Henry Hyde

Mr. HYDE

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

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

Mr. HYDE. I am happy to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall).

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum).

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

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) has the right to close. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for bringing this issue to the attention of the House. The gentleman's explanation is accurate and reflects the intent of the legislation. There was a need for such an explanation and I appreciate the gentleman from Georgia's clarification of this issue.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. I want to thank the gentlewoman from Texas for her very cordial remarks. I want to particularly thank the gentleman from Michigan and his staff and make a point. This Committee on the Judiciary in this House of Representatives can work together in a bipartisan fashion to turn out good legislation. This is one example. There are many others. This bill had its genesis in a newspaper article written by Steve Chapman of the Chicago Tribune several years ago. When I read what was going on under civil asset forfeiture, I thought it was more appropriate for the Soviet Union than the United States, and it has taken 7 years but we are there today and it is a great moment. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney).

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr).

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. 1658.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, this bill represents the culmination of a 7- year effort to reform our Nation's civil asset forfeiture laws. We would not be here today without the momentum generated by the House's passage of H.R. 1658 last June by the overwhelming vote of 375-48. That vote was made possible by the tireless support of my colleagues, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary; the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr); and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) and their staffs. House passage was also made possible by the support of a multitude of organizations who put aside their differences to work toward a common goal: the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Americans for Tax Reform, the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Rifle Association, the American Bar Association, the National Association of Realtors, the Credit Union National Association, the American Bankers Association, the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, the National Association of Home Builders, the Boat Owners Association of the United States, United States Chamber of Commerce, the National Apartment Association, the American Hotel and Motel Association, and the Law Enforcement Alliance of America. H.R. 1658 only got us through the House. Forfeiture reform would not have become a reality had the cause not been adopted by Orrin Hatch, the chairman of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary; and Pat Leahy, the committee's ranking member. I owe a debt of gratitude to the Senators and their staffs for succeeding in crafting a bill that could get through the Senate and yet retain all the necessary elements of reform. I must thank Senators Sessions and Schumer and their staffs for negotiating in the utmost good faith in helping craft a bill that both reforms our forfeiture laws and yet leaves civil forfeitures as an important crime-fighting tool for Federal, State, and local law enforcement. Similar thanks must go to Attorney General Reno and Assistant Attorney General Robert Raben. They can all be proud of what they helped to accomplish. I also must thank our former colleague Bob Bauman and Brenda Grantland of Forfeiture Endangers American Rights for their long and dedicated work on behalf of forfeiture reform, and Chicago Tribune columnist Stephen Chapman for first alerting me to the great abuses of forfeiture laws. And I must thank David Smith, who has been there since the beginning. David helped me draft my first forfeiture reform bill, the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 1993, and helped draft Senators Leahy's and Hatch's reform bill and helped draft the Senate-passed bill we are considering today. This bill is truly his accomplishment. And finally, George Fishman of our Committee on the Judiciary staff has been tireless in helping shepherd this legislation through the House and Senate. Let me briefly outline the main points of H.R. 1658 as passed by the Senate. The bill makes eight fundamental reforms: (1) The bill requires the Government to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the property is subject to forfeiture. Currently, when a property owner goes to Federal court to challenge a seizure of property, all the Government needs to do is make an initial showing of probable cause that the property is subject to civil forfeiture. The owner then must establish that the property is innocent. (2) The bill provides that if the Government's theory of forfeiture is that the property was used to commit or facilitate the commission of a crime or was involved in the commission of a crime, the Government must show that there was a substantial connection between the property and the crime. (3) The bill provides that property can be released by a Federal court pending final disposition of a civil forfeiture case if continued possession by the Government would cause the property owner substantial hardship, such as preventing the functioning of a business or leaving an individual homeless, and the likely hardship outweighs the risks that the property will be destroyed, damaged, lost, concealed or transferred if returned to the owner. (4) The bill provides that property owners who substantially prevail in court proceedings challenging the seizure of their property will receive reasonable attorney's fees. In addition, the bill allows a court to provide counsel for indigents if they are represented by appointed counsel in related criminal cases. Currently, property owners who successfully challenge the seizure of their property almost never are awarded attorney's fees. In addition, indigents have no right to appointed counsel in civil forfeiture cases. (5) The bill eliminates the cost bond requirement, under which a property owner must now post a bond of the lesser of $5,000 or 10 percent of the value of the property seized merely for the right to contest a civil forfeiture in Federal court. The bill provides that if a court finds that a claimant's assertion of an interest in property was frivolous, the court may impose a civil fine. (6) The bill creates a uniform innocent owner defense for all Federal civil forfeiture statutes. Importantly, the defense protects property owners who have given timely notice to the police of the illegal use of their property and have in a timely fashion revoked or made a good faith attempt to revoke permission to use the property from those engaging in the illegal conduct. (7) The bill allows property owners to sue the Federal Government for compensation for damage to their property when they prevail in civil forfeiture actions. Currently, the Federal Government is exempt from liability for damage caused during the handling or storage of property being detained by law enforcement officers. (8) The bill provides a uniform definition of the forfeitable proceeds of criminal acts. In cases involving illegal goods or services, unlawful activities and telemarketing and health care fraud schemes, proceeds are properties obtained directly or indirectly as a result of the commission of the offenses giving rise to forfeiture, and any properties traceable thereto, and are not limited to the net gain or profit realized from the offenses. In cases involving lawful goods or services that are sold or provided in an illegal manner, proceeds are money acquired through the illegal transactions less the direct costs incurred in providing the goods or services. H.R. 1658 also contains a number of provisions addressing the needs of the Justice Department and State and local law enforcement. These include increasing the availability of criminal forfeiture and the civil forfeiture of the proceeds of crimes, relaxing the statute of limitations governing civil forfeiture actions, allowing Federal courts discretionary use of the fugitive disentitlement doctrine, allowing Federal courts to enhance forfeiture judgments of foreign nations, allowing Federal courts to impose sanctions up to and including dismissal of an owner's claim if property owners who have filed claims in civil forfeiture cases refuse to provide the government with access to potentially material financial records in foreign countries, and allowing Federal courts to issue civil restraining orders against property where there is a substantial probability the government will prevail in civil forfeiture actions. This bill is one we can all be proud of. It returns civil asset forfeiture to the ranks of respected law enforcement tools that can be used without risk to the civil liberties and property rights of American citizens. We are all better off that this is so. Mr. Speaker, I insert into the Record at this point a Congressional Budget Office letter on this matter. I urge my colleagues to support this bill today. U.S. Congress, Congressional Budget Office, Washington, DC, April 5, 2000. Hon. Orrin G. Hatch, Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 1658, the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000. If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Lanette J. Keith (for federal costs), who can be reached at 226-2860, and Shelley Finlayson (for the state and local impact), who can be reached at 225-3220. Sincerely, Barry B. Anderson (For Dan L. Crippen, Director). Enclosure. congressional budget office cost estimate H.R. 1658--Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000 Summary: H.R. 1658 would make many changes to federal asset forfeiture laws that would affect the processing of about 60,000 civil seizures conducted each year by the Department of justice (DOJ) and the Department of the Treasury. (The Treasury Department makes an additional 50,000 seizures annually that would not be affected by this act.) Assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts, CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 1658 would cost $9 million over the 2001- 2005 period to pay for additional costs of court-appointed counsel that would be authorized by this legislation. In addition, enacting the legislation would affect direct spending and receipts; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures would apply. Because CBO expects that enacting H.R. 1658 would result in fewer civil seizures by DOJ and the Treasury Department, we estimate that governmental receipts (i.e., revenues) deposited into the Assets Forfeiture Fund and the Treasury Forfeiture Fund would decrease by about $115 million each year beginning in fiscal year 2001. Under current law, both forfeiture funds are authorized to collect revenue and spend the balance without further appropriation. Thus, the corresponding direct spending from the two funds would also decline, but with some lag. CBO estimates that enacting this provision would decrease projected surpluses by a total of $46 million over the fiscal years 2001 and 2002 (the difference between lower revenues and lower direct spending over those years), but that by fiscal year 2003 the changes in receipts and spending would be equal, resulting in no net budgetary impact thereafter. H.R. 1658 also would require the Legal Services Corporation (LSC) to represent certain claimants in civil forfeiture cases and would require the federal government to reimburse the LSC for its costs. CBO estimates that this provision would increase direct spending by $5 million over the 2001- 2005 period. In addition, H.R. 1658 would make the federal government liable for any property damage, attorney fees, and pre- judgment and post-judgment interested payments on certain assets to prevailing parties in civil forfeiture proceedings. CBO cannot estimate either the likelihood or the magnitude of such awards because there is no basis for predicting either the outcome of possible litigation or the amount of compensation. H.R. 1658 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA), but CBO expects that enacting this legislation would lead to a reduction in payments to state and local governments from the Assets Forfeiture Fund and the Treasury Forfeiture Fund. Description of the Act's major provisions: H.R. 1658 would make various changes to federal laws relating to the forfeiture of civil assets. In particular, the act would: Establish a short statutory time limit for the federal government to notify interested parties of a seizure and to file a complaint; Eliminate the cost bond requirement, whereby claimants have to post bond in an amount of the lesser of $5,000 or 10 percent of the value of the seized property (but not less than $250) to preserve the right to contest a forfeiture; Permit federal courts to appoint counsel for certain indigent claimants; Increase the federal government's burden of proof to a preponderance of the evidence; Require the federal government to compensate prevailing claimants for property damage; Establish the federal government's liability for payment of attorney fees and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; and Authorize the use of forfeited funds to pay restitution to crime victims. Estimated cost to the Federal Government: As shown in the following table, CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 1658 would increase discretionary spending for court-appointed counsel by $9 million over the 2001-2005 period, assuming appropriation of the necessary funds. (For the purposes of this estimate. CBO assumes that spending for this purpose would be funded with appropriated amounts from the Defender Services account.) In addition, we estimate that over the 2001-2005 period, the reductions in direct spending of funds from forfeited assets would be smaller than the reductions in revenues estimated to occur as a result of enacting H.R. 1658, resulting in a net cost of $46 over the five-year period. Finally, CBO estimates that additional payments to the Legal Services Corporation would be about $1 million each year. The costs of this legislation fall within budget function 750 (administration of justice). ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- By fiscal year, in millions of dollars

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 1658) to provide a more just and uniform procedure for Federal civil forfeitures, and for other purposes.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I wish to express my gratitude again to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and his staff and everyone who worked on this bill. We did not mention Jon Dudas and Rick Filkins. I just want to say, George Fishman who is sitting here, he was the single most indispensable element of this bill, and I am grateful to him.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I cannot imagine any subject more important than the one we debate today. This debate is not about religious doctrine or even about policy options. It is a debate about our understanding of human dignity, what it means to be a member of the human family, even though tiny, powerless and unwanted. Yesterday, we discussed organ transplants, another life-and-death issue. But today's debate goes beyond that to the issue of whether one radical medical procedure, called partial-birth abortion, is an acceptable exercise of a woman's right to choose. And by the way, that choice is either a dead baby or a live baby. That is the choice, whether it is a woman's right to choose or whether it is the surgical butchery of what a prominent pro-choice Senator called infanticide. We are knee deep in a culture of death. The cheapening of life is demonstrated in the high school shootings, the coarsening of our national conscience by our entertainment industry, the fact that since Roe v. Wade in 1973 there have been 35 million abortions. We are knee deep in a culture of death. I should ask the people who support this procedure to forgive my use of the word abortion. I know they dislike that harsh word. They prefer euphemisms like termination of a pregnancy. Every pregnancy terminates at the end of 9 months. Or ``removal of the products of conception.'' And the word killing is to be avoided like the plague. So the little infant is not killed, but rather ``undergoes demise.'' But as the great heavyweight boxer Joe Louis said about his one-time opponent Billy Conn years ago, ``You can run, but you can't hide.'' And we cannot hide from the ugly reality of partial-birth infanticide. To those who think that the phrase ``sanctity of life'' is too theological, although we are kind of comfortable with the sanctity of an oath or the sanctity of a contract, I suggest the notion of human dignity is interchangeable and appropriate. Now, the Declaration of Independence, an awkward document in this debate, proclaims the right to life is an endowment from the Creator and is an inalienable right. Have my colleagues ever seen a doctor have a card that says ``eyes, ear, nose, throat, and abortionist?'' Somehow, there is something bad about that word. So when an abortionist plunges his scissors into the back of the neck of his tiny, squirming, struggling-to-live victim, he has obliterated and utterly irrevocably destroyed that little infant's right to life and his human dignity. Oh, we posture, we pronounce about human rights, everybody's human rights, whether in China or Serbia or Colombia. Well, not everybody's human rights, because we deny any rights to the target of every abortion. PETA, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, God how I wish we had one for humans, especially the tiny, powerless, defenseless ones who find themselves innocently inconvenient. We talk about our birthright. By what right do we steal anyone's birthright? But that is what happens in every abortion. We treat the unborn as a thing, desensitized, dehumanized, depersonalized thing, to be discarded with the other junk. Charles Peguy, a French novelist, once said, ``If you possess the truth and remain silent, you become the accomplice of liars and forgers.'' So long as we tolerate this dehumanizing procedure, so long as we do not draw a line in the sand, we become guilty accomplices in the slaughter. Lady Macbeth can speak for us when she says, ``all the perfumes of Arabia will not sweeten this little hand.'' Everyone in this Chamber, everyone in this Chamber, has ancestors that reach back in an unbroken chain of humanity through forgotten millennia to the first man and woman. And so, we here and now are alive because our ancestors successfully ran the marathon of life, surviving wars, famines, floods, earthquakes, disease, the four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. But they survived. They endured through it all. What a cosmic tragedy for this little one four-fifths born to have his life snuffed out as he is about to cross the finish line of that millennia long marathon. But here at the beginning of the 21st century, have we traveled very far from those societies who behead their criminals? And what crime has this tiny, struggling, four-fifths born infant committed? The crime of being unwanted. Oh, we have unwanted people, the homeless. But they have eyes to weep with. They have voices to cry out with. And when we do pay attention occasionally, we provide them with shelter. But not the little ones about to ``undergo demise.'' I recommend my colleagues avert their eyes and take solace in the fact that the torture of partial-birth abortion takes only the time it takes to stab the little baby in the back of the neck and the little flailing arms and legs stiffen at the moment of truth. Look, in this advanced democracy, in the year 2000, is it our crowning achievement that we have learned to treat people as things? We are not debating policy options. This is a debate about our understanding of human dignity. Our moment in history is marked by a mortal conflict between a culture of life and a culture of death. God put us in the world to do noble things, to love and to cherish our fellow human beings, not to destroy them. Today we must choose sides. When Napoleon died, somebody said, God finally got bored with him. I really am afraid God is going to be bored with us, especially if we do not put that line in the sand. Support this excellent bill. Step back from the abyss.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow Mr. Joseph P. McKeown of Beltsville, MD will retire after spending thirty years, well over half his life, in the role of public servant. Son of Joseph and Claire McKeown of Toms River, NJ, he served in the United States Navy from 1967-1971. A good deal of his Navy service was aboard ship in various locales throughout the world. After the conclusion of his service time and then his graduation from Stonehill College, Joe began a 26-year career with the United States Postal Service. For the last two decades, Mr. McKeown has served as a Postal Inspector. The U.S. Postal Inspection Service very seldom gets the credit they deserve for the exceptional law enforcement duties they perform. Postal Inspectors have a well-deserved reputation for tough, relentless, professional investigation resulting in a 98 percent conviction rate. Seldom is there a major crime solved in this nation, at any governmental level, without the involvement of the Inspection Service at some level. Yet, you usually never see them ``out front'' at the successful conclusion of a case--thus their famous nickname--the ``Silent Service.'' One of our Nation's oldest law enforcement agencies, there are now 2,200 Inspectors, 350 of whom are females. Joe McKeown in the last 20 years has been both a model and extremely accomplished Postal Inspector. Especially knowledgeable, he has not been detailed to merely one specific investigative area. Inspector McKeown has been critical to investigations involving both external and internal crime, audits, and a variety of criminal frauds both domestic and international. For the better part of his career he has been detailed to the Newark, Baltimore, and Washington, DC regions. Mr. Speaker, each and every day across this great country distinguished civil servants are retiring. This Congress, and the public as well, owe such exemplary citizens more than we readily recognize. I take this opportunity to publicly thank Joseph Patrick McKeown for three decades of exceptional devotion and service to our nation. May I wish Joe and his wife Ruth nothing but the best in the years ahead.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, property rights are human rights just like any other civil right, and citizens whose federal property rights have been violated should have the same meaningful access to federal courts as those who suffer violations of other constitutional rights. The 14th Amendment provides that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty and property. Those are the big three. Property rights are not somehow inferior to other rights. In Lynch v. Household Finance Corporation, 405 U.S. 538, 552 (1972), a woman's savings account was garnished under state law for alleged nonpayment of a loan, and she received no notice and no chance to be heard. She sued in federal court, but the court dismissed her suit, ruling that only personal rights merited a judicial hearing, not property rights. The Supreme Court disagreed. In an opinion joined by Justices Brennan and Marshall, the Supreme Court held that her due process rights were violated, and that ``the dichotomy between personal liberties and property rights is a false one. Property does not have rights. People have rights. The right to enjoy property without unlawful deprivation, no less than the right to speak or the right to travel, is in truth a `personal' right * * * In fact, a fundamental interdependence exists between the personal right to liberty and the personal right in property. Neither could have meaning without the other.'' Id. at 552. I urge members to vote in favor of H.R. 2372.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 55, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) for deferring to me because I have to be in a markup. I really appreciate the courtesy. Mr. Speaker, I cannot support this conference report, as my friend from Pennsylvania knows. My concerns about this bill are the same as those I have expressed for many years. I believe this bill will increase safety hazards for those flying into O'Hare and for my constituents who live under O'Hare's increasingly congested flight paths. I believe this will help create massive gridlock and delays at O'Hare and across the Nation. Compressing more aircraft operations into the extremely limited capacity at O'Hare compromises safety and poses a significant risk of an air tragedy. I do not now dispute the fact that demand has grown. However, this demand has outgrown the capacity of O'Hare to safely handle this growth. We know that at current levels of operations, we are shoehorning too many flights into O'Hare, creating recurrent near misses and near catastrophes at an overloaded airport. To paraphrase one senior pilot, ``O'Hare is an accident waiting to happen.'' Adding more flights will only increase the already unacceptable safety hazards at O'Hare. The only way to shoehorn more flights into the airport is to increase the operations frequency in bad, low visibility weather, typically by squeezing the operations closer together in time and space; that is, reducing separation distances between aircraft, converging triple arrivals in fog and rain. Murphy's law tells us that it is only a matter of time before this increased jamming of flights results in a disaster. The only way to safely address the Chicago metro region's critical capacity shortfall is to build a third airport. A third airport is the only safe, sound and effective response of the public's need for more flights. To those who argue that lifting of the slot rule will increase competition, I challenge you to show the specific facts that demonstrate that lifting the slot rule will actually increase competition. We have had a slot exemption on the books since 1994 to allow new competition at O'Hare, 6 years, yet the overwhelming majority of added flights under this exemption have gone to the affiliates of two major airlines. So, if you want to increase competition, why not do it in the safest, and I emphasize safest, most logical effective way possible. The answer to effectively creating real time competition in the Chicago region is a new regional airport of sufficient size to allow new entrants to come in with a critical mass of flight operations. That means the capacity to grow and accommodate thousands of flights daily, capacity that can only be obtained at a new metro Chicago airport. Mark my words: Congress' action in lifting the slots will create an air traffic logjam of nightmare dimensions at O'Hare. We all know O'Hare already has a national reputation for delays. Thousands of stranded travelers frequently sleep overnight on temporary army cots at ``Camp O'Hare.'' Yet Congress' action in lifting the slot limits will cause these already intolerable delays to skyrocket, not only for passengers on new flights, but for passengers on all the flights into and out of O'Hare. Mr. Speaker, there will come a day when the chickens come home to roost on the failures in this bill. It is my fondest wish that I will not have to be the one standing in this House in the wake of a major catastrophe at O'Hare to tell my colleagues ``I told you so.'' Another unfortunate aspect of this bill is it is a tax increase. It raises the passenger facility charge on each ticket from $3 to $4.50. So those of you that campaign as tax slashers, ax the taxes, had better explain this to your folks, because this is a tax increase. O'Hare field will have flight increases in the year 2002 while LaGuardia's increases do not occur until 2007. I cannot explain this differential. I can only speculate.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 1418) to provide for the holding of court at Natchez, Mississippi, in the same manner as court is held at Vicksburg, Mississippi, and for other purposes, as amended.

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 to include extraneous material on S. 1418.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 1418, as amended. It contains two small but important provisions that will improve the efficiency of the administration of justice in our Federal court system. Section 1 was approved in the House by unanimous consent. This section proposes to allow for the holding of court in Natchez, Mississippi, in the same manner as court is held in Vicksburg. It would eliminate a provision in current law that limits the authority of the Federal courts to lease space in order to convene proceedings in Natchez, Mississippi. While only a small number of Federal court cases are now tried at Natchez County Court facilities, it is important that the Federal Government be able to continue using the facility. I have a manager's amendment that adds Section 2 to the bill. Section 2 designates Wheaton, Illinois, as a place of holding court for the Eastern Division of the Northern District of Illinois. Wheaton is the seat of DuPage County, Illinois. Because of the large population growth in DuPage County and the area surrounding Chicago, it would be beneficial to designate Wheaton as an additional place of holding court. Mr. Speaker, these are simple yet significant improvements to the Federal judicial system. I urge my colleagues to support S. 1418. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield the balance of our time to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio), the chief sponsor of this excellent legislation.

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