John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. I will begin this discussion by asking the gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Trent Franks, this question: Why is this measure limited only to women in the District of Columbia? And I yield to him for a response if he chooses to make one. Then I will now go on with my statement. The majority of this House, conservatives, can think of nothing better to do than to continue to wage a war against women and take up our time with these divisive issues. Here, we face the worst of economic crisis since the 1930s. So this is another attempt, yet another attempt, to undermine women's basic reproductive rights with appeals to ideology rather than to sound science. Every pregnancy is unique and different, and, unfortunately, some women face difficult and emotionally devastating decisions in the course of their pregnancy that would require them to consider abortion as a health option. So we gather here this afternoon to recognize that this legislation is not needed, is opposed by the Nation's leading civil rights organizations, including: the Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health, the Center for Reproductive Rights, NARAL Pro-Choice America, the National Abortion Federation, the American Civil Liberties Union, and Catholics for Choice. With that opening, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I would remind the gentlelady that we have jurisdiction over the District of Columbia, but we do not have the prerogative to produce unconstitutional programs for them like H.R. 3803. I now yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York, Jerrold Nadler, the former chairman of the Constitution Committee of the Judiciary.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, how much time is left?

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, may I remind the previous speaker that women's doctors know a lot more about this subject matter than Members of Congress. And now with great pleasure I yield 1 minute to the Honorable Ted Deutch from Florida, a member of the House Judiciary Committee.

Mr. CONYERS. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased now to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney), a senior Member of the Congress.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 2 minutes to the former chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, Barbara Lee of Oakland, California.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am proud now to recognize the delegate from Washington, D.C., an excellent Member of this body, Eleanor Holmes Norton, for as much time as she may consume.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. May I inform my colleagues that the Planned Parenthood organization will score today's vote, as will NARAL Pro-Choice America score today's vote. Now, Members, let no one be fooled, no matter what title you want to give the measure that's before us, it is a direct assault against the Supreme Court ruling in Roe v. Wade and represents another line of attack against women's reproductive rights. That's why there are so many women's organizations that are opposed to it and have been. The measure imposes an outright ban on abortions before viability, even where a woman's health may be at risk. Do we really want to support that kind of legislation? In cases where a woman's life is endangered, it still requires a doctor to focus on the health of the fetus. Furthermore, this measure will jeopardize a women's health, her ability to have children in the future, and in the case of rape and incest would force her to bear her abuser's child. Amazingly, the bill even fails to include an exception for young girls who are survivors of rape and incest. When the American people expect us to focus on putting people back to work, as former Chairman Nadler remarked, this committee again plays politics with women's health. Don't support this measure. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. CONYERS. I yield myself 1 minute. Ladies and gentlemen of the House, when the American people expect us to focus on putting people back to work, we find ourselves again playing politics with women's health, pandering to the most radical interest groups, and wasting time on divisive social issues, which to some may be good politics, but I would caution my colleagues to remember why we've been sent here. This war against women cannot continue. The middle class is fighting for its life, workers struggling, and yet we're again putting on this show for the extreme conservatives with an unconstitutional bill that has no chance of becoming law. In fact, for those who are keeping count, this is the second time the majority has brought up a bill restricting access to abortion under a special procedure requiring a two-thirds vote.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield our remaining time to the distinguished delegate from Washington, D.C., Eleanor Holmes Norton.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), the ranking member of the Small Business Committee.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Could I begin by asking the distinguished chairman of the House Judiciary Committee this following inquiry: Is it not true that the United States of America has less regulation than almost any other industrialized country in the Western Hemisphere? I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from Texas to respond.

Mr. CONYERS. Well, the gentleman is welcome. His answer is no, he doesn't know. And I'm going to, in the course of this debate, try to share with him the fact that other industrialized nations have far more regulations than us, just to put things into some kind of relative proportion. Members of the House of Representatives, Joseph Stiglitz has talked about the subject of regulation. Here is something that he had to say about it that I think will set us in the right frame of mind to examine dispassionately the principle that is under examination this afternoon. He said this: The subject of regulation has been one of the most contentious, with critics arguing that regulations interfere with the efficiency of the market, and advocates arguing that well-designed regulation not only makes markets more efficient, but also helps to ensure the market outcome is more equitable. Interestingly, as the economy plunges into a slowdown, if not a recession, with more than 2 million Americans expected to lose their homes, there is a growing consensus there was a need for more government regulation. If it is the case that better regulations could have prevented or even mitigated the downturn, the country and the world will be paying a heavy price for the failure to regulate adequately, and the social costs are no less grave, as hundreds of thousands of Americans will not only have lost their homes, but their lifetime savings as well. And so the measure before us, H.R. 4078, by stopping or delaying rules from going into effect, seriously jeopardizes the safety and the soundness of our Nation's economy and our society generally. Another fundamental problem with this proposal is that it myopically focuses on the cost of regulations while largely ignoring their overwhelming benefits. So this measure, with its misleadingly short title, will not result in creating jobs for one simple reason: there is no credible evidence establishing that regulations have any substantive impact on job creation. With that, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I direct an inquiry to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble) to ask him if he is aware of the fact that the Obama administration has accomplished and accumulated net benefits of regulations in the last 3 fiscal years that exceed $91 billion? This comes from the Office of Management and Budget, and it's more than 25 times the net benefits of regulations issued by the Bush administration for a comparable period of time. I would yield to the distinguished gentleman for a response.

Mr. CONYERS. Are you telling me that the freeze will be helpful to creating jobs? Are you telling me in response to my question that the freeze will be helpful to create jobs? I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. CONYERS. But do you accept the Office of Management and Budget's findings that the benefits of regulations by the current administration in the last 3 fiscal years exceeded $91 billion?

Mr. CONYERS. You may not. You're not able to yield because I yielded to you. So you don't know?

Mr. CONYERS. Well, I just wanted to ask the gentleman. I didn't mean to make this as prolonged as it has become, but I don't think his response of a freeze was an adequate response to my question.

Mr. CONYERS. I thank the gentleman for his attempted response. I would now like to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from upstate New York, Ms. Kathy Hochul, who serves with great distinction on the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may consume to ask the distinguished member of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Tim Griffin of Arkansas, if he is aware that the President, as he's correctly stated, supports regulation as a general principle but that he opposes very strongly H.R. 4078, the Regulatory Freeze for Jobs Act of 2012? I would yield to the gentleman for a response.

Mr. CONYERS. Well, if I could interrupt the gentleman, this is not about what your opinion is or mine. I'm asking you about the President's opinion. The President, as you quite accurately said, is supportive of regulation, but he is specifically opposed to this regulation, and I would like to quote to you exactly what he said about H.R. 4078: The bill would undermine critical public health and safety protections, introduce needless complexity and uncertainty in agency decisionmaking, and interfere with agency performance of statutory mandates. Now, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Miller), an outstanding member of the Financial Services Committee.