Henry Hyde

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, each year I present a challenge to the 6th District high school seniors and to the students attending junior high. The challenge is an essay contest I sponsor in which I choose a topic and ask the student to write about it. The work is judged on originality, creativeness, cohesiveness, writing skills, including sentence and paragraph structure, and neatness. The topic for the Seniors this year was ``The Necessity of the Electoral College,'' and for the junior high students, I asked that they write about James Madison. I am very pleased to share with my colleagues the essays that won first place. In the senior category, the author of the winning entry is Jeremy Hawbaker who lives in Bensenville and attends Fenton High School. The first place winner in the junior high category is Keith Root of Elmhurst who attends Jefferson Middle School. I thoroughly enjoyed the writing skills of both these young students and am pleased to insert their essays in the Record for your enjoyment. The Necessity of the Electoral College (By Jeremy Hawbaker) In the wake of a highly controversial election, in which a candidate won with less popular votes but more electoral votes than the other candidate, the question of whether the Electoral College should be abolished or not has come up. Questions then arise around that. What exactly is the purpose, the original purpose, the Founders put it in place for? What would be the advantage of abolishing it in favor of election by purely popular vote? What other method is there? The purpose of the Electoral College, as the Framers of the Constitution made it, was that with this system, more populated states would not be able to dominate over the less populated states in the presidential elections. This was a compromise made between those who favored power in the states and those who favored the power in the people. This was also a precautionary measure. The Founders created the United States of America as a republic, not a democracy as many would have one believe. They knew when they formed the nation that a democracy could quickly lead to mob rule and eventually tyranny, the farthest thing that they wanted having just fought a war to rid themselves of the tyranny of the British government. In a republic, there would be a government of law that would protect the rights of an individual. As James Madison wrote, many important issues ``are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority.'' In other words, people too often vote the way in which they are misled by politicians who claim to have the people's best interests in mind. Decisions are made by emotion rather than intellect. Instead, in the republic that America is currently, decisions are made by close deliberation. The Founding Fathers also knew their history. They were aware that unlimited power could not be trusted to anyone, including the people. As constitutional scholar Dan Smoot pointed out, ``they devised a system to control political power by dispersing it and balancing it so that too much power could not be concentrated in one place.'' The Electoral College system was also made to protect the people from despots. Once again, from their knowledge of history, the Framers knew that in past democracies in which leaders were chosen by the people alone tyrants had quickly arisen. For example. Caesar, elected by the people with promises of more property, quickly seized power. As Benjamin Franklin put it, ``There is scarce a king in a hundred who would not, if he could, follow the example of Pharaoh, get first at the people's Many people today feel however that popular vote is a much better way of determining who the next president should be. What are the advantages of this then? Or rather should I say what are the disadvantages? One possible advantage is that by abolishing the electoral College, the election process is simplified. The principle of ``one person, one vote'' is upheld. However, there are many disadvantages. One problem with this method is that it worsens the problems associated with a two-party system. ``Split votes'' become a serious problem in that if two candidates divide the vote of those who agree with them, a dissimilar third candidate would receive the plurality of the votes even if the electorate sides more with the pair. A larger problem though is that this would require an amendment, an amendment that would most likely never be able to be passed. An amendment requires three-fourths of the states to support it. In an amendment such as this, most states would lose their influence in presidential politics. Few states would endorse this. What then is there to do? I suggest retaining the Electoral College but reforming it. Instead of the ``winner-takes-all`` system that the Electoral College runs under now, electors should instead be chosen by congressional districts, with two electors-at-large for the senators in each state. With this idea, candidates would receive an electoral vote from each district they win. This would much more accurately reflect popular mandate. An advantage of this is that it would not take a Constitutional amendment. States can already do this if they wish, a couple of states already do. In this last election, the results would have been much more simplified as well. Bush won counties with an aggregate population of 143 million, compared to the 127 million that Gore would have won. This system would preserve then the weighting of votes in favor of the less populous states instead of letting the more populous states totally dominate over presidential elections. To keep our country secure and free then, the Electoral College should by all means stay as part of our government. However, I do believe that the process should be looked at due to the amount of controversy recently surrounding it.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), the distinguished majority leader.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Scarborough).

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to yield 10 minutes of my time on this amendment to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) and that he be permitted to control that time.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, my amendment requires that the final tranche of arrearage payments to the United Nations and other designated agencies be contingent upon a certification by the Secretary of State that the United States has regained its seat on the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. I urge support for this amendment that expresses our strongest possible concern over the vote on May 4 by the 53 members of the U.N. Economic and Social Council to remove the U.S. from its seat on the Human Rights Commission, a seat I might add that we have held continuously since the Commission's inception in 1947. Let there be no mistake about the message being sent to the U.S. with this unprecedented action to remove our strong and uncompromising voice from the proceedings of this body. This is a deliberate attempt to punish the United States for its insistence that we tell the truth about human rights abuses, wherever they occur; including in those countries represented on the Commission such as China and Cuba. The U.N. Secretary General, Kofi Annan, spoke for many other member states when he noted in a statement in the aftermath of this vote that the United States has played a leading role over the years in drafting landmark documents, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and has been a key member of the Commission. The U.S. made a major contribution to the work of the United Nations in the field of human rights. In response to this inexplicable and inexcusable decision, it is appropriate that the U.S. send its own message to U.N. member states, and particularly the members of the western European group. If allowed to stand, this decision threatens to turn the Human Rights Commission into just one more irrelevant international organization. If our voice is stilled, other countries will have even greater difficulty in speaking openly and plainly about rampant human rights abuses around the world. The adoption of this amendment will assist the administration in its efforts to take whatever steps are necessary over the next year to restore our voice and vote in this body. To those critics who say we are overreaching and overreacting, I would argue that to do anything less would be a repudiation of our own values and principles of freedom, democracy, and respect for human rights enshrined in the U.N. Charter and in our own Constitution. I urge the adoption of this amendment, and I am so pleased to share its authorship with the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos). Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, with great pleasure, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman). (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney). (Mr. SWEENEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I want to lend my unqualified support for the Tancredo amendment. There are one or two organizations in the world we do not have to join and do not have to subsidize to survive, and one is certainly UNESCO. $65 million a year at least for 2 years takes money away from the World Health Organization, the Food and Agriculture Organization, things that are useful, that do have an agenda, that works for the people. This money the State Department does not want, has not asked for it. If we go ahead with this, we are going to have to take it from something else. We withdrew in 1984, and we have gotten along famously since then without this heavy subsidization to an organization whose aims are amorphous at best. One of the things they do, I find this hard to believe, is they are engaged in a project of renovating downtown Havana. Now, that may be a wonderful thing if one lives in Havana, but I do not see why the taxpayers from my district should pay for something like that. The sense of taking money away because of the Human Rights Commission and thrusting it forward because someone thinks it is a good idea to belong to UNESCO does not make a lot of sense. I think we can save the $65 million. What a wonderful thing that would be. We do not need to join UNESCO. Let those other countries that like that sort of thing do it. So I would support the Tancredo amendment with great enthusiasm.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I submit for the Record an exchange of letters between Chairman Stump and myself. Committee on International Relations, House of Representatives, Washington, DC, May 4, 2001. Hon. Bob Stump, Chairman, Armed Services Committee, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Bob: I am writing to you concerning the bill H.R. 1646, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 2002 and 2003. The bill, in the form reported by the committee, contains language which falls within the Rule X jurisdiction of your Committee. Specifically, section 831, relating to international counterproliferation education and training activities and section 841, relating to the detail of uniformed military officers as munitions license review officers are provisions within your subject matter jurisdiction. Due to the exigencies of time, I hereby request that your Committee waive the opportunity to request a referral of the bill. I will support appointment of conferees from your Committee on these or other related matters within your jurisdiction. I appreciate your assistance in this matter. Sincerely, Henry J. Hyde, Chairman.

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

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).

Mr. HYDE. May I inquire how much time I have remaining, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1646, the Department of State's authorization for fiscal years 2002 and 2003. The distinguished gentleman from California, (Mr. Lantos), the ranking member of the Committee on International Relations, and I introduced the bill, which was favorably reported to the House by voice vote. I want to emphasize this is not a foreign aid bill. That subject will be discussed at a later time. Standing at the edge of a new century, it is appropriate to pause and wonder what lies ahead for us, our descendents, and our country. For the United States, the century just past was one of unprecedented American triumph. So great was our prominence, so expansive our fortune, that it has been called the ``American century.'' For many others around the world, however, the experience of that same period of time was quite different. Universally hailed at its beginning as an era of peace and progress, the 20th century proved to be the bloodiest and most savage in human history. Tens of millions perished; scores of cities were obliterated, continents were more thoroughly ravaged by modern warfare than any other long-ago barbarian could have dreamed. In our present-day complacency, it is easy to forget how razor thin were the margins by which our civilization survived, how close the enemies of the West came to winning. So although it is right for us to be hopeful about the next century, we would do well to be mindful of these different experiences and to remember we are guaranteed nothing. But neither are we at the mercy of chance. In large part, our fate will be determined by our own actions, both wise and foolish. Although we might wish by some simple stratagem to guarantee our success and safety, easy answers promise only to lull us into a deadly sleep. The only certain advantage we can possess in meeting the future is to steel ourselves as best we can to meet its inevitable surprises. As the saying goes, fortune favors the well prepared. If the United States were to advance confidently into the future, we require a sober foreign policy that rests upon a solid foundation, one whose prescriptions are rooted in reality. On that score, there is much to be done. One area in particular that I intend to emphasize is the need to shift our policies away from an excessive focus on short-term problems and recast them towards the achievement of long-term goals. But that is a different task than that which engages us here today. First, we must start with laying a strong foundation. That process begins with this bill. The President's budget request for the main State Department operating accounts identifies new priorities which support the U.S. State Department and its foreign policy platform. Notably, the budget increases focus on the Administration of Foreign Affairs accounts, which reflect a 19 percent increase over the current fiscal year. I note the accounts covered in this bill are funded at or above the President's request. Among the bill's principal features: The bill authorizes funds requested by the Bush administration to enhance embassy security, undertake reform of workplace rules and make long- overdue improvements to the Department's less than state-of-the-art computer systems. It clears the way for the transfer and sale of four Kidd-class destroyers to Taiwan, announced late last month by President Bush, a decision hailed by Members of both parties. The bill also designates Taiwan as the equivalent of a non-NATO ally, a designation which, among other things, permits it to purchase surplus U.S. military equipment. It creates a special envoy post for Sudan to work for a peaceful settlement of a conflict that has been marked by enormous human rights abuses, persecution of Christian and other minorities, and the deaths of an estimated 4 million people. It increases funding for activities of the broadcast services of Radio Free Europe, Radio Liberty, Voice of America, Radio Marti, and Radio Free Asia to nations including Russia, Cuba, China, North Korea and Vietnam, whose government-run and controlled media routinely suppress the democratic aspirations of their people. It significantly reduces the U.S. share of dues paid annually to the United Nations. Our assessed rate for the U.N. regular budget is cut from 25 percent to 22 percent, while the U.S. share of peacekeeping operations will drop from about 32 percent to 28 percent, effective January 1, 2001. Further reductions in peacekeeping will take place on a sliding scale, reaching about 27.5 percent in July of this year and falling further to near 25 percent by 2006. As part of the agreement to reduce the percentage of the U.N. budget paid by the United States, the U.S. is obliged to pay an arrearage of $582 million primarily for peacekeeping operations. I should note these latter funds were appropriated last year. It includes a provision from the Contract With America which amends the U.N. Participation Act of 1945 to ensure that no agreement deploying U.S. troops is effective without the approval of Congress. In sum, the bill provides ample safeguard that the U.N. and its specialized agencies will stay on their present course of management, budget, and personnel reforms. Now, these are some of the key aspects of this bill. Let me conclude by emphasizing one in particular; namely, that of security. The most important concerns the security of our people and diplomatic facilities around the world. The State Department states that last year alone, there were over 50 significant incidents involving violence or intrusion at our diplomatic facilities. As the technologies of destruction available to the world's terrorists continue to grow, we cannot stand idly by, waiting for our self-declared enemies to finalize preparations for their next attack which is certain to happen somewhere. The men and women of the Department of State and other agencies, serving their country far away from home in difficult and often dangerous conditions, deserve the fullest protection we can provide them and their families. We owe them at least that and much more. For that reason, as well as many others I have laid before you, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1646 so that we may get on with the great task of preparing our foreign policy for the new century. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for his overly generous comments. I can only respond by saying praise from Caesar is praise indeed. Mr. Chairman, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor).

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I think it would be a terrible mistake to submit our military to this International Criminal Court. First of all, double jeopardy. If we read the Statute of Rome, it is left to a court to decide if our court martial was a genuine, honorable, honest effort. If they do not like it and one gets discharged, that person can be retried. The decision is made, ``The case is being investigated or prosecuted by a state which has jurisdiction over it unless the State is unwilling or unable genuinely to carry out the investigation.'' Who decides if it was a genuine investigation? A Chinese court? The same means by which we were excluded from the Human Rights Commission can exclude us from participation in this court, because one becomes a member by the votes of the member states. Now, the crime of aggression, maybe that is flying along the China coast in international waters; maybe that is the crime of aggression to some people. Why submit our people to this? It is alien.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, free and fair elections are still a hallmark of democracy. Those countries which still harbor Communist regimes can look with envy upon Italy, where within 7 days the electorate will choose its national leadership in a free and fair election. I would like to congratulate in advance all those who worked so hard to make democracy in Italy a reality.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include therein extraneous material on H.R. 1646.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, John Quincy Adams, in a famous summation to the Supreme Court in 1841, spoke on behalf of 35 Africans he represented in the historic Amistad case involving that slave ship. Adams told the Supreme Court they would not have a more important case before them because this concerns the very nature of man. Mr. Speaker, today we confront the same issue only today it is the unborn whose humanity is being threatened, not the slaves. The question we are faced with is whether a preborn child has value; value sufficient to warrant protection in the law from a criminal assault, or whether the tiny, unborn infant is beneath protection, without value, without standing, without significance. Whether this little unborn is merely a randomly multiplying bunch of cells, a sort of tumor, like Shakespeare's sound and fury, signifying nothing. A famous novelist, Saul Bellow, once wrote, ``A great deal of energy can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is great.'' To rationalize the divesting of the little battered body of the unborn child, divest it of its humanity, its membership in the human family, is the ultimate indignity. My colleagues will not even call him a victim. In the endless debate on abortion, the term ``extremist'' is hurled across the aisle. I cannot imagine a more extreme posture than to deny the humanity of the unborn. If you hold the view that the unborn child is without value, you have to explain why this House on July 25, 2000 voted 417 to zero to forbid the execution of a woman while she carries a child in utero. That pregnancy must have meant something. So the fact of a pregnancy makes a difference. An obstetrician treats two patients when he treats a pregnant woman. Specialists perform fetal surgery of incredible complexity, heart surgery, spina bifida, exchange transfusions, all sorts of surgery to save that baby. How many times has a young couple exhibited proudly pictures of the sonogram? Tell these prospective parents their unborn child is without value. Mr. Speaker, the Lofgren substitute dehumanizes the child in the womb. It echoes a line from a New York Times editorial yesterday, which cannot bring itself to describe the assault that kills a mother's child in the womb as anything more than ``compromising a pregnancy.'' Have you ever heard a colder phrase describing the death from violence in the womb than ``compromising a pregnancy.'' That is like saying a drug dealer is an unlicensed pharmacist or a bank robber is a holder not in due course. Listen to the words of a famous obstetrician, Dr. Joseph DeLee, who wrote in the Yearbook of Obstetrics and Gynecology in 1940 as the world was about to be plunged into a bloody war, ``At the present time when rivers of blood and tears of innocent men, women and children are flowing in most parts of the world, it seems almost silly to be contending over the right to live of an unknowable atom of human flesh in the uterus of a woman. No, it is not silly. On the contrary, it is of transcendent importance that there be in this chaotic world one high spot, however small, which is safe against the deluge of immorality and savagery that is sweeping over us. That we, the medical profession, hold to the principle of the sacredness of human life and of the rights of the individual, even though unborn, is proof that humanity is not yet lost.'' The need for illusion is too great to justify weeding out of the human race the unborn. A pregnancy has not been compromised. A baby has been killed. In the words of Willy Loman's wife, Linda, in ``Death of a Salesman,'' ``Attention must be paid.'' Support Graham, defeat Lofgren.