Henry Hyde

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, July 5 will mark the 25th anniversary of the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Crisis Negotiation Program. The program created the Crisis Negotiation Unit, which has worked to negotiate the release of hostages for the last 25 years. We live in a very dangerous world, one that has for two decades seen a steady rise in hostage-taking incidents. We know that we will face new challenges from criminals and terrorists in the next century and that the work of this unit will be even more vital to the security of the American people both at home and abroad. The FBI Special Agents who serve in the Crisis Negotiation Unit deserve the gratitude of our Nation for their bravery and for their devotion. They deserve recognition of the fact that they have saved the lives of countless hostages and law enforcement personnel in the most dire of circumstances. The Crisis Negotiation Unit has also protected numerous potential innocent bystanders from harm in many high-profile hostage crises, like the Lufthansa skyjacking at John F. Kennedy Airport in 1993 to many serious incidents that have received little or no publicity. On behalf of the House of Representatives, I commend and congratulate the Crisis Negotiation Unit and its Special Agents on their 25th anniversary. They deserve our special thanks for a job well done and our prayers for all the dangers they are sure to face in the coming years.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 10, the ``Financial Services Act of 1999.'' For many years, we have been trying to repeal the outdated restrictions that keep banks, securities firms, and insurance companies from getting into one another's businesses. After all the debate, I think we have finally come up with something in this bill that will open up a whole new world of competition. Financial services are becoming increasingly globalized, increasingly computerized, and increasingly seamless. Banking laws passed during the Depression simply will not do in the 21st century. I wish that we could maintain a world where everyone knew their banker on a first name basis and loans were made on a handshake, and I think in the new world some banks will provide that kind of service to those who demand it. But we need not have laws that limit us to that kind of service, as desirable as it may seem. Everyone is better off if the market decides what kinds of services financial firms will offer. Just think about the progress we have made in the past ten years. When I was a child, only the wealthy owned stocks. Now, with the growth of the mutual fund industry and self-directed retirement funds, millions and millions of average Americans not only own stocks, but make their own investment decisions. These developments create wealth, increase people's incentive to produce, and relieve some of the entitlement burden of government. I believe that this bill will bring more such positive developments. I want to say a word about my friends Jim Leach, chairman of the Banking Committee, and Tom Bliley, chairman of the Commerce Committee. They have done an excellent job of putting this package together. I commend them for their work in bringing this bill to the floor in a very difficult and contentious environment. I especially want to commend them for working with me on the bank merger provisions of the bill and the bankruptcy provisions relating to wholesale financial institutions. Under current law, bank mergers are reviewed under special bank merger statutes, and they do not go through the Hart-Scott-Rodino merger review process that covers most other mergers. Now banks will be able to get into other businesses which they have not been able to do before. The principle that we have tried to follow is that when mergers occur, the bank part of that merger will be judged under the current bank merger statutes, and we do not intend any change in that process or in any of the agencies' respective jurisdictions. The non-bank part of that merger, which will fall under the new Section 6 of the Bank Holding Company Act, will be subject to the normal Hart-Scott-Rodino merger review by either the Justice Department or the Federal Trade Commission. The amendment in the nature of a substitute has language that embodies that principle. This language is essentially the same as that in last year's bill, but certain technical and clarifying changes have been made. In short, no bank is treated differently than it otherwise would be because it has some other business within its corporate family. Likewise, no other business is treated differently than it otherwise would be because it has a bank within its corporate family. We have embodied that same principle with respect to the Federal Trade Commission's authority to enforce the Federal Trade Commission Act and other laws. Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act specifically prohibits the FTC from enforcing the Act against banks because they are heavily regulated. The language in the amendment in the nature of a substitute does not change that, but it does clarify that the bank prohibition does not extend to any other non-bank parts of a bank's corporate family. I would also note that similar language was not necessary for the Justice Department because there are no specific statutory prohibitions on its ability to enforce laws against banks, other than the Hart-Scott-Rodino exemption that I have already discussed. With respect to the bankruptcy language on wholesale financial institutions, I think that we all agree on the substance involved, but the specific language may require some further refinement in conference. I will be requesting Judiciary Committee conferees on a few narrow parts of the bill, and I look forward to continuing to work with my Banking Committee and Commerce Committee colleagues. I will insert four jurisdictional letters relating to the Judiciary Committee's participation in this matter for printing in the Record. Let me again commend my friends Jim Leach and Tom Bliley and everyone else who has worked on this legislation, and I ask my colleagues to support it. House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC, June 15, 1999. Hon. Dennis Hastert, Speaker, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Speaker: I am writing to let you know of the Committee on the Judiciary's jurisdictional interest in H.R. 10, the ``Financial Services Act of 1999.'' As you know, the Committee on Banking and Financial Services has filed its report on H.R. 10, and the Committee on Commerce will do so shortly. The Committee on the Judiciary has jurisdiction over several provisions of the bill as introduced: Sec. 104(a)(3) (dealing with the preservation of state antitrust laws); Sec. 104(b)(3)(A) & (b)(4)(B) (dealing with the non- preemption of the McCarran-Ferguson Act); Sec. 122 (amending Title 18 to create a crime for misrepresentations regarding financial institution liability for obligations of affiliates); Sec. 136(b) (to the extent that it deals with the treatment of wholesale financial institutions under the Bank Merger Act and the Bankruptcy Code in the new Sec. 9B(b)(5) & (e)(3) of the Federal Reserve Act); Sec. 13(d) (dealing with amendments to the Bankruptcy Code for wholesale financial institutions); Sec. 136(e) (to the extent that it deals with the treatment under the Bankruptcy Code of corporations organized under Sec. 25A of the Federal Reserve Act); Sec. Sec. 141-44 (dealing with the antitrust review of mergers in the financial services industry); Sec. 206(b) & (d) (dealing with administrative procedures for the Securities and Exchange Commission outside the Administrative Procedure Act); Sec. 214 (to the extent that it creates a new crime under the Investment Company Act); Sec. 301 (dealing with the continued viability of the McCarran-Ferguson Act); Sec. 306 (dealing with expedited dispute resolution for disputes between state and federal regulators); Sec. 314(a) (dealing with court jurisdiction over litigation concerning redomesticated insurer); Sec. 321(d) (dealing with court jurisdiction over litigation concerning reciprocity or uniformity determinations); Sec. 335 (dealing with court jurisdiction over litigation concerning the National Association of Registered Agents and Brokers). In addition, there are at least two provisions of the bill as reported by the Banking Committee over which this committee has jurisdiction: Sec. 179 (creating new criminal and civil liability for violations of new privacy requirements) and Sec. 193 (to the extent that it limits the claims of bankruptcy trustees). The foregoing list is intended to be as comprehensive as possible, but any inadvertent omission of a provision in either the introduced or reported versions of the bill that the Committee would otherwise have jurisdiction over does not waive that jurisdiction. The Committee has not yet been able to obtain a copy of the bill as ordered reported by the Commerce Committee, and it reserves its rights with respect to any additional provisions that may be included therein. I have several relatively minor concerns with the language of these provisions, and my staff has been working with the staffs of the Banking and Commerce Committees to resolve those concerns. I am confident that we will resolve them in the near future. For that reason, I have written to Chairman Leach and Chairman Bliley to inform them that I am willing to waive the Committee's right to a sequential referral of H.R. 10 subject to the good faith commitment of all concerned that these minor concerns will be addressed to our satisfaction either in the base text made in order under the rule or a manager's amendment when H.R. 10 goes to the floor. My doing so does not constitute any waiver of the Committee's jurisdiction over these provisions and does not prejudice its rights in any future legislation relating to these provisions or other similar provisions that may be included in the Act. I request that you appoint Members of this Committee as conferees on these provisions or any other similar provisions in the bill should it go to conference. I appreciate your consideration of my views on this issue. Please let me know if you need any further information. Sincerely, Henry J. Hyde, Chairman. Hon. Jim Leach, Chairman, Committee on Banking and Financial Services, Washington, DC. Hon. Tom Bliley, Chairman, Committee on Commerce, Washington, DC. Dear Jim and Tom. I am writing to let you know of the Committee on the Judiciary's jurisdictional interest in H.R. 10, the ``Financial Services Act of 1999.'' As you know, the Committee on Banking and Financial Services has filed its report on H.R. 10, and the Committee on Commerce will do so shortly. The Committee on the Judiciary has jurisdiction over several provisions of the bill as introduced: Sec. 104(a)(3) (dealing with the preservation of state antitrust laws); Sec. 104(b)(3)(A) & (b)(4)(B) (dealing with the non-preemption of the McCarran-Ferguson Act); Sec. 122 (amending Title 18 to create crime for mispresentations regarding financial institution liability for obligations of affiliates); Sec. 136(b) (to the extent that it deals with the treatment of wholesale financial institutions under the Bank Merger Act and the Bankruptcy Code in the new Sec. 9B(b)(5) & (e)(3) of the Federal Reserve Act); Sec. 136(d) (dealing with amendments to the Bankruptcy Code for wholesale financial institutions); Sec. 136(e) (to the extent that it deals with the treatment under the Bankruptcy Code of corporations organized under Sec. 25A of the Federal Reserve Act); Sec. Sec. 141-44 (dealing with the antitrust review mergers in the financial services industry); Sec. 206(b) & (d) (dealing with administrative procedures for the Securities and Exchange Commission outside the Administrative Procedure Act); Sec. 214 (to the extent that it creates a new crime under the Investment Company Act); Sec. 301 (dealing with the continued viability of the McCarran-Ferguson Act); Sec. 306 (dealing with expedited dispute resolution for disputes between state and federal regulators); Sec. 314(a) (dealing with court jurisdiction over litigation concerning redomesticated insurer); Sec. 321(d) (dealing with court jurisdiction over litigation concerning reciprocity or uniformity determinations); Sec. 335 (dealing with court jurisdiction over litigation concerning the National Association of Registered Agents and Brokers). In addition, there are at least two provisions of the bill as reported by the Banking Committee over which this committee has jurisdiction: Sec. 179 (creating new criminal and civil liability for violations of new privacy requirements) and Sec. 193 (to the extent that it limits the claims of bankruptcy trustees). The foregoing list is intended to be as comprehensive as possible, but any inadvertent omission of a provision in either the introduced or reported versions of the bill that the Committee would otherwise have jurisdiction over does not waive that jurisdiction. The Committee has not yet been able to obtain a copy of the bill as ordered reported by the Commerce Committee, and it reserves its rights with respect to any additional provisions that may be included therein. As you know, I have several relatively minor concerns with the language of these provisions, and my staff has been working with yours to resolve them. I am confident that we will resolve them in the near future. For that reason, I am willing to waive the Committee's right to a sequential referral of H.R. 10 subject to the good faith commitment of all concerned that these minor concerns will be addressed to our satisfaction either in the base text made in order under the rule or a manager's amendment which H.R. 10 goes to the floor. However, my doing so does not constitute any waiver of the Committee's jurisdiction over these provisions and does not prejudice its rights in any future legislation relating to these provisions or any other similar provisions that may be included in the Act. I will, of course, insist that Members of this Committee be named as conferees on these provisions or any other similar provisions in the bill should it go to conference. By separate letter, a copy of which is attached, I am making that request Speaker Hastert today. I appreciate your consideration of my views on this issue. Please let me know if you need any further information. Sincerely, Henry J. Hyde, Chaiman. U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Commerce, Washington, DC, June 18, 1999. Hon. Henry Hyde, Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC. Dear Henry: Thank you for your letter regarding the Committee on the Judiciary's jurisdictional interest in H.R. 10, the ``Financial Services Act of 1999.'' I acknowledge the Judiciary Committee jurisdictional interest in a number of provisions in H.R. 10. The Committee on Commerce has included your proposed revision to the antitrust subtitle in its consideration of the legislation. I will work with you to address any other concerns you have either in base text or as part of a manager's amendment on the House floor. I would not oppose Members of the Judiciary Committee being named as conferees for provisions within your Committee's jurisdiction. Thank you for foregoing a request for a sequential referral of this important legislation. I appreciate your willingness to work with me. Sincerely, Tom Bliley, Chairman.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, John Kass, a columnist with the Chicago Tribune has written another important article on a sensitive subject, fetal research. I urge my colleagues to read it carefully. [From the Chicago Tribune, July 1, 1999] Research Debate Tackles New World Some Dare Not Brave (By John Kass) A discussion begins in Washington on Thursday. It's not about sex or money. It's not about scandals or interest rates or war. So it might not get the media coverage it deserves. But it could be the most important debate of our generation. It will determine whether we're going to make it easy on ourselves to make a bargain with science and the future. Depending on how it comes out and what we settle for, it will determine what kind of human beings we will become, as science moves quicker than our ability to understand its consequences, in areas from human cloning to fetal stem cell research. And it will answer a question: Is it right to take human beings and process them as resources to benefit other human beings? About 100 doctors and scientists have signed a statement from the Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity to oppose something horrible--embryonic and fetal stem cell research, which uses aborted children and viable fertilized embryos to develop cures for some diseases such as Parkinson's and Alzheimer's. At the news conference, the doctors are being joined by U.S. Sen. Sam Brownback, the joined by U.S. Sen. Sam Brownback, the Republican from Kansas, who is expected to lead a fight against changes in federal policy that now allows the research. The National Institutes of Health already supports and finances the research using fetuses. Now, the NIH wants to use embryos too. Among those opposing the research is former U.S. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop. Some scientists argue that they need the human ``material,'' as they call it, to study how the mind works, in order to attack the horrible diseases. But doctors who have signed the document say that's wrong. Stem cell research on brain diseases is in its early stages, and there are other means to grow the cells to attack brain diseases. Sen. Brownback said it is important to realize that the ethical line of using human life for stem cell research need not be crossed. ``For those who say there are moral and ethical issues on the other side, who say we have the moral responsibility to solve diseases like Parkinson's, I say, look at the other possibilities that we have,'' Brownback said Wednesday in an interview. ``We don't have to give up on solving Parkinson's. We have other ways of doing it. And that seems to be a prudent way to proceed,'' he said. ``It's almost every week that another study comes out about advances in adult stem cell research. Let's not get into the situation where you go into all these legal and ethical issues--you'd have enormous ethical and moral issues here, and you shouldn't jump into it.'' The debate over the use of fetal brain tissue in experiments was touched on in this space Monday. And I could hear the angry howling. I'm not opposing science, or research, or organ donation, or any other reasonable practice. Organ donors offer their consent to have their bodies used by science. But aborted children don't have that opportunity. They're not asked to give their consent. And they are used in stem cell research to help adults fight brain diseases. Fifty years ago, the Nuremberg war crimes trials led the world to promise never to use human life in scientific experiments without consent. But now we're changing our minds, in order to win a scientific benefit. And we cannot make a political deal on this issue without publicly and fully discussing the consequences of such selfish thinking. Some people argue that to oppose this research is to condemn people with Parkinson's to death. U.S. Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) thinks so. Though we disagree on this issue, he should be heard too. ``I think this is valuable research,'' Durbin said. ``We have to set up safeguards that will keep it from becoming commercialized. The important thing about these (fetal) neural cells is that they may be able to help in cases that we can do nothing about now, conditions like that which keep Christopher Reeve in a wheelchair.'' But there are other ways to obtain stem cells, according to the Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity. And even if there weren't other ways, using human babies and embryos should not be allowed. Stem cells can be obtained from the living human nerve tissues of consenting adults and from adult cadavers, according to researchers. Like the fetal stem cell research, all of this is experimental. Here's one reason why the fetuses and embryos are used. It's easier. They're available. And that's the problem. Because it is easy, and because there is promise in the research, we might be willing--through small steps we don't even notice at the time--to barter something away. Our humanity.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I don't think there is a member in this House who is against supporting and reinforcing family values. We all know that the family is under assault in this country. Efforts to counter this assault and foster good public policy, have occurred in 34 states that currently have laws requiring consent or notification of at least one parent or court authorization before a child can obtain an abortion. These states have expressed their public policy that when a child is going to have an abortion, the parents of the child, the mother who bore her, the father who supports the family unit, know about it, know that their daughter is going to be treated by an abortionist who is going to perform a very serious surgical procedure with potentially serious consequences. These states have decided by passing these laws that parents are entitled to be part of that decision. This bill reinforces those state laws. It is good legislation, designed to support the family and prevent the evasion of state laws that require parental consent before a child can have an abortion. I can think of nothing more destructive to the family unit than back door efforts to evade the inclusion of a parent in a child's decision to have an abortion. Some have said grandparents, siblings or others should have the right to take a minor child for an abortion without parent's knowledge. This would create a situation where the grandparents are pulling in one direction and the parents, who have the primary responsibility for the child's well-being and her unborn child, are pulling in another. I say, leave it to the parents. Yes, you can have parents who are intolerant, absent, abusive, or involved with drugs, but the law recognizes these situations and provides for a judicial by- pass of a parental consent requirement. This bill recognizes the humanity of the unborn and reinforces the structure of the family. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 1218, the ``Child Custody Protection Act of 1999.''

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, three charred synagogues, the air thick with the smell of burned torahs, historical and religious books, videotapes, and pews, this was the scene on Friday, June 18, 1999, in the pre-dawn hours, at three Sacramento County, California synagogues, Temple B'nai Israel, Congregation Beth Shalom and Knesset Israel Torah Center. These houses of worship were set ablaze within the span of a half-hour. Law enforcement officials believe that the arson was coordinated by several people. It was reported that anti-Jewish fliers were found at two of the crime scenes. Arson of a place of worship is reprehensible to us as a society. We in Congress are unanimous in our condemnation of those who would express their hatred by destroying or damaging religious property. When a synagogue is damaged, the blow is felt not only by the congregation members, but by all those whose lives are touched by it: the youth who show up for community activities, the homeless and hungry who line up for food. It is not just a despicable act of hatred and cowardice, it is not only an attack upon the Jewish community, it is an attack upon all of us. It eats at the fabric of our heritage and the history of our nation, as a country founded in the pursuit of freedom of religion. I invite my colleagues to join in supporting H. Res. 226 which condemns these heinous acts of arson at three California synagogues.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, John Kass, a thoughtful columnist for the Chicago Tribune, on June 28, 1999, wrote an important column about a development in modern medicine that has the most serious consequences for the value of human life. I commend Mr. Kass' article to my colleagues: [From the Chicago Tribune, June 28, 1999] Draw the Line Now Against Using Babies as Medical Products (By John Kass) It's an ugly twist on an old science fiction theme: Would you use the body parts of an innocent baby so that you could live a happier life? Would you support a system of incentives to kill other babies, and process them like meat at a packing plant, for the benefit of a frightened Baby Boom generation terrified of Alzheimer's disease and death? Of course not. The suggestion is monstrous and dehumanizing. By comparison, it makes what the Serbs and Albanians are doing to each other look like a gentle game. But the science fiction scenario doesn't generate the terrifying passions of old Balkan blood feuds. Instead, it's calculated, without anger, and practiced by reasonable men and women in white lab coats. It's about pure reason, efficiency and scientific rationalism. It's what a culture can do when it loses its soul. If you don't believe me, ask a Jew about the Nazi concentration camps. So get horrified. Because it's not science fiction. It's happening now, in our country. I read about it in Sunday's Tribune, in a fascinating story by science writer Ronald Kotulak under the headline ``Stem cells opening path to brain repair.'' It began with an anecdote about a woman with Parkinson's disease. Her name is Dr. Jacqueline Winterkorn. The drugs she was taking to fight the disease weren't working anymore. ``It's a very sad disease,'' Dr. Winterkorn was quoted as saying. ``People are locked into bodies that don't move. Their brains are working, their minds are working, but they can't talk and they can't move. In other words, they're human beings immobilized through no fault of their own, trapped without speech. They have emotions, but they can't do anything about it. They're helpless. Like a fetus. But Dr. Winterkorn's condition began improving, the story said, after she was given millions of new brain stem cells because her own brain cells weren't doing their jobs. Her brain cells weren't producing enough dopamine to control her movements. The new brain stem cells worked just fine. They produced dopamine in her brain. She improved. The scientists are thrilled. ``The prospect of repairing a damaged brain is pretty remarkable,'' said Dr. Curt Freed, who did the study. ``It has been possible to show significant improvements in some patients who suffered from a chronic neurologic disease for an average of 14 years.'' But there is a price for Dr. Freed's success. The new brain cells have to come from somewhere. And they don't come from pigs. They come from fetuses, which is a polite way of saying they come from tiny human beings. The tiny human beings didn't willingly give up their brains. Nobody asked them to sign papers donating their bodies to science. They didn't have much say in the matter. They were aborted. The National Institutes of Health--which means the federal government--has lifted its ban on the use of human fetal cells and is bankrolling several other similar studies. Meanwhile, the White House worries that video games cheapen human life and make possible massacres like the one in Littleton, Colo. Courts and abortion rights advocates have said that what grows in a mother's womb is not a human being. You don't say baby. That's impolite. You say ``it,'' because that makes a human being easier to kill. The debate over abortion is an old one now. Most folks have settled into their positions and defend them vigorously. That's not going to change. What's changing is that we're progressing to a civilized new stage--turning human beings into valuable commodities--in which the bodies of the helpless are used to improve the lives of the powerful. And it's being done in the name of cold scientific reason. The rhetorical pathway was cleared years ago, when the Germans built Buchenwald and Auschwitz and other places. Soon other folks with Parkinson's or other brain disorders such as Alzheimer's disease will seek such treatments. The Baby Boom generation that has never been denied will make its demands. It's human nature to use available resources to satisfy the most powerful human need: staying alive. So aborted human babies will become resources. They'll become products, subjected to the market. Because they'll have value, there will be an incentive to provide more. Their bodies will be served up for the benefit of adults. If we don't stop it now, if we accept this crime in the name of scientific reason, we'll lose ourselves. Ask a mother carrying a child inside her. Ask her if it's not human. Ask any father who puts his hand on his expectant wife's belly and feels a tiny foot. In a few weeks, they're out and looking up to you. They grab your finger. You kiss their necks. Someday, when they're old enough, they might ask you what fetal brain stem cell research is all about. What will you tell them?

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill be printed in the Record and open to amendment at any point.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).

Mr. HYDE. There were no hearings on the burden of proof and things like that, and the gentleman from New York was not here.

Mr. HYDE. Last year I tried to compromise with the Justice Department. I bent over backwards trying to accommodate everybody, and the more their bill grew and was distorted into areas where I did not want it to go, I lost support, and finally I had a nice shell of nothing. So I decided to get pure and go back to the original bill, and that is what we are doing.

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

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

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

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

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my friends on both sides of the aisle for the enlightening debate on this issue and I would like to respond briefly to my friend from Arkansas. He keeps saying going after a drug dealer. When did he become a drug dealer? You have filed a probable cause. You have not convicted him of anything. But you have confiscated his property, you have put him out of business, you have put him out of house and home. You persist in calling him a drug dealer, but he has not been convicted of anything. He is innocent until proven guilty, unless we follow the perverse logic of our civil asset forfeiture laws. Now, we want to give some poor guy who has been wiped out by the government on probable cause a lawyer. You say, ``Okay, we'll give you a lawyer, but let the government cross-examine him first, extensively, about anything and everything.'' My God, then he does not need a lawyer. You have held him up to the light and shaken him. You have cross-examined him. Is that the hurdle he has to mount and surmount to get a lawyer? That is really not so. The preponderance of evidence is fine in a civil suit and the highest standard is beyond all reasonable doubt. We suggest a middle standard, clear and convincing. Why? Because it is not a civil suit. It is a quasi-criminal suit and it is punishment. The Supreme Court has said when they confiscate your property, that is punishment. And so you ought to meet a little higher standard than preponderance and that is the standard of clear and convincing. The gentleman's bill, his substitute, expands incrementally, exponentially the field of civil asset forfeiture. That may be a good idea, but not in this bill. This is a reform of the process. This is not a bill to broaden the concept of civil asset forfeiture. I am interested in it. If he wants to prepare a bill and file it, I will give him very good hearings and quick hearings. But this bill is to reform the process and ought not to be diluted or diverted into issues over which we have had no hearings. Now, all I want to do is give the average citizen who is not a sheriff, who does not have a relative in the city council, I want to give him due process of law. That means the government, King Louis XIV, does not confiscate your property on probable cause. That is all. You prove, Mr. Government, that you ought to have that property, that some crime has been committed and it is connected to the defendant and that is fine. I am all for it. I will open the door for you. But on an affidavit of probable cause to inflict drastic punishment on somebody and make them prove they are not guilty is not, in my humble opinion, the American way. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment made in order by the rule.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I did not hear the gentleman.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I just want to express the fact that I heartily disagree with the statement that we are helping drug dealers. The gentleman is assuming a fact that is not in evidence. The civil asset forfeiture involves no drug dealers. It involves people who are accused of something at the level of probable cause, and it is punishing them before they have been adjudicated guilty by confiscating their property. That is the Soviet Union's way of justice, not America, where one should be, even if one is accused of being a drug dealer, innocent until one is proven guilty. It is quasi criminal. It is punishment. The Supreme Court has said that, and that is why we need clear and convincing rather than preponderance.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 6 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Bryant).

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Graham).

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire of the Chair how much time I have remaining.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr).

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

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, about 6 years ago I was reading a newspaper and I read an op ed article in the Chicago Tribune explaining a process that goes on in our country, and I must tell the Members, I could not believe it. I thought that over 200 years we had ironed out what due process meant, what equal protection under the law meant. But I found out that there are corners in our legal proceedings into which light needs to be shed. One of them concerns civil asset forfeiture. There are two kinds of forfeiture, criminal asset forfeiture and civil asset forfeiture. What is the difference? The difference is in criminal asset forfeiture you must be indicted and convicted. Once that happens, the government then may seize your property if your property was used, however indirectly, in facilitating the crime for which you have been convicted. You are a criminal, you are convicted, and they seize your property. I have no problem with that. I think that is useful in deterring drug deals and extortionists and terrorists. I have no problem with criminal asset forfeiture. But the other type is civil asset forfeiture. That is a horse of a different color. In civil asset forfeiture, the government, the police, the gendarmes, can seize your property upon the weakest, most flimsy, diaphenous charge, probable cause. Probable cause will let you execute a search warrant or maybe frisk somebody, but no, they use probable cause as the basis to seize your property. I do not just mean your roller skates, they can take your business, they can take your home, they can take your farm, they can take your airplane. They take anything and everything premised on the weakest of criminal charges, probable cause. What is also unbelievable is that unless you take action in court, you cannot get your property back. They do not have to convict you, they do not have to even charge you with a crime, but they have your property because they allege probable cause. How do you get your business back, your home back? You go to court, you hire a lawyer, you post a bond, and then you have to prove within 10 days, you have 10 days to do all this, you have to prove that your property was not involved in a crime. In other words, you prove a negative. I do not know how you do that. I have been a lawyer since 1950, and I do not know how you prove that something did not happen. But nonetheless, that is the burden now. Under our jurisprudence, the burden of proof should be with the government. If you are guilty of anything, then prove it. The standard is beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal case. So what we are asking is to turn justice right side up, to switch the burden of proof from the poor victim, who has been deprived of his property and not convicted of anything, to the government, who has seized this property. Now, may I suggest there are some incentives for some police organizations not to do this, because they share in the proceeds of the seized property. It is like the speed trap along the rural highway where the sheriff waits for us, takes us to a magistrate, and his salary is paid out of the fines he levies against us. We do not have a very great chance at equal justice. That is the situation here. Civil asset forfeiture as allowed in our country today is a throwback to the old Soviet Union, where justice is the justice of the government and the citizen did not have a chance. So I suggest we remedy this, and that is what we are trying to do. The bill before us makes eight changes. First, the burden of proof goes to the government, where it belongs. Secondly, the standard is clear and convincing. The reason it is not a mere, simple preponderance is that this is quasi-criminal. They are punishing you when they have taken charge of your assets and of your property. The next thing it does, it permits the judge to release the property pending the disposition in case a hardship exists and you are out of business or you have no place to live. The third thing is the court can, in an appropriate case, appoint counsel. That is important if you are broke, if they have taken your property. You need help, you cannot afford a lawyer. The reason some organizations resist appointing counsel is because if you cannot get a lawyer, you cannot file a claim, so the forfeiture stands. You have a disincentive, you are discouraged from filing a claim because you cannot pay for a lawyer. We also eliminate the bond, and I am happy to see that the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) eliminates the bond, too. Our bill provides an innocent owner defense which is uniform across the country. If you own something and somebody else performed a crime in it or with it, and you are perfectly innocent and that can be established, that is a defense. You can sue the government under my bill if they destroy your property, and you can get interest if they have held your cash, and you can have 30 days to file your claim, not 10 or 20. Lastly, let me just say this. This bill puts civil liberties and due process back in our criminal justice system. I am so delighted at the sponsors of this bill, both Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives. I am also delighted at the organizations that have endorsed it: The American Bar Association, the National Rifle Association, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the American Civil Liberties Union, Americans for Tax Reform, the National Association of Realtors, the Credit Union National Association, the American Bankers Association, National Association of Home Builders, and on and on; the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. There is the widest possible spectrum of support for this reformation of our civil asset forfeiture laws. I beg Members to listen carefully and join me in this essential reform. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material in the Record on H.R. 1658.