a majority in Congress and electing new representatives in half the races since 1990. Reject this simplistic and dangerous solution. Vote ``no'' on the Hilleary term limit proposal. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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.)