Henry Hyde

Mr. HYDE

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

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time, and I hope I do not use all the 3 minutes, but I wanted to respond to my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts, who is one of the very effective but selective crusaders for States' rights. This is a search for information, this commission, not legislative nor regulatory functions, but a search for information that has a uniquely national characteristic. The States, important as they are, are really not competent to do a national search that involves the issue of gambling. So, it may be an intrusion, but it is really not an either/or proposition: States' rights versus national intrusion. This subject lends itself to national study. So that is all that this is going to encompass. Some things are best done by the States. Some things are best done by the Federal Government, and it is pretty hard to have a hard and fast rule. Generally, we Republicans prefer local government over national government, but that, again, depends on the circumstance. Tort reform, for example, in my judgment, and although I do not speak for all my colleagues on the Republican side, lent itself to a national solution rather than a State solution. But these are matters we can argue about.

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

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 include extraneous material on the Senate amendment just concurred in.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for that extravagant introduction. I just want to say we do no service to the people of America, we do no service to the quality of justice or the quality of government by treating everybody with the same flagellation, the same masochism that we treat ourselves with. If we want good people to administer justice, we have to stop penalizing them. This is the fifth year they will not even have a cost of living. We can do what we want to us, take away our bathroom privileges, but for God sakes, we should at least give a cost of living increase to the judges and the Cabinet.

Mr. HYDE

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

Mr. HYDE. Well, maybe, maybe not. Maybe, maybe not is all. You cannot speculate about the court. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Studds] said that the unfinished business of the civil rights movement is homosexual acceptability. There is no power on Earth to stop it. Maybe and maybe not. He has something, when I look around and see the entertainment stars in our country are Michael Johnson and Madonna, he could be right. The homosexual movement has been very successful in intimidating the psychiatric profession. Now people who object to sodomy, to two men penetrating each other are homophobic. They have the phobia, not the people doing this act. That is a magnificent accomplishment for public relations. Let us talk about this bill. This is the most delicate and limited measure that Congress could possibly produce on this subject. First of all, as to defining marriage in the Federal code, who else should define it except this Congress, the Federal legislature. Not the courts, the courts are usurping legislative functions. It is appropriate that Congress define marriage. You may not like the definition the majority of us want, but most people do not approve of homosexual conduct. They do not approve of incest. They do not approve of polygamy, and they express their disapprobation through the law. It is that simple. It is not mean spirited. It is not bigoted. It is the way it is, the only way possible to express this disapprobation. Now, two men loving each other does not hurt anybody else's marriage, but it demeans, it lowers the concept of marriage by making it something that it should not be and is not, celebrating conduct that is not approved by the majority of the people. Defeat the amendment. Vote for the bill.

Mr. HYDE. It could. But that is why we need this statute in my judgment, to give a little more leverage to the States.

Mr. HYDE. Yes, it could.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady] and my colleagues. Mr. Chairman, I can tell you this is one of the most uncomfortable issues I can think of to debate. It is something I really shrink from because there is no gentle easy way, if we are to be honest and candid, to discuss the objections to same-sex marriage, the disapprobation of homosexual conduct, without offending and affronting an ever-widening group of people who have come to accept homosexual conduct. But, Mr. Chairman, we are driven to this debate. We are driven to this debate by the courts. The Romer versus Evans case which was decided May 20 of this year is a fascinating case, and it provides really a preferred status for homosexual people, and may very well invalidate a State's heretofore unquestioned power to reject the conduct in another State on public policy grounds. If a marriage was incestuous and it was celebrated in one State, another State did not have to accept that on public policy grounds. Now, there is a real question because of Romer versus Evans, a Supreme Court case. The fascinating thing is that the Bowers versus Hardwick case was not even discussed in Romer versus Evans. Bowers versus Hardwick is a 1986 case which said a State may criminalize the act of sodomy. Twenty-five States have laws criminalizing homosexual conduct. The defining act of homosexuality is a crime in 25 States. It used to be in all the States, but many of the States have reversed their laws because they cannot enforce them. There is no way to enforce them.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I will send the gentleman a copy of the opinion and dissent by Justice Scalia.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, is the gentleman familiar with the case?

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, does the gentleman know the Romer case? Because the Romer case directly vitiates what the gentleman just said.

Mr. HYDE. The Chairman, I would just like to ask the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran], what effect on your last statement that the States have the power to do this, what effect does the Romer versus Evans case, decided May 20 of this year, have on that power of the States, or are you aware of that case?

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

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

Mr. HYDE. Madam Speaker, really, this request for a GAO study does not belong in the statute. I agreed a long time ago to request it as chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary. We should go forward with that. I pledge to do so. I have assured the gentleman that I will ask for a study of the instances in which the inability of domestic partners to form a legal union causes a disparity of entitlement to Federal benefits, rights, or privileges. So to amend this bill is not necessary. The study mandated by the Gunderson amendment is overly broad. It includes all State laws, it includes other majority industrialized countries, in addition to the Federal law. We think our interest should be limited to the benefits conferred under Federal law, and it should be tailored to that interest. There are other objections to it, but suffice it to say putting it in the statute gives it an equivalence to the marriage institution that we do not think is appropriate now. I will write the letter, I will do it Monday, I will request the study, and that should suffice. I would ask that this motion to recommit be defeated.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Not really, not really. No, I do not.

Mr. HYDE. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I thank my dear friend from Arkansas, Mr. Dickey, for those extravagant words. The gentlewoman, my good friend from California, Ms. Pelosi, talks about the Flat Earth Society. That is interesting because the science is on our side. As I recall, there are two medical doctors, M.D.'s, on our side. I have not seen any M.D.'s or even Ph.D.'s, although there may be a hidden Ph.D. over there in English literature or something, but the science is from our side. Now, we are not talking about creating the embryos. We understand that. It is the using of the embryos. It is treating living human entities as things. That is the big distinction. The abortion culture, the in vitro experimentation culture, the embryo research, all of these things have one thing in common, and, colleagues, strangely, and this may sound wierd, in common with Marxism, and do my colleagues know what it is? Denying instrinsic worth or value to a human being. That is the common thread between the abortion culture which denies intrinsic value to somebody, and they, because of the size, because it is tiny, it is microscopic, it is created in a petri dish, it is therefore something to be used for experimentation. I mean I am not denying the good motives and the need to push back the borders of research, although strangely enough in 20 years very little has been accomplished in this sort of research. But the problem is our colleagues are talking about living human beings, albeit tiny and microscopic, but size surely does not make a difference, and whether my colleagues respect the dignity in the innate, inherent, intrinsic dignity or whether it is a thing to be used, that is what we are talking about, and that is the common thread through all of this. Mr. Chairman, we assert there is value, intrinsic value, in that tiny little premicroscopic embryo that has been fertilized, and our colleagues are saying, yes, but let us use it and experiment for a greater cause.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, on June 18, 1996, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 3525 by a rollcall vote of 422 to 0. Shortly thereafter, on June 26, 1996, the Senate approved an amended version of H.R. 3525, the provisions of which were arrived at through bipartisan negotiations between the House and Senate sponsors. The House later approved H.R. 3525, as amended by the Senate, and the President signed the bill into law on July 3, 1996. Due to the celerity with which this legislation was adopted, and the fact that no House-Senate conference was required, there is no legislative history explaining the provisions of H.R. 3525 which were added after consideration of the measure by the House Judiciary Committee. The provisions of the bill as reported by the committee are explained in House Report 104-621. For this reason, I am inserting in the Record the following ``Statement of Floor Managers Regarding H.R. 3525,'' which shall serve as additional legislative history for the bill. Senators Faircloth and Kennedy will be inserting identical language in the Senate portion of the Record. Joint Statement of Floor Managers Regarding H.R. 3525, the Church Arson Prevention Act of 1996 (By Congressmen Hyde and Conyers, and Senators Faircloth and Kennedy) i. introduction Recently, the entire nation has watched in horror and disbelief as an epidemic of church arsons has gripped the nation. The wave of arsons, many in the South, and a large number directed at African American churches, is simply intolerable, and has provoked a strong outcry from Americans of all races and religious backgrounds. Congress has responded swiftly and in a bipartisan fashion to this troubling spate of arsons. On May 21, 1996, the House Judiciary Committee held an oversight hearing focusing on the problem of church fires in the Southeast. Two days later, on May 23, Chairman Hyde and Ranking Member Conyers introduced H.R. 3525, the Church Arson Prevention Act of 1996. H.R. 3525 was passed by the House of Representatives on June 18, 1996, by a vote of 422-0. On June 19, 1996, the Senate introduced a companion bill, S. 1890. In the interests of responding swiftly to this pressing national problem, the Congressman Henry Hyde and Congressman John Conyers, the original authors of the bill in the House of Representatives, and Senator Lauch Faircloth and Senator Edward Kennedy, the original authors of the bill in the Senate, with the cooperation and assistance of the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, have crafted a bipartisan bill that combines portions of H.R. 3525, as passed on June 18, 1996 by the House of Representatives, and S. 1890, as introduced in the Senate on June 19, 1996. On June 26, 1996, an amendment in the form of substitute to H.R. 3525 was introduced in the Senate, and passed by a 98-0 vote. This substitute embodies the agreement that was reached between House and the Senate, on a bipartisan basis. The House of Representatives, by unanimous consent, took up and passed H.R. 3525 as amended on June 27, 1996. This Joint Statement of Floor Managers is in lieu of a Conference report and outlines the legislative history of

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I wish to take this opportunity to advise my colleagues of a magical event which took place recently. Virginia's own Lucy Bowen McCauley, a renowned dancer and teacher, who has expanded her art into choreography, staged her first dance concert consisting solely of her own choreography. The concert was a wonderful potpourri of passion and humor, style and grace. Ms. Bowen McCauley demonstrated her choreographic range in splendid fashion. From the classical ``Brahms Trio'' with its depth of lyrical movements, to the marvelously humorous ``What'll Ya'ave, Luv,'' to the deeply moving ``At Last,'' the evening was filled with excitement, emotion, and fun. One critic was especially moved when she noticed that the couple dancing the romantic ``At Last'' are married to each other and truly exuded the love which Ms. Bowen McCauley had choreographed into the piece. Ms. Bowen McCauley gave the audience a special treat by dancing in ``Fracture Zone,'' a wonderfully imaginative and dynamic work. In her inaugural choreographic triumph, Ms. Bowen McCauley has managed not only to demonstrate her command of the complexities of choreography, but she has been able to imbue her dancers with her own drive and love of dance which clearly comes out in each piece. The combination made for a truly magical evening--one which culminated in a well-deserved standing ovation. The dance world looks forward to future work from this truly talented choreographer.

Mr. HYDE

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

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 3525) to amend title 18, United States Code, to clarify the Federal jurisdiction over offenses relating to damage to religious property, with a Senate amendment thereto and occur in the Senate amendment.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and I want to congratulate the gentleman for his being the chief cosponsor of this legislation and his important work in advancing it to the point where it is today ready for passage. The Senate amendment retains the provisions of the House version, which amends section 247 of title XVIII to eliminate the $1 minimum, to clarify the interstate commerce requirement, and to make it a crime to destroy religious property due to the racial or ethnic character of persons affiliated with the property. The Senate amendment includes the House language making personal injury victims of section 247-type crimes eligible under the Victims of Crime Act, but does not create a priority for those victims. The Senate amendment also corresponds the penalties in section 247 to those in the Federal arson statute. The Senate amendment includes a $5 million loan guarantee program under HUD to assist in the rebuilding of nonprofit property damaged by arson or terrorism. This provision has been cleared with the Committee on Banking and Financial Services. The Senate amendment authorizes funding to the Departments of Treasury and Justice in 1996 and 1997 for personnel to investigate and respond to violations of section 247 and section 844 of title XVIII. The Senate amendment reauthorizes the Hate Crimes Statistics Act for 6 years, through the year 2002.