Henry Hyde

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield half my time to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), and I ask unanimous consent that he may control that time.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, my colleagues are making a virtue out of what is a vice, and that is the inflexibility of the IRS standards. The cost of food in Omaha, Nebraska or Boise, Idaho, is different than in downtown Manhattan. So what is realistic about an inflexible standard? Why not give some wiggle room so that humanity can play out? This could be a good bill. It is a great bill for the creditors, I can say. I have 75 enhancements here for the creditors. Why not throw a little small bone to the debtor? Do not talk about ``reasonably necessary'' as too vague. Are my colleagues aware, those who have said that, that there is 15 years of litigation and decisional authority interpreting that? Of course. ``Reasonable'' is a word used in negligence law, in the exercise of reasonable care and caution. To hear some of my colleagues talk, I would think this was from outer space. That is nonsense. We have to allow for regional differences, for family differences. A reasonably necessary standard is ascertainable. I am as capitalist as anybody, I am as conservative as anybody, but it does not seem to me when there is a bill that is truly tilted towards the creditors, that giving a little flexibility for living standards for people who are bankrupt is a violation of one's credentials as a conservative. The median income that the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas) mentioned of $51,000 sounds like a lot of money, but that is for a family of four, a family of four. That may be a lot of money in Boise, Idaho. It may be very little in New York. Give some flexibility. The current law is what ought to obtain. My colleagues are trying to change it by putting the IRS standards in. It is the first time, and I dare say the last time, so much kind approbation will be showered on the IRS by this side of the aisle. I certainly do not join in that showering. So this litigation, there will be litigation on the IRS standards, there will be as much litigation as anyone wants. This could be a good bill. I support this bill, but for goodness sake give some humanity in the establishment of living standards while paying out Chapter 13. Lastly, let me pay my respects to the creditor lobby. They are awesome.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, education is in crisis today in America. That is why I think it is important to recognize an outstanding teacher. I rise today to recognize Barbara Kirie Stewart, daughter of a colleague and friend of mine, James C. Kirie. Mrs. Stewart teaches at Brentwood Academy in Tennessee where an endowed chair for history has recently been established in her name. This honor could not have been bestowed on a more deserving or dedicated woman, one who truly understands the joy of giving--to her students, her friends and family, and to future generations. The endowment chair lets the rest of the world know how integral Barbara is to Brentwood Academy. Mrs. Barbara Stewart came to Brentwood Academy in the fall of 1972, in time to see the first class graduate the following spring. She brought with her a B.A. degree from Lindenwood College and the gift of making history come alive through her effective classroom teaching style. Barbara's work with the Youth in Government program and as the founding sponsor of the R.O. Beauchamp chapter of the National Honor Society are just some of the many community enrichment activities with which she has involved herself. Barbara's devotion to students and education has taken her through 25 years as the History Department Chair at Brentwood Academy. Along the way, she also earned an M.A.T. from Vanderbuilt. Those who have known Barbara in the classroom have discovered quanlities that cannot be captured: an enthusiasm that stamps her presence into their memories forever. Mrs. Barbara Stewart's former students say it best * * *. I became a teacher because of your inspiration. Thank you for all you did for me as a student and all you have inspired me to do as a teacher. I can still hear your voice and recall the enjoyment of learning history from you. You taught me to always ask why, not just who and when. That has made all the difference. Yours is the one class from my high school days that continues to capture my imagination and still sends me to the bookshelves scrambling for more information. No teacher in high school or college taught me as much as you. No teacher taught me how to learn as well as you. And no teacher was ever as hard as you either! Every once in a while there is a teacher who, with contagious enthusiasm, is able to impact knowledge and show genuine interest in her students, thus earning their affection and respect in return. Thank you for being one of those rare teachers. The longer I live, the more I realize that your hard work, dedication, and selfless service has enriched my life in countless ways. Mr. Speaker, the Barbara Kirie Stewart Endowed Chair for History preserves the legacy of academic achievement lived out at Brentwood Academy through Mrs. Barbara Stewart--an exemplary citizen whose excellence in teaching is unsurpassed.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Scarborough) for yielding me this time. Madam Speaker, I do not entirely disagree with the policy concerns that were expressed by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), but I do want to say in reference to his concerns about the process that it is true this is a constitutional amendment, and we did not have hearings on it this year. However, in the past we have had hearings after hearings after hearings. This is essentially quite a simple matter. It does not require a lot of testimony, although we could probably have heard from academicians from here to San Francisco and back. We know what the issue is. We know what the policy problems are, and so it was an effort to get this up on this most symbolic of days, the day when tax returns are to be filed. I do not think anybody who will vote on this issue is in doubt as to what the issue is all about and will be lacking information because we did not have hearings. I will concede that hearings are appropriate. If we hadn't had so many hearings in the past on this essentially uncomplicated matter, why we would have held hearings. I think everyone understands the issue and so we are trying to get on with it by bringing it to this floor today.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the Rules, I am submitting a copy of the Rules of Procedure of the Committee on the Judiciary adopted February 4, 1999. Rules of Procedure, 106th Congress, Adopted February 4, 1999 Rule I. The Rules of the House of Representatives are the rules of the Committee on the Judiciary and its subcommittees with the following specific additions thereto. Rule II. Committee Meetings (a) The regular meeting day of the Committee on the Judiciary for the conduct of its business shall be on Tuesday of each week while the House is in session. (b) Additional meetings may be called by the Chairman and a regular meeting of the Committee may be dispensed with when, in the judgment of the Chairman, there is no need therefor. (c) At least 24 hours (excluding Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays when the House is not in session) before each scheduled Committee or subcommittee meeting, each Member of the Committee or subcommittee shall be furnished a list of the bill(s) and subject(s) to be considered and/or acted upon at the meeting. Bills or subjects not listed shall be subject to a point of order unless their consideration is agreed to by a two-thirds vote of the Committee or subcommittee. (d) The Chairman, with such notice to the ranking Minority Member as is practicable, may call and convene, as he considers necessary, additional meetings of the Committee for the consideration of any bill or resolution pending before the Committee or for the conduct of other Committee business. The Committee shall meet for such purpose pursuant to that call of the Chairman. (e) Committee and subcommittee meetings for the transaction of business, i.e. meetings other than those held for the purpose of taking testimony, shall be open to the public except when the Committee or subcommittee determines by majority vote to close the meeting because disclosure of matters to be considered would endanger national security, would compromise sensitive law enforcement information, or would tend to defame, degrade or incriminate any person or otherwise would violate any law or rule of the House. (f) Every motion made to the Committee and entertained by the Chairman shall be reduced to writing upon demand of any Member, and a copy made available to each Member present. (g) For purposes of taking any action at a meeting of the full Committee or any subcommittee thereof, a quorum shall be constituted by the presence of not less than one-third of the Members of the Committee or subcommittee, except that a full majority of the Members of the Committee or subcommittee shall constitute a quorum for purposes of reporting a measure or recommendation from the Committee or subcommittee, closing a meeting to the public, or authorizing the issuance of a subpoena. Rule III. Hearings (a) The Committee Chairman or any subcommittee chairman shall make public announcement of the date, place, and subject matter of any hearing to be conducted by it on any measure or matter at least one week before the commencement of that hearing. If the Chairman of the Committee or subcommittee, with the concurrence of the ranking Minority Member, determines there is good cause to begin the hearing sooner, or if the Committee or subcommittee so determines by majority vote, a quorum being present for the transaction of business, the Chairman or subcommittee chairman shall make the announcement at the earliest possible date. (b) Committee and subcommittee hearings shall be open to the public except when the Committee or subcommittee determines by majority vote to close the meeting because disclosure of matters to be considered would endanger national security, would compromise sensitive law enforcement information, or would tend to defame, degrade or incriminate any person or otherwise would violate any law or rule of the House. (c) For purpose of taking testimony and receiving evidence before the Committee or any subcommittee, a quorum shall be constituted by the presence of two Members. (d) In the course of any hearing each Member shall be allowed five minutes for the interrogation of a witness until such times as each Member who so desires has an opportunity to question the witness. rule iv. broadcasting Whenever a hearing or meeting conducted by the Committee or any subcommittee is open to the public, those proceedings shall be open to coverage by television, radio and still photography except when the hearing or meeting is closed pursuant to the Committee Rules of Procedure. rule v. standing subcommittees (a) The full Committee shall have jurisdiction over the following subject matters: antitrust law, tort liability, including medical malpractice and product liability, legal reform generally, and such other matters as determined by the Chairman. (b) There shall be five standing subcommittees of the Committee on the Judiciary, with jurisdictions as follows: (1) Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property: copyright, patent and trademark law, administration of U.S. courts, Federal Rules of Evidence, Civil and Appellate Procedure, judicial ethics, other appropriate matters as referred by the Chairman, and relevant oversight. (2) Subcommittee on the Constitution: constitutional amendments, constitutional rights, federal civil rights laws, ethics in government, other appropriate matters as referred by the Chairman, and relevant oversight. (3) Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law: bankruptcy and commercial law, bankruptcy judgeships, administrative law, independent counsel, state taxation affecting interstate commerce, interstate compacts, other appropriate matters as referred by the Chairman, and relevant oversight. (4) Subcommittee on Crime: Federal Criminal Code, drug enforcement, sentencing, parole and pardons, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, prisons, other appropriate matters as referred by the Chairman, and relevant oversight. (5) Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims: immigration and naturalization, admission of refugees, treaties, conventions and international agreements, claims against the United States, federal charters of incorporation, private immigration and claims bills, other appropriate matters as referred by the Chairman, and relevant oversight. (c) The Chairman of the Committee and ranking Minority Member thereof shall be ex officio Members, but not voting Members, of each subcommittee which such Chairman or ranking Minority Member has not been assigned by resolution of the Committee. Ex officio Members shall not be counted as present for purposes of constituting a quorum at any hearing or meeting of such subcommittee. Rule VI. Powers and Duties of Subcommittees Each subcommittee is authorized to meet, hold hearings, receive evidence, and report to the full Committee on all matters referred to it or under its jurisdiction. Subcommittee chairmen shall set dates for hearings and meetings of their respective subcommittees after consultation with the Chairman and other subcommittee chairmen with a view toward avoiding simultaneous scheduling of full Committee and subcommittee meetings or hearings whenever possible. Rule VII. Non-Legislative Reports No report of the Committee or subcommittee which does not accompany a measure or matter for consideration by the House shall be published unless all Members of the Committee or subcommittee issuing the report shall have been apprised of such report and given the opportunity to give notice of intention to file supplemental, additional, or dissenting views as part of the report. In no case shall the time in which to file such views be less than three calendar days (excluding Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays when the House is not in session). Rule VIII. Committee Records The records of the Committee at the National Archives and Records Administration shall be made available for public use according to the Rules of the House. The Chairman shall notify the ranking Minority Member of any decision to withhold a record otherwise available, and the matter shall be presented to the Committee for a determination on the written request of any Member of the Committee.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, some years ago we had a Member of Congress named Ben Blaz. He was from Guam, and he was a military man. He was a general in the Marine Corps, and he told me, he said, there is nothing worse for an infantryman to be climbing up a hill and look back over his shoulder and seeing that nobody is there. Well, we want to tell our fighting forces in Kosovo and in Yugoslavia tonight that we are there. We are constantly reminded of the heavy, heavy price that freedom extracts from us. The brave men and women that are willing to risk their lives in a far away land to resist genocide are living proof that patriotism and valor are still the defining characteristics of our fighting people. The finest speech I have ever heard in 25 years in Congress was delivered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman) last week over there on this issue. He reminded us that when the Holocaust occurred we all said never again, never again. Well, again is happening right now. It is happening in Kosovo, where thousands of people are massacred and other thousands of people, elderly and infants, are roaming the snowy mountains because they have been dispossessed. It is happening again. I do not know how we turn our back on that and walk away if it is within our power to stabilize the situation and stop the killing. So that is what this is about. We can debate the policy again and again and again, but we are there and the genocide is there and we do have a national interest in halting the killing. We have a human interest in halting the killing. So I want to express my pride, I want to express my prayers for the fighting men and women who are in the front lines paying the price, halting the genocide and doing the Lord's work. I am proud of our military. Diplomats are fine, lawyers are great, but in the last analysis, it is the soldier that pays for freedom, and we ought to be thanking God on our knees that we have such men.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. This institution is charged with a critically important function. We are elected to adopt policy and to oversee its implementation. The enormity of this responsibility is sometimes forgotten as we go about our day-to-day business, but we all know that without the assistance of experienced staff we could not possibly keep ourselves sufficiently informed on the workings of a government that will spend nearly $1.8 trillion in the year 2000. The committees must be adequately funded and staffed if Congress is going to have any ability to make informed judgments as to the operation of that government or the existence of unmet needs. Given the enormity of this task, I believe that the $180.4 million, 2-year budget that the Committee on House Administration has proposed for the 19 House committees will be money well spent. As chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, I can personally attest to the invaluable role that committee staff plays in advising and preparing Members to make difficult policy choices that will shape the laws of our country. But we cannot expect to attract and retain the high-quality, expert staff we need if we cannot afford to offer salaries that are competitive with the private sector. We must be able to reward good work with merit raises, and we must be able to pay cost-of-living increases when necessary. Mr. Speaker, that is largely what the modest 1.5 percent yearly increase in this resolution will be used to fund, but beyond that we must make sure that we have sufficient staff to undertake our legislative and our oversight responsibilities. In the 105th Congress, the Committee on the Judiciary was one of the most active committees in the House. We were referred over 15 percent of the total legislative measures introduced and were responsible for the enactment of 70 bills and 10 private laws. We anticipate the committee will continue if not increase this pace in the 106th Congress. Statistics are not everything. Our charge is not to turn out legislation with the speed of light but to produce legislation that is thoughtfully and thoroughly considered so it will stand the political and legislative test of time. A short listing of the issues we deal with in our committee shows the complexity and controversy of our agenda. For example, in the 106th we will take up bankruptcy reform which failed to be enacted in the last Congress. Other high-profile legislation we anticipate handling includes juvenile justice reform and encryption export controls. Religious freedom legislation and a victims' right constitutional amendment, complex and volatile issues that will be on our calendar. Criminalization of partial-birth abortions, employment preferences and set-asides, civil asset forfeiture reform, intellectual property and other high tech legislation are topics we will revisit. The committees are constantly challenged with trying to stretch inadequate resources to cover all of these issues and more. If we are forced to spread our staff resources too thin, our work product will suffer. I am concerned that we do not have the resources both to continue our legislative pace and do meaningful oversight of agencies under our jurisdiction. That is why I have asked for additional staff to engage in comprehensive oversight of the $21 billion, 120,000 employee Department of Justice. The Committee on the Judiciary's 2-year, $12.2 million budget allocation pales in comparison with the Federal resources we are charged with overseeing. The work of the committee is ultimately the work of the people, and we must not hamstring them by denying them adequate resources. I applaud the Committee on House Administration for the well-crafted budget package we are considering and I strongly urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I recognize this is a very difficult decision, and I regret disagreeing with some of my colleagues who oppose the participation of our forces in the NATO peacekeeping effort, but it boils down really to a simple proposition: Is NATO worthwhile? What is the purpose of NATO? What is our role with NATO? We are the leaders of NATO. NATO is an extremely useful institution to have. It is beginning to integrate Germany in this exercise. Germany is to provide 3,000 troops, the British, 8,000, the French, 6,000, the United States 4,000, and to what end? To stop genocide. To stop the slaughter. To be peacekeepers. There really is a moral obligation on those people who have the resources to intercede when people are being wantonly, atrociously killed, and that is what our purpose is. We have a national purpose: to prevent the spread of this conflict. If we appease Milosevic, if we leave the field and let the killing go on, we are inviting a wider spread of the war that could involve two of our NATO allies on the opposite side, Greece and Turkey. So there is a humanitarian purpose; there is a peacekeeping purpose, and in my judgment, the very purpose of NATO would be frustrated; it would be eviscerated if we turned our back and walked away. Mr. Chairman, leadership imposes heavy burdens and a cost must be paid, but we either are going to lead in the struggle, and it is a struggle for world peace, or we are going to be on the sidelines. I think for the vitality of NATO, for our role in NATO as a leader, for integrating the peacekeeping forces with these other countries, clearly we have to participate, and I will support the resolution.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, on Sunday October 4, 1998, Francis Cardinal George, OMI, the Archbishop of Chicago, delivered the homily at St. Matthew's Cathedral in Washington, D.C. at the annual Red Mass, celebrated on the Sunday prior to the first Monday in October, which traditionally marks the opening of the Supreme Court's new term. I am pleased and honored to place into the Record the text of Cardinal George's inspiring remarks, for the edification of my colleagues: ``Homily, 1998 Red Mass.'' Red Mass (By Francis Cardinal George, OMI) Your Eminence, Cardinal Hickey. Your Excellency, Archbishop Cacciavillan. Members of the judiciary and of the bar and of the government and Congress Members of the John Carroll Society and friends. The picture of Jesus given us by the evangelist Luke places him in the synagogue of Nazareth, his home town, ready to begin his public ministry under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. This was to be his only, his last occasion to preach in Nazareth, for his mission took him elsewhere in Judea and Israel and, finally, to his death outside Jerusalem. In the mission and preaching of his disciples after Jesus' resurrection from the dead, Luke has Jesus taken farther: to Antioch and Corinth and Rome, to the ends of the earth. In Luke's Gospel, Jesus does not preach until after listening and proclaiming the word of God. In the text within our Gospel text, the prophet Isaiah proclaims a time of Jubilee, of deliverance from captivity, a time of liberation; only then does Jesus speak and explain the prophet in such a way--``This day, these words are fulfilled in your hearing.''--that Jesus' friends and neighbors, far from being liberated by his words, took him to the edge of the hill on which their city was built and tried to kill him. Jesus listened, he spoke, he escaped to take up elsewhere the mission given him by his Father. That mission makes possible our coming together today at this end of the earth as we and the entire world, with renewed self-consciousness as a globe, look toward the celebration of a new millennium. If we today believe that where there is Jesus there is Jubilee, how is it that we are still enslaved? Every five years, as you may know, each bishop of the Catholic Church goes to Rome to pray at the tombs of Peter and Paul; then he goes in to talk with Peter's successor. This year, the bishops of the United States are making their visits ad limina apostolorum, and the bishops of Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin made theirs together last May. When I went in to talk with the Holy Father, he listened politely as I explained that the report he had received had been drawn up by my staff since I had only recently come to Chicago. He looked at it, put it aside and asked me a single question: ``What are you doing to change the culture?'' I was surprised, but shouldn't have been, for the Pope has spoken often of how culture liberates us, creates the world in which what is best in human experience can be passed on and celebrated and of how, conversely, culture can also blind us, enslave us and must sometimes be changed in the light of God's word. Taken by surprise, I spontaneously began to speak to the Holy Father about the Church's relation to the legal profession in Chicago, of the many contacts and gatherings, of the several Chicago priests who are also civil lawyers, of the pro bono work for the poor, of the Catholic law schools and of many initiatives similar to what takes place here through the good offices of the members of the John Carroll society. Then I backed up and began to explain that, in the United States, the law is a primary carrier of culture. In a country continuously being knit together from so many diverse cultural, religious, and linguistic threads, legal language most often creates the terms of our public discourse as Americans. A vocation to make and to serve the law is a calling to shape our culture. We live in worded worlds. If there is no common language, very likely there is no common vision and citizens find themselves trapped in separate worlds. Listening to God's liberating word, in this Mass and elsewhere, believers must wonder where the language of civil law and the language of faith might share a common vocabulary. The Catholic Church has tried for some generations to speak here a language of natural law, a language that presupposes God speaks in nature as well as in history, a language, therefore, able to speak of God's ways without explicitly confessional terminology. But our various attempts have not really provided a dictionary shared between American culture and Catholic faith. The National Conference of Catholic Bishops often tries to speak the language of policy, hoping that well argued policy statements will influence legal discussion; but the common understanding generated has clear limitations. There is the language of Holy Scripture itself, common to great extent to all Christians and Jews, but the Bible's phraseology and stories are no longer common cultural parlance in our country. Speaking, in order to be heard today, a language largely shorn of religious nuances, the believer can still ask two questions of the vision behind legal discourse: First, can the vision of courts and legislatures expand to see at least dimly God's actions and purposes in history? Abraham Lincoln of Illinois used public language to speak of God's purpose at the end of a bloody American civil war. ``With firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive to finish the work we are in.'' Lincoln, who wrestled like a biblical prophet with God's purposes in history and his judgment on this nation, grew, because of his public service, in his ability to bring together, always tentatively, the law he defended finally with his own life and God's word which, like a two-edged sword, cuts through the rhetoric of public as well as personal deceit. Lincoln knew that God judges nations as well as persons, and he forged a language which, and the end, placed even the personal liberty to which this nation was dedicated second to the designs of God himself. Are we permitted to speak similarly today or must the language of law, rather than setting us free, blind us and leave us mute in any world not constructed by our private interests and intentions? And a second question, put to us often these days by Pope John Paul II: does the vision of the human person found in public laws and decisions adequately express what it means to be human? Do our laws not only protect contracts but also tend to force all human relations into them? Is the language of contract becoming the only public language of America? Does the model of association which is accorded public rights tend more and more to constrain or even exclude the natural family, the life of faith, cultural and racial groupings, relations which cannot be unchosen without destroying the human person shaped by them. Christian faith gives us a vision of a person we call the Word of God, made flesh. Crucified and risen from the dead, Jesus sends us the Holy Spirit, who speaks every language and gives every good gift. This vision should set us free from any lesser picture of things; the language of faith should keep us from supposing that we adequately understand reality in its depths and heights. This is a vision that should humble and, in humbling us, open us to other worlds. Approaching a third Christian millennium (using what is now a common calendar), we gather to worship the God we believe to be the Father of Our Lord Jesus Christ and therefore, in Christ, our Father as well. It is good to do so, for if we do not worship God we will inevitably end up worshiping ourselves. Nations worshiping themselves have plagued this last century of the second millennium, and God's word prompts us now to examine anew ourselves and our history. Without warrant, we have associated ourselves with the biblical city on a hill, not Nazareth but Jerusalem itself. Without right, we too often judge other people and nations by our standards and interests, assuming that our interests must be universal. Without sense, we even seriously consider if this nation is the end of history, as if our present political and economic arrangements were surely the culmination of God's designs for the universe. Lincoln, who had the good grace to speak of us only as an ``almost chosen people'', would surely blush, and so should we. Today, as yesterday and tomorrow, the Church speaks a language of respect for public office holders, whose vocation is shaped by the constraints of law; but the Church, today as yesterday and tomorrow, also speaks as best she can to judge the actions and decision of public officials, and the culture shaped by them, when these are inadequate to the vision given us by the truths of faith. ``Faith must become culture,'' Pope John Paul II says. ``What are you doing to change the culture?'' he asks. But how can we speak of change in America today when the law itself blinds us to basic truths? One egregious blind spot is our very sense of liberation construed as personal autonomy. An autonomous person has no need of jubilee, of freedom as gift; he has set himself free. The fault line that runs through our culture, and it is sometimes exacerbated rather than corrected by law, is the sacrificing of the full truth about the human person in the name of freedom construed as personal autonomy. It is a blind spot as deep as that in Marxism's sacrifice of personal freedom in the name of justice construed as absolute economic equality. Such a profound error makes our future uncertain. Will the United States be here when the human race celebrates the end of the third millennium? Not without a very changed, a very converted culture. The Church, however, must also listen first to God's word before she speaks, before she translates God's word into the words of our culture or any other. Hence the Church can speak only with deep humility a language which purports to give definitive access to God's designs in history. Even prophetic judgment, while certain in its proclamation, is tentative in its final outcome. The Spirit is always free, but never self- contradictory. Tentatively, then, let us try the language of prayer and ask that God's judgment fall lightly on us and our nation. Gratefully, I pray that God reward your dedication to public service and your desire to create a common language adequate to the experience of all our people and open to all others. Joyfully, let us hope that the Jubilee introducing the coming millennium may restore to the United States a sense of authentic freedom rooted in an evergrowing generosity of spirit. May God bless us all. Amen.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend, the powerful chairman of the powerful Committee on Rules, for yielding me this time. I will limit my gratitude until I look up the word ``peripatetic.'' I may or may not amplify that. In any event, it is a pleasure to be here with the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) who is a longtime friend and a great legislator, and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski) who is also a longtime friend and a great legislator. Madam Speaker, I speak in support of H.R. 99, a bill to extend the authorization for certain Federal Aviation Administration programs for 6 months, through September 30, 1999. However, I want to stress my support for H.R. 99 extends only to the bill as currently drafted. My concern is that if H.R. 99 passes the House, it might become a vehicle to go to conference on a much broader bill from the other body. If that were to happen, many important aviation issues, including the addition of slots to the four slot-controlled airports, might come back in a conference report without any opportunity for House amendments. I have raised this concern with the Speaker, the majority leader and the majority whip. It is my understanding they will not allow H.R. 99 to become a vehicle for such a broader conference. With that understanding, I am certainly willing to support H.R. 99 so that the FAA's authorization will not expire at the end of March. Let me conclude by saying that I appreciate the cooperation of each of our three leaders in clarifying this matter so this important legislation can move forward.

Mr. HYDE

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

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I think I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) but I will hold that in reserve.

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

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, on the contrary. I think we are reluctant to be instructed by the Senate as to how to conduct our trial, but we are at their mercy; and so we have used the speech- and-debate clause to express ourselves to them, and we can only hope.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 or 3 seconds to my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I believe the Constitution requires a trial, and it is up to the Senate to shape the contours of that, but I am hoping a trial would be a fair opportunity for us to present the evidence.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I want to thank him for accusing us of acrobatics. It has been a long time since I have been acrobatic.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, except there is one more nuance to that. I have been reminded several times that the last thing the Senate looks for is instruction from the House, and so I am not about to say what they can or what they cannot do. But I have this hope that, whatever the sanction is, it is in their department, not ours. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the other learned gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

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

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I appreciate the level of this debate. It is always interesting on an important subject such as impeachment. Let me just briefly respond to some of the remarks that were made. There was criticism that a vote on censure was not authorized in the House in the last Congress, and that is certainly true. Many of us have a conviction that censure is not authorized by the Constitution. We realize it is not ruled out, but any censure, to be meaningful, would have to harm the President, would have to damage the President, and many of us take seriously the proscription in the Constitution against bills of attainder. In any event, the Constitution provides one way to deal with a problem concerning cleansing the office, and that is impeachment. And our role in that, and our sole role, is to issue articles of impeachment, which are a request to the Senate to have a trial. And the Constitution says the Senate has the sole power to try the issues. We have the sole power to file and pass impeachment. We have done that and now we are seeking a trial in the Senate pursuant to the Constitution. The question of what is the appropriate sanction we leave to the Senate. That is not our concern. We leave to the founding fathers, we leave to the Senate to determine the sanction. This is an interesting case. It belongs in the history books for more than one reason. One of the reasons I find this curious and fascinating and interesting is the Democrats are perfectly willing to condemn Presidential misconduct in the strongest terms, stronger terms that I would use. They do not mind doing that. They are not concerned with that. What they are concerned with are the consequences, the sanction to be imposed after finding that the President's conduct was, to coin a phrase, reprehensible, in their terms. The consequence they will not abide is his removal from office. They do not mind if he is stigmatized forever in the history books pursuant to their censure. So the consequences of the condemnation, whether it is through impeachment or censure, we leave to the other body that is competent to impose a sanction. That is ultra vires. That is not within our job description. So I think that is something worth noting. Insofar as whether an impeachment is appropriate, that horse has left the barn. We have voted articles of impeachment; and what is left for us to do, because a new Congress has begun, is to reappoint the managers so it can proceed. It is really a ministerial duty, albeit important and indispensable to the pursuit of the articles of impeachment. But, really, what we are talking about is, again, the theme so often used by the defenders of the President, that whatever he did, it does not rise to the level of an impeachable offense. Well, that issue has been determined by the House. But I would just say I guess it depends on how seriously we take perjury, how seriously we take obstruction of justice, when we are the one person in the country, the one person in the world who is bound by a constitutional obligation to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. It does not say some laws. It does not say laws of this characterization or this category. It says take care that the laws be faithfully executed. And so when the President, the chief law enforcement officer in the land, the man who appoints, nominates members of the Supreme Court, Federal courts, Department of Justice, Attorney General, perjures himself, and those are the charges, I am not saying they are true. We will find that out in the Senate if we get a trial there. So this is serious, and we are just seeking to advance the process which has already begun in the House.

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

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the resolution before us is a simple, straightforward housekeeping resolution which the House customarily adopts after adopting articles of the impeachment. Because this resolution is incidental to impeachment, the precedents of the House dictate that it is a question of privilege under rule IX. On December 19, 1998, the House approved House Resolution 614, which appointed managers whose duty it was to exhibit the articles of impeachment in the Senate. On that day, the managers informed the Senate of the House's action. Because the House, unlike the Senate, is not a continuing body, it must again appoint managers in the 106th Congress. This is not a new concept, notwithstanding some protestations from one law professor. This procedure has been used on three previous occasions regarding the impeachments of Judges Pickering, Louderback, and Hastings. Section 620 of Jefferson's Manual states, and I quote, ``An impeachment is not discontinued by the dissolution of parliament, but may be resumed by the new parliament.'' The commentary on this section is instructive, and is as follows: In Congress impeachment proceedings are not discontinued by a recess; and the Pickering impeachment was presented in the Senate on the last day of the Seventh Congress; and at the beginning of the eighth Congress the proceedings went on from that point. The resolution and articles of impeachment against Judge Louderback were presented in the Senate on the last day of the 72nd Congress, and the Senate organized for and conducted the trial in the 73rd Congress. The resolution and articles of impeachment against Judge Hastings were presented in the Senate during the second session of the 100th Congress but were still pending trial by the Senate in the 101st Congress, for which the House reappointed managers. This resolution is procedural in nature. It merely appoints 13 managers who will present the case in the Senate. It also directs that a message be sent to the Senate to inform the other body of these appointments, and authorizes the managers to exhibit the articles of impeachment to the Senate. Because this resolution is procedural, it should be noncontroversial. It is imperative that the House take this action today so that the constitutional process may move forward. If the House were to postpone this vote, the trial could not proceed in the Senate. It is my intention to move this process as expeditiously and as fairly as possible, and the House's approval of this resolution today will help ensure that the Senate can fulfill its constitutional duty as quickly as possible. Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of the pending question, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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 the resolution under consideration.