Henry Hyde

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) for his generous comments as always. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella).

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1248, the Violence Against Women Act of 2000, and I salute the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) for her leadership on this issue. I know all of us in Congress are concerned with violence perpetrated against women; and tragically, it continues to be a serious national problem that takes various forms, including domestic battery, stalking, rape, and murder. This legislation strengthens the ability of local communities to respond effectively to such crimes. Sadly, most of us committed to the fight against domestic violence know the facts all too well: nearly one in every three adult women experiences at least one physical assault by a partner during adulthood; 5 million date rapes and physical assaults are perpetrated against women annually. While in general, crime rates are down, domestic violence remains a serious problem in our society, occurring in all communities and crossing ethnic, racial, age, and socioeconomic lines. The national toll that such violence takes on women, families, and children is incalculable. It diminishes us all. Since its inception in 1994, Congress has appropriated more than $1.5 billion in Violence Against Women Act funding for State and local law enforcement agencies, as well as for education, prevention, and outreach programs. Violence Against Women Act programs have aided the prosecution of domestic violence, sexual assault, and child abuse cases across the country, and have increased victims services, like domestic violence shelters for women. I am pleased that the House is acting today in a bipartisan fashion and will be the first body in Congress to pass reauthorization legislation, because the authorization for these vital programs expires at the end of this fiscal year, just 4 days from now. Mr. Speaker, I do want it to be clear, even if we have not ironed out our differences with the Senate's Violence Against Women Act reauthorization bill by the end of the fiscal year, funding will continue. It remains a priority of this Congress, which is why we have held hearings on the bill, strengthened it as it moved through the committee, and are here on the floor today to pass it. Mr. Speaker, key programs reauthorized in this legislation include grant funding for State and local law enforcement and prosecutors to combat violence against women, shelters for victims, the national domestic violence hotline, and rape prevention efforts. Additional initiatives have been authorized aimed at preventing domestic violence and sexual assault against older and disabled individuals, meeting the civil legal assistance and transitional housing needs of victims and establishing a task force to minimize overlapping Federal efforts to address domestic violence. In short, this bill is a balanced and comprehensive effort to enhance the ability of States and localities to prevent and combat violence against women. When I am asked about my commitment to Violence Against Women Act and where that fits into the congressional crime agenda, my answer is simple: violence against women is a crime. It is wrong. It should be punished severely, and we have a responsibility to develop and fund community-based efforts to prevent it. We must continue to support comprehensive community-based efforts to keep victims safe and hold offenders accountable, and reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act programs through passage and enactment of H.R. 1248 will further efforts to do just that. This is a bill all Members, both Republicans and Democrats, can enthusiastically support and be proud in so doing. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 1248, as amended.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran).

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass), the great granite State.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn), who has been a leader in this struggle for women's rights.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly).

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5234) to amend the Hmong Veterans' Naturalization Act of 2000 to extend the applicability of that Act to certain former spouses of deceased Hmong veterans.

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

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, earlier this year Congress enacted legislation facilitating naturalization for Hmong veterans who were admitted to the United States as refugees. Recruited to assist our combat effort in Indochina, the Hmong had made great sacrifices on our behalf and faced persecution because of their association with us. Many Hmong in the United States today continue to face unique language problems that can be traced to the fact that they grew up in a predominantly preliterate society without educational opportunities. By enacting Public Law 106-207, the Hmong Veterans Naturalization Act of 2000, this Congress very appropriately sought to remove insurmountable obstacles to citizenship by providing an exemption from the English language requirement and authorizing special consideration relating to the civics requirement. The potential beneficiaries, Hmong veterans and spouses who came to the United States as refugees, were limited to 45,000. The bill before us today corrects an omission in Public Law 106-207's description of spouses without raising the ceiling on total potential beneficiaries. Under H.R. 5234, surviving spouses of Hmong who served with special guerrilla units or irregular forces and were killed or died in Laos, Thailand or Vietnam can qualify for facilitated naturalization. The equities in favor of helping these widows certainly are as great as the equities in favor of helping widows who already benefit from Public Law 106-207, namely, those whose husbands were able to apply for refugee status and make it to the United States. The widows in both groups are living permanently in this country after having been admitted as refugees. The surviving spouses we seek to help now, like the widows who benefitted from Public Law 106-207, are survivors of those who made common cause with us at great personal peril to themselves and their families. I commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Radanovich) for introducing this important bill and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Vento), the author of the bill that became Public Law 106-207 and the cosponsor of H.R. 5234, who also deserves great credit for his tireless efforts on behalf of the Hmong over the years. This is a humane measure that merits the support of my colleagues. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor to talk about energy policy, a subject that has been much in the news in recent days. Crude oil supplies are tight, and we expect prices of all the various petroleum products to rise in the coming weeks. Some may ask why should the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary speak on this subject? In short, OPEC presents a classic antitrust problem that does not lend itself to antitrust solutions. What then should we do? First, I want to suggest that the policy measures that have been advanced in recent days will not help for long. We must realize that our problem is not a temporary one, it is deep, it is structural and it is getting worse. Currently, we import more than 50 percent of the crude oil we use, and that number has been steadily increasing. So long as we allow that situation to persist, it will gravely threaten our national security and our way of life. So far we have been relatively lucky, but there is no reason to believe we will always have the same luck. Last Friday, the Clinton-Gore administration decided to release 30 million barrels of crude oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in an effort to lower prices. The idea is that the government will set oil prices. This from an administration that admitted it had been caught napping on oil prices last February. We established the Strategic Petroleum Reserve for national security reasons, to tide us over when there was a serious disruption in supply. At this point, there is no disruption at all. Prices are simply high because supply is tight. I do not like that, I wish they were lower, but tight supply is one thing and a disrupted supply is another. So the reserve was not meant to be a government price management tool. Apart from that consideration, will this move succeed in lowering prices? I am not an economist, and I do not know what effect releasing a day and a half's supply of oil into the market over a month will have, but common sense would suggest that, holding all other things equal, it probably will reduce prices for a short time. But in a dynamic world, who knows whether all other things will remain equal. For example, why would OPEC simply not cut its production by a corresponding amount? Meanwhile, our buffer against a true disruption is lessened by a day and a half's supply during that time. How will we feel about that if Iraq decides to invade Kuwait again? However, as the administration has stressed, this is a swap deal. Oil companies that take the oil will have to replace it with more at some future date. If that comes to pass, I will certainly be glad that we have more oil in the reserve. But what effect will removing that replacement oil have on market prices? If releasing 30 million barrels into the market will drop prices now, does it not stand to reason that removing more than 30 million barrels in the future will raise prices then? To put it in medical terms, this release is, at best, a temporary pain reliever that does nothing to cure the underlying disease. Indeed, it may well worsen our pain in a very short time. What then do I propose? We must have a national energy policy that includes increased domestic energy production consistent with reasonable environmental guidelines, increased domestic refining and transportation capacity consistent with reasonable environmental guidelines, increased diplomatic pressure on foreign nations that produce oil, increased energy efficiency of engines and generation facilities, increased use of renewal energy sources throughout our economy, and a reformed excise tax structure. We can do all of this, and we can overcome this problem. But these things that I have mentioned cut across the jurisdictions of lots of congressional committees and government agencies. They affect a lot of people and a lot of businesses. Because of that, we need sustained committed Presidential leadership. Only a comprehensive national energy policy can solve our problem, and only the President can lead us to that national energy policy. So I am introducing legislation, and have done so today, to call on the President to do that immediately. So what can we do to ease the short-term pain? I think we must repeal the 4.3 cents a gallon deficit reduction tax that the Democrat Congress and administration passed in 1993. Fortunately, we have since ended the deficit. Unfortunately, in 1997, instead of ending this tax, we converted it to the Highway Trust Fund. I understand everyone wants their road projects, but consumers deserve some relief too. It is not a lot, but it will help until we get our long-awaited Presidential leadership. Mr. Speaker, I call on all of my colleagues to support my Energy Independence Through Presidential Leadership Act. It calls on the President to provide immediate action to lead us to a national energy policy, and it gives short-term relief by repealing the deficit reduction tax. Let us forget the bandages and let us cure the disease. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor tonight to talk about energy policy--a subject that has been much in the news in recent days. The subject has been in the news because crude oil supplies are tight, and we expect prices of all the various petroleum products to rise in the coming weeks. Some may ask why should the chairman of the Judiciary Committee speak on this subject? My answer to that is to ask why are world oil supplies tight. World oil supplies are tight because the members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, or OPEC, have agreed among themselves to restrict the supply. They form a classic price fixing conspiracy that violates our antitrust laws. If they were American companies, they would go to jail. Unfortunately, they are sovereign nations, and we cannot reach them under our current law. In short, we have a classic antitrust problem that does not lend itself to antitrust solutions. What then should we do? I know that we are in the middle of a campaign season, and I do not want to make this political. But I do want to suggest why some of the policy measures that have been advanced in recent days will not help. I also want to tell you what I think must be done. The Judiciary Committee has held three days of hearings on this subject this year, and we have learned quite a bit. We must realize that our problem is not a temporary one. It is deep-- it is structural--and it is getting worse. Currently, we import more than 50 percent of the crude oil we use and that number has been steadily increasing. So long as we allow that situation to persist, it will gravely threaten our national security and our way of life. So far, we have been relatively lucky, but there is no reason to believe that we will always have that same luck. So, let's talk about some of the policy initiatives that are under discussion. Last Friday, the Clinton-Gore Administration decided to release 30 million barrels of crude oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in an effort to lower prices. The idea is that the government will set oil prices--this from an administration that admitted that it had been ``caught napping'' on oil prices last February. I was not there when any of these comments were made, but according to press reports, Vice President Gore opposed this strategy last February, Treasury Secretary Summers thought it was a ``dangerous precedent,'' and Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan also opposed it. That is such a distinguished group that I hesitate to add my own thoughts, but let me do so briefly. We established the Strategic Petroleum Reserve for national security reasons--to tide us over when there was a serious disruption in supply. At this point, there is no disruption at all--prices are simply high because supply is tight. I do not like that, I wish they were lower, but a tight supply is one thing and a disrupted supply is another. So the Reserve was not meant to be a government price management tool. Apart from that consideration, will this move succeed in lowering prices? I am not an economist, and I do not know what effect of releasing a day and half's supply of oil into the market over a month will have. Common sense would suggest that, holding all other things equal, it probably will reduce prices for a short time. But, in a dynamic world, who knows whether all other things will remain equal? For example, why wouldn't OPEC simply cut its production by a corresponding amount? Meanwhile, our buffer against a true disruption is lessened by a day and a half's supply during that time. How will we feel about that if Iraq decides to invade Kuwait again? However, as the Administration has stressed, this is a swap deal. Oil companies that take the oil will have to replace it with more at some future date. If that comes to pass, I will certainly be glad that we have more oil in the Reserve. But what effect will removing that replacement oil have on market prices? If releasing 30 million barrels into the market will drop prices now, doesn't it stand to reason that removing more than 30 million barrels in the future will raise prices then? To put it in medical terms, this release is at best a temporary pain reliever that does nothing to cure our underlying disease. Indeed, it may well worsen our pain in a very short time. Now, some have suggested that ``Big Oil'' is price gouging. If that is so, then the oil companies must be punished. Last June, Representative Jim Sensenbrenner and I were the first to ask the Federal Trade Commission to investigate this matter. So far, they have not brought any price gouging cases. I do not know what their investigation will ultimately show, but I think we have to be careful about throwing that charge around until we know what the evidence is. Some have suggested that we change the law so that we can sue the foreign nations that make up OPEC. I would not oppose that--it is so emotionally satisfying to say let's sue them. But we have to realize that any such measure is largely symbolic and may lead to worse consequences for us. This is one of the first questions that we asked in our Judiciary Committee hearings and let me just quote what the Federal Trade Commission said in response: A possible enforcement action . . . raises practical questions as to whether jurisdiction can be obtained over OPEC and its member nations, how a factual investigation could be conducted with respect to documents and witnesses located outside the United States, and the nature and enforceability of any remedy. . . . [P]erhaps most importantly, any enforcement action would raise significant diplomatic considerations. A decision to bring an antitrust case against OPEC would involve not only, and perhaps not even primarily, competition policy, but also defense policy, energy policy, foreign policy, and natural resource issues. In particular, any action taken to weaken a sovereign nation's defenses against judicial oversight of competition lawsuits, for example, would have profound implications for the United States, which places buying and selling restrictions on myriad products. Consequently, any decision to undertake such a challenge ought to be made at the highest levels of the executive branch, based on careful consideration by the Department of Justice and other relevant agencies. I think that the last point is particularly timely when you consider that just last week the Yugoslavian government began a ``war crimes'' trial against President Clinton and other Western leaders growing out of our bombing of Kosovo. So we have to think about what the consequences of our action will be. When we face the prospect of rising energy prices six weeks before an election, it is tempting to scramble around proposing band-aid solutions like those I have discussed. But they really do not do anything to address the problem. What then do I propose? First, we must acknowledge that this problem is not easy to solve, and it will take commitment and discipline over a significant period of time. We must have a national energy policy that includes: increased domestic energy production consistent with reasonable environmental guidelines, increased domestic refining and transportation capacity consistent with reasonable environmental guidelines, increased diplomatic pressure on foreign nations that produce oil, increased energy efficiency of engines and generation facilities, increased use of renewable energy sources throughout our economy, and a reformed excise tax structure. We have oil in Alaska and other places that we can use. Much of the home heating oil problem arise not from a lack of oil, but a lack of refining capacity. Refining capacity lags because environmental and other regulations make it almost impossible to build new refineries. I an confident that we can reconcile these things with reasonable environmental guidelines. Let me quote from a recent statement on advanced oil drilling technology: ``advanced technology has led to fewer dry holes, smaller drilling `footprints,' more productive wells, and less waste. All of these advances have contributed to a cleaner environment, and even greater benefits are possible. . . . We have only scratched the surface of what is possible--and of what technological improvements can do to benefit the energy security and environmental quality for future generations.'' You might think that this statement comes from ``Big Oil.'' In fact, it comes from the Clinton-Gore Administration's own Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy just a year ago. In that same vein, we heard testimony in the Judiciary Committee about the great advances that are being made in making more efficient engines and generation facilities. We are well along in this field, and we just need to make the changeover. We also need to look around us: the sun, the wind, and the waters are free and renewable. OPEC cannot take them from us. We must develop these energy sources. We can do all of this, and we can overcome this problem. But these things that I have mentioned cut across the jurisdictions of lots of congressional committees and government agencies. They affect a lot of people and businesses. Because of that, we need sustained, committed presidential leadership. Only a comprehensive national energy policy can solve our problem, and only the President of the United States can lead us to that national energy policy. So I am introducing legislation to call on the President to do that immediately. But candidly I do not expect that we are going to get much leadership in the waning days of the Clinton-Gore Administration. So what can we do to ease the short term pain? I think we must repeal the 4.3 cents a gallon deficit reduction tax that the Democrat Congress and Administration passed in 1993. Fortunately, we have since ended the deficit. Unfortunately, in 1997, instead of ending this tax, we converted it to the Highway Trust Fund. I understand that everyone wants their road projects, but consumers deserve some relief. It's not a lot, but it will help until we get our long awaited presidential leadership. So, Mr. Speaker, I call on all of my colleagues to support my ``Energy Independence through Presidential Leadership Act.'' It calls on the President of the United States to provide immediate action to lead us to a national energy policy and it gives short term relief by repealing the deficit reduction tax. Let's forget the bandages and cure the disease.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow the President of the United States will sign into law the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, S. 2869. I would like to submit for the Record a document prepared by the Christian Legal Society describing zoning conflicts between churches and cities which have come to light since subcommittee hearings on the subject: Recent Land-Use Cases ``In the last 10 years, zoning conflicts between churches and cities have become a leading church-state issue. Disputes have arisen over church soup kitchens or homeless shelters in suburbs, expansion of church facilities, parking squeezes on Sunday, breaches of noise ordinances or disagreements on what kind of meetings the zoning permits. Growing churches that seek new land to relocate often cannot win zoning approvals in the face of public protest over traffic.'' Joyce Howard Price, Portland church ordered to limit attendance, Washington Times, February 18, 2000.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5062) to establish the eligibility of certain aliens lawfully admitted for permanent residence for cancellation of removal under section 240A of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

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

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 5062, the bill under consideration.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, with great pleasure I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), the very distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration of the House Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 made long-needed reforms to our laws governing the deportation of criminal aliens. The act put an end to criminal aliens' indefinitely delaying their deportations through endless appeals and put an end to serious criminals such as rapists being granted relief from deportation. The results are clear and gratifying. The number of criminal aliens deported by the INS has gone up dramatically since enactment of the act. Our neighborhoods are safer, especially immigrant neighborhoods, which have always borne the brunt of crime committed by aliens. One aspect of the 1996 act has, however, led to a number of deportations that strike many, including myself, as unfair. The act broadened the definition of crimes which are considered aggravated felonies for which no relief from deportation is available. The hardship has come about because this change was made retroactively. The new definition of aggravated felony applies to crimes whenever committed. Thus, aliens who committed crimes years before enactment of the 1996 act, crimes not considered aggravated felonies when committed, have become deportable as aggravated felons. Now, retroactive application of the law is the exception and not the rule, in the Committee on the Judiciary, for obvious reasons of notice and fairness. In addition, in some cases aliens have clearly rehabilitated themselves in the intervening years since committing their crimes, are no longer a threat to society and have started families. In these cases deportation seems an extreme remedy. Now, these hardship cases, in my opinion, could have been resolved if the INS had utilized its inherent power of prosecutorial discretion. The INS could have decided not to pursue deportation where the facts called out for forbearance. However, the INS has failed to do so. In fact, until recently the agency refused to admit it even had prosecutorial discretion. Given this reality, it seems wise for Congress to step in and take action. H.R. 5062, introduced by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), does so in a prudent and responsible manner. Under current law, legal permanent residents may apply for cancellation of removal if they have committed deportable acts. To ask for such relief, they must have been legal permanent residents for 5 years, have continuously resided in the U.S. for 7 years and not have committed any offense classified as an aggravated felony. H.R. 5062 provides that offenses committed before 1996 that became classified as aggravated felonies in 1996, except for rape or sexual abuse of a minor, would not bar cancellation of removal. Under the bill, legal permanent residents already removed because of such offenses could reopen their removal proceedings to apply for cancellation of removal. It is in the Attorney General's sole and unreviewable discretion whether to grant cancellation of removal in particular cases. H.R. 5062 makes one more change in the law to carry out our intent. For the purpose of qualifying for cancellation of removal, the 1996 reforms terminated periods of continuous residence as of the date of commission of a deportable offense. Legal permanent residents who have been here for many years thus could not benefit from cancellation of removal, even if it was otherwise available to them, because deportable offenses they committed in past years now prevent them from accumulating the required residence time. H.R. 5062 provides that deportable offenses committed before the 1996 reforms no longer terminate periods of continuous residence for legal permanent residents. Legal permanent residents already removed because of retroactive application of the stop time rule could reopen their removal proceedings to apply for cancellation of removal. I urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 5062. Enactment of this bill will make a meritorious correction without endangering the success of the 1996 bill's thrust against crime. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, please permit me to share with my colleagues the tremendous work of a half-dozen young men and women who live in my District. Each year, my office in cooperation with numerous junior and senior high schools in Northern Illinois sponsor an essay writing contest. A board, chaired by Vivian Turner, a former principal of Blackhawk Junior High School in Bensenville, IL, chooses a topic, and evaluates results of the submitted essays. Winners share more than $1,000 in scholarship funds. This year, Robert Arroyo, a student at Immanuel Lutheran School in Elmhurst, placed first in the Junior High Division with an essay entitled Just as American as Apple Pie, a text of which I include in the Record. Placing second in the Junior High Division is Bethany Bredehoft, a student at Immanuel Lutheran School in Elmhurst; and Liz Juranek, a student at Algonquin Middle School in Des Plaines, placed third. In the Senior High Division, Kate Brenan, a student at Driscoll Catholic High School in Addison, placed first with her essay entitled Rule of Law, a text of which I include in the Record. Steven Pyter, a student at Lake Park High School in Roselle, placed second; and John Fennell, a student at Driscoll Catholic High School in Addison, placed third. (By Robert Arroyo) Just as American as Apple Pie Being a responsible citizen is just as American as apple pie. A good apple pie has a firm, moist, brown, crust surrounding a sweet filling of sliced apples with cinnamon, topped with a cool scoop of ice cream. A good citizen is surrounded by important freedoms called civil rights. They include freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, and trial by jury. An American citizen has the right to vote for the President and members of Congress and to run for government office himself. A U.S. citizen has the right to own things, live where he wants, go to a good school, and travel throughout the United States. Our government protects and supports its citizens like an apple pie is protected and supported by its crust. In return, we must be responsible citizens just as the apple pie has a sweet, spicy fruit inside it for us to enjoy. A responsible citizen knows what his government is doing. He tries to find out what is happening. He reads newspapers. He watches and listens to the news on television and radio. A responsible citizen knows the names of the president and vice president of the United States and their duties as well as the governor of his state and his duties. A responsible citizen also knows the head of the government for his city, town and county along with their duties. A responsible citizen must keep informed on what is going on around him. Then be must exercise his right to vote by making responsible choices when he elects government officials. Every responsible citizen knows ``The Star-Spangled Banner,'' our national anthem, as well as ``The Pledge of Allegiance'' to the flag. When a citizen pledges allegiance to his flag, he promises loyalty and devotion to his nation. Each word has a deep meaning. If the United States is called to war, a responsible citizen may be called to serve in the armed forces or help out to the best of his ability on the home front. A responsible citizen must obey the laws of the land as well as the laws of the state, city and county. Every responsible citizen must drive safely and never drive drunk. He respects the rights of others and the property of others. He does not do drugs, and he helps the police by reporting any suspicious persons hanging around the neighborhood. The police and other law enforcement agencies need help. They cannot fight crime unless everyone works together to help them. Another way to be a responsible citizen is by paying one's taxes. Our tax money provides us with teachers, firemen, policemen, and the armed forces. Better roads, schools, libraries, and parks are built from tax money. Some of our tax money also goes to help those less fortunate than we are. That is why a responsible citizen must always pay his fair share of taxes. Being a responsible citizen means other things, too. A responsible citizen helps to conserve America's natural resources and to keep America beautiful. Every citizen can take part in cleaning up the community, planting trees, and saving water and energy at home. Now we are ready for that cool scoop of ice cream on our apple pie. Being kind and understanding toward our fellow citizens is just like the topping on an apple pie because it adds that final caring touch. Therefore, a responsible citizen will volunteer to help other people whenever possible in his family, school, and community.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I am a strong supporter of this excellent bipartisan legislation, H.R. 4678. I want to commend the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), the ranking member, for his work on this important issue. I want to especially congratulate the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) who has been a relentless and effective fighter for child support issues. I am very proud to be a small part of this excellent legislation and which proves that legislation of substance can be bipartisan. I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4678, the Child Support Distribution Act of 2000 and in support of the work of Chairwoman Johnson in assuring that our children receive the child support that they deserve. Too many defenseless children are victimized by parents who do not support their children. Think of it: our most important resource--our nation's children--are often left without food or the basic necessities they need due to their parents' refusal to support them. These children, hungry and without money for support, are then forced to turn to the government for assistance when they are abandoned by their non- custodial parents. There are two types of child support payments: current support and past due support, or arrearages. H.R. 4678 primarily deals with arrearages and the question of who keeps the collections: the family or the government. Previously, when a family left welfare, the government was able to retain all payments on past due support. The 1996 welfare reform law required the government to split the arrearages with the family. Due to the overwhelming number of families who have since left welfare to work, this legislation now will require that the other half be paid to the families. This way, the maximum amount of child support payments will be going directly to a family for their support. If a family is still on welfare, a state has the option to share collections with the family. However, while H.R. 4678 provides for simplified rules for the review, collection and enforcement of support orders, I wish that we could have gone further. I believe that the duty of paying child support to one's child is as important as the duty to one's country to pay taxes. I introduced legislation this Congress, H.R. 1488, that would require the IRS to collect child support in the same manner that taxes are collected. The child support collected would then be disbursed to the custodial parent with penalties and interest if appropriate. This approach is not possible at this time. H.R. 4678 is a good step in the right direction. It improves our current system of enforcement and distribution to those who need it the most, while promoting financial and personal responsibility. This ultimately curbs welfare dependency. This vote is a vote for our children. Every child deserves to be supported, and this is Congress' chance to pass a law that will be for the kids' sake. I'd like to congratulate Chairwoman Johnson and Ranking Member Cardin for their leadership and dedication to this issue, and I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, on June 19th of this year my dear friend James C. Kirie died. He was 89 years old and had lived a full and productive life of service to his community, his State and Nation. The Chicago Sun-Times printed the following article about Jim's life: [From the Chicago Sun-Times, June 20, 2000] James Kirie; First Held Office at 21 (By Curtis Lawrence) For nearly 70 years, Leyden Township Democratic Committeeman James C. Kirie did what was seemingly the only thing he knew to do--commit his life to public service. ``If I had my life to do over again, and I was to weigh my life against being in politics or not being in politics, I think I would do exactly what I did,'' Mr. Kirie once told the late University of Illinois at Chicago Professor Milton Rakove. Mr. Kirie died Monday morning at Evanston Hospital, two weeks after he was stricken by a heart attack. He was 89. The son of Greek immigrants, Mr. Kirie dropped out of high school to work in his family's River Grove restaurant. During the Great Depression, he resumed his education and graduated from Leyden High School, then later enrolled at Elmhurst College. Seeking a way to earn money for tuition, Mr. Kirie applied to run for village clerk in River Grove. He was nominated and elected in 1932. ``I was only 20 and had to wait until my 21st birthday to take office,'' he told Sun-Times columnist Steve Neal in 1991. ``If I hadn't needed a job to pay for my college expenses, I doubt if I would have entered politics.'' In addition to his position as the Democratic committeeman, he was the president of the 25th Avenue Building Corporation, and was investment officer of the Cook County Circuit Court clerk when he died. During the 1930s, Mr. Kirie fought organized crime by closing down brothels and gambling establishments. After the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, Mr. Kirie was among the first elected officials to enlist in the Army. He took part in the Normandy invasion. In the 1950s, after testifying before a U.S. Senate rackets committee, Mr. Kirie's home and the restaurant he owned were bombed. He later sponsored legislation for a state wiretapping law. Mr. Kirie was slated for the Metropolitan Sanitary District, now the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District, in 1970. He served three six-year terms. He was a major sponsor of the metro Chicago's Deep Tunnel project. In 1991, the water reclamation plant in Des Plaines was named in his honor. Mr. Kirie is survived by two daughters, Barbara Kirie Stewart and Circuit Court Judge Dorothy Kirie Kinnaird, and two grandchildren, James Burke Kinnaird and Katherine Anne Kirie Kinnaird. Mr. Speaker, Jim will be missed by his loving family and by his countless friends and admirers, among whom I am proud to count myself.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to lend my support to this eminently sensible piece of legislation. Due to the mobile nature of cellular telecommunications, traditional methods of assessing and collecting sales and use tax on them do not work well. Because the tax on a cellular telephone call now varies depending on where the customer was located when it was initiated, each individual call must be tracked and matched up with a taxing jurisdiction. This makes it difficult for the cellular service provider to calculate the tax, and difficult for the state and local governments to monitor compliance. It also causes a customer's state and local tax assessment to change from month to month, depending on where the customer has traveled. H.R. 4391 will provide customers with simpler billing for their wireless telephone calls, while preserving state and local authority to tax wireless services. It will reduce the chances that a wireless call might be taxed by more than one jurisdiction, and will simplify and reduce the costs of tax administration, both for the carrier and for the taxing authority. This should in turn lower the cost of wireless telecommunications services to the consumer. I want to congratulate the wireless telecommunications industry and state and local governments for having found a mutually agreeable solution to this problem. I know that they have worked long and hard on this project over at least the last two years. I also want to commend my colleague from Mississippi, Chip Pickering, for his leadership on this issue. Had it not been for his initiative in identifying this proposal as a worthy response to the growing complexities posed by taxing mobile telecommunications, we would not be here today. He has labored tirelessly--and successfully--to gain consensus on the bill and has worked closely with our committee to perfect the work which we have before us.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) and 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), and I ask unanimous consent that they be permitted to control that time.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.