Henry Hyde

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, it was our intention that the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher] be given 7\1/2\ minutes from our side. We had hoped, and I had not had the opportunity to ask the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] to give him 7\1/2\ minutes. The purpose was so that he could go first and get his statements out and then we could proceed with the rest of the debate. Evidently, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman wants to go last. So if the gentleman wishes to reserve his time and then go last, that is not in the contemplation of our agreement or our wish. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman from Michigan if he is so inclined to give 7\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California?

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, let me just suggest to my friends that H.R. 400 is a very good bill. We have heard about corporatizing the U.S. Patent Office, new word, ``corporatizing.'' There is more oversight over the corporate U.S. Patent Office than if we kept it as a bureau of the Department of Commerce. There will be an inspector general. There are reporting requirements to Congress. There are reporting requirements to the administration. The Government Cooperation Control Act has over 100 accountability provisions plus there is an advisory board, so that is a red herring. What is really at stake in this issue, and I could not imagine patent law could be made exciting or interesting, but we have submarines floating around. I expect to see periscopes surfacing during this debate because that is what this is all about, protecting people who do not invent to make society a better place but to make a fast buck. They file their applications and God forbid they should be published. They want to keep it below the surface so some poor guy who goes into business and is using a process and they find out about it, they surface, up periscope, and sue. And one person made $450 million doing that. His lawyer made $150 million, and they tell us submarine patenting is not a problem. If you want to protect your invention, you have to file overseas. And when you file, it is published after 18 months. The whole patent system was set up to give you exclusivity for a term of years, hopefully 20 years, in exchange for sharing your deep, dark secret with the world and making this a better place to live. That is the trade-off. If you do not want to have your secret published, do not file for a patent. Keep it as a trade secret. Now, not publishing protects the submarine patent gamester who is out not to assist the economy but to fatten his personal treasury. It is, as I have said, the foreign patents. If you want protection overseas, you have got to file overseas in their language. They file here and it is not published. Nobody can find it. We want to play by the same rules overseas as we play here. This is a good bill. I have a letter from the commissioners of patents under Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush; all say this is an excellent bill. And the Democratic administration presently, the President's administration supports it. I say, pay attention, something is going on here. One of the handouts says, ``Don't be fooled.'' Those are good words. Do not be fooled. Do not protect the submarine patent gamesters who use the system not to assist society but to make a fast buck.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman can talk to 6 p.m. or beyond this evening because we have an open rule. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley] wanted it open.

Mr. HYDE. We each have a half hour. We have a half hour over here. We are going to give the gentlewoman 7\1/2\ minutes of it. She is against our bill, yes.

Mr. HYDE. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I say to my dear friend from Toledo, it is too bad she did not come up to the Committee on Rules and ask to structure a rule that would give her all the time she wants. But she did not, and we got an hour's debate. And out of the goodness of our hearts, we are yielding 7\1/2\ minutes, I assume the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers], out of the goodness of his heart, will yield 7\1/2\ minutes, and there is 15 minutes plus an open rule. I think that ought to be enough, at least that is my humble opinion.

Mr. HYDE

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

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 on the bill under consideration.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Texas. I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1225 corrects a drafting error in the foreign sovereign immunity provisions of last year's antiterrorism bill. We enacted these provisions to allow victims of state-sponsored terrorism, like the Pan American 103 tragedy, to sue the countries who sponsored the terrorist act in American courts. Our intent was that families should have the benefit of these provisions so long as either the victim or the survivor was an American citizen. Unfortunately, and due to an inadvertent error, the current language can be read to allow the benefit only to those families in which both the victim and the survivor are American citizens. H.R. 1225 corrects this error and restores the law to our original intent, that the affected person should get all of the benefits of section 221 of last year's antiterrorism bill, including the statute of limitations. I understand this problem affects several of the Pan American 103 families, including Mr. Bruce Smith, who has been one of the leaders of those families. Mr. Smith, who is an American citizen, lost his wife, who was a British citizen, in the Pan American 103 tragedy. He now stands to lose his claim against Libya if this correction bill is not passed. The case is currently before the Supreme Court on a petition for certiorari. The Court may act on the petition as soon as this month. If that case is concluded before we act, those affected families may lose their claims. For that reason, I believe it is important that we act expeditiously on this technical correction. The staff has consulted with both the Justice Department and the State Department, and I understand they do not have any objection to the correction. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the distinguished ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers], the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum], and the ranking member of the subcommittee, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer], joined me in cosponsoring this legislation. In addition, the other members of the committee from Mr. Smith's home State, the gentlemen from Florida, Mr. Canady and Mr. Wexler, Mr. Smith's own Congressman, Mr. Mica, and the gentleman from New York, Mr. McNulty, who also has an affected constituent, have joined me in cosponsoring this legislation. I want to thank Senator Hatch, Senator Leahy, Senator Mack, and Senator Kennedy, who are working to get H.R. 1225 passed quickly by the Senate. 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. 1225) to make a technical correction to title 28, United States Code, relating to jurisdiction for lawsuits against terrorist states.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased, along with many of my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee, to introduce the Judicial Reform Act of 1997. This necessary legislation addresses one of the most disturbing problems facing our constitutional system today--the infrequent but intolerable breach of the separation of powers by some members of the Federal judiciary. The first reform contained in this bill was developed originally by a valued member of the committee, Representative Bono of California. Recognizing the unjust effect on voting rights created by injunctions issued in California by one judge against the will of the people of the State as reflected in propositions 187 and 209, this bill provides that requests for injunctions in cases challenging the constitutionality of measures passed by a State referendum must be heard by a three-judge court. Like other Federal voting rights legislation containing a provision providing for a hearing by a three-judge court, the Judicial Reform Act of 1997 is designed to protect voters in the exercise of their vote and to further protect the results of that vote. It requires that legislation voted upon and approved directly by the citizens of a State be afforded the protection of a three-judge court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2284 where an application for an injunction is brought in Federal court to arrest the enforcement of the referendum on the premise that the referendum is unconstitutional. In effect, where the entire populace of a State democratically exercises a direct vote on an issue, one Federal judge will not be able to issue an injunction preventing the enforcement of the will of the people of that State. Rather, three judges, at the trial level, according to procedures already provided by statute, will hear the application for an injunction and determine whether the requested injunction should issue. An appeal is taken directly to the Supreme Court, expediting the enforcement of the referendum if the final decision is that the referendum is constitutional. Such an expedited procedure is already provided for in other voting rights cases. It should be no different in this case, since a State is redistricted for purposes of a vote on a referendum into one voting block. The Congressional Research Service estimates that these 3-judge courts would be required less than 10 times in a decade under this bill, causing a very insubstantial burden on the Federal judiciary, while substantially protecting the rights of the voters of a State. This bill recognizes that State referenda reflect, more than any other process, the one-person-one-vote system, and seeks to protect a fundamental part of our national foundation. This bill will implement a fair and effective policy that preserves a proper balance in Federal- State relations. I applaud Mr. Bono for his efforts in extending the protection afforded to Voting Rights Act cases to direct initiatives of the people. The second reform contained in this bill was developed by the chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Representative Canady of Florida. It allows immediate [interlocutory] appeals of class action certifications by a Federal district judge. When a district judge determines that an action may be maintained as a class action, the provisions contained in the Judicial Reform Act allow a party to that case to appeal that decision immediately to the proper court of appeals without delaying the progress of the underlying case. This prevents automatic certification of class actions by judges whose decisions to certify may go unchallenged because the parties have invested too many resources into the case before an appeal is allowed. This bill will also prevent abuses by attorneys who bring class action suits when they are not warranted, and provides protection to defendants who may be forced to expend unnecessary resources at trial, only to find that a class action was improperly brought against them in the first place. The third reform contained in this bill was developed by another valued member of the committee, Representative Bryant of Tennessee. It requires that a complaint brought against a Federal judge be sent to a circuit other than the one in which the judge who is the object of the complaint sits for review. This will provide for a more objective review of the complaint and improve the efficacy of the Judicial Councils Reform and Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980, 28 U.S.C. 372--The 1980 Act--which established a mechanism for the filing of complaints against Federal judges. Under those procedures, a complaint alleging that a Federal judge has engaged in conduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts may be filed with the clerk of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the circuit in which the Federal judge to be complained against sits. Under the act, a special committee will report to the judicial council of the circuit, which will decide what action, if any, should be taken. By requiring that complaints filed under the 1980 act be transferred to a circuit other than the circuit in which the alleged wrongdoer sits, more objectivity and accountability will exist for litigants who find themselves in need of relief from a judge who is not properly performing his or her functions. The fourth reform contained in this bill prohibits a Federal court from imposing taxes, a function reserved to legislative bodies, for the purpose of enforcing a legal decision. Mr. Speaker, seizing the power of the public purse by imposing taxes on any community is an egregious example of how some members of the judiciary have breached this Nation's founding principle of separation of powers and undermined the concept of self-rule. In some cases, judges have designed in specific detail local school systems and public housing systems, and then ordered tax increases to finance the spending bills disguised in their judicial rulings. State and Federal laws leave budget and spending authority to legislative bodies, because only a body which represents the will of the people can decide properly how to spend the people's taxes. While rulings on due process are important to protect the rights of litigants, any remedy which would force the public to pay more in taxes must come from the House of the people and not from the authority of the bench. The judiciary is not equipped nor given the power to make such decisions. To allow otherwise is to usurp self-rule and replace it with self- appointed authority. As four Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court have stated, the imposition of taxes by courts ``disregards fundamental precepts for the democratic control of public institutions. The power of taxation is one that the Federal judiciary does not possess.'' This bill will restore the proper balance defined in the Constitution between the Federal branches and Federal-State relations by prohibiting courts from imposing taxes on any community. It retains accountability by legislatures to the electorate, and not to judges. The fifth reform contained in this bill was also developed by Representative Canady. It allows all parties on one side of a civil case brought in Federal district court to agree, after initial assignment to a judge, to bring a motion requiring that the case by reassigned to a different judge. Each side of the case may exercise this option only once. This substitution of judge, or, as referred to in the bill, ``reassignment of case as of right'' provision mirrors similar State laws and allows litigants on both sides of a case to avoid being subjected to a particular Federal judge, appointed for life, in any specific case. It might be used by litigants in a community to avoid forum shopping by the other side in a case, or to avoid a judge who is known to engage in improper courtroom behavior or who regularly exceeds judicial authority. This provision is not meant to replace appellate review of trial judges' decisions, but rather to complement appellate review by encouraging judges to fairly administer their oaths of office to uphold the Constitution. Many judges face constant reversals on appeal, but still force litigants to bear extraordinary costs before them and further bear the burden of overcoming standards of review on appeal. This provision allows litigants some freedom in ensuring that due process will be given to their case before they bear the costs associated with litigating in trial court and will encourage the judiciary to be as impartial as required by their charge. Mr. Speaker, this bill is limited in scope. It reforms the procedures of the Federal courts to ensure fairness in the hearing of cases without stripping jurisdiction, or reclaiming any powers granted by Congress to the lower courts. It does assure that litigants in Federal courts will be entitled to fair rules of practice and procedure leading to the due process of claims. I commend the entire Committee on the Judiciary for their work in procuring these reforms to our courts, and look forward to hearings on this bill in the middle of May by the Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property, chaired by Representative Howard Coble.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I beg of my colleagues the courtesy of not asking me to yield. I do not intend to yield. I have much to say and little time to say it in. Mr. Speaker, when you have a theme as large and as profound as ours is today, you need the help of great literature to describe the magnitude of the horror of partial-birth abortion. I suppose Edgar Allen Poe could describe it, but it is startling how the words of the ghost of Hamlet's father seem to anticipate our debate today: I could a tale unfold, whose lightest word would harrow up thy soul, freeze thy young blood; make thy two eyes, like stars, start from their spheres; thy knotted and combined locks to part; and each particular hair to stand on end, like quills upon the fretful porcupine. There is no Member of this House who does not know in excruciating detail what is done to a human being in a partial-birth abortion. A living human creature is brought to the threshold of birth. She is four-fifths born, her tiny arms and legs squirming and struggling to live. Her skull is punctured. The wound is deliberately widened. Her brains are sucked out. The remains of the deceased are extracted. In the words of the abortion lobby, the baby undergoes demise. What a creative addition to the lexicon of dehumanization. If calling an infant a fetus helps you, if calling this obscene act intact dilation and evacuation assuages your conscience, by all means do so. Anything is better than a troubling conscience. But you must know the only thing intact in this procedure is the baby, before, of course, the abortionist plunges his scissors, his assault weapon, into her tiny neck. Then she is not very intact. Something was rotten in the state of Denmark in Shakespeare's great drama. Something is rotten in the United States when this barbarity is not only legally sanctioned but declared a fundamental constitutional right. While we are on Hamlet, who can forget the most famous question in all literature: ``To be or not to be?'' Every abortion asks that question, but forbids an answer from the tiny defenseless victim struggling to live. When this issue was debated in the last Congress, the President and the defenders of partial-birth abortion claimed that the procedure was, in the President's now familiar euphemism, rare, and that it was used only in times of grave medical necessity. All of us know now, as many of us knew then, that those claims were lies. They were lies. The executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers admitted on national television that he and others in the pro-abortion camp simply flatly lied about the incidence of partial-birth abortion. It is not the case that these abortions are rare. It is not the case that this procedure is used only reluctantly and in extremis. It is not the case that this procedure is used only in instances of medical emergency. Partial-birth abortion, infanticide in plain English, is business as usual in the abortion industry. That is what the executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers told us. Is this House prepared to defend the proposition that infanticide is a fundamental constitutional right? Partial-birth abortion is not about saving life. Partial-birth abortion is about killing. Killing is an old story in the human drama, fratricide scarred the first human family, according to Genesis, but the moral prohibition on killing is as old as the temptation to kill. Most of the familiar translations of the Bible render the commandment, Thou shalt not kill. A more accurate translation of the Hebrew text would read, Thou shalt not do murder. That is to say, Thou shalt not take a life wantonly for the purposes of convenience or problem solving or economic benefit, nor trade a human life for any lesser value. The commandment in the Decalogue against doing murder is not sectarian dogma. Its parallel is found in every moral code in human history. Why? Because it has been understood for millennia that the prohibition against wanton killing is the foundation of civilization. There can be no civilized life in a society that sanctions wanton killing. There can be no civil society when the law makes the weak, the defenseless and the inconvenient expendable. There can be no real democracy if the law denies the sanctity of every human life. The founders of our Republic knew this. That is why they pledged their lives, their fortunes, their sacred honor to the proposition that every human being has an inalienable right to life. Our Constitution promises equal protection under the law. Our daily pledge is for liberty and justice for all. Where is the protection, where is the justice in partial-birth infanticide? Over more than two centuries of our national history, we Americans have been a people who struggled to widen the circle of those for whom we acknowledge a common responsibility. Slaves were freed, women were even franchised, civil rights and voting rights acts were passed. Our public spaces made accessible to the handicaped, Social Security mandated for the elderly, all in the name of widening the circle of inclusion and protection. This great trajectory in our national experience, that of inclusion, has been shattered by Roe versus Wade and its progeny. By denying an entire class of human beings the protection of the laws, we have betrayed the best in our tradition. We have also put at risk every life which someone, some day, somehow might find inconvenient. ``No man is an island,'' preached the Dean of St. Paul's in Elizabethan times. He also said, ``Every man's death diminishes me, for I am involved in mankind.'' We cannot today repair all the damage done to the fabric of our culture by Roe versus Wade. We cannot undo the injustice that has been done to 35 million tiny members of the human family who have been summarily killed since the Supreme Court, strip-mining the Constitution, discovered therein a fundamental right to abortion. But we can stop the barbarity of partial-birth abortion. We can stop it. We must stop it, and we diminish our own humanity if we fail. Historians tell us we live in the bloodiest century in human history. Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, the mountain of corpses reaches to the heavens and hundreds of millions of innocents cry out for justice. We cannot undo the horrors inflicted on the human spirit. We cannot repair the wounds already sustained by civilization. We can only say, never again. But in saying never again, we commit ourselves to defend the sanctity of life. In saying no to the horrors of 20th century slaughter, we solemnly pledge not to do murder, because the honoring of that pledge is all that stands between us and the moral jungle. Mr. Speaker, we have had enough of the killing. The constitutional fabric has been shredded by an unenumerated abortion license which, sad to say, includes the vicious cruelty of partial-birth abortion. The moral culture of our country is eroding when we tolerate a cruelty so great that its proponents do not even wish us to learn the truth about this procedure. This Congress has been blatantly, willfully, maliciously lied to by proponents of the abortion license. Enough. Enough of the lies, enough of the cruelty, enough of the distortion of the Constitution. There is no constitutional right to commit this barbarity. That is what we are being asked to affirm. In the name of humanity, let us do so, and in the words of St. Paul, ``Now is the acceptable time.''

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to the House's attention a stirring anecdote about the triumph of the little gal, and of Congress' ability to improve substantially the lives of constituents. This story should be characterized as ``Mrs. Flaherty goes to Washington.'' Mrs. Flaherty discovered a flaw in the law governing VA employees' ability to earn money at a second job, and with the help of Representative Jim Sensenbrenner, this little lady made a difference. Civics 101: Making a Difference (By Mary Flaherty, RN) During last year's presidential campaign, much of the debate focused on the role the federal government should play in the lives of the average citizen. Many believe there is nothing we can do individually to change things. I confess I once shared that view, but something happened to me that disabused me of that notion. Indeed, it has convinced me that one truly can make a difference. Several years ago, as a senior professional nurse at the VA Hospital in Milwaukee County, I sought permission from my superiors to work after hours in a private nursing facility. My family's economic situation dictated the need for such a ``moonlighting'' job. However, my VA bosses denied my request, noting that type of work was prohibited by law. Incredibly, I learned this same statute allowed professional nurses to ``moonlight,'' but not in their chosen profession. Yet, in a remarkable demonstration of inconsistency, other VA personnel--pharmacists, speech pathologists and licensed practical nurses--enjoyed exemptions from this restriction. Initially, after my request was rejected, I felt frustrated and embittered. But then I began to contemplate what courses of action could be taken to amend this obviously unfair and discriminatory law. Among other things, I sought the advice of an old Washington friend, wise in the ways of Congress. Surprisingly, I got a positive reaction. I was told the merits of my case were unassailable. What you must do, he said, is make Congress aware of the law's inequitable and unreasonable restrictions. Reminded of former House Speaker Tip O'Neill's famous adage that ``all politics are local,'' I was urged to contact the Congressmen representing districts in the metropolitan Milwaukee area. With that advice, I attended a town meeting hosted by Representative James Sensenbrenner and, at the appropriate time, I seized the microphone and the moment. The Congressman listened sympathetically as I explained my problem. He then asked me to furnish him with additional details, and promised to do whatever he could to help me upon his return to the nation's capital. Not long thereafter, Congressman Sensenbrenner was able to persuade his colleagues in the House of Representatives to adopt legislation that would permit me and all other VA nurses to engage in ``after hours nursing.'' Many months later, the Senate approved the same measure, and with the President's signature, it became law. This very personal triumph exemplifies what one person can do, even when the odds for success appear insurmountable. The lesson here is: Don't get mad or give up, but instead get involved in the political process and pursue your objective with bull-doggish tenacity. My own experience graphically illustrates that the so-called little guy or gal can make a big difference when properly motivated. In short, the next time you feel moved to change the world, give it a go. You may be astounded at what you accomplish.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a bill to codify in title 49, United States Code, recent laws related to transportation, and to make other technical and conforming amendments to the Code. This bill was prepared by the Office of the Law Revision Counsel of the House of Representatives under its statutory mandate to prepare and submit periodically revisions of positive law titles of the Code to keep those titles current. This bill makes no change in the substance of existing law. Anyone interested in obtaining a copy of the bill and a section-by- section summary--containing reviser's notes--of the bill should contact John R. Miller, acting law revision counsel, U.S. House of Representatives, H2-304 Ford House Office Building, Washington, DC, 20515-6711. The telephone number is (202) 226-2411. Persons wishing to comment on the bill should submit those comments to the acting law revision counsel no later than April 30, 1997.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a bill to codify and enact certain general and permanent laws, related to patriotic and national observances, ceremonies, and organizations, as title 36 of the United States Code. This bill has been prepared by the Office of the Law Revision Counsel of the House of Representatives as a part of the responsibilities of that Office to prepare and submit to the Committee on the Judiciary, for enactment into positive law, all titles of the United States Code. This bill makes no change in the substance of existing law. Anyone interested in obtaining a copy of the bill and a description of the bill, containing a section-by-section summary should contact John R. Miller, acting law revision counsel, U.S. House of Representatives, H2-304 Ford House Office Building, Washington, DC, 20515-6711. The telephone number is (202) 226-2411. Persons wishing to comment on the bill should submit those comments to the acting law revision counsel no later than May 31, 1997.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, on February 12, 1997, a day long seminar on education with particular emphasis on the pernicious effects of Goals 2000, school to work and careers legislation was held in the Rayburn Building. The participants were greeted by Phyllis Schlafly, who was responsible for the event--along with many other organizations and individuals--and heard from experts and several State legislators and Congressmen from many States, including California, Oregon, Alabama, Pennsylvania, Florida, South Carolina, Illinois, Arizona, Michigan, Texas, Kentucky, and Arkansas. Mr. Robert Holland of Richmond, VA, an editor for the Richmond Times Dispatch not only delivered one of the best presentations but contributed the following editorial which appeared in the Washington Times, Sunday, February 23, 1997, which I am pleased to share with my colleagues. [From the Washington Times, Feb. 23, 1997] Beneath the Seamless Model's Hood (By Robert Holland) The hearing room of the House Judiciary Committee looked like a busy ``show and tell'' classroom for scholars bearing large stacks of homework Feb. 1-2. Chairman Henry Hyde had convened an unusual grass-roots conference on the spreading, entangling ``Seamless web'' of collectivized education, health and social services, and work-force preparation. Citizen-activists joined members of Congress and legislators from five states in talking about what their research had yielded, and they brought much of it with them as Exhibits R through Z: thousands of pages of fine print illuminating the complex scheme to make schools the central instrument for transforming American society into one that takes its lead entirely from government technocrats certifying ``skills'' and dispensing ``care.'' Such documentation is essential because merely to criticize the seamless web is to risk being branded a conspiracy theorist. The extensive paper trail belies the existence of any conspiracy. It shows, instead, that a slumbering mainstream media--or mediacrats who cheerlead for collectivization--are the problem. The proof exists for anyone willing to risk the eyestrain to read the fine print. Nor do the leading citizen-activists spurn facts in favor of imagined plots. Consider one of the featured presenters at the Hyde conference: Virginia Miller, a former women's basketball star at Penn State, and Rhodes Scholar candidate who spent 10 years as a systems consultant to U.S. Steel, Mellon Bank, Blue Cross, and Westinghouse. Now the acting director of the Pittsburgh-based Public Education Network, Ms. Miller provided voluminous supporting documents to show how the Human Resources Development Plan devised by Hillary Clinton's sidekick, Marc Tucker, is coming to fruition through the multifarious works of the National Center on Education and the Economy. For instance, one sentence penned by Mr. Tucker in a Labor Department-commissioned paper on organizing the work of the National Skill Standards Board (to which Mr. Clinton-- surprise, surprise--has appointed Mr. Tucker) fairly jumps off the page. In discussing a three-tiered system for developing ``comprehensive qualifications--or standards'' for jobs and clusters of jobs, Mr. Tucker reached Title 1: ``This would be,'' he wrote, ``a set of standards for what everyone in the society ought to know and be able to do to be successful at work, as a citizen, and as a family member.'' Now, ponder the breathtaking absolutism behind such a vision: Not only should Big Government issue, in effect, work permits, and not only should it monitor each person's civic participation; it should go so far as to pass judgment on how every American functions as a mother, father, brother, sister or other member of a family--however the technocrats chose to define ``family.'' That sounds far-fetched--until one looks at Senate Bill 321 recently introduced in Oregon--one of the model states for the womb-to-tomb seamless web. That legislation would require every taxpayer with a dependent between the ages of 1 and 2 to attend state-directed ``parent education courses'' in order to claim a personal exemption on state taxes. The state also would set up a new system to certify parent-education providers. It is true that the agency Mr. Tucker envisioned as the promulgator of Tier I standards--the National Education Standards and Improvement Council--fell prey to Congress' partial dismantling of Goals 2000 last spring. However, there are many more new bureaucracies--the Skill Standards panel, for one--that can continue spinning the web. Other presentations showed how schools are becoming instruments of nationalized health care through creative Medicaid re-interpretation; how databases are being set up to check each American's advances through the seamless web; how the School-to-Work system will function to steer students in directions that satisfy economic planners' objectives, not necessarily their own. It is important to document how all this is meshing, as the conferees attempted to do. For example, Ohio's STW plan flatly declares as a goal the training of student for jobs in accordance with ``the state's work force development and economic development strategies.'' But as chilling as such words are, most people probably will not become gravely concerned until they see the seamless web infringing on their own family's liberties. That may be happening in Nevada, where Gov. Bob Miller, current chairman of the National Governors Association, brags about a ``Smart Card'' that students will have to present when applying for a job in order to show they have the work-force competencies Big Brother says they should have. Out in Las Vegas, Rene Tucker tells me that her daughter, Darcy, recently was pulled out of a geography class--without parental consent--to be administered a computerized assessment of career possibilities. Darcy wants to become a veterinarian. But the computer said she ought to become a bartender or a waitress, and it spat out a list of courses she ought to take in high school toward that end. Mrs. Tucker was furious first that the career counselors had robbed her daughter's valuable class time. She added: ``We're Christians, and the school stepped on my ties as a parent. It is my job to direct my child's career path, and it would not be in her best interest to be a bartender.'' Ah, but it might be in Nevada's best interest, you see, given the huge hospitality needs driven by the gambling and entertainment industry. Another Nevada mom, Kristine Jensen, and her daughter Ashley had a similar experience. Ashley has a 4.0-plus GPA and currently aspires to work at NASA. Indeed, a NASA official told her, ``Set your goals high and set your heart and mind to it and you will be there.'' However, said Mrs. Jensen, the STW career inventory said Ashley ought to set her goals quite a bit lower as she enters the ninth grade. ``Garbage woman'' was a career pathway the computer said this honors student should follow. The School to Work Opportunities Act of 1994 states that career counseling is to begin ``at the earliest possible age, but not later than the seventh grade.'' That's a federal requirement, mind you, for schools spending STW money. As such fine print becomes a killer of dreams, the uprising against this seamless web figures to grow.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, please permit me to share with my colleagues the text of a very touching letter U.S. Air Force Maj. William F. Smith wrote to a truly extraordinary man, Mr. Zachary Fisher. Mr. Fisher is well-known to the men and women of our Nation's Armed Forces. With his wife, he established the Zachary and Elizabeth Fisher Armed Services Foundation to provide scholarships for service men and women and their families. To date, more than 700 scholarships have been awarded. The Fishers also provide direct financial assistance to families of military personnel killed in the line of duty. In 1990, Zachary and Elizabeth undertook an important and unique project called Fisher House, to provide shelter near hospitals at major American military bases. The houses provide a home away from home for the families of military personnel recovering from illness at the adjacent hospitals. To date, 25 Fisher Houses have been constructed, with plans for several more. Mr. Fisher is also the founder of the Intrepid Sea Air Space Museum, the world's largest maritime museum, located on New York's Hudson River. The Fishers latest philanthropic effort is directed toward finding a cure for Alzheimer's disease, which affects more than 4 million Americans. The Fishers have established the Zachary and Elizabeth Fisher Center for Alzheimer's Research, which is the largest and best equipped laboratory devoted wholly to Alzheimer's research. Working in union with David Rockefeller and Rockefeller University, the Fishers have an ambitious goal, to create a model center for patient care and research. Major Smith, who is stationed at Andrews Air Force Base, MD, penned this letter to Zachary following the dedication of a Fisher House on base. I commend it to my colleagues: Dear Mr. Fisher: I am writing to thank you for the special gift you gave us here at Andrews Air Force Base on September 26, 1994. No, I'm not talking about the Fisher House although I do appreciate you building it and am thankful for all the good it will do for our community. I'm talking about the gift of love, and more specifically the gift you gave us of how to love. As I stood in the back and listened to the speeches honoring you I became mesmerized with the say you doted over your wife. Prior to your arrival I wondered what you would look like and how you would act. I guess I wondered about your character since a lot of men with wealth and power have fairly predictable characters. So as I stood in the midst of affluence and opulence I began to assess your character and I was impressed and inspired. The way you smiled at her and held her hand and took the time to explain things to her touched me very deeply. It occurred to me that I may be standing in a holy place, a place where true, unconditional love is alive in a special man. At the end of the ceremony the officer standing next to me said ``that was pretty impressive wasn't it?'' I said ``I don't know what impressed you, but I think we just witnessed the finest example of how we should love our wives.'' He looked at me a moment contemplating my comment and said, ``Yes, I think you're right.'' When I got home I told my wife about what I saw. When I began to describe how you started your speech saying, ``Honey I think I should give you a kiss to remind us of how much we love each other,'' I began to cry. Then I kissed my wife and told her I found someone who loves his wife as much as I love mine. And that night as she lay asleep in bed I put my arms around her and held her and told her I love her and I kept holding her and she didn't know it. I think that is a sacred act, to love someone when they may not know it. You are the luckiest man in the world, you have love in your heart. And so, even though I don't have the wealth you have, I am just as lucky as you, and I thank you for reminding me how lucky I am. Thank you. Sincerely, William D. Smith, Major, USAF.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. I thank the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, the debate really is not about family planning, although we will hear that term a lot. This is about abortion. Family planning, properly defined, is the matter of getting pregnant or not getting pregnant. It has nothing to do with abortion. True, abortion will hold down the population gain because you are eliminating people, you are killing them, you are exterminating them. But that has not been the policy of our Government and our country. And even now we give lip service to the fact that none of these funds can be used to pay for abortions. But what happens is the money goes to an organization, or organizations, that perform abortions, that counsel for abortions, that lobby for abortions in countries as a means of family planning. Now, that wall between abortion and family planning should remain in place. Under the legislation of the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] every penny of family planning money goes to organizations engaged in family planning, properly defined. It will only be withheld from those organizations that counsel, perform, and promote abortions. Now, the idea that none of this money can be spent for abortions, I just wish frankly people would understand that we understand money is fungible. And if you provide money for purposes A and B, you are freeing up other money for C and D. So that really is not an argument. The Mexico City policy, which was the policy until this President assumed office--and 2 days after he was in office, he reversed it-- provides that we will support lavishly and generously family planning. I am not objecting to that. But not subsidize--indirectly, or directly, in any way--abortions, and not subsidize organizations that perform abortions. That was the policy. Three hundred fifty foreign organizations agreed to its terms, including the International Planned Parenthood Federation. And they have affiliates in 57 countries. The only one that did not agree, and that is what we are fighting about here, is International Planned Parenthood Federation of London. So I just suggest, if you think abortions are a good idea, and I do not know anybody that will admit to that, but I do know a lot of policymaking activities that amount to supporting abortion. I hope Members will vote ``no'' on the President's finding.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, please permit me to share with my colleagues the recent news that Maine Township, IL was named our State's ``Township of the Year.'' Bestowed annually by the Illinois Township Association, the award was presented to Maine Township for its very innovative programs for senior citizens. The award follows a similar one awarded to the township last year for its programs for youths. Maine Township's Adult and Senior Services Department was created in 1985. Today, the department provides a wide range of programs and services for the estimated 40,000 adults over the age of 55 who live in Maine Township. In addition to a wide array of social activities, the township also sponsors the Senior Citizen Information and Assistance Service. The service provides a comprehensive guide to available resources including senior housing, medical services, social and mental health services, nutrition, home delivered meals, employment, energy assistance, social activities, and tax information. In recent years the township has also placed growing emphasis on intergenerational programs that bring together seniors, children and young adults in numerous educational activities. No programs as comprehensive as those offered to Maine's seniors could exist without the dedication of many great people. Permit me to offer a note of congratulations to the many hard-working and dedicated township officials including Supervisor Mark Thompson; Trustees Robert Provenzano, Willard ``Bill'' Bell, Regan D. Ebert and Carol A. Teschky; Clerk Gary K. Warner; Assessor Thomas E. Rueckert; Collector Anita D. Rifkind; and Highway Commissioner Bill Fraser.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. I made an error in my remarks. I referred to the senior Senator from South Dakota, whom I have no interest in mentioning, but I meant the senior Senator from South Carolina; and I wish to correct that in the Record.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I would ask my friends not to ask me to yield because I have a lot to say and a limited time within which to say it. The popularity of term limits is a measure of the low esteem our citizens have for politics and politicians. Some of my colleagues may think that is fine. I think it is dangerous. Of course the way we attack each other and the way we demean this institution in every campaign, it is no wonder we are held in contempt. But before we leap off the cliff, before we amend the Constitution, we might give some passing deference to our Founding Fathers who over 200 years ago rejected term limits for Congress as they fashioned for us a representative democracy. I can remember the time when cynicism was a pathology, not the rule, when it was an honor to be elected to public office. As our Nation hurtles forward into an evermore complicated world, how self- destructive it is to jettison our most capable leaders when we need their wisdom, we need their judgment so terribly much. Freedom is always in crisis. America has need of its giants with their sense of the past and their vision of the future. To adopt term limits is to play Russian roulette with the future. Since it is a constitutional amendment we are asked to adopt, it is reasonable to ask its proponents just what they want, what they seek to accomplish. Now it gets a little confusing, a little murky. One faction insists that Congress is too remote and unresponsive and is more interested in reelection than in serving the people. We will call this the Bob Novak wing because he is its most zealous advocate. But the other faction, led by George Will, says we are too close, too responsive to the people, and term limits will put some needed constitutional distance between us and a too demanding constituency. I ask, which is it, fever or frostbite? Are we too distant or are we too close? It appears to me term limits supporters are standing on two stools and as they separate, they are in danger of getting a constitutional hernia. It is a mighty strange rationale to amend our Constitution when its staunchest advocates cannot agree on its consequences. Speaking of journalistic anomalies, syndicated, columnist and talk show celebrity Bob Novak also publishes a newsletter with his partner Rollie Evans. No one this side of the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal is more vigorously committed to term limits than Bob Novak. But I received in the mail the other day an advertisement for the Evans and Novak political report and believe me, it is a symphony to experience. In fact on page 4 it makes a memorable claim, and I quote: Between the two of us, Rowland Evans and I have been reporting on Washington and national politics for a combined total of 90 years. I guess if you put their years of reporting end to end, they would have started when the senior Senator from South Carolina was 4 years old. Should we adopt a three-term limit version, enormous superclasses will enter the House in 6-year cycles and developing effective leaders will be a roll of the dice. A revolving door membership means a revolving door leadership with no continuity, no stability, and certainly no historical memory. Imagine telling these statesmen they cannot serve any longer, their 6 years are up or their 12 years are up: John Quincy Adams, Henry Clay, Arthur Vandenberg, Everett Dirksen, Sam Ervin, Hubert Humphrey, Henry Scoop Jackson, Barry Goldwater, Bob Dole, Robert Byrd, Bill Natcher, Lee Hamilton. Would we survive as a free Nation as strong as we are without these people? Implicit in the argument for term limits is a premise that serving in Congress is not a particularly difficult job. Scholars say that 200 years ago Tom Jefferson knew everything that was worth knowing. Well, today that is hardly possible. Just think of the range and the depth of knowledge necessary to deal with just a few of the issues that confront us: Electric power deregulation, a $208 billion industry with countless competing interests; States rights; monopoly power; environmental safety. No easy answers here. Well, Superfund reauthorization, plagued by litigation and delay; we need solutions regarding retroactive liability; a stable and fair funding stream. An easy task? I do not think so. Encryption of electronic communications; reconciling the needs of commerce with the needs of defending this country from terrorists and law enforcement. Not too easy. Medicare and Social Security reform, the effect of the baby boom retirements on all our social insurance programs, ABM defense, China, human rights versus trading with the most populous country in the world. I have not scratched the surface. But this is no place for amateurism. A Congressman who makes a career of public service, who is willing to make the sacrifice and the commitment develops a record, a standard of comparison to be judged by from election to election, and he is accountable for the long-term consequences of his action. No hobbyist legislator, no part-time lame duck legislator can share that kind of motivation. Term limits will encourage early exits. An attractive job offer comes along, you take it when it comes along because it might not be there when your term is up and you have to leave. Term limits will reduce competition for office. Why run this year when the seat will be vacant in 2 years? A system that does not reward effectiveness and seniority will discourage the most capable, the very people we desperately need. Term limits diminishes the opportunities to develop strong ties with your constituencies, with your communities. It diminishes the incentives and the opportunities, and this is no virtue. Term limits hands off power to the bureaucrats, the lobbyists, the executives and the other body, thus debilitating democracy in this Chamber. Under term limits this Chamber will be peopled by young men and women starting their careers, plus the few older people who will lose nothing by serving a term or two in Congress. But missing will be those in mid-life who must give up careers in law or business for a career of public service. We need them all, the young, the old, and those in the prime of life. Such a rich and varied mix makes this place a real House of Representatives. When we amend the Constitution, we should expand liberty, not diminish it, not contract the voters' choice. This amendment is not conservative. It is reactionary. It echoes the 1960's theme, ``never trust anybody over 30.'' The last time we debated this issue, we opponents were accused of arrogance, that we were the only ones who were qualified to govern. On the contrary, the beginning of wisdom is knowing how much you do not know. And if there is any arrogance here, it is among those who have no idea how difficult it is to draw the line between liberty and order and would deny the voters the right to choose whom they will to help draw that line. In a very sad way, this amendment demeans public service as a corrupting influence. It reeks of cynicism and pessimism. Let me tell my colleagues a story. On March 15, 1783, in Newburgh, NY, some officers in the Revolutionary Army met to plot an insurrection. They were furious at an uncaring Congress, one that had not paid them or their hungry troops in a long time. Suddenly in their midst General Washington appeared and asked leave to address the group. Out of respect for him, they let him speak. At the end, Washington wanted to read a letter from a Congressman explaining why there were no funds to pay the troops. General Washington searched for his spectacles because he could not read the letter. When he found them, he said, ``You will permit me to put on my spectacles, for I have grown blind in the service of my country.'' Now, there are no General Washington's among us, but there are a few whose long and faithful service deserves admiration and respect, not oblivion. Public service is like climbing a mountain. The view from halfway up is better than the view from the bottom. And the higher one climbs, the more the horizon expands, and near the top one can see sights one never knew existed. The right to vote is the heart and the soul, it is the essence of democracy. Do not artificially restrict the choices available to the voters on election day. If the consent of the governed means anything to my colleagues, then our task today is to defend the consent of the governed, not to assault it. Do not give up on democracy. Trust the people.

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

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 2(a) of rule XI of the rules of the House, I submit for publication in the Congressional Record, the rules of procedure for the 105th Congress adopted by the House Committee on the Judiciary on January 21, 1997. Committee on the Judiciary--Rules of Procedure