Henry Hyde

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Bryant].

Mr. HYDE. Your amendment notwithstanding. Well, I really appreciate that.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Cox].

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum]. (Mr. McCOLLUM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, it is my experience that in the depths of disappointment, things sometimes look darker than they really should, but I feel better today. I thank the gentleman.

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

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the learned gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Buyer].

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas]. Perhaps they can carry on this fascinating colloquy.

Mr. HYDE. May I be recognized in opposition, Mr. Chairman?

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

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

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, there is no one in this House for whom I have more respect and admiration than the gentlewoman from Idaho [Mrs. Chenoweth]. I certainly have enormous respect for the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt] as well. But I must strenuously resist the motion that is before the House. Mr. Chairman, this is exactly the same bill that passed the Senate. I do not think it is ungenerous to remind the gentlewoman that she signed the contract for America. In fact, her signature is the 11th one from the top on page 172. Part of that undertaking, that solemn undertaking, was habeas corpus reform. That is what we have here today. Mr. Chairman, first of all, please do not think that those of us advocating something that the Republican Party, and discerning Democrats, have advocated for 10 years, to my knowledge, habeas corpus reform, in any way demeans or derogates our respect for and love and dedication to the Constitution. It is the abuse of the writ of habeas corpus that we direct our legislation toward, not its uses, its proper uses. Mr. Chairman, what do we ask? What is this terrible, tyrannical, oppressive reform that we are trying to saddle on all these innocent people who have been convicted of crimes that range up to the death penalty or less? First of all, we require that all claims be brought in a single petition. The time limit, not ad infinitum, indefinitely, into the next millennium, is 1 year after the Supreme Court of the United States has rejected a direct appeal, however long that takes. Subsequent petitions for habeas will be allowed if the convicted defendant can show cause for not including the particular new claim he is filing in his first petition. Government suppression of evidence or newly discovered evidence proving innocence are grounds for a new appeal. That is not very tyrannical. Deference is given to State courts' legal decisions if they are not contrary to established Supreme Court precedent. That is to avoid relitigating endlessly the same issues. There is a system of State courts. We give them deference, provided their decisions are not contrary to Supreme Court precedent. A prisoner, a convicted person, can rebut a presumption by clear and convincing evidence. Today the average time of habeas corpus closure is about 10 years. The families of the victims are the forgotten people in this situation. John Wayne Gacy, Members must be sick of hearing his name, I see his face, because I represented where he lived and where they found 27 bodies buried in his house: 14 years and 52 separate appeals. My God, what an outrage that is. There are many cases like that. William Bonan, 16 years, guilt never in doubt; Kermit Smith, 14 years. From the time he was sentenced until he was executed, 46 different judges considered his case, and it went to the Supreme Court five different times. Mr. Chairman, habeas corpus is one of the most important bulwarks we have in our Constitution protecting people from an overreaching government, but we cannot tolerate the abuse. We must think of justice which, if it is delayed, is justice denied. We have been moving toward reforming, not extirpating, not deforming, reforming habeas corpus, so justice, justice, justice, might be done, not only to the convicted accused, who has gone up the State system, up the Federal system, and back again, but to the families of the victims. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I respectfully urge Members to reject the amendment of the gentleman and the gentlewoman.

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

Mr. HYDE. I presume the professor is referring to habeas corpus reform, because habeas corpus would not deter anybody from anything. The reform might.

Mr. HYDE. But the gentleman knows that sure punishment and swift punishment is a deterrence, and that is the answer to the gentleman's question.

Mr. HYDE. I thank the gentleman for his illuminating comment. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield the balance of my time to the distinguished Speaker of the House.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the bill just passed.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that in the engrossment of the House amendment to S. 735, the Clerk be authorized to correct section numbers, cross references and punctuation, and to make such stylistic, clerical, technical, conforming and other changes as may be necessary to reflect the actions of the House in amending the bill, and be instructed to change page 6, line 1, to read: ``Where the person knows is a terror.''

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 3 of House Resolution 380, I call up the Senate bill (S. 735) to prevent and punish acts of terrorism, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Last, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman strikes the reasonable- cause-to-believe language in section 102 relating to knowingly providing material support to terrorist organizations, and section 204 relating to knowingly transferring a firearm to another, knowing or having reasonable cause to believe it will be used in a crime of violence or drug trafficking offense. The key here is knowingly or having reasonable cause to believe. Now, what the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Barr] objects to is reasonable cause to believe, thinking that is too amorphous a standard. I just submit that it is the law in all other places in the code. I suggest 18 USC section 922(f)1 and (i), for instance. So this is nothing new or strange. I just submit it will be unfortunate if the Barr amendment passes, because we eviscerate the bill. It still has some good in it, but it is a frail representation of what started out as a robust answer to the terrorist menace. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond to the very learned gentleman from Michigan. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has given us some distinguished names of Attorneys General. I would like to give him a few: Griffin Bell, Dick Thornburg, William Barr, and the late William French Smith. Also, all of the State attorneys general in the country have signed onto habeas corpus reform. Yes; we should not talk about that one horrible case, or those three horrible cases. Let us talk about the average. The average is 8 to 10 years, from sentencing until execution. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum]. (Mr. McCOLLUM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HYDE. No. I would like to get my own time in opposition. May that be done?

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the vote be held until tomorrow. The mother of the gentlewoman from Idaho [Mrs. Chenoweth] is ill and the gentlewoman cannot be here.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, I respect the writ of habeas corpus. It is a great writ. I want to preserve it. I want it to be strong. I do not want it to be weakened. So those of us who simply want justice not to be delayed for an average of 8 to 10 years, those of us who are concerned that the families of victims have a right to see that justice is done, those of us who look at the case of one Kermit Smith, it is not that it took 14 years from the sentencing to his execution, but 46 different judges considered his case and it went to the U.S. Supreme Court five different times. Now, we have to have some answer not to the use of habeas corpus but to the abuse of habeas corpus. All we are asking, we are not bloodthirsty. We simply say look, if you have been convicted, if you have had your direct appeal, then you have had your habeas appeal through the State courts, through the Federal court, let us come to closure and let justice be done. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman, no, that was Griffin Bell, Dick Thornburg, William Barr, William French Smith. I forget Dan Lundgren, the attorney general of California. But all, all of the State attorneys general and their association have signed on. We do not try them and kill them as soon as possible. The average now is 8 to 10 years. If the gentleman would think of the victims' families waiting for justice to be done, the gentleman might have a more moderated tone toward this issue.