Henry Hyde

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, the choirs of Lee High School in Springfield, Va. drew words of praise from faculty and community residents following their participation in the competitive April 17 Boston Music Festival. Every year the group competes in Music Festivals representing Lee High School and the community's finest youth. Under the direction of Mr. G. Lindsey Florence, the Singing Lancers, known for their high standards of music excellence, returned from the April 17 competition holding their silver and bronze trophies high with pride. The Madrigals and Ladies Chamber Choir carried the Silver and the Concert and Lee Freshmen Choirs held the Bronze. This is an exceptional honor because the four choirs' performance were adjudicated on a college and professional level by a panel of three judges. Their achievement deserves recognition, and it gives me great pleasure to acknowledge each of these fine young men and women. Congratulations to: Matt Aberant, Denise Absher, Karen Albers, Jessica Alonzo, Amanda Anderson, Kristine Antiporda, Mary Assad, Hyun Bae, Lena Berdecia, Katie Brado, Kelly Brehm, Lauren Buchanan, Ashley Bush, Nicki Clark, Rachel Cooper, Liz Cego, LIndsay Cronin, Rachel Cully, Jeni Davis, Abigail Dosh, Kelly Dreier, Mary Fitzgerald, Ashley Flanders, Heather Flemming, Kristine Foulkes, Kyle Freesland, Chris Fritz, Reagan Goodman, Brian Gresham, Rachel Griffin, Kristen Hampton, Chipp Hewitt, Dan Hinson, April Holloman, Michelle Hudgens, Brandy Hume, J.P. Javier- Wong, Tim Jeffers, Erlend Johnson, Dan Kim, Tasha Kulenguski, Peter Laver, Danielle Lawson, Mike Lazear, Darice Lee, Natalie Lent, Amanda Lindberg, Jennifer Little, Madeline Mace, Candace Mallon, Courtney Mallon, Chris Marfori, Maggie Martin, Tara McCabe, Heather McKay, Darin McMillen, Dave McMullin, Meg Meyer, Abby Meyer, Carrie Moore, Jason Morgan, Shaun Newman, Jared Orton, John Oudomsouk, Tim Parsons, Alicia Perretti, Jessica Piansky, Rachel Plowman, Michelle Poling, Jason Potts, Leslie Potts, Alicia Powell, Lindsay Powers, Anna Ramedo, Davis Reynolds, Ian Richmond, Brook Rubeor, Amy Simpson, Julie Saholsky, Jenny Sellers, Liz Shwaery, Sara Sikorra, Leslie Simpson, Beth Sivola, Justin Smallwood, Kirstin Stamper, Julie Stoops, Stacey Stratton, Dawn Thompson, Christal Wells, Mellissa Wilkerson, Sarah Wills, Eric Womac, Kelsey Wright, and Christina Yip.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I will restrain myself from quoting the well- known line about a foolish consistency, because I tend to agree with the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank). I think consistency is a virtue, and I do not have the time to point out inconsistencies on the left.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman's superior knowledge on marijuana. I simply would like to say that the rest of this bill deals with improvements in the Federal court system, abuses that can occur in class-action certifications, questions of judicial misconducts. Some of us feel those are better handled by a committee in another circuit rather than the circuit where the judge practices or sits. We deal with questions of courts ordering taxing bodies to raise taxes. We feel that is a violation of separation of powers. We like to help avoid getting stuck, if I may use that inelegant term, with a judge who is inappropriate for a particular party or litigant or lawyer by letting us at least change once, which we can do in every circuit court throughout the country. We deal with cameras in the courtroom handling capital punishment appeals. So this is a good bill. I do not doubt it is controversial. It is not hostile to the courts. We will have a struggle perhaps later on over judicial pay. Some people who just congenitally dislike judges will have their say, but that is for later in the day. Summary of H.R. 1252, the Judiciary Reform Act of 1998 This necessary legislation addresses one of the most disturbing problems facing our constitutional system today-- the infrequent but intolerable breach of the separation of powers by some members of the Federal judiciary. three-judge panels The first reform contained in this bill was developed originally by a valued member of the Committee on the Judiciary, the late Representative Sonny Bono of California. Recognizing the unjust effect on voting rights created by injunctions issued in California by one judge against the will of the people of the State as reflected in Propositions 187 and 209, H.R. 1252 provides that requests for injunctions in cases challenging the constitutionality of measures passed by a state referendum must be heard by a three-judge court. Like other federal voting rights legislation containing a provision providing for a hearing by a three-judge court, the Judicial Reform Act of 1998 is designed to protect voters in the exercise of their vote and to further protect the results of that vote. It requires that legislation voted upon and approved directly by the citizens of a state be afforded the protection of a three-judge court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2284 if an application for an injunction is brought in federal court to arrest the enforcement of the referendum on the premise that the referendum is unconstitutional. This system already applies to Voting Rights Act and reapportionment cases. In effect, where the entire populace of a state democratically exercises a direct vote on an issue, one federal judge will be able to issue an injunction preventing the enforcement of the will of the people of that state. Rather, three judges, at the trial level, according to procedures already provided by statute, will hear the application for an injunction and determine whether the requested injunction should issue. An appeal is taken directly to the Supreme Court, expediting the enforcement of the referendum if the final decision is that the referendum is constitutional. Such an expedited procedure is already provided for in other voting rights cases. It should be no different in this case, since a state is ``redistricted'' for purposes of a vote on a referendum into one voting block. The Congressional Research Service estimates that these three- judge courts would be required less than 10 times in a decade under this bill, causing a very insubstantial burden on the federal judiciary, while substantially protecting the rights of the voters of a state. This bill recognizes that state referenda reflect, more than any other process, the one-person/one-vote system, and seeks to protect a fundamental part of our national foundation. This bill will implement a fair and effective policy that preserves a proper balance in federal-state relations. Interim Appeals of Class Action Certifications The second reform contained in this bill was developed by the Chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Representative Charles Canady of Florida. It allows immediate (interlocutory) appeals of class action certifications by a federal District judge. When a District judge determines that an action may be maintained as a class action, the provisions contained in the Judicial Reform Act allow a party to that case to appeal that decision immediately to the proper Court of Appeals without delaying the progress of the underlying case. This prevents ``automatic'' certification of class actions by judges whose decisions to certify may go unchallenged because the parties have invested too many resources into the case before an appeal is allowed. This bill will also prevent abuses by attorneys who bring class action suits when they are not warranted, and provides protection to defendants who may be forced to expend unnecessary resources at trial, only to find that a class action was improperly brought against them in the first place. As a practical matter, the outcome of a class-action suit is often determined by whether the judge elects to certify a class since certifications may guarantee that a plaintiff's attorney can extract a favorable settlement, irrespective of whether the certification was proper. Complaints Against Judicial Misconduct The third reform contained in this bill was developed by another member of the Committee on the Judiciary, Representative Ed Bryant of Tennessee. It requires that a complaint brought against a federal judge be sent to a circuit other than the one in which the judge who is the object of the complaint sits for review. This will provide for a more objective review of the complaint and improve the efficacy of the Judicial Councils Reform and Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 372 (``The 1980 Act''), which established a mechanism for the filing of complaints against federal judges. Under those procedures, a complaint alleging that a federal judge has engaged in conduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts may be filed with the clerk of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the circuit in which the federal judge who is the subject of the complaint sits. Under the Act, a special committee will report to the judicial council of the circuit, which will decide what action, if any, should be taken. By requiring that complaints filed under the 1980 Act be transferred to a circuit other than the circuit in which the alleged wrongdoer sits, more objectivity and accountability will exist for litigants who find themselves in need of relief from a judge who is not properly performing his or her functions. In addition, the bill has been amended to limit out-of-circuit referrals to those cases in which a complaint is not dismissed as being incomplete, frivolous, or directly related to the merits of a decision or procedural ruling. This amendment represents an effort to respond to those critics who assert that the revision to existing complaint procedures will generate unnecessary and trivial administrative expenses for out-of- circuit judges. In other words, only ``substantive'' complaints will be referred out of circuit. judicial taxation The fourth reform contained in this bill prohibits a federal court from ``expressly directing'' or ``necessarily requiring'' that a state or municipality impose taxes on its citizenry, a function reserved to legislative bodies, for the purpose of enforcing a legal decision. Seizing the power of the public purse by imposing taxes on any community is an egregious example of how some members of the judiciary have breached this nation's founding principle of separation of powers and undermined the concept of self-rule. In some cases, judges have designed in specific detail local school systems and public housing systems, and then ordered tax increases to finance the spending bills disguised in their judicial rulings. The most conspicuous example illustrating this problem is the ongoing case of Missouri v. Jenkins, in which the Supreme Court has issued three opinions and the court of appeals more than 20. In Jenkins, the Supreme Court ruled that while it was permissible for the lower court in the Kansas City school system to order the state or municipality to raise taxes to remedy a constitutional deprivation, it remanded and reversed the lower court decision based on the fact that the lower court lacks the authority to impose a tax itself; it must order the state or local municipality to do so. The Jenkins litigation also demonstrates that once a federal court seizes such a ``structural reform'' case, it will constantly reevaluate its progress for years until the ``constitutional deprivation'' has been cured. State and federal laws leave budget and spending authority to legislative bodies, because only a body which represents the will of the people can decide properly how to spend the people's taxes. While rulings on due process are important to protect the rights of litigants, and remedy which would force the public to pay more in taxes must come from the House of the people and not from the authority of the bench. The judiciary is neither equipped nor given the power to make such decisions. To allow otherwise is to usurp self-rule and replace it with self-appointed authority. As four justices of the United States Supreme Court have stated, the imposition of taxes by courts ``disregards fundamental precepts for the democratic control of public institutions. The power of taxation is one that the federal judiciary does not possess.'' This bill will restore the proper balance defined in the Constitution between the federal branches and federal-state relations by forbidding any U.S. District court from entering an order or approving a settlement that requires a state or one of its subdivisions to impose, increase, levy, or assess any tax for the purpose of enforcing any federal or state common law, statutory, or constitutional right or law. This reform contains a narrow, multi-part exception to the general prohibition of judicially-imposed taxation. Specifically, a court may not order a state or political subdivision to impose a tax unless the court first determines by clear and convincing evidence that: (1) there are no other means available to remedy the relevant deprivation of rights or laws, and the tax is narrowly tailored and directly related to the specific constitutional deprivation or harm necessitating redress; (2) the tax will not exacerbate the deprivation intended to be remedied; (3) the tax will not result in a revenue loss for the affected subdivision; (4) the tax will not result in a depreciation of property values for the affected taxpayers; (5) plans submitted by state or local authorities will not effectively redress the relevant deprivation; and (6) the interests of state and local authorities in managing their own affairs is not usurped by the proposed tax, consistent with the Constitution. Finally, the bill specifies that the judicial tax provisions will apply to any action or proceeding pending on, or commenced on or after, the date of enactment. This was done at the behest of Representative Don Manzullo of Illinois, whose district is home to Rockford, a city which is subject to a court taxation order that has devastated local communities. Reassignment of Cases The fifth reform contained in this bill was also developed by Representative Canady. It allows all parties on one side of a civil case brought in federal District court to agree, after initial assignment to a judge, to bring a motion requiring that the case be reassigned to a different judge. Each side of the case may exercise this option only once. Under the provision, a motion to reassign must be made not later than 20 days after the notice of original assignment of the case is given. Because some critics believe the reassignment device might encourage forum-shopping and attendant delay, its application will be limited to the 21 largest federal judicial districts (each containing over 10 judges to allow a random reassignment) over a five-year period, thereby allowing Congress to evaluate its effects and to determine whether it ought to be extended to all districts and perpetuated in the future. This substitution-of-judge, or, as referred to in the bill, ``reassignment-of-case-as-of-right,'' provision mirrors similar state laws and allows litigants on both sides of a case to avoid being subjected to a particular federal judge, appointed for life, in any specific case. It might be used by litigants in a community to avoid ``forum shopping'' by the other side in a case, or to avoid a judge who is known to engage in improper courtroom behavior, who is known to be prejudiced, or who regularly exceeds judicial authority. This provision is not meant to replace appellate review of trial judges' decisions, but rather to complement appellate review by encouraging judges to fairly administer their oaths of office to uphold the Constitution. Many judges face constant reversals on appeal, but still force litigants to bear extraordinary costs before them and further bear the burden of overcoming standards of review on appeal. This provision allows litigants some freedom in ensuring that due process will be given to their case before they bear the costs associated with litigating in trial court and will encourage the judiciary to be as impartial as required by their charge. handling of capital punishment appeals The sixth reform set forth in H.R. 1252 was developed in response to the May 14, 1997, testimony of Charlotte Stout, who participated in an oversight hearing on judicial misconduct, and comments made by Representative William Delahunt of Massachusetts. Ms. Stout's daughter was raped and murdered by a man who sat on death row for 18 years as a result of filing numerous habeas petitions at the state and federal level. His federal petition was handled by a judge who delayed its consideration for four years before ordering a new trial. This same judge handles all habeas petitions in that judicial circuit, and has delayed consideration of all capital cases appealed to that circuit by a minimum of 65 years. All cases on which he has reached a final decision have resulted in an over-turning of a jury verdict to impose execution. In effect, this judge has taken it upon himself to usurp the decision of a jury to impose the death penalty. Pursuant to the bill, the chief judge of a circuit could neither handle all habeas cases by himself or herself, nor delegate the responsibility on an exclusive basis to another judge. cameras in the courtroom A seventh reform would permit a presiding judge, in his or her discretion, to permit the use of cameras during federal appellate proceedings. Based on legislation introduced by Representative Steve Chabot of Ohio, the change mirrors state efforts to provide greater public access to the workings of the judiciary. The Committee on the Judiciary also adopted an amendment offered by Representative Chabot which creates a three-year pilot program allowing televised proceedings in any U.S. District (trial-level) proceeding, subject to the discretion of the presiding judge. judicial pay An eighth reform includes parts of legislation introduced by Representative Henry Hyde of Illinois, Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, that would grant federal judges an annual cost-of-living adjustment unless Congress takes action to the contrary. complex disaster litigation With Representative Jim Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin as its chief advocate, a ninth reform consists of language which the House passed in the 101st and 102nd Congress, and which the full Committee on the Judiciary passed in the 103rd Congress. This language is intended to improve the ability of federal courts to handle complex multidistrict litigation arising from a single accident, such as a plane crash. Briefly, these changes would bestow original jurisdiction on federal District courts in civil actions involving minimal diversity jurisdiction among adverse parties based on a single accident where at least 25 persons have either died or sustained injuries exceeding $50,000 per person. The District court in which such cases are consolidated would retain those cases for purposes of determining liability and punitive damages, and would also determine the substantive law that would apply for findings of liability and damage. Returning individual cases to state and federal courts where they were originally filed for a determination of compensatory money damages (and where all relevant records are located) is fair to the plaintiffs or their estates. These changes should reduce litigation costs as well as the likelihood of forum-shopping in airline and other accident cases. An effective one-time determination of punitive damages would eliminate multiple or inconsistent awards arising from multiforum litigation. Agency (OPM) Appeals of Adverse Personnel Decisions The tenth and final reform of H.R. 1252, proposed by Representative Conyers of Michigan, would permit the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to appeal final decisions of the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) and final arbitral awards dealing with adverse personnel actions to the Federal Circuit within 60 days from the time final notice of a decision is received. Currently, OPM must file its appellate briefs within 30 days, which is half the time allotted to other federal agencies. This bill is limited in scope. It reforms the procedures of the federal courts to ensure fairness in the hearing of cases without stripping jurisdiction, or reclaiming any powers granted by Congress to the lower courts. It does assure that litigants in federal courts will be entitled to fair rules of practice and procedure leading to the due process of claims.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, this is almost amounting to harassment, but I, nonetheless, in the mood of accommodation, yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I would say to my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts, that is the one aspect of this controversy I have not researched. But I can also tell him that I will not research it. But, nonetheless, the purpose of the three-judge court is a recognition of the significance of an entire State voting on a referendum, and giving it the added dignity of a three-judge court to set aside the expressed wish of perhaps millions of people; the same as in voting rights appeals and in reapportionment.

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

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, that is right, at least in this instance. But I would like to suggest that I think he proves too much when he refers to this bill as somehow hostile to the vibrancy, the vitality, the importance, the significance of the Federal judiciary. Just the opposite; it is an effort to make the Federal judiciary work better. We will have amendments here, and we will debate this issue, but I do not think there is anything in the bill that is hostile at all to the notion of the third branch of government and its very important role in the functioning of our democracy. As to the three-judge panel, somehow the gentleman from Massachusetts views that as a derogation of authority, proper authority that belongs to the courts. I would just simply suggest that the notion of setting aside by injunction a referendum that has passed through a State process where members of the State have voted in the referendum is a topic of some significance and deserves the gravity of a three-judge court rather than just one judge. I say that because we do this in the context of three-judge courts already deciding appeals from voting rights cases and reapportionment cases. I am sure the gentleman from Massachusetts supports enthusiastically the notion that three-judge courts have to hear voting rights cases. They are important. Three-judge courts ought to hear appeals on reapportionment because they are important. We feel a State referendum is equally important. So rather than derogating from the importance of the Federal courts deciding these, we are adding some gravatas to the process by saying where an entire State has voted on an issue, that the setting aside of that should be done by a three-judge court rather than one.

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

Mr. HYDE. That is from Little Caesar, and I remember it well. The gentleman and I are the only two.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I want to suggest to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) that he has performed a signal service by bringing this matter to our attention. Yes, it is in the wake of a jury verdict and a court case that happened in Chicago, but he is highlighting a problem this Congress has wrestled with for years; namely, trying to make some sense out of the RICO statute. There are abuses where it is applied where it was never intended to be applied. That is recognized by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and conservatives on this side. We need to look at RICO. And so if the gentleman is generous enough, and he has been, to withdraw his amendment, I pledge the Committee on the Judiciary will take a hard look at revising the RICO statute, hold hearings, working in a bipartisan way with the minority, and try to come up with a bill that does something substantive and correct what we all agree is an egregious flaw.

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

Mr. HYDE. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts, certainly.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member. (Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. Chairman, at this stage, I was about to offer an amendment. I will not offer the amendment, but I think it is important to explain what kind of an amendment it was and why I am not going to offer it. Mr. Chairman, there are not many of us, a narrow band of Members, but there are some on both sides of the aisle who feel that we mistreat in terms of cost-of-living allowances our Federal judiciary. Now, that is a poisonous subject in some quarters, because judge bashing is a universal sport. But it is a fact, of all the government employees in the galaxy, the only group that does not get an automatic cost-of- living increase is the Federal judiciary. There is a law, it is called Section 140, that requires a specific vote before any Federal judge gets a cost-of-living allowance. Not a pay raise, a cost-of-living allowance. Even ourselves get an automatic cost-of-living allowance. Under the law, it can be reversed by vote. And, of course, sometimes we succumb to the penurious complaints of Members and deny ourselves a pay raise. But we must take affirmative action to do that. Not so with the Federal judges. The only way they can get a cost-of- living allowance is by us voting them one. I think isolating Federal judges from all of the other employees in the Federal Government is wrong, it is mean-spirited, it is unfair. And I do believe the quality of justice, which is not of the highest I hasten to add, depends on the caliber of the people administering that justice; and that is the judges, male and female, throughout the land. We penalize them because they are Federal judges and we are mad at this judge or that judge for a dumb decision and, so, we are going to have the whole system rigged so they are different from everybody else. I think that is unfair. Now, I have proposed in this bill a judicial reform bill to remove the requirement that Federal judges could not get a cost-of-living increase without a vote to remove that. I learned very late in the day before I was to appear before the Committee on Rules that the rule that would be proposed would be self-executing and would delete Section 9 of my bill, which was my amendment to provide for treating Federal judges like everybody else on cost-of-living allowances. I was upset at that and not having any notification. But, in any event, I was informed that the reason my bill was going to have that part deleted was that I was creating an entitlement and we do not create entitlements that way. Well, there are ways to handle that, and one is to subject this change to appropriated funds. That would cure that. But nobody was interested in helping me do that in the rule. And I was told if I offered an amendment to that effect on the floor, even though this is an open amendment, that this would not be germane. Well, we took steps to see that it would be germane by redrafting it. Certain amendments were adopted that broadened the purview of the statute. But that encountered serious resistance. And so, the upshot of all of this folderol about people nobody cares a great deal about, the Federal judiciary, treating them equally with everybody else, although we pretend to support equal justice for all, the upshot of it is, if I persist in my efforts, the bill will go down. And I do not want the bill to go down. I think this is a good bill. There are some good things in this. And, therefore, I have agreed not to offer my amendment, to bite my lip, and to take the unfair, in my judgment, treatment of an issue that deserves debate on the floor in the vote. I understand why people do not want this change to occur, because it helps us get a pay raise if we can say the judges are being held back, too. But I do not see why economic politics should deny one group of Federal employees, with all their warts and their flaws, equal treatment.

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

Mr. HYDE. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.

Mr. HYDE. Madam Chairman, I want to join the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) in his well thought out sentiments because I think he is exactly right. This is an important subject and it is one that deserves thoughtful consideration. A trial is a search for truth; and when we start asserting privileges, we are putting obstacles to that search for truth. They may well be justifiable, but I think they do impede the quest for learning the facts about a given situation. We have a spousal privilege. We have an attorney/client privilege. We have executive privilege. We have a Secret Service privilege. Now we are creating a parent and child privilege. The whole subject of privilege is, it seems to me, important and significant and complicated, and perhaps we should look at it in a more thoughtful way than we are doing here. We missed the priest/penitent privilege. But what we are doing here, the gentlelady's amendment is creating for the first time a Federal privilege, because section 501 of the Federal Rules of Evidence says there are no Federal privileges. We follow the State law. Of course here we are creating for the first time a new privilege: A parent may not be compelled to testify against a child. I will forgo the opportunity to broaden this discussion as some have by bringing in the name of the Independent Counsel now, but I think it is helpful in this context to note that President Clinton's lawyers deposed Paula Jones' mother, Delmer Lee Corbin, and her sister, Lydia Cathey, in October of 1997. There was no hue and cry about protecting the mother from compulsory testimony. I think it is worth noting that Colonel North, Oliver North, back in the halcyon days of Iran Contra, his wife was called to testify before the grand jury. Colonel North's lead attorney, Brendan Sullivan, was subpoenaed to appear before the grand jury. Colonel North's wife's sister was interrogated about how much it cost to feed their daughter's horse. The Norths' baby-sitter and a teenager who mowed the Norths' lawn were questioned about how much they were paid. Oh, and Colonel North's minister was asked how much the North family contributed on Sunday. So we have had these things before. Fortunately, the gentlewoman has become sensitized to the problem somewhat late in this century, but that is all right. But I would suggest that this is inappropriate, and I hope the gentlelady's amendment is defeated. I hope, and I pledge, as the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) suggests, that we look at this whole subject across the board on privilege, but try to take it out of the fever swamps of our current political situation.

Mr. HYDE. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Indiana, ranking member of our Committee on International Relations. This has been an interesting debate, and not too complicated, because there are a couple of ideas that are pretty crystal-clear that separate us. First of all, we have a lot of conservatives who do not like foreign aid. And anything that reeks of the U.N. is tainted and that involves us overseas, and we ought not to get into those sort of entanglements. So we have a mountain to climb on our side to get enough people to support this. After all, this pays our U.N. arrearages, not perhaps in the manner in which the Democrats would like it paid, but it is $819 million plus $107 million in debt forgiveness over 3 years. That certainly beats where we are now, with zero. So if you think our membership in the U.N. is useful, I would think this is the best opportunity to get caught up on the arrearages. I have always had a couple of fantasies about the U.N. One is I would like to move it from New York to Beijing. I think that would be a wonderful headquarters. We have had the glory of the U.N. being in New York and avoiding and evading our parking tickets. Let us give the rest of the world a chance at it. But I do not decry the U.N. I think it is useful. I think we should belong to it. I think we are a world leader, and we should lead in the U.N. And so if we belong to it, we should pay our dues, and this is a medium by which we pay our dues. So I think we should do this. Now, a couple of other things about the U.N. that bother me. We pay too much in peacekeeping cost, 31 percent. I would like to get that down to 25 percent. And our dues, it seems to me, ought to be reduced from 25 to 20 percent. We can do that with this bill. So that gives me an added incentive for voting for it. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), who has been heroic in defending the defenseless unborn, talks about Mexico City, and I was trying to communicate with him that he should explain Mexico City. People think that is a page out of National Geographic. What it is is a policy that we followed under Presidents Reagan and Bush that said we will give you millions of dollars for family planning, but not to organizations that advocate or perform abortions. In other words, American money should not go to pay for killing unborn children, even if they are Third World unborn children, especially if they are Third World unborn children. So that is the Mexico City policy, and that sticks in the craw of the left. That is the one thing, that common theme, why, my God, we are going to stop the torrent of abortions with this bill, and therefore, this is a bad bill. Why American taxpayers' money should be used to subsidize abortions overseas I cannot figure out. Well, we hear that the money of the organizations spent for abortions is their own money. They are not mixing our money in with theirs. I wish my colleagues would stop insulting our intelligence. My colleagues know and I know that if we give them a few million dollars, we free up their own money for their own purposes. It is a bookkeeping transaction. We are subsidizing, effectively, abortions. Some of us think there is a moral issue here, that this cultural imperialism of ours, telling a country, you have too many people, is across the line. It goes too far. Now, this bill has so many good things in it that may not come this way again. One of them is the moving of our embassy to Jerusalem and another is requiring the McBride fair employment practices in Northern Ireland; there is full funding for Radio Marti to Cuba, Radio Free Iran, Radio Free Asia to Communist China. This bill authorizes a new assistance package to assist the democratic opponents of Saddam Hussein and Iraq. This bill begins that process of rolling back Saddam Hussein's tyranny in Iraq. So there are so many reasons why this is a good idea, but most of all, I would like to please make clear family planning is distinct from abortion. Family planning is either getting one pregnant or keeping one from getting pregnant, it is not killing an unborn child once one is pregnant. Family planning, properly understood, does not include abortion, so why should we subsidize organizations that lobby countries to repeal their pro-life laws and that perform abortions? The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), compromised as far as he could. Go ahead and perform abortions with a presidential waiver, but do not advocate, lobby countries to repeal their pro-life laws. That little speck of respectability you are unwilling to give us. You are not compromising; there is no compromise here, and that is tragic. There is much that is good in this bill; there is much that strengthens our position in the international forum. It helps us get back in good graces with the U.N., it starts to roll back the arrogance of Saddam Hussein. There are so many good things. It consolidates agencies that ought to be consolidated like the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, the United States Information Agency, by putting them in the State Department. And so I just hope that my friends, the conservatives who cannot move their hand to vote for something that has foreign aid in it, would understand that this is important. There are many things in this bill that we ought to take advantage of, and most importantly, that little part of the Mexico City policy that is salvaged in this bill. My friends over here, I know the President is the premier pro- abortion rights human being in the galaxy, but we have our own independent responsibilities, and we should make a statement that child survival, as I heard the gentleman from Georgia say, is important. One cannot have child survival when one aborts that child. Please support this legislation.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to take the full 5 minutes, but I do want to say that I support the McCollum amendment. I have great respect and admiration for Mr. Sensenbrenner who has worked long and hard on this issue, and admirably so. It is regrettable that over 3 years of discussions have not resulted in a negotiated settlement. This is something that should have been agreed to and negotiated, but I guess it was not meant to be. But the McCollum-Conyers substitute, it seems to me, is a reasonable and balanced alternative to the issue of music licensing, and of some importance is the Congressional Research Service finding that the McCollum substitute will exempt over 60 percent of all restaurants in the United States from paying music licensing fees to songwriters for music played over radio and television to their customers. This is small business week on the floor of the House. We are considering important legislation to help preserve the strength of the most important sector of our economy which employs more Americans than any other, and the amendment of the gentleman from Wisconsin includes an exemption for large chains and corporations who are able to pay their fair share of licensing fees to songwriters, many of whom I might also mention, are small businesses themselves; I am speaking of the song writers. The McCollum substitute concentrates on true small businesses, those restaurants and bars under 3,500 gross square feet. That constitutes over 60 percent of the restaurants in America. The substitute also exempts restaurants larger than 3,500 gross square feet as long as radio and television music is not played over too many speakers. This will protect larger restaurants that only play radio and television music in bar areas. There is much more to be said, and I will put that in the statement that will appear in the Record, but if this could not be resolved, could not be negotiated, then I prefer the solution proposed by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum). Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the McCollum/Conyers substitute to the Sensenbrenner amendment to H.R. 2589, the ``Copyright Term Extension Act,'' and urge the House to support the substitute. I believe the McCollum/Conyers substitute presents Members with a reasonable and balanced alternative on the issue of music licensing. According to the Congressional Research Service, the McCollum/Conyers substitute will exempt over 60% of all restaurants in the United States from paying music licensing fees to songwriters for music played over radio and television to their customers in order to enhance their businesses. This is ``Small Business Week'' on the floor of the House. We are considering important legislation that will help to preserve the strength of a sector of our economy which employs more Americans than any other. The Sensenbrenner Amendment includes an exemption for large chains and corporations who are able to pay their fair share of licensing fees to songwriters, many of whom, I might also mention, are small businesses themselves. The McCollum/Conyers substitute concentrates on true small businesses--those restaurants under 3,500 gross square feet. That constitutes over 60% of the restaurants in America. The substitute also exempts restaurants larger than 3500 gross square feet as long as radio and television music is not played over too many speakers. This will protect larger restaurants that only play radio and television music in bar areas. In addition to including large chains and corporations, the Sensenbrenner exemption also includes within its scope music that comes from sources other than radio and television. Surely, we do not want to prevent songwriters from getting just compensation for property that has not already been broadcast publicly for private enjoyment. As you know, negotiations on this issue have been ongoing in the Judiciary Committees of both the House and the Senate for almost 3 years now. One of the problems that Mr. Sensenbrenner rightly attempts to correct is the fact that small business owners have to travel to New York City if they have a dispute about the rate they are being charged to play music in their establishment. This is unfair and needs to be rectified. The Sensenbrenner Amendment goes too far the other way, however, by being just as unfair to the three performing rights organizations by forcing them to arbitrate in any town in America. The McCollum/Conyers substitute is a compromise that will allow litigants to dispute rates in 12 places around the country where the seats of our U.S. Courts of Appeals are located. I also want to mention the relevance of our international obligations. Under the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Agreement, and the Berne Convention, the United States may also restrict copyright to a point where it does not affect an author's ability to own his or her work. I believe, along with the United States Trade representative and the Secretary of Commerce, that the Sensenbrenner Amendment may violate these treaties which are the law of our land. We cannot allow ourselves to be unsuccessful defendants under the dispute mechanism of the World Trade organization on this issue which may lead to retaliation in areas other than intellectual property such as agriculture or resources. The United States makes more money internationally from intellectual property than from almost any other sector of our economy. It is one of our most prized trade surpluses. We must be cautious and balanced in affecting our ability to persuade other nations to protect U.S. intellectual property. It is difficult to force others to live up to intellectual property agreements if we do not live up to them ourselves. Let us not forget that this is about taking someone's property. The Constitution makes it clear that Congress has a duty to encourage creativity by allowing for just compensation. I believe that the McCollum/Conyers Amendment carries out that purpose while meeting our international obligations and protecting small businesses who cannot afford licensing fees or travel to New York to dispute an unfair rate. The Sensenbrenner Amendment violates that incentive, our international obligations, and reaches beyond the constituency it purports to protect. I urge my colleagues to vote for the McCollum/Conyers substitute to the Sensenbrenner Amendment.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims, for being so kind as to yield to me and to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) for his deference, too, which I appreciate. I am pleased to speak in support of this legislation which extends the visa waiver pilot program. Under this program, the United States allows short-term visitors for business or pleasure, with passports from 26 designated countries, to travel to the United States without first obtaining visas abroad. Visa waiver substantially facilitates international travel and greatly benefits the economy of the United States, with over 12 million visitor arrivals under the program in 1996. Designation as a new visa waiver program country under current law necessitates, along with other requirements, low nonimmigrant visitor refusal rates for nationals of the particular country. That rate, calculated over the last 2 fiscal years, must average below 2 percent and must remain below 2.5 percent for each of those years. In other words, the general requirement of consular screening abroad can only be waived when the U.S. consular officers rarely deny visitor visas to a country's nationals as demonstrated by objective criteria. It is important to retain such criteria undiluted at this time as a safeguard against potential immigration law abuses. The legislation before us adheres to that principle. INS officers, Immigration and Naturalization Service officers, at ports of entry, of course, will continue to check everyone seeking admission, including visitors under the visa waiver program. Visa waiver, properly limited, encourages leisure and business travel from low-fraud countries while permitting the State Department to concentrate consular resources where they are most needed. It is a good program. It advances U.S. interests. I urge my colleagues to support its extension.