John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. CONYERS. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman and Members, I rise in support of this amendment with my colleagues Mr. Ellison of Minnesota and Ms. Lee of California. Our amendment would require the Director of National Intelligence to submit to the congressional Intelligence Committee within 60 days a report containing an analysis of the potential consequences of a military strike against Iran. In recent months, the possibility of a preemptive military strike against Iran has been openly discussed as a policy option of last resort as our country and our allies determine how best to confront the challenge posed by Iran's nuclear program. At the same time, the national discussion has prompted a large number of current and former military and intelligence officials to come forward to encourage the Congress and the administration to consider the possible consequences both intended and others that may be unintended of such a strike. These high-level officials include former United States and Israeli national security officials, including a former Bush administration National Intelligence Council chairman, a former National Intelligence officer for the Near East and South Asia, General Colin Powell's former chief of staff, five retired generals, the former director of the Israeli Mossad, and a former chief of staff of the Israel Defense Forces. All of these experts have raised concerns that an attack on Iran could possibly result in serious harm to the global economy, potentially ignite a regional war and even push Iran into building a nuclear weapon. With consequences as serious as these being raised by outside and former national security experts, it is critical that the expertise and collective wisdom of our intelligence community be added to this debate so that our country's policy options involving war and peace can be rigorously examined by this body. For these reasons, I encourage my colleagues to support my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the ranking member and the chairman of the Intelligence Committee for their concern about this phase of intelligence, and I hope to enjoy their support and the support of the committee as a whole in having this amendment added to the work that is going on here today. I urge support of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS

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

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Members of the House, I want to thank the leadership on the other side for requiring that the chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, the gentleman from Arizona, drop ``race'' from this Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act, so-called. So it's now just sex selection. This is the latest in a long series of measures intended to chip away at a woman's right to seek safe and legal medical care. It tramples the rights of women under the guise of nondiscrimination while doing absolutely nothing to provide women with the needed resources so that their babies--female and male--can come into the world healthy, and so that both mother and child can thrive. I am grateful that the proponents of this bill have stopped making the ridiculous charge that I used to hear, that reproductive freedom is worse than slavery, and invoking at the same time the name of the great abolitionist leader Frederick Douglass in the service of their cause. It was deeply offensive, and I'm glad that we won't have to listen to that anymore. Mr. Speaker, at this point, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to yield as much time as he may consume to the ranking member of the Constitution Subcommittee, the distinguished gentleman from New York, Jerry Nadler.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia, Hank Johnson, a distinguished member of the House Judiciary Committee.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished physician, the gentleman from Washington, the Honorable Dr. McDermott. (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the former chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, the gentlewoman from Oakland, California, Barbara Lee.

Mr. CONYERS. I yield the gentlelady 1 additional minute.

Mr. CONYERS. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would just like to remind my colleagues that from the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, we have this warning: We oppose this bill because it does not in any way adjust discrimination on the basis of sex or race. Rather, it is a veiled attempt to restrict health care for women of color under the guise of civil rights. This is the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. This bill tramples the rights of women under the guise of nondiscrimination while doing absolutely nothing to provide women with needed resources for their babies, female and male, so they can come into this world healthy and so both the mother and the child can thrive. This measure before us does absolutely nothing to empower women to make important life choices free from any family or community pressures they now face either to have an abortion, or to carry the pregnancy to term. In fact, it fails to employ the tested solutions that will reduce the pressures brought to bear on women to have sons. Experience around the world has shown that supporting women, providing them with tools to become independent and to be safe from violence, rather than criminal prohibitions, helps them resist the pressures of son preference. International organizations such as the United Nations Population Fund, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, the United Nations Children's Fund, United Nations Women, and the World Health Organization have all said that abortion restrictions are not the solution because they put women's health and lives at risk and violate their human and reproductive rights. Please, join us and these organizations who are familiar with the phenomenon of son preference and oppose H.R. 3541. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Ladies and gentlemen of the House, if this measure is passed into law, we would then require that medical and mental health professionals violate doctor-patient confidentiality and report ``known or suspected violations'' of the law to law enforcement authorities. The penalty for failure to report would be a fine or incarceration. Now, it is not by accident, Members of the House, that this measure is opposed by these outstanding organizations: the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists; American Public Health Association; Association of Reproductive Health Professionals; American Society for Reproductive Medicine; Medical Students for Choice; National Abortion Federation; National Association of Nurse Practitioners in Women's Health; National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association; Physicians for Reproductive Health and Choice; and Planned Parenthood Federation of America. Now, this is something that would chill communications between doctors and patients because doctors might hear something that would put them at risk for criminal prosecution, and patients because they would fear that their conversations with their doctors would not remain private. And so what we're doing here is taking the most drastic step that would cause these nine organizations to oppose this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. CONYERS. I thank the author of the amendment, and I join with him in it because, ladies and gentlemen, the administration policy up till now has been quite clear: drones pursue specific individuals who appear on a target list maintained by the CIA and initiate attacks only when drone operators are confident that the individual being targeted is a terrorist on that list. What this amendment attempts to ensure is that the missile strikes being used by the CIA or the Joint Special Operations Command are targeting actual terrorists that pose a threat to our national security and not against civilians who may look suspicious to a drone operator operating thousands of miles away. What I am saying is merely that a new and expanded drone policy that allows for indiscriminate missile strikes against supposedly suspicious individuals obviously increases the risk of civilian death and risks inflaming an already powerful anti-American sentiment abroad. Ladies and gentlemen, this policy will not make us any safer. It will do just the opposite. I encourage my colleagues to support our amendment so that the Congress ensures that accountability and a measure of precision and due process are retained as critical components of our country's drone policy.

Mr. CONYERS. I thank the gentlelady from California, and I appreciate that ending America's longest war--over 10 years--is not an unreasonable notion, because there is a serious misunderstanding going on about this amendment on the other side. Withdrawing United States troops does not mean we're abandoning Afghanistan. Please, there's a difference. There are other ways that we can continue to develop the diplomatic and political solutions that can't be won at gunpoint. Don't you get it? If we're leaving in 2014, we're just saying let's speed it up; let's begin a rational withdrawal. And we have a responsibility to keep a commitment to Afghanistan. It doesn't mean troops. It doesn't mean our military has to die.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am joined on this amendment by my colleague from Minnesota, Mr. Keith Ellison. This amendment is simple in that it merely terminates the most expensive weapons system of the Department of Defense in its history, that is, terminating the F 35B Joint Strike Fighter. Well, why? Well, because there are many other planes that have capabilities that rival the F 35B and yet cost far less to buy and operate. Our amendment would save $50 billion over the life of this program. The termination of this program has been recommended by so many groups. I will mention a few: The Project on Government Oversight, Taxpayers for Common Sense, the Cato Institute, the Center for American Progress, the Public Interest Research Group, the National Taxpayers Union, our colleague Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, and the Bowles- Simpson Commission. Please join us in a very simple idea. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my cosponsor of the amendment, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).

Mr. CONYERS. I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes. An incredible number of organizations and people, both Democratic and Republican Members of the House and Senate, have called the F 35B program a scandal and a tragedy--and that is quoting the senior Senator from Arizona, Senator McCain--and Under Secretary Frank Kendall has referred to the process of developing and producing the F 35 as ``acquisition malpractice.'' And then, even worse, the serious performance issues that caused in 2010 Secretary Gates to stop production and place the program on 2 years probation. And according to the Department's figures, the F 35B has driven cost overruns and is directly responsible for scheduled delays in the overall development program. And it isn't even qualified to participate in close air support mission for the Marine Corps' need. It's far too vulnerable for this role, which requires low, slow flying. The Marines would be much better served to utilize the Army's excess A 10s, which have a far superior range and payload capability.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to remind my colleagues on the other side that the 200 or 300 organizations and people that oppose this bill supported the previous legislation. Now, come on. At this point, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California, Zoe Lofgren, a senior member of the committee.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 4970, the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act, because it is a title that does not represent what it ought to underneath. We've had these kinds of incidents before. In the past, we've always been able to set aside partisan differences and work together to protect the most vulnerable women of our society, abused and battered women. Today, unfortunately, this bill sets aside 20 years of bipartisan progress in our efforts to protect these women. The bill, as amended by the manager's amendment, rolls back existing protections for battered immigrant women. It fails to include provisions from the bipartisan Senate-passed bill--which all the women in the Senate voted for--which protect native women's lives by authorizing limited tribal criminal domestic violence. It eliminates the language from the bipartisan Senate-passed bill that would help lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender victims of domestic violence receive Violence Against Women Act services without facing additional discrimination. Now, I'm going to reserve my time here, but I want to just point this out: there are more than 300 organizations--women's organizations, law enforcement organizations, church organizations--that have registered their opposition to H.R. 4970 for the reason that I've suggested. The National Organization for Women, the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, the National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence Against Women, the American Civil Liberties Union, more than 20 faith-based leaders of organizations, the National Congress of American Indians, and it goes on and on, police chiefs, captains, detectives, lieutenants and prosecutors. I urge my colleagues to stand up for all victims of domestic violence and oppose this dangerous proposal that is on the floor today. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, Mr. Nadler has agreed to permit Dale Kildee, the gentleman from Michigan, because of an emergency, to be recognized out of order for 1 minute.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I would like to yield to the gentlewoman from California, Lucille Roybal-Allard, for a unanimous consent request. (Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to a senior member of the committee, the gentleman from New York, Jerrold Nadler.