Henry Hyde

Mr. HYDE

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

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Upton].

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, we set a personnel ceiling of 4,000 Americans in Vietnam 6 months after the enactment and 3,000 within a year; in Somalia we did the same. In Rwanda we did the same. And interestingly enough, the congressional reference service says, and I quote, ``With respect to your question regarding the number of instances when the Congress has utilized the War Powers Resolution, since its enactment in 1973, to compel the withdrawal of U.S. military forces from foreign deployments, we can cite no single specific instance when this has occurred.'' So it is a useless anachronism and we ought not to have it on the books. No Supreme Court test is even possible. Several attempts have been made to test it. The courts have said they are not justifiable. It did not stop what we did in Somalia, it did not stop what we did in Haiti. We had a vote on Desert Storm but nobody conceded that was pursuant to the War Powers Resolutions. It provides a false hope to our adversaries; it is confusing. My amendment does not just wipe the books clean of the War Powers Resolution, it requires adequate, timely, prompt consultation with Congress, and notice of what the President is going to do, and reporting, comprehensive reporting. There is a Presidential waiver, but that is for the Entebbe sort of situation and we still hold the ultimate weapon which is the purse. We cannot get, as I say, a constitutional test on it, but it emboldens our adversaries while hamstringing the President when he most urgently needs the authority and the flexibility to act. Permit me just to read from George Bush's letter of April 17, this year. ``Deal Henry, you are 100 percent correct in opposing the War Powers Resolution as an unconstitutional infringement on the authority of the President. I hope that you are successful in your effort to change the War Powers Resolution and restore proper balance between the Executive and Legislative Branches. George Bush.'' Gerald Ford: ``Dear Henry, I share your views that the War Powers Resolution is an impractical, unconstitutional infringement on the authority of the President, I opposed it as a Member of the House. As President I refused to recognize it as a constitutional limitation on the power of the commander in chief.'' Jimmy Carter to Congressman Henry Hyde: ``I fully support your effort to repeal the War Powers Resolution. Best wishes in this good work,'' et certa. So I just say to my colleagues, they are not yielding anything, they are retaining the power of the purse, which is the ultimate weapons. But my amendment requires notice, consultation, and reports, and with that in one hand and the power of the purse in the other, we are yielding no autonomy on the issue of committing troops, but are clearing off the books of unconstitutional infringement on the President's power, And are giving the President flexibility that the President may need over a weekend when something happens. And we are not giving hope and comfort to our adversaries that if they just wait it out, 60 days, will elapse, we will be dithering, we will be debating, and nothing will happen and the military engagement will end. So I respectfully request the support of the Members in adopting my amendment.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs].

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha].

Mr. HYDE. Of course I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. HYDE. We should have an equal division then.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, my colleagues, if you think abortion is a good idea or if you think it is a neutral idea or if you think it is an acceptable solution to unwanted pregnancies, then this amendment is for you. But if you are troubled by abortion, if you understand the difference between family planning, which prevents a conception from occurring, or facilitate one if you want to get pregnant, as distinguished from abortion, which kills the life of an unborn child once it has begun, and those are the words of Planned Parenthood, which used them in a brochure for some years until they got into the business of promoting abortions, then they backed away from it, abortions kill a human life. They do not kill an animal, a vegetable or a mineral. And so it you think that is a good idea and a helpful idea, there are just too many people in the world and once they get created in the womb, exterminate them, then this is a good amendment. But if you do not think American money should go to pay for exterminating unborn children, this is a terrible amendment and ought to be opposed. Now, family planning is one thing. This country supports family planning. But it should not and ought not, and by defeating this amendment will not, support abortion. And those are 2 different ideas. One prevents a conception; the other exterminates it once it has begun. [[Page H5494]] In this country, now, following, Roe versus Wade, we have had over 33 million abortions. Is that a figure to be proud of? I hope and pray and believe that this Congress will back away funding organizations that support abortion. Now, the UNFPA, with all of its gimmicks and its semantic gymnastics, at the end of the day they support the Chinese coerced abortion policy. Nothing is more evil or inhuman that coercing a woman to have an abortion because it conflicts with the population policy. And yet that is what China does, and that is what the UNFPA supports. Oh, they have a bookkeeping gimmick, but money is fungible, and that would not deceive anybody, and it ought not deceive you. Now, we support population control if it is done through family planning, and by withdrawing the money from the UNFPA, there are still some 350 family planning organizations that will receive the largesse, the taxpayers' money to pay for family planning around the world. But the two organizations that do not want to take the money under those terms are International Planned Parenthood and the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. Well, they get plenty of money from other sources, from the abortion culture. Let them get it. But the taxpayers ought to make sure their money does not go to support killing unborn children. And, therefore, I urge you, with all the vigor I can muster, to reject the Morella amendment. I mean no reflection on the gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella] or her cosponsors, who are all wonderful people. They just are not as offended by abortion as I am, and I hope this amendment will be defeated.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in sharp opposition to the amendment to the amendment. (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Smith perfecting amendment. (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief. This is not a simple problem, but I think one of the darkest chapters in our country's history in this century was called Operation Keelhaul. It occurred in Europe after World War II when defecting Russians who were amassed in camps were forcibly repatriated in boxcars back, to return and never to be seen again. Our troops and our soldiers at gunpoint forced these people, who had fled from the tyranny of the Soviet Union, back into these boxcars. As I say, they were never seen again. Forcibly repatriating people who have fled from their own homeland is an atrocious act. We ought not to countenance it. We ought to help people who have risked the seas and pirates and risked their lives to flee to what they thought was a safe haven, and then finding that we are participating in forcibly repatriating them. These people deserve better. It is a matter of honor. They worked with us, they fought with us, they moved where we are, the land of liberty and freedom. We are not asking that they be repatriated to America. We are asking only that they not be forcibly returned to the places from which they fled. A person born in a faraway country loves their homeland. If they could return, they would. But these people face all sort of dangers. They lived in reeducation camps. They have finally escaped. Now we are going to forcibly repatriate them? I hope my country never does that. If people want to leave tyranny and leave abuse and move towards the light of freedom, we should facilitate that, not inhibit it. So I strongly support, and I do not criticize Mr. Bereuter or Mr. Obey or Mr. Smith, they are as well-intentioned as anybody can be. But I just think they are dead wrong. We ought never at the point of a gun or barbed wire or anything else force people to go back from whence they have fled in terror. So I hope the Smith amendment is adopted.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, once again a magnificent performance by the Lee High School Madrigal Singers and Ladies' Chamber Choir earned them ``Superior'' marks in the April 22 Boston Festivals of Music Competition. Schools from the United States and Canada were competing for the honor of being judged ``Superior'' by receiving the highest numerical score in each category of competition within their division. In addition to capturing the ``Superior'' title within their division, the Madrigal Singers were awarded the ``Grand Champion'' trophy for receiving the highest scores of all choirs competing in the 1995 ``Boston Festival.'' Five scholarships to a choral summer camp were presented to the group. The Singing Lancers, five separate choirs in all, are a terrific group of teens with many proud accomplishments. The choral program is directed by Mr. Lindsey Florence who has been with Lee since 1978 and directed numerous choirs whose efforts have resulted in award-winning performances in North America. This special group of young vocalists love to touch the world with their songs, and that is exactly what they did yesterday. The five choirs entertained the young patients at Children's Hospital where they brought some of the children's favorite songs to life in a program they choreographed themselves. Selected choirs have performed at the White House, Drug Enforcement Administration, Virginia Music Educators Conference, and numerous civic organizations. I am very pleased to recognize the Singing Lancers and the positive image they project to their community. I want to once again offer my personal congratulations to Mr. Florence, an exceptional music teacher, and to the following young men and women who experienced the rewards of their hard work the night they were chosen ``Superior.'' Members of the Madrigal Singers are: Pam Albanese, Gretchen Arndt, Andy Barrett, Steph Daniels, Alisa Ersoz, Craig Goheen, Steph Hawk, Heidi Hisler, Jen Holder, Matt Horner, Cathy Javier-Wong, Robbie Johanson, Emily Mace, Tanya Moore, Scott Niehoff, Ty Oxley, Corey and John Perrine, Joe Steiner, and Becky Whittler. The members of the Ladies' Chamber Choir are: Beth Brown, Alison Cherryholmes, Rebecca Dosch, Randa Eid, Stephanie Evans, Katie Farrell, Kelly Good, Emily Henrich, Nadiyah Howard, Amy Huntington, Mary Kim, Christina Lewis, Jenn Montgomery, Sara Nahrwold, Nicole Orton, Courtney Parish, Jenny Platt, Laura Scheip, Damara Thompson, Nhien To, and Marika Tsanganelias. My very best wishes to this very special group of teens.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, this resolution is an expression of this body's outrage at the manifestation of unmitigated evil that was visited upon Oklahoma City, its people, and our Nation on April 19. It also provides us with an opportunity to recognize the real spirit of America and the underlying greatness of this Nation. Exhibited in the aftermath of that horrific event was the friendship and fraternity of our citizens, which, sad to say, is only typically publicized in situations of national crisis. We need to remind ourselves that such acts of personal and national virtue and heroism occur daily in this country as Americans fulfill their obligations of citizenship, through voluntarism, sacrifice, and charity. When catastrophe strikes, however, we are refreshed by the benevolence of those acts, undertaken with spontaneous enthusiasm and profound grace. The Oklahoma City bombing has reached the heart and soul of America, evinced by the generous outpouring of love and prayers for the people of Oklahoma City and the families burdened by the scars of injury and death. Almost immediately hundreds of rescue workers from across America voluntarily flocked to that city to provide many unselfish hands in rescue efforts. Hundreds of Americans gather quietly near the Murrah building trying to do their part, however they might: through prayers, deeds, or both. Americans throughout this land are expressing their sorrow and solidarity with the people of Oklahoma City in ways that are at once poetic and meaningful. Many have sought to find an explanation for the causes for that awful act of cowardice, but there is really only one explanation for it: diabolical individuals intent on damaging society by hurting hundreds of innocent lives. The depraved events of Oklahoma City are a humbling reminder of our own vulnerability. We should abide by what Lincoln called the ``better angels of our nature'' and defeat the attempts to define ourselves by the ravings and actions of evildoers and fanatics. We bring this resolution to the floor to pay our respect to the victims of this disaster and their grieving families. The magnitude of their personal losses, and the violence felt by so many, dwarfs our effort to put emotions and empathy into words. Later this month, the Judiciary Committee will consider comprehensive legislation directed at combating terrorism from whatever source. Lest our people be concerned, strengthening our law enforcement capabilities in this regard does not require a restriction of our civil liberties and constitutional protections. Congress is quite capable of striking the delicate and necessary balance between our constitutional guarantees and the Government's need to secure the safety of its citizenry. The legislation will not work a forfeiture of our citizens' cherished liberties. It will honor the victims of Oklahoma City and will attempt to diminish the possibility of repeated terrorist attacks in the future.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I want to express my support for this important legislation, which injects some commonsense changes into the Federal fair housing law. I want to congratulate the chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on Judiciary, the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Charles Canady, and his chief counsel, Kathryn Hazeem, as well as the ranking member of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Frank, and his chief counsel, Robert Raben; in addition, the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Conyers, John Conyers, the ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary, for their very supportive conduct on this bill. It has pretty much all been said, and I do not want to repeat it, but I ought to mention that this legislation will protect innocent real estate agents and condominium board Members against personal liability for money damages stemming from this seniors only provision if they have acted in good faith. The American Association of Retired Persons strongly supports enactment of H.R. 660 as a means of providing needed clarity in the law. Housing discrimination should not be tolerated in our society, but there have been numerous instances where implementation and administration of the fair housing law has prompted unnecessary confusion and strife. This bill is a step toward fairness, accommodation, and common sense for senior citizens and the communities where they live. I certainly urge an ``aye'' vote.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I ask that no Member ask me to yield until I finish because I do not want to be interrupted. I want to tell you how unpleasant it is to take the well in militant opposition to something that is so near and dear to the hearts of so many of my colleagues and Members whom I revere, but I just cannot be an accessory to the dumbing down of democracy. And I think that is what this is. I might also say, parenthetically, that it is a little amusing to see the stickers that have been worn by so many of my colleagues. It says, ``term limits, yes.'' It does not say, ``term limits now.'' It says, ``term limits, yes.'' I am reminded of the famous prayer of Saint Augustine who said, Dear God, make me pure, but not now. If someone told you on election day you had to vote for a particular person, you would wonder if you were back in the Soviet Union. What is the essential differences if they tell you you may not vote for this person? They have limited your range of choices. You have narrowed the circle of possibilities. You have denied a fundamental right free people have in a free country. If this were a trial, I would call as my first witnesses the Founding Fathers who directly rejected term limits. Chief Justice Earl Warren, in the famous case of Powell versus MacCormick, 1969, said, and I quote, ``a fundamental principle of our representative democracy is, in Hamilton's words, `that the people should choose whom they please to govern them.' As Madison pointed out at the convention,'' still quoting Justice Warren, ``this principle is undermined as much by limiting whom the people can select as by limiting the franchise itself.'' In 1788, in New York, in debating ratifying the Constitution, Robert Livingston asked a haunting question: ``Shall we then drive experience into obscurity?'' He called that an absolute abridgment of the people's rights. George Orwell, in a review of a book by Bertrand Russell, said it has become the task of the intellectual to defend the obvious. I make no pretense at being an intellectual, but defending experience against ignorance is certainly obvious. Have you ever been in a storm at sea? I have, and I knew real terror until I looked up on the bridge and the old Norwegian skipper, who had been to sea for 45 years, was up there sucking on his pipe. And I can tell you that was reassuring. When that dentist bends over with the drill whirring, do you not hope he has done that work for a few years? And when the neurosurgeon has shaved your head and they have made the pencil mark on your skull where they are going to have the incision and he approaches with the electric saw, ask him one question, are you a careerist? Is running a modern complex society of 250 million people and a $6 trillion economy all that easy? To do your job, to have a smattering of ignorance, in Oscar Levant's phrase, you have to know something about the environment, health care, banking and finance and tax policy, farm problems, weapons systems, Bosnia and Herzegovina and North Korea, not to mention Nagorno-Karabakh, foreign policy, the administration of justice, crime and punishment, education and welfare, budgeting in the trillions of dollars and immigration. And I have not scratched the surface. We need our best people to deal with these issues. We in Congress deal with ultimate issues: life and death, war and peace, drawing the line between liberty and order. And do you ever really doubt that America will never again have a real crisis? With a revolving-door Congress, where will we get our Everett Dirksens, our Scoop Jackson, our Arthur Vandenbergs, our Hubert Humphreys, our Barry Goldwaters, our Sam Ervins? You do not get them out of the phone book. Where did Shimon Peres and Yitzak Rabin get the self-confidence to negotiate peace for their people with the PLO? I will tell you where: experience, bloody, bloody experience. To those of you that are overwhelmed by the notion that this is a very popular cause, let me remind you of what Edmund Burke told the electors of Bristol, November 3, 1774. He said, a Member of Parliament owes to his constituency his highest fidelity. But he also owes them his best judgment and he does not owe his conscience to anybody. I once told an incoming class of freshmen back when they let me speak to them at lunch that they have to know the issues to be prepared to lose me, this is such an issue. The unstated premise of term limits is that we are progressively corrupted the longer we stay around here. In answer to that I say, look around. You will see some of the finest men and women you will ever encounter in your life. The 12 apostles had their Judas Iscariot. We have a higher ratio than that. And I will tell you, I will not surrender. I will not concede to the angry, pessimistic populism that drives this movement, because it is just dead wrong. Our negative campaigning, our mudslinging, our name calling has made anger the national recreation. But that is our fault, not the system's. America needs leaders. It needs statesmen. It needs giants, and you do not get them out of the phone book. News is always better? What in the world is conservative about that? Have we nothing to learn from the past, tradition, history, institutional memory? Do they not count? They have a saying in the provinces, Ignorance is salvageable, but stupid is forever. This is not conservative. It is radical distrust of democracy. It is cynical. It is pessimistic, devoid of the hope and the optimism that built this country. This corrosive attack on the consent of the governed stems from two sources. One is well meaning but misguided, and the other are those who really in their heart hate politics and despise politicians. I confess, I love politics and I love politicians. They invest the one commodity that can never be replaced, their time, their family life, their privacy, and their reputation. And for what? To make this a better country. Oh, incumbents have an advantage. I guess they do, although not necessarily. You have a record to defend. You have voted on hundreds of bills. And you get socked with them by your challenger who has nothing to defend, and you better be ready to explain how you voted back in 1988 on Gramm-Rudman or something like that. But listen to me, it is 11:30 at night. And it is January and the snow is whirling outside the window. And I am in a banquet hall. I am at my one-millionth banquet. I am sitting there as we are honoring the mayor of one of my local towns, and they have not even introduced the commissioner of streets yet. And I am exhausted. And I look out the window at the snowstorm and I wonder where my opponent is. He does not even know he is my opponent. He is home, stroking his collie dog, smoking a Macanudo, sipping from a snifter of Courvoisier and watching an R-rated movie on cable. But I am at that banquet. Again and again, I will tell you why you have a leg up, good constituent service, accessibility, and availability. You ought to have a leg up. You have made an investment challengers never make. I will not apologize for that. The case for term limits is a rejection of professionalism in politics. Career politician is an epithet. Careerism, they say, places too much focus on getting reelected and not on the public interest. That is a perfect nonsequitur. You get reelected by serving the public interest. Professionals, my friends, will run this Government. Only they will not be elected, they will be the faceless, nameless, try-to- get-them-on-the-phone, unaccountable permanent bureaucracy. There are two contradictory arguments which support this term-limits issue. One is that we are too focused on reelection, not close enough to the people. Then you have the George Will theory that we are too close to the people, too responsive, and we need a constitutional distance from them. I suggest any cause that is supported by two contradictory theories like this is standing on two stools which, as they separate, will give you an awful hernia. Term limits limit the field of potential candidates. What successful person in mid life will leave a career at 50 and try and pick up the pieces at 56 or 62? This job will become a sabbatical for the well-to- do elite and bored retirees. And if you listen carefully, if this ever becomes law, that shuffling sound you hear is the musical chairs being played in every legislature in the country. So the question of 1788 recurs. Shall we then drive experience into obscurity? Shall we perpetrate this absolute abridgment of the people's rights? Listen, last June 6, I had the honor of standing on the beaches at Normandy with Bob Dole, Bob Michel, Sonny Montgomery, Sam Gibbons, and John Dingell. I guess you would call us old bulls today. But we were very young when we fought in battle 50 years ago. I guess we were citizen soldiers and citizen sailors back then. By some perverse logic, you withhold from us the title of citizen legislators today. But I heard the mournful, piercing sound of big pipes from a British band, scattered among the sea of white crosses and the Stars of David, playing ``Amazing Grace.'' And with eyes not quite dry, I read some of the names on the crosses until I came to one that had no name. It just had a cross, stating ``Here Lies in Honored Glory a Comrade in Arms Known but to God.'' Then I saw another and another like that. No name, no family, just heroism buried thousands of miles from home. It occurred to me what an unpayable debt we owe these people because they died for freedom, and a part of that freedom is to choose who will govern you. I can never vote to disparage that freedom. I pray you cannot either. I presume to speak for Sam Gibbons, Bob Stump, John Dingell, Sonny Montgomery, and yes, Bob Dole. Fifty years ago our country needed us and we came running. I think our country still needs us. Why do you want to stop us from running? Why do you want to drive experience into obscurity? Have you forgotten the report card we got last November? I have one piece of advice: Trust the people.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. I did not circulate anything, Mr. Rangel.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, we wanted to make sure that it does not mean abortion.

Mr. HYDE. The gentleman has to interpret medical services. If he would check with the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin]----

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

Mr. HYDE. The gentleman is exactly correct. My amendment is to prevent any funds under this legislation to pay for abortions, whether surgical, drug-induced or otherwise. But in no way is it intended to interfere with access to prepregnancy-related services.

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

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I am not sure this is the greatest time to talk about anything, but I have an amendment that is designed solely to ensure that the funds in this block grant program do not get spent for abortions. That is simply what it does.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. I just want to say that I think this is a superb amendment and I congratulate the gentleman from New Jersey. This is very important, not to transfer more serious problems on the kids of the poor than they already have. So I salute the gentleman. I hope everyone supports it.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a bill to revise and codify certain general and permanent laws, related to aliens and nationality, as title 8 of the United States Code. This bill has been prepared by the Office of the Law Revision Counsel as a part of the responsibilities of that Office to prepare and submit to the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives, for enactment into positive law, all titles of the United States Code. This bill is intended to make no substantive change in the existing law. Anyone interested in obtaining a copy of the bill should contact the Judiciary Committee document clerk in room B-29 of the Cannon House Office Building. The telephone number is 225-0408. In addition, a section-by-section summary--containing reviser's notes and tables--of the bill, may be obtained through Edward F. Willett, Jr., Law Revision Counsel, U.S. House of Representatives, H2-304 Ford House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515-6711. Persons wishing to comment on the bill should submit those comments to the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims of the House Judiciary Committee no later than June 15, 1995.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, the resolution before us today is keeping a promise to the American people to cut Congress' work force. During last fall's election campaign, we told the voters that if we became the majority we would reform Congress and no longer exempt this institution from the belt tightening actions the rest of America is facing. The American people want accountability and they want more bang for their taxpayers' buck. That is what we are doing in this resolution. When compared to what was spent in the previous Congress, this funding proposal represents a 30-percent cut, and a reduction of $67,003,290. The House Oversight Committee deserves credit for the way it went about making these cuts. It was done very carefully, with full recognition of the importance of sustaining every committee's ability to operate effectively. Moreover, it was done with sensitivity to the needs of the minority party. Indeed, a close scrutiny of this budget reveals that the Democrat minority is treated comparatively better than their Republican predecessors were in previous Congresses. Moreover, to bring this about the new majority, on a number of Committees, substantially reduced the size of their own staffs to help the minority. The House Oversight Committee must also be commended for developing an entirely new accounting system in which all of the House Committees' operational expenses are consolidated in a single account. Such streamlining will make auditing expenditures much easier to track. Thus, the taxpayers will be able to determine quickly how their tax dollars are being spent. In short, Mr. Speaker, this responsive and responsible Congressional cost-cutting measure deserves the support of everyone in this House. I urge its swift passage.