Henry Hyde

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, while there may be some provisions in the Menendez substitute that are worthy of discussion during conference, I still rise in opposition to his amendment. Our review of the Commission's report was performed with a seriousness and a deliberation that is worthy of the subject and the task. The preparatory effort included full committee hearings, scores of briefings by the administration and others on the range of issues, the input of many experts, and days and weeks of effort devoted to gathering the requisite information. From this, we developed what we believe are measures necessary to give form and meaning to the often diaphanous wording of each of the Commission's recommendations that fell within our committee's jurisdiction. The Menendez substitute offers little more than a mere restatement of the Commission's recommendations, and the unspoken premise that difficult problems can be easily solved by the simple expedient of throwing money at them. We have no shortage of examples of government programs where this approach not only failed, but actually rendered our problems worse. Here, the greatest danger stems from the complacency that will result from our merely having increased spending while congratulating ourselves for having taken swift action. Instead, as authors of H.R. 10, we crafted practical solutions to fulfill the recommendations. We took abstract report recommendations such as, ``offer an example of moral leadership, commit to treat people humanely, abide by the rule of law,'' and we made them concrete. Taken in its totality, H.R. 10 is a far superior product because it reflects the concerted and consolidated efforts of several committees and lays out direct, specific policy guidance on how to confront these evils. The Senate may have voted to pass a similar measure to the Menendez substitute, but this is our chance to vote for something better, more concrete. I urge a no vote on the Menendez substitute amendment.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, while there may be some provisions in the Menendez substitute worthy of discussion during conference on this measure, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Our review of the Commission's report was performed with a seriousness and deliberation worthy of the subject and the task. The preparatory effort included full committee hearings, scores of briefings by the administration and others on the range of issues, the input of many experts, and days and weeks of effort devoted to gathering the requisite information. From this, we developed what we believe are measures necessary to give form and meaning to the often diaphanous wording of each of the Commission's recommendations that fall within my committee's jurisdiction. The Menendez substitute offers little more than a mere restatement of the Commission's recommendations and the unspoken premise that difficult problems can be easily solved by the simple act of throwing money at them. We have no shortage of examples of government programs where this approach has not only failed, but actually rendered our problems worse. Here, the greatest danger stems from the complacency that will result from our merely having increased spending while congratulating ourselves for having taken swift action. Instead, as the authors of H.R. 10, we crafted practical solutions to fulfill the recommendations. We took abstract report recommendations such as ``offer an example of moral leadership, commit to treat people humanely, abide by the rule of law'' and made them concrete. Taken in its totality, H.R. 10 is a far superior product because it reflects the concerted and consolidated efforts of several committees and lays out direct, specific policy guidance on how to confront these evils. The Senate may have voted to pass a similar measure to the Menendez substitute, but this is our chance to vote for something better, more concrete. I urge a ``no'' vote on the Menendez substitute amendment.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I submit for inclusion in the Congressional Record an exchange of letters between Chairman Thomas of the Ways and Means Committee and me as Chairman of the International Relations Committee concerning H.R. 5061. Congress of the United States, Washington, DC, October 6, 2004. Hon. Henry J. Hyde, Chairman, Committee on International Relations, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC Dear Chairman Hyde: I am writing concerning H.R. 5061, the ``Comprehensive Peace in Sudan Act.'' As you know, the Committee on Ways and Means has jurisdiction over revenue matters, including any legislation relating to imports. There are three provisions within the bill that may relate to imports and thus fall within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means. Section 4(b)(6) expresses the Sense of Congress that ``the United States Government should not normalize relations with Sudan, including through the lifting of any sanctions, until the government of Sudan agrees to and implements a comprehensive peace agreement.'' Section 7(a)(1) requires the President to impose certain sanctions outlined in the Sudan Peace Act (P.L. 107-245), including the requirement to ``take all necessary and appropriate steps, including through multilateral efforts, to deny the Government of Sudan access to oil revenues,'' which could be interpreted to direct the President to impose an import ban on oil. Section 11(b) lifts the prohibition on exports from Sudan with respect to areas outside of control of the Government of Sudan. However, in order to expedite this legislation for floor consideration, the Committee will forgo action on this bill. This is being done with the understanding that it does not in any way prejudice the Committee with respect to exercising its jurisdictional prerogatives on this or similar legislation. I would appreciate your response to this letter, confirming this understanding with respect to H.R. 5061, and would ask that a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be included in the Congressional Record during floor consideration. Best regards, Bill Thomas, Chairman.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, one of the most heart-wrenching issues we will ever contemplate is the problem of child abductions. As a parent of four children and four grandchildren, I cannot think of a more terrifying nightmare than one in which one of my children or grandchildren were abducted or killed. The sheer panic, fear, and helplessness one must feel has to be paralyzing. I believe in a government that stands up for the rights of all people, including the most helpless ones--children. While far too many crimes are committed against children by strangers, amazingly enough, some of the perpetrators of the worst types of crimes against children are parents or relatives. In the case before us, young Dylan Benwell was kidnapped from his parents by his maternal grandparents, Timothy and Ethel Blake, and taken to Ireland. Dylan's mother and the Blakes had suffered an estranged relationship as a result of a previous attempt by the Blakes to kidnap Dylan. Dylan's mother finally relented and allowed her son to visit his grandparents because she was told that her father, Mr. Blake, was dying of cancer. Dylan's mother took her parents' passports as a precaution so that Dylan could not be kidnapped to Ireland. Shockingly, the Blakes had planned the kidnapping to such a degree that they already had duplicate passports issued, and once Dylan was in their possession, they immediately left with him for Ireland. Dylan is not alone in his victimization. According to the State Department, more than 16,000 cases of international child abductions were reported in the past two decades. The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction serves as an important diplomatic tool in achieving the return of abducted children. Both the United States and the Republic of Ireland are contracting parties to the Hague convention, which establishes reciprocal duties to expedite the return of abducted children to their habitual residence. In Dylan's case, arrest warrants for aggravated kidnapping have been issued by the State of Illinois for the Blakes, and a Hague Convention petition has been filed on behalf of Dylan's parents for his return. Dylan's family now sits helplessly awaiting the Hague Convention process to bring him home to them. Unfortunately, many countries have failed to take their obligations seriously in making certain that these children are sent home. Yet, in the instant case, I am confident that Ireland will follow the Hague Convention process scrupulously, as it has been an excellent treaty partner in the past. Considering the unusual facts of this case, however, it is my hope that Ireland expeditiously resolves this matter and finds that Dylan must be sent home. In the meantime, it is imperative that our government continues to press all nations to take seriously their international treaty obligations under The Hague Convention, and to bring home our children. I'd like to commend both the State Department for its efforts in bringing Dylan home and the efforts of my dear friend, Congressman Phil Crane. I know that he is doing everything possible to reunite Dylan with his parents. I hope all Members will join me in supporting H. Res. 821. We wish for a speedy return home for Dylan and for all other children who have been similarly victimized.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record an exchange of letters concerning the bill H.R. 854 between the Chairman of the Committee on International Relations and the Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary. Congress of the United States, Committee on International Relations, Washington, DC, July 13, 2004. Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter concerning H.R. 854, the ``Belarus Democracy Act of 2003,'' which was referred primarily to the Committee on International Relations and additionally to the Committees on the Judiciary and Financial Services. This Committee ordered the bill reported favorably on February 25, 2004. I concur that the referral to the Committee on the Judiciary was based on Sec. 5(c), a sense of Congress provision that the President should use his powers under the Immigration and Nationality Act to deny entry to the United States to the senior leadership of the Government of Belarus. The manager's amendment which the Committee will call up does not include Sec. 5(c) or any other provisions that fall within the Rule X jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary. I appreciate your willingness to waive further consideration of the bill in the Committee on the Judiciary so that the bill may proceed expeditiously to the floor. I concur, that in taking this action, your Committee's jurisdiction over the bill is in no way diminished or altered. I will, as you request, include this exchange of letters in the Congressional Record during consideration of the legislation on the House floor. I appreciate your cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, Henry J. Hyde, Chairman.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I simply want to record my support for the position of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson). I think the use of these cards is very misleading. It facilitates money laundering, and it is completely out of the spirit of the PATRIOT Act. Therefore, with extreme regret because I do not think I have ever disagreed with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) and only two or three times have I disagreed with the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), but I think this matter should stay in the bill and should not be taken out because it is so important that we close down their financial money laundering. I am pleased to support the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson).

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the previous order of the House, I call up the resolution (H. Res. 757) expressing the sense of the House of Representatives on the anniversary of the terrorist attacks launched against the United States on September 11, 2001, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. HYDE. Madam Speaker, on this important resolution, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the resolution be read by the Clerk.

Mr. HYDE. Madam 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 on the resolution under consideration.

Mr. HYDE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Today we gather in the House of Representatives to consider a resolution commemorating the anniversary of the terrorist acts launched against the United States on September 11, 2001. September 11 was a brilliant, sunlit, late summer morning in New York and Washington. Suddenly, death came raining down from the skies. Three thousand died because of the wicked acts of evil men who callously used innocent American citizens as their weapons. The war against terrorism, which is the war for civilization itself, has come home to America. Now, 3 years after the fact, all thoughts are drawn to that day. Time may not be an invincible healer, but it does soften and mercifully distance us from many of our sharpest pains and fears; and by transforming private remembrance into a more quiet and interior experience, it gives the public forms of remembrance greater depth and meaning, elevating these above mere ritual. I am certain that all Americans alive that infamous day will give reverance to this anniversary for as long as they shall live. We remember today those fellow citizens and the innocents of all Nations who died September 11. We mourn with their families and extend to them once again our profound sympathy. We remember with awe and gratitude the passengers of the fourth plane, the plane intended for the White House or the Capitol, who sacrificed their own lives to prevent the terrorists from achieving their evil goal. We remember with profound respect the police, the firefighters and other emergency workers who charged into burning buildings, often at the cost of their own lives, in acts of selflessness and bravery before which we can only bow our heads. We honor today the men and women of our Armed Forces who have taken the war against terrorism to the fever swamps where terrorism is bred, and who in doing so have given a new birth of freedom to long-oppressed peoples. We remember in sorrow and prayer those brave men and women who have made the ultimate sacrifice in the service of our country. Their names will not be forgotten. The just cause for which they paid the final price will not fail. Freedom and decency will, with God's grace, prevail over wickedness and wanton killing. Today, a day for remembrance is a day for prayer. In silence, let us commend to the merciful hands of God those innocents whose lives were stolen from them 3 years ago Saturday and those men and women of our Armed Forces and those of our allies who go into harm's way and risk their lives for freedom's sake. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

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

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen).

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella).

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I will only briefly comment on the remarks made by the last speaker. He can tell the newly free inhabitants of Afghanistan, of Iraq and of Libya that this has not been a worthwhile effort. There is a direct connection between the war in Iraq and the bombing of September 11. Our response to that bombing of September 11 was Iraq based on the best information available. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. I just want to respond to a couple of the previous speakers who have injected the honesty of this resolution into question. You can disagree with somebody's point of view, as we often do, but questioning their honesty or their work product as dishonest I do not think has a place in this House. When it comes to the war in Iraq, you can say that by mentioning it in the resolution, and all it says is, whereas, since the U.S. was attacked, it led an international military coalition in the destruction of two terrorist regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq. I do not know what is dishonest about that, but you can think it is if you wish. The fact is the war in Iraq was a response to the 9/11 assault, kamikaze, suicide bombers that killed over 3,000 people. There had been a surfeit of U.N. resolutions, I think 14 or 15. It was the considered opinion of every single government in the West that had an intelligence service that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. He had them before, he had the programs, and he used them. Therefore, having been assaulted, having been blind-sided by the aircraft, al Qaeda ran into the World Trade Center, we were not going to sit there and let it happen again. And based on the best intelligence, we responded to the sucker punch, blind-siding atrocities in the World Trade Center by moving into Iraq after getting another resolution demanding that he open up to inspection his weapons programs. One can call that dishonest if they want. I call it leadership. And I am sorry that issue got into this resolution because we are commemorating heroines and heroes in one of the great tragedies in all of history, namely what happened September 11. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay).

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I think this is a wonderful debate. It is something that I have waited for years to listen to, because these are very important questions and the Constitution is everybody's business. It is certainly ours. What we are really debating is what does Article III, Section 1, clause 1 mean. The power to court strip, is it there, and if it is there, why is it a mortal sin for Congress to exercise it? I do not know. The Court is not the only repository of wisdom, nor of due process. We could have a seminar some day on the first amendment. Why does the establishment clause dominate jurisprudence concerning the relationship of religion and the State, but not the free exercise, which is ignored, which withers on the vine? What about the 10th amendment, which says all matters not enumerated to the Court are reserved to the people? It is ignored. It has been ignored for generations. So as we raise up the Court as the sole repository of wisdom and justice and fair play, we are not very historical because they are capable of abuses, too. Now, democracy requires checks and balances. We know that. What is the check and balance on the Supreme Court? Unelected, these are people who are well connected and they get confirmed, and they are imperial in their scope, and no check and balance whatsoever. Now, I would rather have a check and balance on the Court, just as I want one on the Congress, and the best check and balance is the people, the people who do the electing. That is what Article III, Section 1, clause 1 does. It reserves to the people the ultimate decision on a given issue. Well, I just want to say for a court of last resort, I think ``the people'' is superior to these people who are nominated and confirmed and unelected and sit for life. I have never heard of an imperial state in this country, but I have heard of an imperial court. This is not the end of the world; this is fulfilling the very language that our Founding Fathers were wise enough to incorporate into the Constitution, and all of the sky-is-falling-down rhetoric is misconceived, in my judgment.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I submit an exchange of letters between Mr. Sensenbrenner, the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, and myself on the bill H.R. 1587 for printing in the Record. House of Representatives, Committee on International Relations, Washington, DC, July 13, 2004. Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter on H.R. 1587, the `Viet Nam Human Rights Act of 2003,'' which was referred primarily to the Committee on International Relations and additionally to the Committee on Financial Services. This Committee ordered the bill reported favorably on June 24, 2004. I concur that the Committee on the Judiciary has jurisdiction over Sec. 401 of the bill pertaining to the resettlement of refugees from Viet Nam. The manager's amendment which the Committee will call up does not include Sec. 401 or any other provision that fall within the Rule X jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary. I appreciate your willingness to waive further consideration of the bill in the Committee on the Judiciary so that the bill may proceed expeditiously to the floor. I concur, that in taking this action, your Committee's jurisdiction over the bill is in no way diminished or altered. I will, as you request, include this exchange of letters in the Congressional Record during consideration of the legislation on the House floor. I appreciate your cooperation in this manner. Sincerely, Henry J. Hyde, Chairman.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that during further consideration of H.R. 4766, pursuant to House Resolution 710, the amendment printed in House Report 108-591 be permitted to be offered at any time.

Mr. HYDE

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

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment made in order by the rule be modified in the form at the desk.