Henry Hyde

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I want to say what a genuine pleasure it is to work with fiery, intelligent, energetic, honorable Congressmen like the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk). They are the salt of the Earth. This was a debate on the merits, and, even though they stacked the deck on us, it still was a pleasure.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, my statement on the American Servicemembers' Protection Act is as follows: When Congressman DeLay, Senator Helms, and I sat down with representatives of the Bush Administration to discuss the American Servicemembers' Protection Act, it quickly emerged that the Administration's principal concern with the legislation was the belief that a few of its restrictions on United States interaction with the International Criminal Court could, in certain improbable circumstances, interfere with the exercise of authorities vested in the President by the Constitution. The constitutional authorities that they saw as possibly conflicting with the legislation were the president's authority as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States under article II, section 2 of the Constitution, and the President's constitutional authority with respect to the conduct of foreign policy, in particular his authority to exchange information with foreign governments and international organizations. Because there is no specific enumeration in the Constitution of the President's authority to conduct foreign policy, this authority is encompassed textually within the executive power vested in the President by article II, section 1 of the Constitution. There are two sections of our legislation that restrict United States interaction with the International Criminal Court and which therefore, in the view of the Administration, could possibly come into conflict with the exercise of the President's constitutional authority as Commander in Chief and his authority to conduct foreign policy as chief executive. These sections appear as sections 2004 and 2006 of the conference report. To ensure that sections 2004 and 2006 will never operate to prohibit the President from taking an action that he is empowered under the Constitution to take and that Congress is without power to prohibit, we developed the ``exercise of constitutional authorities'' exception set forth in section 2011 of the conference report. The Committee on International Relations has approved a lot of legislation over the years containing presidential waiver provisions. The ``exercise of constitutional authorities'' exception contained in section 2011 is very different from these other waiver provisions. The other waiver provisions give the President, or some other official of the Executive branch, the authority to ``waive'' an otherwise applicable prohibition or restriction. Typically, the President or other official must first determine that a particular standard set forth in the waiver provision is satisfied. Common examples are requirements that he find that exercising the waiver is ``in the national interest,'' ``important to the national interest,'' or ``vital to the national interest.'' Whatever the waiver standard, the idea is that the President or other official is invited to sue his judgment, and if he judges that the facts permit him to determine that the wavier standard is satisfied, he can then exercise the wavier, which has the effect of rendering the prohibition or restriction inapplicable with respect to the action that he wishes to take or direct. The ``exercise of constitutional authorities'' exception contained in section 2011 is very different. Section 2011 does not turn on factual judgments made by the President. Rather, it turns on the parameters of the President's authority under the Constitution. What it says, in effect, is that Congress has not prohibited anything under sections 2004 and 2006 that Congress is without constitutional authority to prohibit. The intent of Congress in sections 2004 and 2006 could not be clearer. Congress wishes to prohibit any form of assistance to, or cooperation with, the International Criminal Court. We wish to impose such a prohibition to the fullest extent of our ability under the Constitution to do so. To the extent that certain forms of interaction with the International Criminal Court are subject to the shared responsibility of Congress and the President under the Constitution, Congress has the constitutional authority to forbid those forms of interaction, and in sections 2004 and 2006 we exercise that authority to forbid such interaction. However, we recognize that there may be forms of interaction that are the exclusive authority of the President under the Constitution, which Congress constitutionally is without authority to prohibit. Accordingly, with respect to those forms of interaction, section 2011 provides a mechanism for ensuring that sections 2004 and 2006 do not constrain the President in ways that, as a matter of constitutional law, he may not be constrained by Congress. To put the matter differently, it is the intention of Congress that the ``exercise of constitutional authorities'' exception in this legislation shall only be available in those instances where the President's lawyers could in good faith write a legal opinion concluding that application of the prohibitions of sections 2004 or 2006 to a proposed action by the President would be unconstitutional. It is not good enough that the prohibitions of sections 2004 or 2006 conflict with what the President judges to be in the national interest, or that they interfere with the foreign policy that he would like to conduct. The prohibitions must actually be unconstitutional if applied to the proposed action. This is the meaning of the term ``action . . . taken or directed by the President . . . in the exercise of the President's authority as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces . . . or in the exercise of the executive power . . .'' The action by the President, in contravention of the prohibitions set forth in sections 2004 or 2006, must actually be an exercise by him of constitutional authority to take an action that Congress is without authority to prohibit. We understand that many, if not most, actions by the President involve, to some degree or another, an exercise of some constitutional authority. But that is not the kind of constitutional authority to which section 2011 refers. Section 2011 refers to an exercise of the kind of constitutional authority necessary to overcome a statutory prohibition on the taking of a particular action. That kind of constitutional authority exists only with respect to statutory prohibitions that Congress is without constitutional authority to impose in the first place. This means, as a practical matter, that most of the prohibitions in section 2004 are beyond the reach of the exception set forth in section 2011. This is because most of them do not restrict the exercise of any authority vested exclusively in the President by the Constitution. A clear example is section 2004(d), which prohibits the extradition of any person from the United States to the International Criminal Court. The Supreme Court ruled in the case of Valentine v. United States in 1936 that the President has no inherent constitutional authority to extradite persons to foreign jurisdictions. To the contrary, the Supreme Court ruled that it is unconstitutional for the President to extradite persons in the absence of an extradition treaty or a statute authorizing extradition to the foreign jurisdiction in question. Because there is no treaty or statute authorizing the extradition of persons to the International Criminal Court, the President could not rely on section 2011 to extradite a person to the International Criminal Court in contravention of section 2004(d). This point is underscored by section 2011(c), which makes clear that section 2011 grants no statutory authority to the President to take any action. Another category of prohibitions that cannot be overcome under section 2011 is those relating to the provision by the U.S. Government of funds, property, or services to the International Criminal Court. Congress has plenary authority under the Constitution with respect to the use of appropriated funds and the disposition of U.S. Government property. Subsections (e) and (f) of section 2004 represent an exercise of this plenary authority. The intention of Congress is to prohibit any direct or indirect provision by the U.S. Government to the International Criminal Court of appropriated funds, U.S. Government property, or services provided utilizing appropriated funds. There may be very limited circumstances in which the President may rely on section 2011 to direct the provision of services to the International Criminal Court notwithstanding the prohibitions of subsections (e) and (f) of section 2004, for example, services provided by the United States Armed Forces pursuant to an exercise of the President's authority as Commander in Chief. But in the absence of an exercise of a constitutional authority vested exclusively in the President--such as the Commander in Chief authority--the prohibitions of these subsections prohibit the provision of the kinds of support to which they apply, and the exception set forth in section 2011 is not available to permit an action by the President in contravention of these sections. A third category of prohibitions that cannot be overcome under section 2011 is those relating to the exercise of functions not vested in the Executive branch of the United States Government. The President has no inherent constitutional authority to direct or control the operations of state and local governments. Nor does he have any inherent constitutional authority to direct or control the operations of the judicial branch of the federal government, much less the judicial functions of state and local governments. Accordingly, the President may not rely on section 2011 to direct state and local governments. Accordingly, the President may not rely on section 2011 to direct state and local governments to take actions prohibited under subsections (b), (d) and (e) of section 2004, or to authorize such governments to take such actions notwithstanding the prohibitions of these subsections. Similarly, the President may not rely on section 2011 to direct federal, state, or local courts to take actions prohibited under subsections (b), (d), (e) and (f) of section 2004, or to authorize such courts to take such actions notwithstanding the prohibitions of these subsections. The explanation is very simply. Because the exercise of functions by state and local governments and by federal, state, and local courts is by design beyond the inherent constitutional authority of the President, there is no constitutional authority that the President can exercise under section 2011 to overcome prohibitions that this legislation applies to such governments and courts. This does not mean that section 2011 is of no practical use to the President. In our negotiations with the Administration we discussed a number of circumstances where the President would be able to rely on section 2011 to direct actions plainly prohibited in the first instance by the language of sections 2004 or 2006. I have already mentioned one such circumstance, and that is actions by the United States Armed Forces directed by the President in the exercise of his constitutional authority as Commander in Chief. An example we discussed in our negotiations was a decision by the President to facilitate the transfer to the International Criminal Court of a foreign national wanted by that Court. Section 2004(e) prohibits the United States Government from facilitating the transfer of persons to the International Criminal Court, including by the United States Armed Forces. But we recognize that at a certain level this prohibition may come into conflict with the President's authority to command our Armed Forces, and in such a case, section 2011 would ensure that the President is not unconstitutionally constrained. Another circumstance where the President may be able to rely on section 2011 concerns the provision of information controlled by the President to foreign governments and to international organizations, including the International Criminal Court. To the degree the President has inherent constitutional authority to provide such information to foreign governments and international organizations, conflicts could arise between this authority and the prohibitions of section 2004(e) and section 2006. In the case of such a conflict, the President could rely on section 2011 to provide information in the exercise of his constitutional authority without violating the letter of the statute. I am not aware of other circumstances where the President could rely on section 2011 to take or direct actions otherwise prohibited under section 2004 and 2006, and we pressed the Administration very hard on this point in our negotiations. These were only examples they gave us of situations where the prohibitions of sections 2004 and 2006 could come into conflict with the President's constitutional prerogatives. In order to address this concern, we developed the mechanism contained in section 2011. Section 2011 is narrowly tailored to be available only in cases where there is such a conflict exists. In other cases where the prohibitions of the legislation are merely inconvenient, or in conflict with the President's preferred foreign policy, section 2011 is not available to permit the President to take or direct actions prohibited by section 2004 or 2006. Another feature of section 2011 is that, by its terms, it can be invoked by the President only on a ``case-by-case basis''. In using this term, we were mindful of the way that the existing United Nations war crimes tribunals for Yugoslavia and Rwanda have gone about their work. those tribunals have developed separate cases against suspected war criminals. Usually these cases involve a single defendant, though sometimes a case will have multiple defendants who were involved in the same specific incident. we intend the term ``case'' in section 2011 to have the same meaning that it has in current usage at the Yugoslavia and Rwanda tribunals. Yugoslavia and Rwanda are not ``cases'' before those tribunals. Rather, the prosecutions of individual named persons are the ``cases'' pending before these tribunals. This can be verified by simply looking at the web sites of these two tribunals. Before closing, I wish to comment on the effect of the addition by the Senate to this legislation of the language appearing as section 2015. That section was not part of language we negotiated with the Administration. But it does not in any way vitiate the restrictions on cooperation with the International Criminal Court set forth in sections 2004 and 2006. Section 2015 simply reiterates that this legislation does not apply to international efforts besides the International Criminal Court to bring to justice foreign national accused of genocide, war crimes, or crimes against humanity. Regarding application of this section to the International Criminal Court, however, ordinary cannons of statutory construction apply. The specific controls the general unless otherwise provided, and in the case of this legislation it is quite obvious that the legislation is very specific about what is to be allowed and what is to be forbidden when it comes to assisting the International Criminal Court. Had the Senate wanted to vitiate the restrictions of sections 2004 and 2006, it would have had to amend them, strike them, or expressly notwithstand them. The Senate debate during which the language of section 2015 was agreed to makes clear that this language was understood at the time to make no substantive change to the other provisions of the American Servicemembers' Protection Act. The full text of sections 2004, 2006 and 2011, along with other provisions of the American Servicemembers' Protection Act, was adopted by the Senate as an amendment to another bill on December 7, 2001, by a vote of 78-21. When Senator Warner offered these same provisions as an amendment to this supplemental appropriations bill, the Senate had essentially the same debate it had on December 7th of last year. Neither the supporters nor the opponents of the language that became section 2015 suggested that this language made any change to the legislation that had previously passed the Senate, and the final vote in favor of the amendment, 75-19, was essentially the same as the vote last year. For these reasons, Mr. DeLay and I agreed with the House conferees that there was no reason not to accept the Senate language.

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 on the bill under consideration.

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

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3969, the Freedom Promotion Act of 2002. As Americans, we are justly proud of our country. If any Nation has been a greater force for good in the long and tormented history of this world, I am unaware of it. We have guarded whole continents from conquests, showered aid on distant lands, sent thousands of youthful idealists to remote and often inhospitable areas to help the world's forgotten. Why then when we read or listen to descriptions of Americans in foreign press, do we so often seem to be entering a fantasyland of hatred? Much of the popular press overseas, often including the government- owned media, daily depict the United States as a force for evil, accusing this country of an endless number of malevolent plots against the world. As we battle the terrorists who masterminded the murder of thousands of Americans, our actions are widely depicted in the Muslim world as a war against Islam. Our efforts at self-defense, which should be supported by every decent person on this planet, instead spark riots that threaten governments that dare to cooperate with us. How is it that the country that invented Hollywood and Madison Avenue has such trouble promoting a positive image of itself overseas? Over the years, the images of mindless hatred directed at us have become familiar fixtures on our television screens. All this time, we have heard calls that ``something must be done.'' Clearly, whatever has been done has not been enough. I believe that the problem is too great and too entrenched to be solved by tweaking an agency here or reshuffling a program there. We must rethink our entire approach and seek out new perspectives and methods. We must both address our immediate needs and also lay the groundwork for long-term changes, changes that must include utilizing the full range of modern media and tapping into the private sector's vast expertise in the creation and promotion of compelling messages and images. To begin this process, with the assistance of my cosponsors, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman), I have introduced the bipartisan bill now before us, H.R. 3969, the Freedom Promotion Act of 2002. This legislation is designed to meet a number of pressing needs by reorienting and reinvigorating our approach to public diplomacy. The bill is divided into three titles. The major provisions of title I elevate the role and prominence of public diplomacy in the State Department's programs and decision-making and include a requirement that the Secretary of State prepare an annual strategic plan for the use of public diplomacy along with an operational plan for its implementation. Title II establishes a series of initiatives focused on the Muslim world, the goal of which is to increase those people's direct contact with the American people for the purpose of enhancing their understanding of the United States and its values. Title III reorganizes our international broadcasting operations in order to ensure greater clarity and responsibility in decisionmaking. All sources agree that the current organizational structure produces great confusion. Our purpose, however, is not merely to rationalize decisionmaking but to create the conditions needed to design and implement fundamental reforms throughout our broadcasting efforts. Mr. Speaker, these are the broad goals of this legislation. I have prepared a section-by-section description of the bill that I insert in the Record. Legislation Summary Title I: Department of State Specific authorizing language. The legislation gives shape to the direction and manner in which public diplomacy is carried out by defining the statutory authorization; defines the role of the Secretary of State in public diplomacy more specifically in terms of standards, technologies, and target audiences: Requires the Secretary of State to ensure that there is a ``cohesive and coherent'' strategy to ``aggressively . . . counter misinformation and hostile propaganda concerning the United States.'' In coordination with the reconstituted International Broadcasting Agency, the Secretary of State ``shall develop and articulate long-term measurable objectives for United States public diplomacy. Mandates development of an annual strategic communications plan by the Department of State to advance U.S. foreign policy goals including a tactical communications plan for implementation at the embassy level. The development of this plan must be coordinated with the many federal agencies active in international programs. Although the State Department is not given operational control over programs and activities conducted by other agencies, it is designated as the lead agency. Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy--Created in 1999 with the consolidation of the Department of State and the United Information Agency (USIA), the Under Secretary is given new authority over public diplomacy directors serving in the department's six regional bureaus to improve coordination of public diplomacy activities. The legislation creates a firewall around the budget for public diplomacy and authorizes an additional $70 million for exchange and cultural programs and $40 million for other public diplomacy programs over two years. The legislation also provides $7.5 million annually to the Office of Broadcast Services at the Department of State to accelerate its outreach to the world. A key objective is to equip the State Department with the requisite facilities, including studios and satellite capability, to enable it to act as a command center for a public diplomacy operations globally and in real time. Development of programming. The State Department is authorized to develop programming in coordination with U.S. Agency for International Development for foreign audiences separate from the renamed International Broadcasting Agency. State is encouraged to work with foreign television broadcasters and other media to produce and distribute programming. Establishment of the Public Diplomacy Reserve Corps. Includes a database of eligible experts in foreign policy and mass communication for temporary assignments to augment the Department during ``emergency and critical circumstances worldwide.'' Enhanced training in media and advocacy skills for the Foreign Service and Ambassadors. The Foreign Service is encouraged to recruit individuals with experience in public diplomacy and to emphasize to all incoming officers that public diplomacy is an important part of their job. Training for Ambassadors and Foreign Service officers should include a component on public diplomacy and the tools and technology of mass communication. In particular, Ambassadors should take a prominent role in the formulation of public diplomacy strategies for the country and regions to which they are assigned and be formally held accountable for the operation and success of the public diplomacy efforts at their posts. Translation services. To assist Public Affairs Offices in embassies worldwide, the legislation adds an additional $4 million annually for document translation services. Mandates in-depth research on public and media attitudes in regions chosen at the discretion of the Department of State. This includes a requirement that analyses of the comparative effectiveness of the various efforts undertaken in the area of public diplomacy be provided annually, including the use of the private sector in the U.S. and overseas. Alumni program. A database of international alumni of U.S. exchange programs will be created in order to expand and utilize the connections established. American Library initiative. A demonstration program will examine the most effective way to augment resources in local public library systems to improve literacy and to ``familiarize participants with American values and society, particularly the importance of freedom and democracy.'' Reform of the U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy. Mandates a comprehensive biennial study by the Commission of the State Department's public diplomacy and requires that at least four of the seven Commission members have ``substantial experience in the conduct of public diplomacy or comparable activities in the private sector.'' title ii: initiatives aimed at the muslim world Youth Ambassadors--Authorizes a summer youth exchange program for young individuals from countries with a predominantly Muslim population. (Short-term exchanges of 3-4 weeks in length) to familiarize participants with the United States. Jouralism program--Authorizes an initiative to work with foreign journalists to increase their familiarity with appropriate practices and techniques and to enhance international standards of quality and objectivity. This program will be established and operated in cooperation with private sector sponsors, including universities and exchange programs. English language training. Creates a pilot program to increase English language skills by sending Americans to middle schools in the Muslim world to provide English language instruction. Sister Cities Initiative: Authorizes funds for an expanded ``sister cities'' program to increase the number of US-sister city partnerships in countries with a predominantly Muslim population. (Currently there are 42 such partnerships). These partnerships are aimed at community level development and volunteer action and include non-federal support. Fulbright Exchange Programs: Requires new emphasis on exchanges of U.S. professionals seeking to study, teach, conduct research or pursue scholarship in predominately Muslim countries. National Endowment for Democracy: Provides an additional $10 million over two years to fund programs ``that promote democracy, media, religious tolerance, the rights of women and strengthening of civil society'' in predominately Muslim countries. title iii: international broadcasting Establishment of the International Broadcasting Agency--The legislation reorganizes U.S. international broadcasting programs, now headed by a part-time Board of Broadcasting Governors, into an agency headed by a director appointed by the Board. The reorganization is designed to ensure accountability by an identified decision maker while causing minimal disruption to broadcasting operations and preserving the strengths of the Board. The present Board of Governors will be reconstituted as the Board of International Broadcasting of the U.S. International Broadcasting Agency and will retain operational control of grants to entities including Radio Liberty, Radio Free Asia, and Radio Free Europe. Development of television services to the Middle East and elsewhere. The legislation provides an initial $135 million to the Board of International Broadcasting (formerly known as the BBG) to expand television and radio broadcasting to countries with predominately Muslim populations, in order to dramatically expand access to mass audiences of uncensored news and entertainment. There is a manager's amendment that includes a few changes from the bill as reported. We have made a number of accommodations to the concerns expressed by the State Department and others, and the bill now enjoys State Department support. These changes include reducing the authorization for the 2003 fiscal year for State Department's operating account for public diplomacy programs; providing a 2-year authorization for the initiatives focused on countries with predominantly Muslim populations for the 2002 and 2003 fiscal years; and adding a sense of Congress to establish a training program for journalists from regions of conflict. The measures in this bill are long overdue, but they represent only the first steps in what must become an ongoing effort to ensure that the truth about our country rises above the cacophony of hate and misinformation that often passes for discourse in many areas of the world. Our goal should not merely be to talk to the governments and elites of the world but to engage people at all levels and in every country and do so on a permanent basis. We must do so not as an adjunct to our foreign policy but as a central component of that policy. America's story is a compelling one, but it is up to us to tell it. We have much to do, but we must never forget that beyond the islands of hatred populated by vocal enemies, there is an enormous reservoir of good will and that legions of silent allies await. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would not want this opportunity to pass without commending my friend and colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman), who has made his usual indispensable contribution to good legislation. He is a very valuable and contributing Member. I am delighted to have him as an active cosponsor on this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3969) to enhance United States public diplomacy, to reorganize United States international broadcasting, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski).

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I want to say that my disdain for this legislation is in reverse ratio to my admiration for the chief sponsors, the gentlemen from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), (Mr. Kirk), who are splendid legislators. They are just wrong on this bill. So I want to make that clear. First of all, I just want to appeal to your common sense. I know this is a big deal. You want to add additional flights, nearly doubling already the busiest airport in the world. That is a big deal. We are talking about a lot of money. And when you talk about a lot of money, people's ears perk up. But we are also talking about so much space in the sky. You can keep condemning people's homes and their cemeteries and get bigger and bigger, and I do not understand why a Republican would put an imprimatur on transferring local authority; and this should be a local decision. When I say local, I do not mean the Governor. I mean the legislature, the people's body. That is what the Illinois Aeronautics Act says. We shred that and throw it away? The Illinois Aeronautics Act gives the legislature or expresses the will of the legislature on this issue; and that requires permission from the legislature to expand this airport. But you are just riding roughshod over that, saying if we cannot get that, we will go to Congress.

Mr. HYDE. Reclaiming my time, I would suggest if we are going to prolong this seminar on the law, that we do it on the gentleman's time. Mr. Speaker, I simply want to point out that there is only so much space in the sky. And when you already have the busiest airport, and busiest does not mean people walking into Starbucks. It means planes coming in and taking off. I sit in my living room in the evening and look out and I see them stretched all the way up to Wisconsin, plane, plane, plane, waiting to come in. Of course, there are delays. There will always be delays at O'Hare because we have terrible weather in the winter and the airlines schedule too many flights. That is what happens and that needs to be corrected. But to double the size of O'Hare, the flights in and out of O'Hare, is really dangerous. It is dangerous. We have pollution, noise pollution. We have air pollution. And now we are going to have a safety situation which is really dangerous. Now, that does not solve the problem of capacity, because we need it. We are up to the hilt at O'Hare. Do we expand? What is the most efficient, cheapest, effective way to meet the need for capacity? Peotone. Build another airport. New York has Newark, Idlewild, John F. Kennedy. That shows how old I am, Idlewild, LaGuardia, of course, which we all go in and out of regularly. But Chicago has Midway, which the gentleman has a proprietary interest in, and O'Hare. So we need another airport, one that can be out in the green where it can expand, where it has a buffer so that the homes that are as adjacent to it as possible can survive. This is an answer to a real problem. Why do not we take that answer? Why do we not build Peotone? Because the Mayor would not have much to do with it. I have always said he ought to. I would name it after the Mayor if he would let it get built. But that is the problem; and I hope this bill is defeated.

Mr. HYDE. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson).

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, my congressional district encompasses O'Hare International Airport and many of the residential communities that surround O'Hare, communities, I might add, that will lose hundreds, if not thousands, of homes and businesses to airport development should this expansion plan be approved. Please do not be deceived because this bill is on the Suspension Calendar. As the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson) said, it is highly controversial, involves constitutional issues, antitrust issues, environmental issues and, most seriously, the issue of bulldozing an entire community of low-income homes, largely peopled by the Hispanic population. Northern Illinois does need additional airport capacity; everyone agrees to that. O'Hare is at capacity. So the real question is whether we build a new airport that is safe and can expand with time, or whether we refurbish the old airport. The proponents of this bill that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski) are advancing want to double the amount of flights going into the busiest airport in the world each year to accommodate 1,600,000 operations a year. Opponents like the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson) and myself say, build a new airport. Build one far away from urban areas that will not do violence to the environment and one that can expand as the future of our air traffic grows. A new airport can be built faster and cheaper than expanding O'Hare, but a lot of proponents of the bill object to that. Why? Well, I can think of two reasons. One is the City of Chicago would not own the new airport and the City of Chicago has to own that airport, and the other reason is the two major airlines that dominate O'Hare might find some competition, and competition is not a healthy thing, some people think. This bill is corporate welfare of the most blatant sort. It is being marketed as a great leap forward for airport development; but it is a death blow to local government, because it forbids the Illinois legislature from having any voice in the deal between the City of Chicago and the governor of Illinois to double the air traffic. This bill suggests the State of Illinois has approved the deal. Well, if the Illinois general assembly is no longer relevant, if the Illinois Aeronautics Act is unimportant, I guess they are right. I do not know what they propose to do about the 10th amendment. The City of Chicago has only those powers given to it by the Illinois general assembly. Chicago is a municipal government, a political subdivision created and empowered by the State legislature, and this State legislature has never given to Chicago or to the Governor, for that matter, the authority to, on their own, authorize the massive expansion of O'Hare. Thousands of people's homes and businesses will be bulldozed; two cemeteries with well over 1,600 graves dating back to the 1840s will be invaded by the same bulldozers. This bill radically restructures the constitutional relationship between Congress, the States, and their municipalities. Why, it creates what amounts to a new Federal zoning law, an idea I am sure our constituents will welcome. If, however, establishing a dangerous precedent is not reason enough to vote against this legislation, let me add some more. This legislation ratifies a deal that was struck without adequate public participation, without an open planning process; and despite the public having no say in this matter, the airlines certainly got their say. This is corporate welfare utilizing tax dollars to subsidize a monopoly. Right now, United and American Airlines have a stranglehold on the market at home, forcing Illinois residents to pay far too much for tickets. The Government Accounting Office estimates this market lock costs Chicago travelers $623 million a year in overcharges. This legislation will destroy two cemeteries and the single largest concentration of federally assisted affordable housing in one of the Nation's most affluent counties. These are the homes of low-income people and other minorities, particularly Hispanics. Proponents claim only 500 homes will need to be torn down; the truth is closer to 1,500. This proposed expansion will ruin the quality of life for more than a million people living near O'Hare. It will increase air pollution in a region that is already nonconforming under Federal air regulations and will increase noise pollution to horrendous levels for those living near O'Hare. What about safety? Putting 1.6 million planes a year into the O'Hare airspace, which is limited and already overcrowded with 900,000 flights, does not make sense. It increases a risk of a serious accident. I could go on and on and on. Let me just say this: when the big and the powerful go after the weak and the vulnerable, usually the big and the powerful win. I certainly do not speak for the big and the powerful. I am speaking for the families whose homes are going to be taken, the families whose relatives and ancestors are buried in those graves, and I am saying that we have an expectation that this Congress will think of the human side of this, not just the economic side of it. Moving Graves Can Be ``Royal Mess'' [From the Chicago Sun-Times, July 14, 2002] (By Robert C. Herguth) In the 1990s, St. Louis' Lambert Airport moved thousands of bodies from the crumbling, mostly black Washington Park Cemetery to make way for a transit line and create a larger, flatter buffer for runways. Trouble, it turned out, was almost as bountiful as bones. An archaeologist hired to help with disinterment was accused of snatching limbs and yanking out teeth, supposedly for research, and later of hiding corpses to ensure he got paid. A state inspector climbed into a burial vault and held what was described as a ``mock funeral.'' There also were reports of coffins being accidentally pulverized by machinery. ``That was a royal mess,'' a person associated with the project recently remarked. While an extreme example, the St. Louis work demonstrates how bad an already difficult and delicate process get. And it serves as a cautionary tale as the City of Chicago-- using one of the same consultants involved in the Washington Park effort--makes plans to bulldoze two historic suburban cemeteries, and 433 acres of homes and businesses, to accommodate a proposed O'Hare Airport runway expansion. ``We've thought about those kinds of things,'' said Bob Sell, referring to Lambert's problems The Loop attorney has dozens of relatives buried at St. Johannes Cemetery, which is targeted for relocation, along with tiny Resthaven Cemetery. ``The notion of someone going to the cemetery and putting a shovel to my family member is horrible. That something could go wrong in that process, it makes me sick to my stomach.'' Like many homeowners in the proposed expansion zone, leaders of Resthaven and St. Johannes don't want to sell. One and perhaps both graveyards will fight the city in court, cemetery officials said. The process, as of last Tuesday, is in a holding pattern because of a DuPage County judge's ruling in a different lawsuit. The judge ordered Chicago to halt land buys until it receives a state permit, something city officials believe is unnecessary and will appeal. Meanwhile, the city won't even be negotiating sales. where to move the remains In another room Tuesday in another part of DuPage, a different aspect of the same thorny issued played out as two of the city's hired guns met for the first time with leaders of Resthaven to ``open up the dialogue.'' That's how Jeff Boyle--a former top aide to Mayor Daley now being paid $240 an hour as a no-bid consultant--portrayed the meeting at the Bensenville Community Public Library. Resthaven president Lee Heinrich, vice president Bob Placek and their attorney said they were there to listen to Boyle and another consultant, Robert Merryman of O.R. Colan Associates. Merryman--after Boyle nearly canceled the meeting because of the presence of a reporter and the lawyer--outlined several options, all of which involved the city buying the cemetery land. ``Let's start with the assumption that you have to go,'' he said softly, speaking in the consoling tones of a funeral director. ``The airport could simply purchase Resthaven and Resthaven is no more,'' he said. The second possibility, he said, would be to ``functionally replace Resthaven'' by building ``a new Resthaven'' elsewhere. Third, he said, the cemetery could be moved to another graveyard, where ``a section can be Resthaven.'' Headstones and monuments would go with the remains, the city would cover costs, and if some families wanted relatives reburied elsewhere, that would be fine, too, he said. Relatives could decide who ``disinters and reinters the body,'' and help monitor the process, he said. Merryman's company was involved in the Washington Park Cemetery relocation. The firm did not select the archaeologist facing the allegations of desecrating the remains and, in fact, was asked ``to come and correct the situation,'' according to Chicago Aviation Department spokeswoman Monique Bond. The firm also helped handle the ``land acquisition aspects'' of moving graves from Bridgeton Memorial Cemetery St. Louis, which currently is being excavated to make way for new and longer runways at Lambert, said Lambert spokesman Mike Donatt. how a cemetery is moved Locating and moving remains can be a tough process, but it's one played out quite frequently for road, airport and other public works projects, said Randolph Richardson. He owns Kentucky-based Richardson Corp., which does the physical part of relocating graves. For big jobs, Richardson may bring in 15 workers in blue jeans and knee boots, and heavy equipment. After mapping a cemetery, a worker with a ``probe rod'' tries to gauge the depth of graves and directs a backhoe operator on how far to dig. ``If the grave itself is 6 feet deep, you dig down around 4\1/2\ feet, and the rest of it is hand digging,'' he said. ``Say we've got a row of 50 graves, we'd start at the end with a backhoe, the man with the probe rod is guiding the backhoe to tell him how deep to go, we dig a trench to expose those 50 graves, that allows us to get the men in there to work,'' he said. Bodies are placed in individual wooden boxes--there are several sizes--unless coffins are intact, he said, adding that his workers may get tetanus shots before a project because of old rusty nails. Caskets are put on trucks and driven to their new resting place, he said. His company typically charges between $1,000 and $1,500 per body. Richardson, whose firm relocated some of the bodies from St. Louis' Washington Park, recalls some of the trouble there, but insists things usually are more smooth. guards questioning visitors Boyle and Chicago's first deputy aviation commissioner, John Harris, have said they want to handle their cemetery situation with dignity and sensitivity. But the city is having its own public relations headaches. The cemeteries are outside Chicago's borders, but can only be reached by a city-owned access road monitored by city guards. Twice this month, a guard approached a St. Johannes visitor at the cemetery, questioned the person and asked that they ``sign in.'' In the first instance, the visitor said, he was interrupted while praying at a grave site, and after refusing to sign in was met by five Chicago police cars on the access road. The visitor in the second case was the pastor of the church that owns St. Johannes. Just before being confronted--on Wednesday, after the judge's ruling--the minister was surprised to find four O.R. Colan employees nosing around graves at St. Johannes, apparently taking down names from headstones, although they had no permission to be there. ``They said they were doing a study,'' Sell said. ``They're trespassing on private property.'' Merryman did not return phone calls. City officials were at a loss to explain. But Roderick Drew, a spokesman for Daley, said Friday that there's been a ``change in policy'' that ``nobody will have to sign in any more.'' ``Anybody who wants access to that cemetery during those posted hours will not be stopped, will not have to sign in,'' he said, adding that the sign-in ``has turned out to be a much greater inconvenience to the people who access it.''

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I understand the court's ruling, and it was in the editorial in the Washington Post; but I disagree.

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

Mr. HYDE. I object to ``de minimis'' from whatever source.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I just want to comment on what has been said by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) and the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). I could not disagree more. What they are saying is because this is de minimis, because that was in the dissenting view, therefore, it is okay to let it go. That is a way of standing on two stools. That is a way of having it both ways because it is not important. Well, I do not think that it is unimportant. I do not think that it is trivial. I think acknowledging the primacy of almighty God is of transcendent importance, and I guess de minimis is in the minds of the analysts; but I could not disagree more. In addition to the Dred Scott case, Plessy v. Ferguson, there is a whole line of cases that I am sure the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), my distinguished learned friend, would disagree with and not invest them with a dignity because they come from the Court. And, lastly, I point out to my dear friend, the gentlewoman from Houston, Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), that the first amendment has two parts: the establishment and the free exercise.

Mr. HYDE. I disagree.

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

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, it is ``de minimis'' that offends me.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, we ought to thank the court. It brought us together, Democrats and Republicans, in unanimity, something that is seldom seen around here. Actually, though, the court's decision embarrasses us. We have been living in a dream world. Back in the Mayflower Compact in 1620, first sentence, ``in the name of God, amen.'' If we go on through that to the Declaration of Independence, ``We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and are endowed by their creator, with certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.'' Our human rights are the endowment from the Creator. That is a fundamental premise of America, and it is in our birth certificate, the Declaration of Independence. The Treaty of Paris, which resolved the Revolutionary War, mentions God. Abraham Lincoln on November 19, 1863, in a cold, windy little cemetery in Pennsylvania asked a very haunting question, whether this Nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal, can long endure, and the end of that greatest speech in American literature, he says that we here highly resolve but that these dead shall not have died in vain and that this Nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom and that government of the people, by the people and for the people shall not perish from the Earth. So we are embarrassed by the decision. We have been barking up the wrong tree. We thought it was a good thing to acknowledge the fatherhood of God, to acknowledge our debt to Providence and to do so in a public way. The Supreme Court in 1892, in a case called Church of the Holy Trinity versus the U.S. said, ``This is a religious Nation.'' That same court in 1951, in a case called Zorach said, We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a supreme being. So this decision by these three judges, two of the three judges in the Ninth Circuit, is based on a total lack of respect, if not knowledge, of American history, of American culture, of American tradition. It is an embarrassment; and we as a coequal branch of government ought to rise up and say no, no, it is wrong, and acknowledge, continue to acknowledge the primacy of the supreme being who has blessed this country for more than 225 years.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a long-time friend of many of us in this House, Father T. Byron Collins, S.J. This past Friday, June 21, 2002, was the 50th anniversary of Father Collins' ordination into the priesthood. He originally entered the Jesuit Order in September 1940. Father Collins has touched many lives during his half century of ordained priesthood. He faithfully serves parishioners at Our Mother of Sorrows Catholic Church in Centreville--on Maryland's Eastern Shore-- every weekend. This man has enriched the lives of many Georgetown University students, giving them a greater understanding of the Catholic faith, while at the same time, appreciating these students for being the true heart and soul of Georgetown University. And as his fellows Jesuits know well, this legendary figure is also a warm and caring individual. Over the years, Father Collins has dedicated his life to strengthening Georgetown University, the nation's oldest Catholic institution of higher learning. He came to the campus in 1954. Soon after his assignment to Georgetown, Father Collins assumed responsibilities for facilities development on the campus, undertaking important budgetary functions. As one who works tirelessly to fulfill the challenges before him, Father Collins has left his humble, yet permanent, mark on the Georgetown campus of today, tomorrow and forever. Members of the Society of Jesus live by the creed, ``To the greater glory of God and the salvation of souls.'' Indeed, throughout these 50 years, my friend, Father T. Byron Collins, S.J., has lived a life that has exemplified that philosophy. Those of us in this Chamber who are privileged to know him well understand how true that is. I am certain that my colleagues will join me in extending hearty congratulations to this special man as he begins the sixth decade of his priesthood.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, if I may be heard further, but the treaty itself, Mr. Speaker, provides a mechanism for terminating the treaty, and that treaty was ratified by a two-thirds vote of the Senate, which involved the House constitutionally. So, I just do not see what the gentleman's complaint is.

Mr. HYDE. Ratify.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman reminds us that a treaty is the supreme law of the land, and then says that the President cannot abrogate the law unilaterally without some legislative action. I suggest that the President has followed the law to the letter. The law is in the treaty. The treaty itself provides a mechanism for withdrawing from the treaty: ``Each party shall, in exercising its national sovereignty. . . . '' How do we exercise our national sovereignty? The gentleman would suggest a plebiscite throughout the country. The very words of the treaty, which are the supreme law of the land, have been observed by the President. So that argument is a nullity. Secondly, do all Members, and I am asking this rhetorically, do all Members concede the Taiwan defense treaty as still valid and that President Carter's termination of it was illegal, and of no force and effect? They have to hold that position if they hold the position they are arguing today. I submit this is not a privilege of the House.