Henry Hyde

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 minutes. (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 minutes of my time to the gentleman from Viriginia [Mr. Bliley], the chairman of the Committee on Commerce, and I ask unanimous consent that he may be permitted to yield blocks of time to other Members.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 956.

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

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman tell me under what circumstances someone is completely denied a right to seek recovery for damages?

Mr. HYDE. How so, would the gentleman tell me?

Mr. HYDE. That comes as a surprise to me. Maybe the gentleman knows something I do not, which is entirely possible.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Kansas [Mrs. Meyers]. (Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas], a valued member of the committee.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This has been an interesting debate, and remarkable by statements from the other side, many of whose Members know so many things that are just not so, Mr. Speaker. The gentlewoman from Houston, TX, talked about an elevator older than 15 years falling to the ground in a building, and denying the passenger a chance to recover. My gosh, that is a negligence suit. Any building that would have a faulty elevator, any lawyer that you can name would have a theory to sue on that one and take the building over for damages. Mr. Speaker, nobody is denied a right to sue for damages. I heard that again and again and again. It is the runaway punitive damages. You can get your pain and suffering, your loss of use, your permanent disability, your out-of-pocket expenses. Those are all recoverable. It is the punitive damages that also are recoverable, but are restricted from running away. That is all this bill does. Mr. Speaker, we heard about the minimum wage from more than one or two speakers. We heard it from my friend, the gentleman from Michigan, and we heard it from the other gentleman from Michigan. This has been an all-Michigan presentation, with the gentlemen from Michigan, Mr. Dingell, Mr. Bonior, and Mr. Conyers. I am sorry we could not match you in Michiganders. But we heard about the minimum wage, we heard about the Consumer Product Safety Commission, we heard about everything but this bill. This bill protects a legitimate plaintiff. It does not do an awful lot for the plaintiff's lawyers, but they do pretty good anyway. I hate to say they are a special interest, but I do not think being a special interest is the worst thing in the world. So are teachers; so are Congressmen, for that matter. Mr. Speaker, I suggest that if Members want to maintain the status quo, then stay with the President. But if they agree with Senators Rockefeller and Lieberman and other Democrats, as well as ourselves, then vote to override.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that during consideration of H.R. 3286, pursuant to House Resolution 428, notwithstanding the order of the previous question, it may be in order immediately after initial debate on the bill as amended for the Chair to postpone further consideration of the bill until the following legislative day, on which consideration may resume at a time designated by the Speaker.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. The gentleman is quite right, we all voted to lift the embargo, but we did not specify what countries should not put arms in there. That would have required us to list six pariah states. We kind of thought the President knew that Iran and Libya and Syria and these countries were pariah states. We took that into consideration without having to spell that out. The fact is, that is the last country we would want to have get a foothold in that volatile part of the world. That is our complaint.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, you will miss my tirade about October Surprise. How soon we forget the greatest wild goose chase in history which spent $1.3 million. I have quotations about how important that quest was for the Emerald City that my friends on the other side of the aisle led us on. Oh, it was not political; it was just 10 years old in an election year. But my friends do not know anything about politics, and I will not raise the issue. Mr. Speaker, we are not talking about the wisdom of the embargo. Everybody agreed, except the Clinton administration while they lived under it, that the embargo was wrong and immoral. We agree with that. But what we are concerned about is the wisdom, the propriety, the common sense of standing by while the most terrorist nation on Earth comes into the bosom of the most volatile place on Earth. The wisdom of that is a legitimate inquiry of the Committee on International Relations. It is legitimate. We want to know the genesis of this brainstorm, because we need to know if there were options? Was Iran the only country that could supply training and arms? Is not Turkey nearby? Is not Egypt nearby? Is not Pakistan nearby? What about the countries that were on our side, the Muslim countries in Operation Desert Storm? Why, of all the countries in the world, do we turn a blind eye to terrorist Iran? That is a legitimate inquiry. Politics? We did not learn about this until April 5, until the Los Angeles Times did what the administration should have done: Let us in on it. Oh, my Democrat colleagues say we had notices that arms were trickling in. Sure. We never knew that we had a policy of looking the other way while the most terrorist nation on Earth was getting a foothold in the most volatile place on Earth. Well, the timing is yours; it is not ours. Politics? Listen, I cannot help it if it is an election year. We are not going to abandon our responsibility to find out who dreamed up this policy, what is our role, what are the options, and most significantly, what are the consequences for our troops there? Our credibility as a country, saying one thing and doing another, those are important issues. We have a responsibility to get at the bottom of them. I wish it was last year, but it is not.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. I would just like to ask my friend from Michigan, when he stops gesticulating, if he would tell me, is he opposed to enhancing the sentences for crimes of violence against minors, children, and elderly?

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2974, the Crimes Against Children and Elderly Persons Increased Punishment Act, which was introduced by my good friend from Michigan, Dick Chrysler. This bill was introduced because the U.S. Sentencing Commission failed to satisfy the mandate of the 103d Congress for cases involving elderly victims. In 1994, Congress specifically directed the Sentencing Commission to ``ensure that the applicable guidelines range for a defendant convicted of a crime of violence against an elderly victim is sufficiently stringent to deter such a crime, to protect the public from additional crimes of such a defendant, and to adequately reflect the heinous nature of such an offense.'' This provision was enacted because Congress believed that the sentencing ranges for crimes against the elderly were inadequate and need to be raised. At that time, bowing to the argument that the Commission should be left to decide the level to which the sentences should be increased, Congress provided the Commission with some flexibility. Unfortunately, nothing has happened other than the Commission providing an explanatory note that a departure from the guidelines might be warranted in cases involving a second crime against a vulnerable victim. This provides no deterrent effect because guideline departures are purely discretionary. Thus, the Commission has disregarded the clear desire of Congress to increase the penalties for crimes against the elderly. So, as is our right, Congress is now directing the Sentencing Commission to raise the sentences by specific levels. This bill not only directs the Sentencing Commission to raise the guideline levels for crimes committed against the elderly, but also to raise the applicable guidelines for those crimes committed against those under the age of 14. The bill adds five levels to each guidelines calculation, which is used to determine a criminal defendant's sentence. This works out roughly to increasing the defendant's sentence by another 50 percent. This is appropriate, given that additional deterrence and punishment must be provided to protect the most vulnerable in our society. From 1985 to 1991 there was a 90 percent increase in personal crimes committed against senior citizens. There was also a 47 percent increase in the homicide rate of children. In 1992 alone, one out of every six rape victims was a female under the age of 12. Not even those providing dissenting views in the committee report on H.R. 2974 argue against the substance of this measure. Instead, they want to continue to leave this decision to the discretion of the Sentencing Commission. We have been there and done that. The Sentencing Commission has had 2 years to follow the expressed will of Congress and has failed to act. Their virtual inaction following enactment of the 1994 law justifies legislative action now to increase these penalties. I urge adoption of this bill.

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

Mr. HYDE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say two things. I have listened to the gentleman from North Carolina extensively on this bill and on hundreds of bills, and I have listened to him speak extensively on this bill and hundreds of bills, I would defer to his superior knowledge of political posturing. I would say to the Democrats that I thought I had seen it all, but to listen to them squabbling over enhanced penalties for criminals who violate elderly and children, it is a new revelation to me. You just never know it all, do you? You learn every day.

Mr. HYDE. I did not think so.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on House Oversight may have until midnight tonight, May 6, 1996, to file a report on House Resolution 417, providing amounts for the expenses of the Select Subcommittee on the United States role in Iranian arms transfers to Croatia and Bosnia of the Committee on International Relations in the Second Session of the 104th Congress.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that further consideration of the veto message on the bill, H.R. 956, be postponed until Thursday, May 9, 1996, and that upon further consideration of the veto message on that day, the previous question be considered as ordered on the question of passage of the bill, the objections of the President to the contrary notwithstanding, without intervening motion or debate except 1 hour of debate on the question of passage.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2149, the Ocean Shipping Reform Act, and in opposition to the Oberstar amendment. This legislation would make significant reforms in the regulatory regime contained in the Shipping Act of 1984. H.R. 2149 represents the bipartisan compromise that would reform this outdated regime by deregulating ocean shipping, infusing new price competition into the industry, eliminating the need for the Federal Maritime Commission, and maintaining oversight of ocean shipping conferences. As chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I believe that H.R. 2149 moves this important industry towards full market competition and I fully support it. Under the Shipping Act of 1984, ocean carriers--most of whom are foreign--are allowed to organize themselves into cartels, known as conferences, and collectively fix their prices, set sailing schedules, and make other business arrangements. In fact, the Shipping Act provides an antitrust exemption for international ocean carriers and their conferences, thereby sanctioning price fixing agreements. In contrast, H.R. 2149 would lessen the power of the conferences to fix prices by authorizing private contracts for ocean transportation, as provided in all other areas of transportation. During the consideration of the Shipping Act in the 98th Congress, the majority of the Republicans on the Judiciary Committee, including me, pushed hard for the concept of independent action. Independent action means that an ocean carrier member of a cartel can act independently of the cartel in setting its prices. We were able to achieve that goal in a limited fashion. However, we did not feel that the 1984 legislation went far enough in ending price fixing. Fortunately, H.R. 2149 takes another step away from Government- sanctioned price fixing by allowing shippers and carriers to enter into private contracts away from the prying eyes of cartel enforcers. My preference would be to end the antitrust immunity altogether for these cartels. However, I am realistic enough to understand that H.R. 2149 represents a delicate compromise among many competing interests. While it does not go as far as I would like, it is a vast improvement over current law. Unfortunately, Congressman Oberstar's amendment would upset this delicate compromise by requiring prior publication of these private ocean shipping contracts. Without the ability to negotiate reasonable transportation rates in private, U.S. shippers--that is the tens of thousands of American businesses who use the services of carriers-- would be at a competitive disadvantage with their foreign competitors who are not compelled to publicize their transportation costs. This amendment would undermine the pro-competitive thrust of H.R. 2149, and I strongly urge you to vote against it. The biggest beneficiaries of the public contracts that the Oberstar amendment seeks to preserve would be the foreign-dominated shipping cartels who fix prices that they charge American businesses. Over 85 percent of U.S. goods are carried aboard foreign vessels, and this amendment allows foreign ship owners to avoid competition and maintain high profits at the expense of U.S. businesses and consumers. Further, the Oberstar amendment would not help small shippers as its proponents claim. According to a recent article in the Journal of Commerce, getting the Government out of ocean shipping contracting may allow smaller shippers to get a better bargain than large shippers. Obviously, the thousands of small and medium shippers who support H.R. 2149 agree. Finally, do not be fooled by the claim that the private nature of these contracts is bad for the shippers. On the contrary, privacy allows competition in rates. Publicizing prices only allows the foreign-dominated cartels to enforce the prices they have fixed. Without this mode of enforcement, competition will ultimately undermine the cartels. The proponents of the amendment argue that the antitrust immunity provided by the Shipping Act somehow counsels against private contracts. However, the antitrust immunity applies only to agreements among the carriers themselves and with terminal operators. It does not apply to the private contracts between carriers and shippers that the amendment seeks to overturn. Thus, the continuation of antitrust immunity for the cartels is not an argument against private contracts between carriers and shippers. Cast your vote for the free market, lower prices and actual competition in ocean shipping. Vote for H.R. 2149 and against the Oberstar amendment.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time and I thank the gentleman for the characterization as senior member. I appreciate that. I guess I am. Mr. Speaker, I just hope that the Members will override the President's veto. I know that is difficult to do for some Members, but there are some very important human rights provisions in this legislation, most significantly, the MacBride principles which require fair employment practices by companies with using American funds over in Ireland. If there is any reason in the world why fair employment should not obtain, especially with American funds, I cannot think of it, and the MacBride principles are very important. This bill restores them. As I say, they are very significant. In addition, this bill remedies a situation where Chinese women have come to this country to escape coerced abortion, coerced sterilization, and they have sought to apply for asylum. Instead, they were brought to our hearing rooms in chains. I think that is a stain on our Nation's conscience. This bill would give them legal status. We consolidate the foreign aid bureaucracy, which is very important. I think there are a lot of reasons to vote to override and I hope the Members do.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record a summary of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act, included in H.R. 3136. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act Views of the House Committees of Jurisdiction on the Congressional Intent Regarding the ``Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996''

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I did not have the honor of personally knowing Ron Brown, but I knew him by reputation and by watching him work with flair and gusto in a very important job. He was a great role model for everybody. He was indeed a marvel. One searches tragedies for some meaning or for some glimmer of good. Out of Ron Brown's tragic end and out of the deaths of his passengers, it seems to me we can take comfort in the fact that he died as a public servant and elevated the category of public service through his sacrifice and through his example. And those of us who are very concerned about the low estate and esteem that public service has in people's minds, it seems to me can take some consolation. God bless Ron Brown and his family and all of those on the plane.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, those of us who thought the end of the cold war ended the danger of communism to the West had better think again. The headline on the front page of the New York Times recently read ``Fear of a Communist Comeback Has Many in Russia Packing Bags.'' With all our attention on the advance of communism in Russia, we have taken our eyes off the resurgence of Stalinist style communism that threatens elsewhere. Next Sunday, the Italian people go to the polls in what is their most important election, for they must make a basic choice: Will they select these Communists, no matter what name they call themselves, to rule their nation? We may be appalled by the thought, but it is not difficult to achieve in this disordered political system. These are the facts: There are more than 20 political parties. The center right is projected to win 45 percent of the vote. The Communists under the banner of ``Progressive Democrats of the Left'' will have 21 percent. A union of members of the discredited parties of the past will add 14 percent. The Northern League will probably give its 5 to 7 percent to make it 40 percent. That leaves the Stalinist Communist Refoundation Party with its 11 percent. They are the swing vote, and the left must join them if they want to rule. Thus, Stalinist Communists will write national policy. This scenario played out in the recent election for mayor of Rome. At issue in this campaign is electoral reform. The center right parties want an American Presidential-type government, elected directly by the people, not by the political parties. The Communists bitterly oppose. They are against it, they say, and hold on to your hats with this one, because it is not democratic. I bring this to your attention because what happens in Italy has consequences for NATO, Europe, and ultimately the rest of the world.