Henry Hyde

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson).

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 360) to honor Paul D. Coverdell.

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 S. 360.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder).

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today to call up S. 360, a bill to honor the late Senator from Georgia, Paul Coverdell. I believe the enactment of this legislation is a fitting and appropriate way to memorialize Senator Coverdell and his work. We were all shocked and saddened last July when he died so unexpectedly. The State of Georgia lost one of its greatest public servants, a soft-spoken and tireless public servant who served the people first and politics second. In a public career spanning three decades, from the Georgia Senate to the Peace Corps to the U.S. Senate, he served with dignity and earned everybody's respect. Mr. Speaker, this resolution has three components. The bill names the Washington headquarters of the Peace Corps after Paul Coverdell. The legislation reaffirms language approved at the end of last year to ensure that the Peace Corps World Wise Schools Program will carry his name, as well. Senator Coverdell created the program during his tenure as Peace Corps director. The World Wise Schools initiative links Peace Corps volunteers serving around the globe with the classrooms here in the United States. Senator Coverdell correctly saw that such an effort would promote cultural awareness and foster an appreciation for global connections. Finally, the legislation authorizes an appropriation of $10 million, to be augmented by $30 million of State and private funds to construct the Paul D. Coverdell building for biomedical and health sciences at the University of Georgia. Senator Coverdell was a tireless supporter of education in Georgia, and this building will be a living memorial to him, and an unparalleled resource for the students, researchers, and educators of his State and our Nation. I can believe there can be no more fitting tribute to Senator Coverdell and to all he achieved for the people of Georgia and the country that he loved and served until the day he died. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to ascribe cowardice or lack of patriotism to people who disagree with me, although I listened to the last speaker ask, where are the patriots? I could direct him to some. Try Bob Stump who lied about his age so he could enlist in the Navy in World War II. There are plenty of patriots around. I have earned the right to stand here and debate this issue because I fought in combat in the South Pacific in World War II. I like to think I am almost as patriotic as the gentleman named Ackerman. I heard rights, rights, rights. Not one word about responsibility. Responsibility. But that is part of this debate. This is a good debate. We ought to once in a while look at our core principles and see if there is anything that distinguishes us from the rest of the world. We look around this Chamber and we see the splendid diversity of America. We see men and women whose great grandparents came from virtually every corner of the globe. What holds this democratic community together? A common commitment to certain moral norms. That is the foundation of our democratic experiment. Human beings do not live by abstract ideas alone. Those ideas are embodied in symbols. And what is a symbol? A symbol is more than a sign. A sign conveys information. A symbol is much more richly textured. A symbol is material reality that makes a spiritual reality present among us. An octagonal piece of red metal on a street corner is a sign. The flag is a symbol. Vandalizing a No Parking sign is a misdemeanor, but burning the flag is a hate crime, because burning the flag is an expression of contempt for the moral unity of the American people that the flag symbolically makes present to us every day. Why do we need this amendment now? Is there a rash of flag burning going on? Certainly not. But we live in a time of growing disunity. Our society is pulled apart by the powerful centrifugal force of racism, ethnicity, language, culture, gender, and religion. Diversity can be a source of strength, but disunity can be a source of peril. If you stop and think, the world is torn by religious and ethnic divisions that make war and killing and death and terror the norm in so many countries: Ireland, the Middle East, the Balkans, Rwanda. Look around the globe and see what hate can do to drive fellow human beings apart. This legislation makes a statement that needs to be made, that our flag is the transcendent symbol of all that America stands for and aspires to be and hence deserves special protection of the law. We Americans share a moral unity expressed so profoundly in our country's birth certificate, the Declaration of Independence. ``We hold these truths to be self-evident,'' Jefferson wrote. The truth that all are equal before the law. We share that, across race, gender, religion. The truth that the right to life and liberty is inalienable and inviolable. The truth that government is intended to facilitate and not impede the people's pursuit of happiness. Adherence to these truths is the foundation of civil society, of democratic culture in America. And what is the symbol of our moral unity amidst our racial, ethnic, and religious diversity? Old Glory, the stars and stripes. In seeking to provide constitutional protection for the flag, we are seeking to protect the moral unity that makes American democracy possible. We have spent the better part of the last 30 years telling each other, shouting to each other, all the things that divide us. It is time to start talking about the things that unite us, that make us all, together, Americans. The flag is the embodiment of the unity of the American people, a unity built on those ``self-evident'' truths on which the American experiment rests, the truths which are our Nation's claim to be a just society. Let us take a step toward national reconciliation, and toward constitutional sanity, by adopting this amendment. The flag is our connection to the past and proclaims our hopes and aspirations for the future. Too many Americans have marched behind it, too many have come home in a box covered by the flag, too many parents and widows have clutched the flag to their hearts as the last remembrance of their beloved to treat that flag with anything less than reverence and respect. One hundred eighty-seven years ago during the British bombardment of Baltimore, Francis Scott Key looked toward Fort McHenry in the early dawn and asked his famous question. To his joy he saw our flag was still there. And how surprised he would be to learn our flag is even planted on the Moon. But, most especially, it is planted in the hearts of every loyal American. Four Supreme Court justices agreed with us. A ton of professors agree with us. This is not a settled issue. Five to four Supreme Court justices come down on the side of the flag.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I was recently informed of the efforts of an organization called Project Vote Smart--a group of dedicated individuals who work tirelessly in a non-partisan fashion to develop dependable facts about various national and state issues affecting all Americans while encouraging eligible citizens to vote. I am pleased to share some background information about the organization, which I hope my colleagues will find interesting and beneficial. Project Vote Smart A few years ago a handful of people, a mixture of young energetic students and retired leaders from fields in politics, academia and various other civic fields, held a meeting about the increasing use of media and technology by campaigns to manipulate information, and the citizen's diminishing access to dependable, abundant information on issues and political candidates. That meeting gave birth to Project Vote Smart (PVS), a small 501(c)(3) now engulfed in its own success. In the beginning the idea seemed simple: use young people from throughout the country to collect millions of documented facts about issues, candidates and other pertinent information about politics; index the information and then categorize it so that citizens could easily access the information through local libraries, toll-free hot lines, the internet and published reports. Specifically, the Project is in a national library of factual information on over 40,000 candidates and incumbents in public office--all presidential, congressional, gubernatorial, state legislative seats, county, and local candidates and incumbents. They are researched in five basic areas: backgrounds, voting records, campaign finances, performance evaluations by over 100 conservative to liberal special interests, and campaign issue positions on the issues they will likely have to deal with if elected. Project Vote Smart does not lobby, support or oppose any candidate or cause, and does not accept financial support from any organization that does--it is supported entirely by philanthropic foundations and the individual contributions of over 45,000 members. Election-year programs are sponsored by over 4,000 public libraries and hundreds of national and local news organizations. National leaders are not allowed to join the founding board without a political opposite-- founding board members are national leaders as diverse a Goldwater and McGovern, Carter and Ford, Hatfield and Ferraro, Gingrich and Dukakis. PVS is staffed by volunteers, interns and a small staff paid only minimal salaries. They are conservatives and liberals of various parties who have volunteered for up to two years in order to help citizens get the facts about candidates instead of just the rhetoric.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to take the floor today not only to support the naming of a Post Office Building, but to celebrate the public service of a truly dedicated man. Naming the Post Office Building in Roanoke is the least we can do to recognize the public career and contributions to his country that Caldwell Butler has made. I had the pleasure of serving with Caldwell on the Committee on the Judiciary. As I got to know him during our years together on that committee, I was deeply impressed with his knowledge of the law, and all of the complex issues which came before the committee. Caldwell was a student of public policy during his service as a Member of Congress, and served as a great sounding board for the discussion of ideas for other Members. On many issues, we turned to him for advice and leadership. His ability to synthesize the legal, practical, and political consequences of legislative proposals served as a model for us all in attempting to understand both our roles as Members of the House, and of the Committee on the Judiciary. He was always gracious in sharing his time and his thoughts with his colleagues. He was also extremely articulate in explaining what he was doing, and what the ramifications of those actions could be. We could be less concerned about unintended consequences of legislation when we had a chance to talk it over with Caldwell. It is a pleasure for me to support this resolution, as I often supported the man. He gave a great deal to this House and to me personally, and I want to thank him publicly for that. I urge all my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, three weeks ago, I received two conflicting messages regarding the situation in Sudan. One was a May 24 press release from the Sudanese embassy announcing, with great fanfare, that the Government of Sudan had taken ``a unilateral step toward peace'' by declaring an immediate halt to aerial bombing attacks in the south and the Nuba Mountains. The other message, from Catholic clergy members, reported that the priests living in southern parts of the El Obeid Diocese had been driven into the bush by ``ferocious assaults by Sudanese government forces.'' As additional reports filtered out of this remote area of the Nuba Mountains from a variety of sources, it became clear that the Government of Sudan had launched a massive ground and air attack while it was simultaneously issuing press releases about its commitment to peace. Government forces burned more than 2,000 homes during this attack. They apparently hope to starve the local population, still at large, into concentration camps called, in the best Orwellian tradition, ``Peace Villages.'' This contrast between word and deed underlines the importance of today's consideration of the Sudan Peace Act. I am grateful to Mr. Tancredo for introducing it, and also to Mr. Royce and Mr. Payne for their excellent leadership of the Africa Subcommittee. The Committee on International Relations ordered the bill favorably reported on June 6, 2001. I would also like to call attention to the tireless work of the Catholic Bishops Conference, the Commission on International Religious Freedom, the NAACP, and countless individuals and organizations across the country that have given this matter the profile and attention it deserves. The measure before us is more than symbolic. It will give the President the discretion he needs to reprogram and reallocate quickly any portion of humanitarian resources the United States currently gives to Operation Lifeline Sudan. Despite efforts to carry out its humanitarian mission without interference, Operation Lifeline Sudan has frequently been manipulated by the government of Sudan. We should make no mistake: the denial of food is used as a weapon of war in Sudan. This provision suspends our government's standard but often time- consuming notification procedures if the President deems it necessary to deliver life-saving assistance by other means. In addition, this measure will shed light on those international companies doing business in Sudan as well as how that business may support the government's war-fighting ability. This is not a sanction, but a beam of light directed at some of the hidden aspects of the global economy. Given the nationwide, grassroots effort by Americans of all political parties and races to raise awareness about the suffering of the people of Sudan, it is only proper that investors should know whether a particular company is doing business in Sudan. The Sudan Peace Act is important in what it does, but also in what it does not do. It does not in any way hinder the executive branch in its responsibility to conduct the foreign affairs of this nation. In his first appearance before this Committee as Secretary of State, Secretary Powell stated that Sudan was a tragedy that would command his full attention. In characteristic fashion, the Secretary appears to be backing up what he said. Against expectations from some in the media, Secretary Powell has taken an early trip to Africa and has focused to a considerable extent on the conflict in Sudan. He has indicated that the Administration will soon appoint an experienced and capable special envoy. He has been unequivocal in his remarks regarding the ongoing abuses in Sudan. He has committed $3 million to improve the capabilities of the rebel alliance to hold its own at the bargaining table. In short, we are beginning to see the attention we have urged. This measure supports and encourages those efforts without being unduly prescriptive to Administration officials, some of whom already know a thing or two about dealing with rogue nations. I urge my colleagues to support this measure. Mr. Chairman, I submit for the Record an exchange of letters between Chairman Oxley and myself concerning the bill under consideration, H.R. 2052, the Sudan Peace Act. House of Representatives, Committee on Financial Services, Washington, DC, June 6, 2001. Hon. Henry J. Hyde, Chairman, Committee on International Relations, Washington,

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, the time has come once again for the United States to lead the world in surmounting one of the most compelling humanitarian and moral challenges of our time. I speak of the HIV/AIDS pandemic that threatens the stability of both the developing and developed world--a crisis unparalleled in modern times. The statistics are chilling, Mr. Speaker. Over 22 million people have died of AIDS throughout the world. More than 3 million died last year alone. That is over 8,000 deaths each day, or nearly one death every six minutes. What is most alarming is that the number of infections and deaths is growing and the pandemic is quickly spreading from sub- Saharan Africa to India, China, and Russia. An incredible 36 million people are infected with HIV today--and 15,000 new infections occur each day. Tragically, most of the dramatic increase in infection rates is in poor countries where education, awareness, and access to healthcare is seriously lacking. To illustrate the magnitude of the crisis, it is estimated that by the year 2010 over 80 million people could be dead of AIDS. That is more than all the military and civilian deaths during World War II. Unchecked, we have no idea what the statistics will be in 2015 or 2220--less than 20 years from today. Children suffer inordinately from the cruel AIDS pandemic. Millions are born HIV-infected even though mother-to-child transmission can be easily avoided if adequate training and healthcare is provided. By the end of the decade, 40 million children will be orphaned as a consequence of AIDS. The impact on developing societies--socially, politically, and economically--is incalculable and threatens the stability of the globe. The pandemic is not limited to Africa, Mr. Speaker. The Caribbean region has the second highest rate of HIV infections in the world--only a few hundred miles from the United States. Russia had the highest increase rate of any country last year. The social upheaval that could arise in Russia as a result of this crisis could have serious consequences for global security. According to the National Intelligence Council, India is on the verge of a catastrophic AIDS epidemic. For these reasons, the United States must lead the world in the effort to combat and ultimately rid the globe of this modern-day black plague. The problem is monumental, and our response needs to be both bilateral and multilateral. However, as with any problem, financial resources are not the sole answer to a problem, and the generosity of the American people must be well managed. We must provide resources at a pace at which they can be absorbed and used wisely. We must continue to encourage and support faith-based organizations and churches that are doing good works to educate the poor about HIV and AIDS. We must also insist that other developed nations join us in this global effort. The President has already signaled our nation's intention to lead by committing $200 million for a multilateral effort to combat HIV/AIDS through a global AIDS war chest that will be designed and implemented in the months to come. To support these efforts, I have introduced legislation today to address both the bilateral and multilateral pillars of our response to the AIDS crisis. The most immediate and important step to address the HIV/AIDS challenge is for the United States to provide the leadership and impetus for a major international effort. Consequently, my bill authorizes the Agency for International Development to carry out a comprehensive program of HIV/AIDS prevention, education, and treatment at a level of $469 million in each of the next two fiscal years. This is $100 million more than has been requested by the Administration for these purposes in Fiscal Year 2001. Moreover, my legislation authorizes an additional $50 million pilot program to provide treatment for those infected with HIV/AIDS by assisting the public and private sectors of developing countries in the procurement of HIV/AIDS pharmaceuticals and anti-viral therapies. Accordingly, through our bilateral efforts, the United States will demonstrate its commitment to address all facets of the HIV/AIDS challenge and to do so in a responsible and meaningful manner, and thereby challenge, the remainder of the developed world to emulate the example of the United States. The bill I have introduced today also authorizes the President to contribute to multilateral efforts to combat HIV/AIDS at a level that the Administration deems appropriate. America will contribute its fair share as we work to leverage additional funds for this crusade from other developing countries. By providing the President with this flexibility, we can ensure that the contributions made by the The novel bilateral treatment program that my bill authorizes is vitally important, for it gives hope for those already suffering from AIDS. By authorizing a pilot treatment program, we can work to extend the productive lives of those infected by the virus. This is not only the right thing to do--aside from humanitarian concerns--treatment makes prevention work. Without some expectation of hope or care, the poor have no reason to be tested for AIDS or to seek help. I am fully cognizant of the challenge posed by treatment programs in developing countries. However, we have no other option if we are ever to stem the tide of the pandemic. The bill that I have introduced today also promotes microenterprise development as a crucial component in the struggle against HIV/AIDS. Microenterprise gives the poor who must deal with HIV/AIDS the means to help themselves. I wish to highlight the work in this area by Opportunity International, one of the organizations among my constituency. Opportunity International is a microenterprise pioneer and leader that has helped to create one million jobs for the poor of the developing world over the past thirty years by making loans to small enterprises. Charles Dokmo, President and Chief Operating Officer of Opportunity International, is an expert in the field of microenterprise development and is working to implement an ambitious plan to combat the spread of AIDS in Africa through education, awareness, and by creating opportunities for those confronting HIV/AIDS. Mr. Speaker, I wish to reiterate what I think is a consensus in Congress. Simply stated, the AIDS virus is one of the great moral challenges of our era for it is a scourge of unparalleled proportions in modern times. Every citizen has a stake in what tragically could be the black plague of the 21st century. Accordingly, we should do all we can to meet this test by reaching out now to those most in need--it is the right thing to do for our children, our country, and our world. Let us not fail the challenge.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Ryun).

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

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in strong support of the Hyde-Barcia-Smith-Oberstar amendment. This amendment will greatly improve the bill by deleting a provision that would require the United States to subsidize abortionists and abortion lobbyists in foreign countries. That provision was adopted by a very close vote in committee; and it would overturn President Bush's benign and sensible policy, the Mexico City policy as it is called, that puts a wall of separation between U.S. family planning programs and the international abortion industry. Taxpayer dollars should not be used to export abortions. Mr. Chairman, opponents of our amendment have had some harsh and misleading things to say about the Mexico City policy. First, they say, without any evidence, that it is an anti-family planning policy; yet the Mexico City policy does not cut by one penny the $425 million the United States spends every year promoting family planning overseas. And the Mexico City policy strengthens family planning programs by ensuring that U.S. funds are directed to groups that provide genuine family planning, which is something entirely distinct from abortion. The opponents of the Mexico City policy like to call it a gag rule. They say it violates the right of free speech, although a Federal appellate court has held it is fully consistent with the first amendment. Everybody has a right to free speech, but nobody has an absolute right to Federal tax dollars. The right to free speech does not include the right to have the taxpayers buy a word processor. Organizations that work for the United States in foreign countries are our partners and our representatives in these countries. In a very real sense they are our ambassadors. Their advocacy in these countries on issues closely related to the U.S. programs they administer, as well as other activities such as the actual performance of abortions, is inevitably going to be associated with the United States. So must we use tax dollars to facilitate abortions overseas? Specifically, among the most important stated purposes of U.S. family planning programs overseas is to reduce the number of abortions by providing contraception instead. The U.S. has no obligation to administer these programs through agents who fundamentally disagree with this goal. Would we hire casino lobbyists to run an anti-gambling campaign or a distillery to run an anti-alcohol campaign? It makes no sense to hire abortionists or abortion lobbyists to run programs that are aimed at reducing abortions. Opponents of our Mexico City amendment also argue that U.S. family planning grantees should be allowed to perform and promote abortion so long as the abortion-related activities are carried out with their own money rather than U.S. grant money. This is nothing other than a bookkeeping trick. It ignores the fact that money is fungible. When money is given to an organization, it inevitably enriches and empowers all its activities. U.S. support also enhances the domestic and the international prestige of the organization by giving it an official U.S. seal of approval. And remember, the people we are trying to reach, poor women and men who have a need for family planning, are not very likely to see the organization's books, so they do not know which activities are funded from which spigot. So when the very same organization offers U.S. family planning assistance with one hand and abortion with the other, the message is the United States and its partners are perfectly comfortable with abortion as a method of family planning. The most outrageous claim made by proponents of the amendment, and this is a brand new one, as far as I can remember they have never claimed this in more than 20 years of debate about this Mexico City policy, is that it will interfere with efforts to address the HIV-AIDS epidemic. This claim is outrageously false. For one thing, the United States currently spends over \1/2\ of a billion dollars per year on fighting AIDS, $482.5 million in direct U.S. expenditures in fiscal year 2001, plus millions more in contributions to organizations such as the World Health Organization and UNDP, part of which funds anti-AIDS programs. The President's Mexico City Policy has absolutely no application to this half-billion dollars. It only applies to population assistance which is a different set of accounts from HIV/AIDS programs. The proponents of the Lee amendment argue that population assistance has an incidental effect of reducing exposure to the HIV virus because part of it pays for contraceptive devices which may prevent infection. This argument misses the whole point of the Mexico City policy. The same identical amount of money will be available for contraceptive devices with or without the Mexico City policy. The same number of contraceptives will be available for distribution. The only difference is whether we hire abortionists or nonabortionists to distribute them. There have always been plenty of organizations willing to administer U.S. programs, including hundreds around the world that are very good that are in the business of family planning, not abortion. The claim that Members have to oppose the President's pro-life policy in order to support efforts to eradicate AIDS is total nonsense. Mr. Chairman, I remind my colleagues, this amendment would make the bill abortion neutral. The amendment would not enact the Mexico City policy or any other policy on abortion. The only thing our amendment does is strike the pro-abortion language that was inserted in committee. When this bill was originally introduced, it said nothing at all about abortion. It was a foreign relations authorization bill, pure and simple. Unfortunately, supporters of an international right to abortion decided to use this bill as a vehicle for their attack on the President's authority in this area. So a vote for our amendment is a vote to restore the bill to its original abortion-neutral position. A ``yes'' vote will simply uphold the authority of the President to set reasonable terms and conditions on the distribution of U.S. foreign aid as the courts have held he has the power to do. Get us out of the abortion business. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Hyde-Barcia-Smith-Oberstar amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor).

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Jo Ann Davis).

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt).

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 6 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

Mr. HYDE

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

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, the amendment made in order by this motion would require the creation of a special office in the Department of State to carry out negotiations with North Korea. It mandates that the person appointed to that office, and I quote, must oversee discussions and negotiations with North Korea regarding missile proliferation and other matters. It does not mandate negotiations, and that is what the gentleman said we want. It does not do anything except say hire somebody and give them a title and he should oversee negotiations. This is micromanagement gone mad. We should not be telling a new State Department, a new administration what personnel it should have and what they should do. There will be somebody overseeing negotiations in North Korea. It may be the Secretary of State who is a general of some accomplishment. It may be the Deputy Secretary of State. It may be an Assistant Secretary of State. It may be lots of people. But to set up a special office and give him a title and he is to oversee discussions and negotiations is micromanagement, and the administration should be given the opportunity to do this in its own way. If we do not like what they are doing, we can criticize it. But to micromanage the Department of State and tell them they must hire somebody, give them the title, and then he should oversee negotiations is just a tad arrogant. I would trust Secretary Powell to do the right thing. So I hope my colleagues will vote this down. We can pass this bill and get on to other matters.

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

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, we have no objection to this amendment. If the gentleman wishes, we gladly accept it.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.