Henry Hyde

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, of the United States' many formal relationships around the world, our alliance with Australia is among the most important and enduring. This year, we celebrate the 50th anniversary of that alliance, one which I am pleased to say is as strong today as when the ANZUS Treaty was signed half a century ago. But the bonds connecting the United States and Australia are far deeper than those outlined in a simple piece of paper, regardless of its undoubted importance. We share common origins, common political institutions and governing principles, a common commitment to peace and freedom around the world. That commitment was tested many times in the past century, when Australian and U.S. forces fought side by side in a series of conflicts from World War I and World War II to the wars in Vietnam and the Persian Gulf. Many of the fallen share common graves. Today, we recognize not only the past importance of our alliance with Australia but its continuing significance in a new century of unfamiliar challenges and unplumbed dangers. The strength of that alliance was newly demonstrated in the wake of the terrorist attacks on America September 11 when our Australian ally immediately pledged its unconditional support for the United States. That support included the decision by the Australian government to invoke article IV of the ANZUS Treaty which commits both countries to cooperate in responding to an attack. I should note this was the first time that article IV has been jointly invoked in the 50-year history of the ANZUS alliance. In this new century, the United States and Australia will have need of reliable friends and proven allies. The knowledge that we do not face our challenges alone, that we will meet them with steadfast partners such as Australia, is of incalculable importance and reassurance to the United States. It is for these and other reasons that I call up this resolution, recognizing the historic significance of the 50th anniversary of the alliance between Australia and the United States under the ANZUS Treaty. I look forward to the day when we will celebrate the first century of that alliance. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to represent the people of the Village of Glendale Heights, Illinois. On Oct. 4, Village President Linda Jackson and the Village Trustees adopted the following resolution which I am both proud and pleased to bring to the attention of my colleagues: Whereas, in the aftermath of horrifying events of September 11, 2001, the people of the Village of Glendale Heights share the resolve and determination of all Americans as we unite as one nation; Whereas, the people of the Village of Glendale Heights wish to show our solidarity with those who work and live in Washington D.C., our nation's capital, and we salute the heroic efforts of the brave men and women, both civilian and military, who are working to recover and rebuild following the brutal attack which struck at the very heart of our nation; Whereas, the people of the Village of Glendale Heights wish to express our deepest gratitude to our brothers and sisters in the United States Armed Forces for their steadfast courage and dedication as they stand ready to protect and defend our lives and liberty. Now, therefore, be it resolved, by the President and the Board of Trustees of the Village of Glendale Heights, on behalf of all the residents of the Village, as follows: Section 1: That we as a community look to our President and our nation's leadership for guidance and wisdom in this time of uncertainty, and pledge our support to our leaders and our military as we seek to bring justice to those who perpetrated these acts of war on the American people. Section 2: That although Americans are no strangers to casualties of war, we recognize the gravity and magnitude of the terrorist attacks on our own soil at the nation's center of government, designed to destroy our unity and freedom--the very hallmarks of the American Spirit. Section 3: That the people of the Village of Glendale Heights stand up with all Americans to proclaim our unity as a nation, and to assure the world that the tragic events of Sept. 11, 2001, did not destroy us, but rather strengthened our resolve and dedication to the ideals of democracy and freedom upon which this country was built. Section 4: That this Resolution shall be in full force and effect upon its passage and approval in accordance with law. Ayes: Trustees, Pope, Fonte, Tolentino, Giampa, Biondini, Schroeder and President Jackson. Nays: None. Absent: None.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for yielding time; and I want, before I launch into my remarks, to congratulate him and the gentleman from Michigan for a thoroughly professional, workmanlike job in shepherding this complicated bill through the committee. They came out with a wonderful work product despite all of the difficulties and pressures and anxieties. I am very proud of both of them as Members of the House. I do support this bill, but I am disappointed that the process by which it came to the floor has resulted in the omission of a number of antiterrorism measures that are important to the Committee on International Relations and of personal interest to me. In saying this, I direct no criticism to my colleagues on the Committee on the Judiciary. To the contrary, throughout this process there has been excellent cooperation between the Committee on International Relations and the Committee on the Judiciary and between the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), and myself. I especially want to commend the gentleman from California for his patient efforts to work with us and for the bipartisan spirit in which he approached this project. We did not mark up this legislation within the Committee on International Relations, even though we had jurisdiction to do so. Instead, the gentleman from California and I jointly filed an amendment with the Committee on Rules seeking to add provisions to the bill that we believe would have been approved by our committee had we marked up the measure. Our amendment included provisions designed to improve U.S. monitoring of foreign terrorist organizations and of foreign countries that provide direct or indirect support to such organizations. Regrettably, the rule has not made our amendment in order. In addition, our committee on a bipartisan basis proposed a number of refinements to provisions within our jurisdiction that were requested by the administration. These refinements were largely technical in nature, relating to such matters as the vesting of foreign assets under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and the sharing of U.S. visa information with foreign governments. But they were important to us, and we were pleased that the Committee on the Judiciary agreed to include them in their version of this bill. Regrettably, these refinements have also been left out of the bill now before us. Finally, the version of this bill that was approved by the Committee on the Judiciary included three amendments offered by me relating to money laundering, counternarcotics training in Central Asia and other matters. All three of these amendments were omitted from H.R. 3108. I know the gentleman from California joins me in saying that the bill before us is much weaker than it would have been had it included the proposals we developed. I hope to work with him to correct this through separate legislation that we can move quickly through the Committee on International Relations. I hope our colleagues on the Committee on the Judiciary will work with us to expedite our efforts. Again, I congratulate the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos).

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2646, the Farm Security Act of 2001, which authorizes domestic and international agricultural programs that support American farmers and promotes American agricultural products throughout the world. It is important for Congress to support America's family farmers, agricultural industries, commodity packers and shippers, and the millions of Americans who benefit from the multibillion dollar agriculture industry that is the bread basket for the world. I wish to commend Chairman Combest for his leadership in crafting the Farm Security Act and for ensuring that the many complex facets of American agriculture policy are adequately addressed. I am especially pleased that the bi-partisan Farm Security Act does more than ever to promote international relief efforts through the Food for Progress and Food for Peace programs and also makes necessary reforms for these vitally important feeding programs. Indeed, these programs provide much needed food for the world's poor and starving, and are also coupled with sustainable development programs that teach the poor how to farm and increase food production. Title III of H.R. 2646, also authorizes the McGovern-Dole International Food for Education Initiative that provides school lunches for needy boys and girls that attend school throughout the developing world. This is a noble endeavor that I enthusiastically endorse. I am pleased that many farmers, producers, packers and shippers as well not-for-profits, including Catholic Relief Services, support H.R. 2646. I am, however, mindful of the concerns voiced by the President regarding the cost of some of the domestic agricultural programs authorized by H.R. 2646, and share his view that improvements, including the cost of some programs, require additional review. Therefore, it is my goal to have the President's concerns addressed at a House-Senate Conference that reconciles differences between H.R. 2646 and the companion measure of this bill that will be considered by the Senate. I also believe that a shorter authorization period is in the national interest and hope that it will be agreed to during the House- Senate Conference on the bill. Mr. Chairman, while I agree with the President that H.R. 2646 is not a perfect bill and will require modifications in order for the President to sign a final measure and have it enacted into law, I believe that H.R. 2646 serves as a good legislative vehicle to negotiate a bi-partisan agreement in Congress that will address many of the President's understandable objections. Therefore, with these caveats, I intend to support H.R. 2646.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 248) to amend the Admiral James W. Nance and Meg Donovan Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 2000 and 2001, to adjust a condition on the payment of arrearages to the United Nations that sets the maximum share of any United Nations peacekeeping operation's budget that may be assessed of any country.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the Senate bill under consideration.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in strong support of S. 248, a measure urgently requested by the administration. Its enactment will help to ensure that we can pay the second installment of our arrearages to the United Nations in return for continued progress in lowering our assessment ceilings for the U.N. regular budget and for U.N. peacekeeping operations. Our actions on this measure are all the more important in light of the events of September 11. Meeting our financial obligations to the United Nations will help to ensure that our policymakers can keep the focus on broad policies that unite the members of the security council in the fight against global terrorism. Its enactment revises one of the provisions of the underlying U.N. reform legislation, known as the Helms-Biden law, ensuring that we do not accumulate any additional arrears and that our assessed share for the United Nations peacekeeping operations will drop from close to 32 percent to 28 percent. In December of 2000, the U.N. put in place a 6-year plan to reduce our share of U.N. peacekeeping costs, with the result that in 2002, our assessment ceiling will drop to 26.5 percent, with further reductions until it reaches 25 percent in 2006. Our adoption of S. 248 will also ensure that our assessment ceiling for the U.N. regular budget will go from 25 percent to 22 percent, and that other long-term U.N. reform measures are fully implemented. Over the next 10 years, these lower payment ceilings will provide more than $2 billion of savings to the American taxpayer. Enacted in the 106th Congress, the Helms-Biden law authorized a total of $819 million in arrearage payments to the U.N., including $100 million in fiscal year 1998 funds, $475 million in fiscal year 1999 funds, and $244 million in fiscal year 2000. The legislation also allowed an additional $107 million in debt relief of monies owed to the U.S. by the U.N. These payments are only made upon specified certifications by the Department of State that the U.N. has implemented reform benchmarks upon each tranche of funds. Among the certifications for release of the first $100 million authorized under the Helms-Biden legislation are stipulations that the U.N. would not implement any measure violating our Constitution, ceding sovereignty, taxing Americans, creating a standing army, charging the U.S. interest on arrears or exercising control over any U.S. park, monument or property. In December of 1999, this certification was made, and $100 million of fiscal year 1998 funds were paid to the U.N. This legislation would enable the Department of State to pay the second tranche of $475 million, together with the $107 million in debt relief foregone to the U.S., for a total of $582 million, conditional upon a similar certification that our U.N. assessment ceilings are being reduced. I urge the adoption of this measure. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the learned gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I have no additional requests for time; and other than to thank my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), for his usual expeditious treatment of complicated matters, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence). (Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the learned gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus).

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of our time to the distinguished majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey).

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg).

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Committee on Rules. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the learned gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson).

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema). (Mrs. ROUKEMA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan). (Mr. CALLAHAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson). (Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin).

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood). (Mr. NORWOOD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, if adopted, the motion would seek to reimpose on the President the restrictions of the War Powers Resolution with regard to consultation with Congress and will impose new reporting requirements that go well beyond those contained in the War Powers Resolution. This is illogical because the whole point of the joint resolution we are considering this evening is to clear away legal underbrush that might otherwise interfere with the ability of our President to respond to the treacherous attack on our Nation that took place 3 days ago. Most importantly, we are stripping away the restrictions of the War Powers Resolution. It hardly makes sense to reimpose and, in one case, tighten the restrictions of the War Powers Resolution, if our larger purpose is to make it easier for the President to respond to terrorism. In any other case, I might understand and sympathize with the interest of the gentleman in keeping the President on a short leash as he goes about exercising the authority we give him tonight. But this is not any other case. This is a situation in which our Nation has been attacked by a sinister enemy, and thousands of our fellow citizens have been killed. I, for one, do not want to restrain our President as he goes about responding to this heinous attack. Many have compared the attack on Tuesday on our Nation to Pearl Harbor. After Pearl Harbor Congress declared war on Japan. We did not declare war subject to the requirement that President Roosevelt consult with Congress before sending our Armed Forces into action and periodically submit reports to Congress on how he was dealing with Japan. More Americans died on Tuesday than died at Pearl Harbor. Congress should not restrain the response of President Bush to this act of aggression any more than President Roosevelt was restrained in his conduct of World War II. I urge my colleagues to defeat the motion to recommit. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's motion to recommit the pending joint resolution. If adopted, the motion would seek to reimpose on the President the restrictions of the War Powers Resolution with regard to consultation with Congress, and will impose new reporting requirements that go well beyond those contained in the War Powers Resolution. This is illogical, because the whole point of the joint resolution we are considering this evening is to clear away legal underbrush that might otherwise interfere with the ability of our President to respond to the treacherous attack on our nation that took place three days ago. Most importantly, we are stripping away the restrictions of the War Powers Resolution. It hardly makes sense to reimpose--and in one case tighten--the restrictions of the War Powers Resolution if our larger objective is to make it easier for the President to respond to terrorism. In any other case I might understand and sympathize with the gentleman's interest in keeping the President on a short leash as he goes about exercising the authority we give him tonight. But this is not any other case; this is a situation in which our nation has been attacked by a sinister enemy and thousands of our fellow citizens have been killed. I for one do not want to restrain our President as he goes about responding to this heinous attack. Many have compared Tuesday's attack on our nation to Pearl Harbor, After Pearl Harbor, Congress declared war on Japan. We did not declare war subject to the requirement that President Roosevelt consult with Congress before sending our armed forces into action, and periodically submit reports to Congress on how he was dealing with Japan. More Americans died on Tuesday than died at Pearl Harbor. Congress should not restrain President Bush's response to this act of aggression any more than President Roosevelt was restrained in his conduct of World War II. I urge my colleagues to defeat the motion to recommit. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.