Henry Hyde

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson).

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Jim Bunning), a member of Baseball's Hall of Fame. (Mr. BUNNING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 53, the Curt Flood Act of 1998. After years of disagreement, the baseball players, the baseball owners, and the minor leagues have reached an historic agreement on the application of the antitrust laws to labor relations in baseball. This agreement has already passed the Senate by unanimous consent, and I hope we will pass it today. Mr. Speaker, let me just add, because we are talking about baseball, let me tip my cap to my good friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) the ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary. He has his own bill on this topic, H.R. 21, and he has led the charge on this issue in the House. I want to thank him for his outstanding work in bringing this bill to fruition. I also want to thank my friends, Senators Orrin Hatch and Pat Leahy, chairman and ranking member of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. They worked many long hours to negotiate the delicate compromise that this bill embodies. We are also indebted to them for their outstanding efforts in bringing this bill to passage. I am delighted to support this simple but important bill, and I ask my colleagues to do the same. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 53, the ``Curt Flood Act of 1998.'' After years of disagreement, the baseball players, the baseball owners, and the minor leagues have reached a historic agreement on the application of the antitrust laws to labor relations in baseball. This agreement has already passed the Senate by unanimous consent, and I hope that we will pass it today. The Supreme Court first held that the business of baseball is exempt from the antitrust laws in 1922. Federal Baseball Club of Baltimore, Inc. v. National League of Professional Baseball Clubs, 259 U.S. 200 (1922). The Court, emphasizing organized baseball's longstanding reliance on that exemption, has twice declined to overrule its original 1922 decision. Flood v. Kuhn, 407 U.S. 258 (1972); Toolson v. New York Yankees, Inc., 346 U.S. 356 (1953). Instead, the Court has left it to Congress to decide whether the baseball exemption should continue. Given the agreement of the parties, Congress has now decided to legislate in this area, but we do so only in an extremely narrow manner. S. 53 leaves completely unchanged all aspects of the baseball exemption except for the narrow issue of the labor relations of major league players at the major league level as set out in detail in the new subsection 27(b) of the Clayton Act. This bill originates from a compromise struck during the last round of collective bargaining between the major league owners and the major league players. After a lengthy labor dispute, these parties reached a collective bargaining agreement that, among other things, required negotiation to reach agreement on a limited repeal of baseball's antitrust exemption. They did so because the players' union argued that the antitrust exemption contributed to the labor disputes that have long marked its relationship with the owners. Specifically, the union asserted that it was disadvantaged in its labor negotiations with the owners because, unlike unions of other professional athletes, it could not challenge allegedly unlawful employment terms under the antitrust laws. The major league clubs, of course, disagreed with this view. They contended that the baseball exemption was irrelevant to their labor negotiations with the union. The clubs argued that, like every other multi-employer bargaining group, they were protected from antitrust challenges to their employment terms by the nonstatutory labor antitrust exemption. In that regard, I want to note that nothing in this bill will affect in any way the protections afforded to the major league clubs by the nonstatutory labor antitrust exemption. As a result of this difference of opinion, both the players and the owners were willing to support the repeal of the specific and narrow portion of the baseball exemption covering labor relations between major league players and major league clubs. The bill was carefully drafted, however, to leave the remainder of the exemption intact. Before this bill passed the Senate, several changes were adopted to address concerns raised by owners of the minor league teams--the members of the National Association of Professional Baseball Leagues. Minor league baseball owners were concerned that the original bill reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee might not adequately protect their interests. Specifically, the minor league clubs were concerned that the original version of S. 53 was not sufficiently clear to preserve antitrust protection for: (1) the relationship between the major league clubs and the minor league clubs and (2) those work rules and employment terms that arguably affect both major league and minor league baseball players. Members of Congress agreed that this narrow legislation should not hurt the grass roots minor league baseball played in over 150 towns across the country. For that reason, the minor league clubs were invited into the discussion and given an opportunity to suggest changes to address their concerns, and those changes have been incorporated. As a result of these three-way negotiations, the parties agreed to amend the bill in several significant ways. These amendments clarify the limited reach of the bill and the expansive nature of the continued protection the bill affords to minor league baseball. For instance, to accommodate the concerns of the minor league clubs, subsection (b) of the new section 27 of the Clayton Act was changed by adding the word ``directly'' immediately before the phrase ``relating to or affecting employment'' and the phrase ``major league players'' was added before the phrase ``to play baseball.'' These changes were made to ensure that neither major league players nor minor league players could use new subsection (a) to attack conduct, acts, practices, or agreements designed to apply to minor league employment. In addition, new subsection (c) was added to clarify that only major league players could sue under the new subsection (a). Again, the minor leagues were concerned that, without a narrow standing section, minor league players or amateurs might attempt to attack minor league issues by asserting that these issues also indirectly affected major league employment terms. Therefore, the new subsection (c) carefully limits the zone of persons protected by the bill to only major league players by providing that ``only a major league baseball player has standing to sue under'' this limited antitrust legislation. The standing provision gives major league baseball players the same right to sue under the antitrust laws over the major league employment terms that other professional athletes have. Of course, the United States has standing to sue to enjoin all antitrust violations under 15 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 4 and 25, and we do not intend subsection 27(c) to limit that broad authority. This bill does not affect the application of the antitrust laws to anyone outside the business of baseball. In particular, it does not affect the application of the antitrust laws to other professional sports. The law with respect to the other professional sports remains exactly the same after this bill becomes law. Because we are talking about baseball, let me tip my cap to my good friend, the Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee, John Conyers. Mr. Conyers has his own bill on this topic, H.R. 21, and he has led the charge on this issue in the House. I want to thank him for his outstanding work in bringing this bill to fruition. I also want to thank my friends Senators Orrin Hatch and Pat Leahy, the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. They worked many long hours to negotiate the delicate compromise that this bill embodies. We are also indebted to them for their outstanding efforts in bringing this bill to passage. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to support this simple, but important, bill, and I ask my colleagues to do the same. At this point, I will reserve the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 53) to require the general application of the antitrust laws to major league baseball, and for other purposes.

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 yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert). (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, saying good-bye is one of life's least pleasant tasks, especially when it is people you love, people you have grown to respect and count on. This year, and at the end of every Congress, we say good-bye to so many wonderful people. But Jerry Solomon is quite special. I could describe him as a perfect blue-white diamond in a sea of zircons, but that makes the rest us zircons and that might not be the most apt description. Jerry, they have talked about your fierce patriotism, about your loyalty to the party, about your energy, your activism. I just want to say two things about you. One, I know of your personal physical courage, spiritual courage. It is rare and it is marvelous. But most of all in a time of overpowering cynicism, you have proven by your 20 years here in Congress that politics can be a noble profession, because you have brought real nobility to it. We will miss you.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I submit, for inclusion in the Congressional Record, the following two letters exchanged between myself and Bill Archer, Chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, regarding H.R. 2281, the ``Digital Millenium Copyright Act.'' House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary July 22, 1998. Hon. Bill Archer, Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Archer: Thank you for your letter of July 21 in which you address the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means as it relates to H.R. 2281, the ``WIPO Copyright Treaties Implementation Act and Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act,'' as reported from the Committee on the Judiciary. Based on the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means in certain provisions contained in H.R. 2281 which are described in your letter, the Speaker of the House referred sequentially the bill to that Committee for consideration. Your understanding is correct regarding the amendment to section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 contained in section 103 of the bill. Representative Coble, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property of the Committee on the Judiciary, will be offering a manager's amendment which will strike from the bill the portion of section 103 adding a new section 1201(c) to title 17. Your understanding is also correct regarding the import ban contained in section 103 of the bill. The bill, as reported, applies the ban in compliance with the letter and spirit of U.S. obligations under the World Intellectual Property Organization Treaty. I appreciate your determination that a markup in the Committee on Ways and Means is unnecessary in light of the foregoing and agree that the absence of such a markup should not prejudice that Committee's jurisdictional prerogative on the measures described in your letter. I would be pleased to place a copy of your letter, along with this response, in the Congressional Record during floor consideration of H.R. 2281. Thank you for your valuable input and cooperation. Sincerely, Henry J. Hyde, Chairman.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I will be very brief. There are two concepts that are at play here: fundamental fairness and public relations. Fundamental fairness means they get an opportunity to answer the charges, they get a decent full opportunity to answer the charges. Public relations means they get a jump on the other side and they get the spin machine going. They want a public relations advantage, and we are promising them fundamental fairness. The President and his people will have every opportunity to answer every charge, if there are any charges that require answering, in abundance. That is fundamental fairness. We are unwilling to give them a public relations advantage any greater than the one they have had for the past many months, when Mr. Starr could not talk, whereas everyone identifying themselves with the White House could talk in abundance.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I just want to very briefly reply to some of the criticisms that have been made of this resolution. The phrase ``fundamental fairness,'' which of course has a ring to it, has been used and contentions are that we have violated fundamental fairness by not giving the President an advantage by having him get either days ahead of time or hours ahead of time the report. I do not think that is a breach of fundamental fairness. The time has come for the American people, for the Members of this Congress, to get this report. The President will get copy number three. He will get it as soon as we get it and as soon as the American people get it. He is not caught by surprise. He is the party of the first part. He knows what is in the report better than anybody on the planet. But to give the spin machine an opportunity to be the first impact on the American people before we, the Members, have seen this report is not bipartisanship, it is foolishness. We are acting as a grand jury. The grand jury does not take the object of the grand jury and give them all the evidence in the proceedings and say, now you go ahead and make your case. That is not the way a grand jury operates. And we are operating as a grand jury. Now, I pledge that the very same courtesy that Mr. Nixon had will be extended to this President and his staff, that he will have his people present during executive sessions that we have. We will, under controlled circumstances, want to hear from him and his submissions exactly, exactly as Mr. Nixon had, no less and no more. I pledge that to you, in the interest of fundamental fairness.

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

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. To my good friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Joe Moakley), let me just add my spin on this situation, to use an unhappy word. This has been a moveable feast. The situation has changed from hour to hour, as everybody gets their input on how to do this. What we are talking about is reserving from immediate distribution supporting materials which we have been advised by the Independent Counsel contain matters of a private, confidential nature, and there may be innocent people involved who do not have a central or even a peripheral relationship to the matter in chief. We are simply trying to do the decent, responsible thing by checking those over before they are released. We will release them, but there may be some materials in there that we can agree on a bipartisan basis ought not to be released. We do not know. But whether the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and I do it, or whether the entire Committee on the Judiciary does it, I could live with either operation. Mr. Speaker, I just say it is terribly hard to tell a Member of the Committee on the Judiciary that they may not look at certain materials that were sent over by the independent counsel. So I do not think it is a terribly serious dispute. I hope the gentleman does not talk about breaking agreements. As I say, these have been fluid all along until we finally got to the Committee on Rules. I just hope the gentleman does not feel that there was any violation of trust. I do not want to start out that way. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and I are not only doing this in a bipartisan way, but in a collegial way, and we are going to keep that serious effort going. Mr. Speaker, 166 years ago when our country was in its robust childhood the great historian Thomas Macauley wrote, and I quote, ``Laws exist in vain for those who do not have the courage and means to defend them.'' We are here because circumstances and our Constitution have thrust upon us an onerous duty, one that requires us to summon the courage and the means to defend the rule of law. Do not forget, please, when all the distractions and diversions and definitions have been pronounced, at the end of it all, we are about one mighty task: to vindicate the rule of law. We are also met to defend the sacred bond contained in our oath of office, the bond that links the Members of Congress, the officials of the executive branch and our Federal judges to the people of the United States, to those who have given their lives for this country and to the American people of the future. In taking the solemn oath to defend the Constitution, we have pledged a trust that imposes a heavy responsibility. We have pledged a trust to those patriots who sleep across the river in Arlington Cemetery and in American cemeteries around the world. We have pledged that their defense of freedom and the rule of law will not have been in vain. Mr. Speaker, may I presume to remind us all of the oath we swore when we became Members of Congress. We raised our right arms and we said: I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter, so help me God. Traditionally, an oath means a solemn calling on God to witness to the truth of what one is saying. We all well know the story of Sir Thomas Moore who was beheaded in the Tower of London for refusing to take the oath of supremacy that acknowledged Henry VIII as head of the Church of England. In the great drama of his life, ``A Man for all Seasons,'' Sir Thomas tells his daughter, ``When you take an oath, you hold your soul in your hands, and if you break that oath, you open your fingers and your soul runs through them and is lost.'' Mr. Speaker, I believe with all my heart that each of us who took that oath of office took it seriously and we will conduct ourselves so that when this ordeal, and it is an ordeal, is over we will have vindicated the rule of law and brought credit to this institution in which we are privileged to serve. We have also pledged a trust to the Americans of the 21st century. We have pledged to hand over to them intact and unsullied the rule of law in constitutionally ordered democracy. And we have pledged a trust to our fellow Americans, with whom we share this moment in our history, our neighbors who have sent us to this Congress, to serve the common good through the rule of law. Ninty-four years ago in a message to Congress, President Theodore Roosevelt defined the principle that must guide our deliberations in the days and weeks and months ahead: ``No man is above the law and no man is below it, nor do we ask any man's permission when we require him to obey it.'' That principle really defines the solemnity of this moment. We are sometimes too cavalier in our attitude toward the rule of law. It is something that we take for granted. Yet we live in a century which, in blood and tears, in pain and sorrow, has vindicated the contention of the Founders of this Republic and the Framers of its Constitution that the rule of law is the only alternative to tyranny or to the anarchy that eventually leads to tyranny. The long, hard march of humanity toward the promised land of freedom has been marked by the constant struggle to vindicate the rule of law against the tyranny of power. Whether our reference point is the Ten Commandments or the code of Hammurabi, Justinian's Code or the Magna Carta, the Constitutional Convention of 1787 or the United Nations Charter of 1945, in each case humanity has made progress on its journey through history when the rule of law has triumphed over privilege or power as the arbiter of human affairs and the method to resolve conflict. The fact that the gradual expansion of the rule of law has invariably resulted in human progress is not an accident of history; it is a reflection of human nature. For the rule of law is an expression of the spiritual nature of the human person created with intelligence and free will, a moral agent capable of freedom and capable of ordering freedom to the pursuit of goodness, decency, and justice. Every member of our committee, indeed every Member of this Congress, is a servant of the rule of law which in this instance means we are servants of the Constitution of the United States of America. To paraphrase Theodore Roosevelt, none of us is above the Constitution, none of us is below the Constitution, and none of us is required to ask permission when we require ourselves and all those who have also sworn a solemn oath of fidelity to the Constitution to obey it. Because we are servants of the Constitution, because we too are subject to the rule of law it enshrines. No partisanship in the matters before us will be worthy of us. Americans pride themselves on living under the oldest written constitution in the world continually in force. That historic accomplishment simply did not happen. In defense of the Constitution, American men and women have sacrificed their lives in every corner of the globe. In defense of the Constitution, the American people have made enormous sacrifices in time and in treasure. In defense of the Constitution, Americans have forgotten they were black, brown, yellow or white, that they were Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, Orthodox or Protestant, that they were Democrats or Republicans. They have remembered that they are Americans, inheritors of a precious tradition of the rule of law and trustees of that tradition before the eyes of the future. The Constitution remains viable not only because the document itself is venerable and its provisions wise. The Constitution remains viable because the American people continue to affirm and defend the principle of the rule of law which animated the document and gave it its moral ballast and its moral compass. We, the servants of the people, their elected representatives, can do no less. Thus, we too are under judgment in these proceedings: the judgment of the people, the judgment of history, the judgment of moral law. Let us conduct ourselves in this inquiry in such a way as to vindicate the rule of law. Let us conduct ourselves and this inquiry in such a way as to vindicate the Constitution. Let us conduct ourselves and this inquiry in such a way as to vindicate the sacrifices of blood and treasure that have been made across the centuries to create and defend this last, best hope of humanity on Earth, the United States of America.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I would not call for a vote on that last statement the gentleman from New York made, but I do thank him for his generous remarks. Mr. Speaker, fundamental fairness is a phrase that has been bandied around here. I did not hear that much when one of the marvelous, articulate spokesmen for the administration declared war on Kenneth Starr; and that war is still going on, volley after volley on MSNBC, CNBC, on and on and on, not to mention other spokesmen for the administration, talented issuers of insults and vitriol. There was not much due process or fairness there. We have congratulated ourselves on saying no man is above the law, but this is not a criminal proceeding. There is no legal requirement for an answer to a complaint from the White House. We on the Committee on the Judiciary are smart enough and of such goodwill that we are going to wait and we are going to hear what the President has to say. We are going to give it every possible consideration. The only requirement for an early copy to the White House is a public relations one. We have had the public relations feel for as long as the independent counsel has been appointed. By the way, the spin is working well here in this room. My colleagues refer to him as the special prosecutor, not the independent counsel. He is not a prosecutor on the law my colleagues passed, which did not provide for advanced copies to objects of investigation, as my colleagues wrote it. So we have a public relations requirement that I hope my colleagues do not think we are fundamentally unfair in not wanting to give special treatment to the White House. Equality, not special treatment. I do not have to tell my colleagues that these theaters of operations have shifted from the White House to the Grand Jury to this chamber. We are governed by what we all vote for. I can assure my colleagues the only bipartisan thing in this whole resolution, after listening to this debate, is the bipartisan demand for immediate release of this report. I can tell my colleagues the vigor and rigor with which those demands have come from the other side is in no way less than the vigor and the rigor of the demands on our side. We put this to a vote, we know what is going to happen, and we are the servants of this body. So there is no way we could change that. Due process, fundamental fairness will be observed. I can assure my colleagues this whole proceeding will fail, it will fall on its face if it is not perceived by the American people to be fair. I keenly regret what I have heard this morning, a debate that has been really partisan. Bipartisanship cuts two ways, folks. It does not mean surrender. It means thoughtful, sincere, honorable consideration of differing views and trying to reach an accommodation. I pledge myself, even though the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) has changed his mind, I pledge myself to work with him as closely as humanly possible so we do have that bipartisan result from our efforts. I hope my colleagues will vote for this resolution.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, today, I am introducing a bill to codify in title 36, United States Code, recent laws related to patriotic and national observances, ceremonies, and organizations not included in title 36 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 (2 U.S.C. 285b) 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, Law Revision Counsel, U.S. House of Representatives, H2-304 Ford House Office Building, Washington, D.C., 20515-6711. The telephone number is (202) 226-2411.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. If the version that the gentleman read is accurate, there is a lot of work for the Justice Department to do right down there where that happened.

Mr. HYDE. The answer is absolutely not. That is obstruction of justice and was a crime.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I think the Conyers amendment is inappropriate, but I do not disagree with the underlying thought, which is that independent counsels ought to be accountable. I go back to the Iran-Contra days when Elliot Abrams was destroyed by an independent counsel, I thought very unjustly, when Caspar Weinberger was indicted three days before an election, and there is just no accountability; so there ought to be. This is not the time to do it. The time to do it is when we reauthorize the bill next year. In 1994, when we reauthorized the independent counsel, I had some suggestions for accountability. They were shot down by the chairman of the House Committee on the Judiciary then, they were shot down by the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. They were perfectly happy with the language of the bill as it then existed. Now, of course, experience has changed their mind. So I agree, but never forget the ultimate discipline is with the Attorney General. She can dismiss the independent counsel, and if he is half as bad as people say, I wonder why she has not dismissed him. But that is a question for another day. But any lesser sanction would erode the independence of the independent counsel, and we must keep the independent counsel independent. So I think the gentleman's amendment is mis-timed, overshoots the mark and ought to be defeated.

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

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise in reluctant opposition to S. 414, the Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 1998. Two years ago I stood here and supported H.R. 2149, another version of shipping reform. The bill we consider today differs from the 1996 bill in important ways, and I cannot support it. Current law provides an antitrust exemption for ocean-going ships, most of which are foreign-owned, to form cartels that legally enter into price-fixing agreements at the expense of American shippers. As chairman of the committee with jurisdiction over antitrust, I find that system difficult to accept. If we were writing on a blank slate, I do not think such a system would pass. However, I understand the political reality that this system has been in the law since 1916, and it probably cannot be eliminated in one shot. I reluctantly accept that change probably has to come incrementally. However, in making that incremental change, we should follow the fundamental principles of medicine: First, do no harm. I think this bill does harm in some important ways. First and most importantly, one group of small businesses, many of whom are my constituents, will suffer severe harm if this bill becomes law. At every port there are businesses that consolidate small shipments into large shipments, thereby getting lower rates for small shippers. These businesses go by various names, nonvessel operating common carriers, freight forwarders, or shipping associations, but they all perform basically the same economic function. In doing so, they compete directly with the ocean-going common carriers for shipping business. This bill puts these small businesses at a severe disadvantage. It allows their competitors to use secret contracts to undermine the cartels, but it requires these small businesses to publish their rates for all to see. It does not take an economic genius to realize that this system will soon drive them out of business. Second, I am concerned that this bill actually encourages the joint negotiation of inland shipping rates. Thus, not only will the rates for the ocean part of the trip be set by legally-sanctioned price-fixing cartels, but now those same cartels will be encouraged to jointly negotiate rates for the overland trip to the port, as well. I see no justification for this further extension of cartel behavior. Let me just repeat, I would like to see the entire antitrust exemption eliminated. Failing that, I would like to allow all of the competitors to use secret contracts so that the cartels are undermined. But I am not willing to make those changes in a way that gives one group of competitors an insurmountable advantage over another, and unfortunately, that is what this bill does. This compromise was reached in the Senate after the committee reported the bill, but before it reached the floor. We are now taking it up on the floor without any committee consideration. We are told if we change one word the whole thing will fall apart. I understand that reality as well, and thus, I have not insisted on a referral. However, I can only go so far, and I cannot support this bill, which harms my constituents. I urge my colleagues to defeat it. I want to thank my colleagues, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest). I appreciate their commitment to conduct vigorous oversight of the situation of the various types of freight consolidators if this bill becomes law, and I intend to conduct such oversight in the Committee on the Judiciary, as well.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I just want to express my thanks to the gentleman for his assurances that he will give this problem continuing attention. I will be very interested in his performance. I am very grateful for his understanding.

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

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Yes, I yield to the gentlewoman from Colorado.

Mr. HYDE. Better that than to be killed. Give that little baby a chance to enjoy a Christmas sometime, to enjoy the love of somebody who can love that child. Mr. Chairman, let us give that little life the chance we had.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) for giving me this time. Mr. Chairman, once again the solution to a problem is death, kill somebody. If my colleague saw the movie, recent movie, Saving Private Ryan, there is a line in there where Tom Hanks, playing the captain in the infantry, says: ``Every time I kill somebody I feel farther away from home.'' Why is it that we have to in this discussion never talk about the baby? I listened to every word from the other side, and they drip with compassion, and rightly so, but only for the woman: the plight of the woman; the woman is being coerced by this law into having a baby; the woman, HIV cases. I understand that. But do my colleagues not know there is a baby involved, too? Is that a cipher? A zero? Is that an used Kleenex to be thrown away? The whole question revolves around what my colleagues think of human life. Now we could solve a lot of problems if we carry to the logical consequences this devaluation of life. We could empty the nursing homes. We could get rid of the incorrigibly poor. We could get rid of the useless eaters, as Hitler called them, the homeless people, the people who are not pulling their weight, who are not contributing to our society, the people who infect other people with diseases. Get rid of the people. So here, where the little child has been conceived unfortunately by a woman in prison, my colleagues' solution is to get rid of the child, the innocent human life. Now, we can define that out of existence and say that is not alive, we do not know what that is, that is a cancerous tumor, that is a diseased appendix, they want to just excise it and throw it away. But it is not. That is self-deception. It is a tiny little member of the human family, and that little tiny member of the human family has a right to life, and that life is precious. Yes, it is the most inauspicious, humble beginning anybody could have. Almost as bad as being born in a stable, being born in a jail of a mother who is incarcerated. But, by God, it is life, it is an opportunity. ``Life'' means hope, and give that little child his or her life. He or she did not ask for that humble, inauspicious beginning, but that does not mean that person is foreclosed from leading a full life later on. There are hundreds of places that will take those children. Here is a directory of them all over the country. There are about four of them within walking distance of Capitol Hill. So, the child will not be abandoned or thrown away in a wastebasket. It is a human life, and it is precious, and human life ought to mean something in this country where our birth certificate says everyone is created equally and is endowed by their Creator with an inalienable right to life. Think of the woman, yes. But think of the little baby, too. Do not throw that human life away.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2070, introduced by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon), is designed to give an added measure of protection to those Federal employees who work with or near prison inmates. This bill requires the testing of all inmates in the Federal prison system for the HIV virus upon their arrival in the system. It also requires the testing of any inmate in the Federal prison system when there is reason to believe that an inmate or a person ordered detained pending trial may have intentionally or unintentionally transmitted the HIV virus to any government employee or to any person lawfully present in a Federal correctional facility. The bill allows Federal employees, should they be involved in the type of incident with an inmate or detained person in which the HIV virus could have been transmitted, to request that the inmate or detained person be tested for the virus. The bill then requires the government to test the person and report the test results to the employee requesting the test, the person tested and the warden of the facility in which the person is incarcerated or detained. The need for this legislation is simple: Drugs have now been developed which can prevent the transmission of the HIV virus after exposure to someone who carries the virus. The drugs are effective in preventing transmission approximately 80 percent of the time. However, the drugs must be administered within 2 to 24 hours after exposure, and have extremely unpleasant side effects. If a Bureau of Prisons or Marshalls Service employee were to come in contact with the blood of an inmate, knowing the HIV status of the inmate will enable the employee and his or her doctor to make a more informed decision as to whether to undergo this course of treatment. Unfortunately, some inmates refuse to be tested when Bureau of Prison officials request. This bill will require that they be tested. Finally, the bill requires the Attorney General to develop model guidelines for States to follow to prevent, detect, and treat all types of infectious diseases that are commonly found in prison populations. There seems to be general agreement that the Bureau of Prisons and the Public Health Service officers who work for the Bureau do an outstanding job of controlling infectious diseases in our Federal prisons. Professional associations representing State corrections and law enforcement officers have requested the committee to encourage the Bureau of Prisons to share those practices with the States. This provision requires the Attorney General to compile those practices in the form of voluntary guidelines that States could follow in their own correctional facilities. I am pleased to state that the bill is supported by the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, the Corrections and Criminal Justice Coalition, and the Fraternal Order of Police. Mr. Speaker, the job of a law enforcement officer or corrections officer is a dangerous one. We owe it to these citizens to make the government take whatever steps it can to minimize the risks they encounter on the job. This bill will help identify the risk of HIV infection to those who serve in these jobs so that appropriate precautions can be taken to prevent its transmission. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.