Henry Hyde

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos).

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

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, increasingly, foreign governments have been lobbying localities in the United States to accept their consular cards as valid identification. At least two countries now issue consular cards in the U.S. for these purposes and many others are planning to do so. No standards govern those cards, and there is little information on which localities can rely in deciding whether to accept a country's consular card. All this amendment does is clarify the Secretary of State's power to ensure that issuance of these cards is rational and safe. By authorizing the Secretary of State to regulate these cards and setting requirements that countries must meet in issuing the cards, this amendment will allow localities to make informed decisions on whether to accept such documents. Regulation of the cards will also protect the American people from the risks that unregulated and unreliable documents pose. Those risks were underscored recently by the FBI, which determined that because of their vulnerability to fraud and forgery, these cards pose criminal threats as well as a potential terrorist threat. The requirements in this amendment will address those threats by deterring fraud and improving the reliability of consular identification cards. The amendment also provides an enforcement mechanism that empowers the Secretary of State to regulate consulates' compliance with these requirements. It is appropriate to vest this responsibility in the State Department. Not only does its Office of Foreign Missions currently regulate the activities of foreign consulates in the U.S. but the Department will also bring to this role its expertise in evaluating foreign documents. This amendment is needed to allow the State Department necessary authority to regulate foreign consulates in a changing environment. For this reason, I urge passage of this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I just would like to respond to my friend from New Jersey who every time someone offers an amendment or a bill trying to get a handle on illegal immigration, known as undocumented, where we have God knows how many people in this country living in substandard style because of the illegality of their presence, and it could be in the millions, it does not mean there is some antipathy toward a racial group or an ethnic group at all. It is just a feeble attempt to get a handle on the borders of our country and who is here and who is not. The problem is not getting better. It is getting worse. But trying to do something about it in good faith does not manifest the hostility at all. We are all immigrants sooner or later or back far enough, but I really resent the conclusion the gentleman draws that all Republicans do not like people of different ethnicity. I would say just the opposite.

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

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), the learned chairman of the Committee on Armed Services.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I might just say that the gentleman is certainly making common sense, and the problem is we just cannot do it unilaterally. It might be wise for us to constantly review our dues and payments to the U.N., but there is a process that is not unilateral in getting them changed. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield such time as I have remaining to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos).

Mr. HYDE

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

Mr. HYDE. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green).

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today to offer amendment No. 2, which includes the text of H.R. 2441, the Millennium Challenge Account Authorization and Peace Corps Expansion Act of 2003. The Millennium Challenge Account is based on the revolutionary idea that countries must be accountable for their actions, be responsible for developing and advancing their own plans of progress, and must show results in order to receive economic assistance from the American taxpayer. The Peace Corps Expansion Act supports the President's vision that he described in this Chamber during his 2002 State of the Union address to double the number by the year 2007 of Peace Corps volunteers serving their Nation overseas. Many U.S. assistance programs have not achieved results over the years. Some assistance has allowed corrupt leaders to amass personal fortunes and remain in power beyond the will of the citizenry. Other aid has allowed leaders and governments to abdicate responsibility for effective governance and pursue detrimental, self-destructive, or personally self-enriching policies. Other assistance has gone to consultants or middlemen with little results to show in the end. These failures of the past should not lead us to turn our backs on the developing world. Just the opposite. Now is the time for American leadership and for America to recognize through its aid those countries that respect the rights of citizens, promote democracy, and encourage economic freedom and prosperity. However, we need to demonstrate what works and what does not, and we need to hold accountable those governments and leaders who do not choose the right path of reform. The President's proposal is the first serious attempt to address the fact that existing U.S. development assistance programs have consistently failed to meet their stated goals. Despite decades of economic aid, many Nations are poorer now than they were before first receiving development assistance. The President's proposal is enthusiastically supported by the relief and development nongovernmental community, as well as by the Heritage Foundation, the Wall Street Journal, and other organizations that have previously assailed foreign assistance as wasteful, inefficient, and ineffective. The U.S. must be more selective in aid distribution if the assistance is to be effective and a positive contributor to development. As proposed by the President and included in the legislation before us today, MCA assistance will reward only those recipients who willingly adopt good policies and institutions. Of the 70-or-so countries currently eligible for development assistance, it is possible that only 10 countries will meet the strict criteria stipulated by the President and endorsed in this bill. At the funding levels proposed, this may mean a very high level of assistance for MCA-eligible countries. The administration believes this will create a competition among cusp countries which may accelerate reforms and the adoption of good policies. This amendment endorses this approach. The President's proposal for a Millennium Challenge Account deserves our support. We should embrace the idea of increasing U.S. economic assistance but only to those countries that demonstrate a commitment to human rights, democratic ideals and practices, and investment in people. H.R. 2441, reported favorably by the Committee on International Relations, is truly a bipartisan bill that supports two of the President's key foreign policy initiatives and has more than 70 cosponsors. The work of the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the ranking member on this committee, has been indispensable; and I congratulate and thank him, and I urge my colleagues to support the Hyde-Lantos amendment, which incorporates the text from H.R. 2441. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Harris). (Ms. HARRIS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, on March 27, my district office in Addison, Illinois was completely destroyed by a fire. Only a few cherished career mementos survived, and even then, they were severely damaged by heat, smoke and water. Thankfully, the early morning fire injured no one. After assessing our loss, my district staff's thoughts immediately turned to the citizens of my district. How could we continue to serve them locally without a roof over our heads or even something as simple as pen and paper? That's when many people and government entities in my district stepped forward to offer assistance. I would like to particularly commend Addison Township--whose offices also were destroyed by the fire--for making sure repairs to the office were completed accurately and on time. This vigilance helped my staff resume normal operations as quickly as possible. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend Addison Township for unselfishly offering aid and comfort to my district staff in our hour of need. Paraphrasing the great movie, It's a Wonderful Life, I can only say that I am indeed the richest man in town with friends like these in Addison Township, Illinois.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend a young individual from my district who recently won the honor of ``Mayor for the Day'' of Elmhurst, Illinois. Miss Carly Hamilton, who is in Sixth Grade at Visitation Catholic School, won this honor by composing the following essay in 50 words or less: ``I love Elmhurst, the greatest city in the greatest country in the world because . . . Many people might think it's small, but to tell you the truth, it's not at all. Elmhurst has movies and ice cream and chocolates and books, from haircutters to house sellers, from schools to parks. So for me, Elmhurst is the place to be!''

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I stand today to recognize World Refugee Day, declared on June, 20, 2000 and every year thereafter by a special UN General Assembly Resolution. The adoption of this resolution marked an expression of solidarity with Africa, which hosts the most refugees and has extended help generously in the past. This year, World Refugee Day renews a commitment to explore all means possible to encourage cooperation among nations in seeking permanent and durable humanitarian solutions for refugees. On World Refugee Day, the UNHCR celebrates the many contributions of refugees around the globe, as well as highlights their particular vulnerabilities and ongoing need for protection and assistance. This year, World Refugee Day is dedicated to refugee youth. In Central Africa alone, 57 percent of refugees are under age 18. Young people between the ages of 12 and 24 represent about 35 percent of all refugees. Deprived of the protection of their homes and communities, young people are vulnerable to abuses including forced labor; military or terrorist recruitment; and sexual exploitation. This year, we recognize the governments of Kenya, Tanzania, and Zambia in honor of World Refugee Day. Tanzania is home to Africa's largest refugee population, primarily from Burundi and Congo-Kinshasa. According to Refugees International, 700,000 refugees have found safe haven in Tanzania. The Republic of Kenya continues to provide sanctuary for refugees and displaced persons from Sudan, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Somalia, Somaliland, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi and Djibouti. The new leadership is moving forward in a positive and receptive direction. Over 250,000 refugees continue to seek refuge there. The peaceful transition in Angola and the innovative burden-sharing arrangement by the Zambian government, as host to Angolan refugees, also deserves praise. There is much to be learned from their example. We encourage these and other governments in their continued hospitality and promotion of humanitarian assistance to refugees and displaced persons.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, on March 27, my district office in Addison, Ill., was completely destroyed by a fire. Only a few cherished career mementos survived, and even then, they were severely damaged by heat, smoke and water. Thankfully, no one was injured by the early morning fire. After assessing our loss, my district staff's thoughts immediately turned to the citizens of my district. How could we continue to serve them locally without a roof over our heads or even something as simple as pen and paper? That's when the Village of Addison and particularly, Mayor Larry Hartwig, immediately stepped forward to offer their assistance free of charge. The Village opened the doors of its Village Hall, offering my staff a temporary place to call home. Office space was immediately made available, allowing us to resume district operations within a day. Had we had to search for other office space, the delay in resuming, operations would have been much longer. The Village also graciously offered my staff everything it needed to continue serving my constituents. From desks and chairs, to phone lines, copiers and fax machines, we had it all. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the Village of Addison for unselfishly offering aid and comfort to my district staff in our hour of need. Paraphrasing the great movie, ``It's a Wonderful Life,'' I can only say that I am indeed the richest man in town with friends like these in Addison, Illinois.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, every year in my district, I ask students in grades 8th and 12th to participate in an essay contest. This year's contest focused on the issue of energy and national security. Specifically, this year's essay question was as follows: ``How important is energy to our economy and our national security?'' I am pleased that so many students chose to enter this essay contest. Unfortunately, however, there can only be one winner in each group: 8th grade and 12th' grade. This year's 8th grade winner was Dina LaSala, who attends St. Charles Borromeo School in Bensenville, Illinois. The 12th grade winner was Jane Urban, who attends Glenbard West High School in Glen Ellyn, Illinois. This is Miss LaSala's essay, entitled ``How Important Is Energy to Our Economy and Our National Security?'': In aftermath of September 11th terrorist attacks, Americans are asking our government to strengthen national security. The immediate focus must be to secure our homeland from future attacks, but we also must take steps to safeguard the long-term health of our economy, the livelihood of America's workers and our environment. Earlier this year, President Bush sent Congress his National Energy Plan, a blueprint for ensuring America's future against the perils of an unstable world. The plan includes 105 recommendations on improving energy efficiency and conservation, protecting the environment, diversifying our energy supplies through development of renewable resources, and reducing our reliance on foreign energy. A bipartisan majority in the United States House of Representatives passed this plan in August. It is imperative the Senate does likewise. A key component of the president's plan is the development of energy resources on federal lands, including the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR.) ANWR is considered the nation's largest potential new oil field and was specially designated by Congress for further study of its oil and gas potential in 1980. At a time when our country is experiencing an economic downturn, development of this area would give a major boost to our economy and American workers, directly or indirectly creating as many as 735,000 new jobs across the country, including 135,000 construction jobs. It would also give American greater energy independence at a time when more than half of our nation's oil comes from foreign sources, a figure that is rising and could exceed 65 percent imports by the year 2020. The United States needs oil imports, but the current crisis underscores the importance of having our own healthy domestic supply. A conservative estimate is that ANWR would yield 7.7 billion barrels of oil, an amount roughly equal to 20 years of imports from Saddam Hussein's Iraq. The higher end estimates equal 50-year's worth. ANWR could easily provide more than 20 percent of our domestic oil production. This is especially important considering United States' energy production is not keeping up with our growing consumption, creating a rapidly increasing gap between domestic supply and demand. Over the next 20 years, even with increased conservation programs, United States' domestic oil production is calculated to decline by 1.5 million barrels per day, while demand will increase by 6 million barrels per day. Earlier this year, we saw the effect energy shortages can have on our economy and quality of life. Californians experienced rolling blackouts. Gas prices rose to new highs last spring and summer. At a time like this, we must not turn our back on an important domestic source of energy. We can develop a small portion of ANWR while guarding the environment. The administration is urging that the ANWR legislation impose the toughest environmental standards ever applied to oil production. For example, it would limit the surface disruption caused by drilling to only 2,000 acres of the 1.5 million set aside for oil exploration within the 19.6 total acres contained in ANWR. The men and women who work in the oil fields will be specially trained to protect the environment. This will ensure a well-qualified work force will take every precaution necessary to preserve the environment integrity of the Arctic Coastal Plain. In addition, oil-field technology has advanced significantly in the 30 years since oil development began on Alaska's Prudhoe Bay. We have the capacity to extract oil while still protecting the Arctic ecosystem by increasing the length of directional drills and allowing for smaller and more compact production pads. With American ingenuity and innovative technologies, we can protect the environment and provide energy security. We have the opportunity to take action before we face a devastating crisis. We must embrace a long-term energy plan that allows for protection of our environment, more efficient use of energy and increased development of domestic energy sources. Our long-term national security depends on it. This is Miss Urban's essay, entitled ``Liquid Gold Lacks Luster in the New Economy'': Oil has often been referred to as ``liquid gold,'' but this commodity can also be an extremely volatile and obstreperous substance plaguing the United States. America's continued dependence on foreign oil is a serious threat to the success of its economy as well as to the security of the nation, especially as the war on terrorism is waged on Iraq and the flow of this ``liquid gold'' is disrupted. Not only must Americans understand this serious energy problem, but also new and viable solutions must be crafted in order to prevent the United States' dependence on foreign oil from becoming an oil slick into disaster. The economic implications of dependence on foreign oil are staggering, especially when the U.S. has not been able to disentangle itself from oil providers, such as the member nations of OPEC, who directly oppose the American way of life. Unless the United States is able to wean itself from a constant flow of OPEC oil, the economy will continue to struggle well after the war against Iraq is over. Some of the fluctuations in the oil market come, surprisingly, not from foreign pricing, but from internal governmental regulations. In September of 2000, President Clinton released thirty million barrels of oil from the government oil reserves in order to alleviate high prices. While this action was a temporary fix for rising prices, when President George W. Bush replenished the thirty million barrels, oil prices rose significantly, more than the release in 2000 lowered them. Thus, governmental regulation of oil has not proved helpful, but rather this kind of intervention only further aggravates problems in the United States as it endures rising oil prices. Overall, the issue of economic repercussions for U.S. dependence on foreign oil is long lasting and serious for the future of the U.S. economy. National security is greatly compromised as the U.S. continues to depend on foreign oil supplies. Nothing proves this point more than the risks involved with a war in Iraq and the possible loss of oil reserves for the United States' consumption. According to a House Committee on International Relations hearing on oil diplomacy of June 20, 2002, Spencer Abraham, the Secretary of Energy, stated that the U.S. holds only 2 percent of the world's oil reserves while the Middle East has nearly two-thirds of the World's oil reserves. These discouraging numbers leave the United States in a very delicate international relationship with oil-rich nations, complicating America's ability to insure its national security while facing a continuing threat from terrorism. Both for the economy and in regard to national security, new sources for oil need to be discovered to eliminate the degree of dependence the United States has on foreign oil. To that end, some possibilities for new directions in energy supply include using cleaner more efficient fuels, utilizing renewable fuel sources, opening new geographic regions for oil, expanding duel refining, building nuclear power plants, and developing new technology in the transportation industry. Cleaner, more efficient fuels not only allow for greater environmental protection, but they also provide for better miles per gallon, a standard that has already been raised to alleviate energy crises in Europe and will help Americans drive farther using less oil. Renewable energy resources include air, water, and solar sources, all of which are both environmentally friendly and readily available. While some of these alternatives have initially high costs, their long-term benefits might far outweigh the initial expense. New geographic regions for oil include much of Central America, Mexico, Venezuela, Canada, Russia, Africa and the Caspian Basin. These areas of the world do not pose as great a threat, both politically and economically, as the OPEC nations. An expansion of fuel refining would allow the United States to process and use more fuel than in the past and the United States could use more of the oil it already has, but has not yet processed. Nuclear power plants are a potential source for more energy, as long as they are made safer and provide for safe disposal of their waste. The transportation industry should be given greater funding and freedom to explore the development of hydrogen cell fuel sources as well as electric powered hybrid cars and solar powered cars. These types of development further alleviate the strain on the nation's resources. Finally, the nation as a whole needs to be come more mindful about energy consumption and greater efforts and campaigns could be launched to help people car pool, take public transportation, or walk whenever possible. To that end, public transportation systems need to be expanded and improved so as to accommodate these new changes in energy use. When all of these efforts are combined, American's reliance on the Middle East for oil can be greatly reduced while American oil prices are held at reasonable levels. The impact of these solutions will positively affect both the economy and national security of the United States. Efforts on the part of the government and the energy industry, as well as individual Americans, will bring greater energy independence in the United States. Though oil is ``liquid gold,'' it lacks luster as long as the United States' economy and national security are compromised by America's dependence on foreign energy sources. A significant reduction of such dependence will be achieved as the United States ``brings home the gold'' through a variety of production methods.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I was just thinking, an idle mind, I guess crazy thoughts go through your head. I was thinking of theme songs, and I was thinking for the pro-life people, ``People Who Need People Are the Luckiest People in the World.'' I think it is a great theme song for us, and I am trying to think of a funeral dirge that would fit the so- called pro-choice people, but I cannot. My good friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), said this is designed to undermine Roe v. Wade. Not at all. This is designed to say there ought to be civilized limits on the exercise of the abortion license. With 1.5 million abortions a year, one would think somebody would look at that and say, what can we do to stem that tide. We are talking about human life. We are talking about death. We are talking about abortion, which does not terminate a pregnancy, it exterminates a pregnancy. And we are talking about a particularly hideous, gruesome form of abortion called partial-birth abortion. Yesterday, we decided that flags were not for burning. I hope today we decide that little infants are not for killing. Partial-birth abortion is exactly what the pro-choice late Senator from New York said it is: infanticide. The substitute offered by my friend from Maryland is a tactical maneuver in the ongoing war between the quality-of-life people, who think if you cannot have a decent quality of life, life is not worth living; and the sanctity-of-life people over here who think every life is important and has intrinsic value. The victim is a nearly-delivered baby, four-fifths delivered out of the birth canal. The doctor takes a Metzenbaum scissor, jams it in the neck of the little baby, sucks out the brains and collapses the skull. How can we defend a process that we would not impose on a laboratory dog or a hamster? Cruel? Can we understand the pain that that little one must feel? Oh, my colleagues might deny it, but the medical texts are clear, absolutely. The law exists to protect the weak from the strong. I cannot think of anything weaker than a little baby, a little nearly born infant, with little legs flailing, little arms flailing waiting for the knife to hit him in the back. The people we pretend to defend, the powerless, those who cannot escape, who cannot rise up in the streets, those are the ones that ought to be protected by the law. The law exists to protect the weak from the strong. Let me just say this: The great Horace Mann said something interesting. He said, ``You ought to be ashamed to die unless you have achieved some victory for mankind.'' Well, I think if we can put partial-birth abortion into the torture chamber, where it belongs, and get rid of it, that may not be a major victory, but it will be a victory for humanity. I want to be on that side.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, my name was not taken in vain. The gentlewoman is incapable of taking a name in vain. Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that it is tragic that that woman died from a bungled abortion; but every abortion is lethal and fatal to the baby, so that is a greater tragedy in my opinion. By the way, I thought of the theme song for the pro-choice people, ``Mahler's Tenth.'' You ought to hear it. It will really make you feel sad.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, one of the great aspects of the privilege of being a Congressman is that we get to debate some pretty noble issues. We get to engage in them. This is certainly one. I am delighted this debate is occurring. In my view, there is something larger at work here than simply the flag itself. I think this amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) is an effort by mainstream Americans to reassert community standards. This bill is a protest against the vulgarization of our society. In our popular culture, decent standards are under constant and withering assault. This amendment is an assertion that the community has some rights, too, and that with rights go responsibilities which help provide a moral compass for our ``anything goes'' society. This amendment partially corrects the oversight in our Constitution whereby we have a Bill of Rights, oh, do we have a Bill of Rights, but no bill of responsibilities. Then, of course, a right is meaningless unless we are all responsible for respecting it, so one depends on the other. This amendment asserts that our flag is not simply a piece of cloth, but like a photograph of our families on our desks, it symbolizes certain unifying ideals that most Americans hold sacred. Our national motto, ``E Pluribus Unum,'' underscores the fact that we are a thoroughly diverse Nation. If we look around this room, not at this moment, but when we are all present, we see a wildly diverse group of Irish and Greeks and Poles and African Americans and Hispanics, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Our whole country is a diverse exposition of people coming together, proud of their ethnicity, of their language, their native music, their culture. But at the same time, there are unifying principles, things we share together. That is what ``E Pluribus Unum'' means, ``one from many.'' We are still one Nation. We are all blessed, no matter our background, with the rule of law. That is a unity worth celebrating, not denigrating. What is it about this swatch of fabric we call a flag? What gives it such beauty and power as it floats in the breeze? Well, men have followed it into battle again and again in defense of freedom, draped it over the coffins of heroes returned. I remember standing at a gravesite in Normandy and looking at the cross. It says, ``Here lies in honored glory, a comrade in arms known but to God.'' And decorating that sparse, grim grave was a little flag that somebody had put near the cross. I looked at that and I thought that little flag was saying thank you for all America to that unknown soldier, thank you and God grant you peace. If we ask an old veteran attending a Memorial Day ceremony as he struggles to his feet to salute the flag, what does he think of when we see the flag, he will tell us freedom, sacrifice, and hope. Yes, it is called Old Glory because it is old; it has been handed down from generation to generation, and Glory because it stands for the most precious ideas human beings have ever known. Justice Frankfurter in a 1940 case said, ``We live by symbols.'' He went on to say, ``The ultimate foundation of a free society is the binding tie of cohesive sentiment.'' Woven into the fabric of the flag is the collective memory of America from Bunker Hill to Baghdad. America lacks the cultural homogeneity that China or Japan or even France has, but as Americans, we share the unity of the Declaration. But cohesive sentiment is what the flag symbolizes, and as tombstones are not for toppling nor churches for vandalizing, flags are not for burning. Burn a $10 bill and you violate the law. Walk down Constitution Avenue at high noon without your clothes on and you will soon learn the limits of self-expression. Free speech is not absolute, never has been. We have slander and libel laws, copyright laws, and many other limitations. This amendment does not trivialize our Constitution, far from it. It recognizes that nothing is more important in a democratic society than emphasizing the tradition of responsibility that nourishes our liberty. Saul Bellow, the novelist, said years ago, ``A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is great.'' When I hear my learned friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), managing this bill on the other side of the aisle, saying that never in 200 years have we attempted to amend the first amendment, I refer him to the 13th amendment and the 14th amendment, 1865-1868, and suggest that maybe some law schools are better than others. In any event, let me close with a paragraph from an article that I have saved over the years written by a woman named Diane Schneider. ``You, of course, have the right to burn Old Glory. If you are compelled to so express your disdain, if you can find no civil outlet in speech or song, you are protected by law. But if I am there when you put a match to the colors, know this: I will take the flaming fabric in my hands, crush the embers and hold the star-spangled banner as high as I can in the free wind.''

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the Senate concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 46) to correct the enrollment of H.R. 1298, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 1298, the legislation under consideration.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Rarely does Congress act with decisiveness for the benefit of so many suffering in the developing world. But this is precisely what we are doing today in enacting H.R. 1298, the United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS Act of 2003. With each passing day, HIV/AIDS claims more and more innocent victims. Not since the bubonic plague swept across the world in the last millennium has our world confronted such a horrible, unspeakable curse as we are now witnessing with the growing HIV/AIDS pandemic. The number of dead or dying is grotesquely high: 25 million already dead worldwide, and the number growing at a rate of 8,500 every day, with the prospects of entire villages populated only by orphans because the adults are dead or dying from AIDS. The bill we are considering today is the very same bill which passed the House May 1 by a vote of 375 to 41, with the exception of a minor amendment regarding debt forgiveness in poor countries. The Hyde-Lantos bill authorizes the President's 5-year $15 billion emergency plan for treatment and prevention of AIDS in those countries already facing crisis. The legislation creates a more responsive, coordinated, and effective approach among the various agencies of the U.S. Government involved in the global fight against HIV/AIDS. During consideration of the Hyde- Lantos measure last week, the Senate added an amendment encouraging the administration to work with other countries to extend additional debt relief to poor countries most affected by HIV/AIDS. I support this amendment, and it is my hope that this legislation may be presented for the President's signature prior to his participation in the G-8 summit in France in June. The Hyde-Lantos legislation promotes an approach that provides for antiretroviral therapy for more than 2 million people living with HIV. It encourages a strategy that extends palliative care to people living with AIDS. It supports efforts to find vaccines for HIV/AIDS and malaria. It emphasizes the need to keep families together, with particular focus on the needs of children and young people with HIV. The bill endorses prevention programs that stress sexual abstinence and monogamy as the first line of defense against the spread of this disease. And it contributes to multilateral initiatives that leverage the funds of other donor nations. Many organizations and individuals from diverse backgrounds participated in the crafting of this legislation, including members of the Congregation of the Franciscan Sisters in Wheaton, Illinois; missionaries in Uganda; AIDS treatment access groups in downtown Chicago; and caregivers who administer assistance and counseling to people living with AIDS. The Committee on International Relations heard from African ambassadors, church leaders, and citizens from around the world who are calling for action. Your support for this legislation today answers their call for action. But our work now is only beginning in this fight to save lives and rescue families and villages from this scourge. Mr. Speaker, today I urge all of my colleagues to support H.R. 1298, the Hyde-Lantos bill. The HIV/AIDS pandemic is more than a humanitarian crisis. Increasingly, it is a threat to the security of the developed world. Left unchecked, this plague will further rip the fabric of developing societies, pushing fragile governments and economies to the point of collapse. America does not have to take on the HIV/AIDS crisis alone. But as is often the case, American leadership, political or financial, is necessary if our friends around the world are to bear their fair share of the burden. This is what the President's proposal does. It sets a pattern of American leadership that others, we believe, will follow. Today, we have an opportunity to do something of significant and lasting importance, an obligation to do something reflecting our commitment to human solidarity, and the privilege of doing something truly compassionate. The AIDS virus is a mortal challenge to our civilization. I know today my colleagues will be animated by the compassion and vision that has always defined what it means to be an American and answer this call for help. Before I close, I want to thank, in particular, the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the ranking Democrat member. It is absolutely clear we would not be gathered in this Chamber about to celebrate the passage of such monumental legislation without the leadership, courage, and vision of the gentleman from California. From the start, he has been a leader in the fight against AIDS, tenacious in fighting for the Global Fund, and for increased funding for bilateral efforts. Yet during the past 3 years we have been working on this issue, he has always defended and represented his position with grace and eloquence. I would also like to recognize the essential and excellent contributions made to this legislation by his staff, in particular Peter Yeo and Pearl Alice Marsh. My own staff, Walker Roberts and Peter Smith, are also to be commended for their fine work and contributions to this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the unanimous consent agreement of yesterday, I offer a motion.