Henry Hyde

Mr. HYDE

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

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment made in order pursuant by the rule.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, my good friend, the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs], puts the best possible face on, in my judgment, a very untenable argument. He takes refuge in procedure, that this is the inappropriate vehicle to bring this forward. Injustice needs remedy and one seizes their opportunities when they come along. My amendment was just stated as a result of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha] putting on this bill an amendment to reimburse attorney fees to Congressmen and their staffs if they prevail in a criminal suit, and I said no, that is too narrow, it only takes care of Congressmen and their staffs. It ought to protect anybody who is abused by a suit that is not substantially justified. Say, I would hope this would take some time and resources from the Justice Department. They might think twice about bringing cases for which there is no substantial justification. If someone is a prosecutor and they are going to wrench somebody out of their job and their home and put them on trial as a criminal, there ought to be enough in the case that it is substantially justified. To say one does not want them to waste their resources on cases that are not substantially justified, what about the resources of the citizen who has been put through the hoops? What is the remedy, if not this, for somebody who has been unjustly, maliciously, improperly, abusively tried by the Government, by the faceless bureaucrats who hire a law firm or get a U.S. attorney looking for a notch on his gun. And I am for law enforcement; I am about as law and order as one can get around here, but I have seen abuses, and I know people who think because it is public power it is being wielded in the public interest. No, not necessarily. But when they transgress they ought to help pay the attorney fees to make the innocent defendant partly whole. I remember the former Secretary of Labor, Ray Donovan, who was prosecuted and again and again and again and won every time, and when it was all over he said to himself, ``Where do I go to get back my reputation?'' Well, one cannot get that back, but, at least, if the Government tries to bankrupt someone because of attorney fees, they ought to pay that. I am for law enforcement, I am for criminals going to jail, I am for the Justice Department prosecuting criminals, but not without substantial justification, and if my colleagues are against my amendment, they are saying let the Government do whatever it wants, and if they cannot prove substantial justification, tough luck. I do not buy that. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I cannot possibly say what I want to say in 2 minutes. Howard Markey was my lifetime friend. This honor is certainly deserved. Madam Speaker, H.R. 824 would redesignate the Federal building located at 717 Madison Place, NW., in the District of Columbia, as the ``Howard T. Markey National Courts Building.'' Judge Markey clearly deserves this recognition as a result of and in tribute to his service to others and to this country. Howard Markey has been a leader in the Federal judiciary from the time of his initial appointment in 1972. Judge Markey presided on the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal circuit, which sits in the building to be redesignated, from the court's creation in 1982 until he stepped down as Chief Judge. He also served as judge and Chief Judge of the former Court of Customs and Patent Appeals. He was a brilliant practicing patent lawyer prior to ascending to the bench, and served as Dean of the John Marshall School of Law in Chicago after stepping down from the bench. Howard was also one of this country's first test pilots of jets and rose to the rank of major general. Wholly apart from his monumental contributions to American jurisprudence through his arguments at the bar and his opinions from the bench, Howard had a profound and ameliorative impact upon our legal system when he led the movement that resulted in the creation of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal circuit. Howard had the insight to recognize, and the intellectual power to make the case, that the Nation would be better served if appeals in the domains of intellectual property law, Federal claims, and Federal civil service matters were taken to a single national tribunal rather than disparate geographic courts. He demonstrated this could be done without undermining the Federal nature of our legal system or doing injury to the logic that generally sustains the geographic division of the circuits. AS the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal circuit's first and most influential Chief Judge, Howard led it to its stature as the world's most respected and followed court on matters of intellectual property, international trade, governmental obligations to citizens, and public sector personnel law. There is some urgency to this legislation as Howard, who was widowed a few years ago, is in a nursing home and in frail health. There is no more fitting name for the building that houses the judicial structure that he fathered than that of Howard Markey, and no better way to remember Howard Markey than to attach his name to the hall of justice in which he worked so long and so well for the American people. I am pleased that the Congress will enact this bill and redesignate this building for this great American. Madam Speaker, I include the following material for the Record: Howard T. Markey Howard T. Markey assumed duties as Dean of the John Marshall Law School in July, 1991. He retired October 31, 1994 and now serves as Dean Emeritus. A distinguished jurist, serving as Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit from 1982 to 1990 and was an active judge on this court after his resignation as chief judge. Prior to serving on the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, he served since 1972 as chief judge for the United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals. Dean Markey is the first active judge to have sat with every Federal Court of Appeals. He has sat in over 1,400 cases and written more than 250 opinions for the Regional Circuit Courts in every field of law, in addition to 5,000 cases and 800 opinions for the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Dean Markey received his juris doctor degree in 1949 from Loyola University in Chicago, where he graduated cum laude and served as editor-in-chief of the Loyola University Law Review. He earned a master's degree from The John Marshall Law School in 1950. Dean Markey has published extensively in legal periodicals, and has taught at George Washington University, Loyola University, the Federal Judicial Center, and the John Marshall Law School. He is the recipient of numerous awards and honorary degrees--the most recent being the A. Sherman Christensen Award from the American Inns of Court. He has been chairman of the Ethics Advisory Committee on Codes of Conduct, and a senior member of the Judicial Conference of the United States. He currently is chairman of the board of the American Inns of Court Foundation, and a member of the board of trustees of the Supreme Court Historical Society. Prior to serving in the federal judiciary, Dean Markey was a partner for many years in the Chicago law firm of Parker, Markey & Plyer. A retired major general in the United States Air Force, Dean Markey is a highly decorated veteran of both World War II and the Korean War, and was one of the first jet test pilots in the United States. He is a brilliant orator, administrator, jurist and lawyer--and he richly deserves this honor.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. But, Mr. Chairman, the fact is, a hung jury, and the court says, can you reach a verdict? and the foreman says, Your Honor, we are hopelessly deadlocked. The judge does not keep the thing pending, he declares a mistrial, and the State's attorney can either bring the case again or go on to bigger and better things. But bring this thing to finality, to closure, instead of keeping the jury in the jury room indefinitely.

Mr. HYDE. I would ask the gentleman, May we agree to make this amendment in order?

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I have just made a suggestion to the gentleman from California [Mr. Berman], and he seemed favorably disposed. The problem is the date certain. It encourages gridlock if you have to wait for a certain date. Let us remove the date and just say that in the pendency of a complaint, if the chairman and the ranking member together agree that a disposition is unlikely, then they shall dismiss without prejudice the pending claim. That leaves it up to you to decide, and you do not have that incentive to deadlock.

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

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, can the gentleman change the rules to accomplish what we wish to accomplish by amendment by rule?

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha] for yielding me the time. I just heard an amazing statement that the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen], the chairman of the Ethics Committee, that he might be naive, because he said the Committee on Standards can initiate its own inquiry given enough information and the disposition to do so. The fear that I have with the initiative of the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin] and the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] is that they will politicize the ethics process in an election year. Every campaign check a Member gets is going to raise a flag. Now, they think they are immunizing the process from frivolous complaints by saying ``You must have personal knowledge, not a newspaper account.'' We have the telephone. We read something in the paper. We pick up the phone. We call somebody who is quoted. We have personal knowledge, we have the Freedom of Information Act to provide the requisite knowledge. The fact is, if outside people can file these ethics complaints in an election year, we will have a blizzard of them filed. I do not know how the committee is going to deal with them all as they pile up. Perceptions are everything in politics. ``He is under investigation by the Ethics Committee.'' That is all they have to say, and we have got to spend weeks defending ourselves. It is wrong. When do we start to take into consideration the real world? Information is available from any source on the globe. The committee, which is bipartisan, Democrat and Republican, can initiate a complaint if nobody wants to do it or will do it. But we are opening the door to a flood of partisan ethics complaints in an election year. The struggle for power, the negative campaigning, all of this comes into the mix. I think we are doing a disservice to Members, because the accusations are going to be there and the truth will have a difficult time catching up with them. Someone said that ``charges and allegations fly on falcons' wings, but truth shuffles along in wooden shoes.'' I am just suggesting this is a serious mistake. We are injecting a political layer into what ought to be depoliticized. I think we will live to regret the consequences. So please vote for the Murtha amendment. Take politics out of this process by supporting the Murtha amendment.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I will have to talk faster than I usually do. Mr. Chairman, I say to the gentleman from California, Mr. Howard Berman, in a jury trial, if the jury is deadlocked and the judge keeps calling them out asking, have you reached a verdict? can you reach a verdict? after some period of time, he dismisses the jury, and the State's attorney can bring the charges again or forget it. That is what this process is doing. Now, is 6 months too short? Do we want it 8 months? But at some period, when the jury is hung, you can't let the charges hang there forever.

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

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

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, a heart transplant is but one of today's medical miracles, but miraculous it is when 71-year-old Bill Ellis is alive and well today with the transplanted heart of then 10-year-old Travis Robinson of Salt Lake City, Utah. This remarkable story is well told in an article published April 24, 1996 in the Salt Lake City Tribune. I take this opportunity to share this great story with my colleagues: [From the Salt Lake Tribune, Apr. 24, 1996] Mom Is Happy Son's Little Heart Went to Such a Big-Hearted Man--Mother Meets Recipient of Son's Heart (By Norma Wagner) After losing her 10-year-old son Travis to a traffic accident in September, Tracy Robison was not sure she ever would want to meet the patient who received the fifth- grader's heart. ``I had mixed emotions about it,'' said Robison, an emergency-room nurse in Provo who was working when her son was brought into the hospital. But through a series of unusual circumstances, 71-year-old Bill Ellis, CEO of a national snack company in Chicago, found out it was Travis' donated heart that saved his life. Ellis had an old friend in Utah, Gordon ``Boots'' Barnett, whom he had not seen in 18 years. The two recently got in touch again, and when Ellis--who suffered from terminal heart disease--told Barnett his new heart had come from a young boy in Orem, Barnett knew it had to be Travis. After all, Barnett's granddaughter was one of Tracy Robison's best friends. After contacting the Robisons, Ellis flew to Salt Lake City last month and met his donor family. ``Talking with and seeing Bill, it's just been incredible for me,'' Robison, 33, said. ``It just makes me so happy that Travis' heart is still beating. And Bill is a very generous person. In return for someone saving his life, he's turning around and doing good things for other people.'' As for Ellis, who has become a major supporter of shelters for abused women and children in Alabama and Los Angeles, he has not only found new meaning in life, but ``another family in Salt Lake City.'' ``I have a picture of Travis and his mother and two brothers right here in my office,'' Ellis said Tuesday from the Chicago headquarters of Farley Foods. ``I met the family, and when you stand there and realize that her son's heart is in your body, well, I just, I get kind of choked up talking about it. I could tell it was the same for her when she looked at me.'' Ellis and the Robisons decided to share their story to help increase awareness during National Organ and Tissue Donor Awareness Week, which began Sunday and runs through Saturday. Across the United States, transplant centers are suffering a critical shortage of organs and tissue and have launched the first nation-wide campaign to increase the number of donors. The Coalition on Donation has enlisted Michael Jordan of the Chicago Bulls as its national spokesman. Jordan will be featured in 30-second radio and television commercials, on billboards, transit advertising and through direct mailings throughout the country. The coalition is a national, non-profit alliance that represents nearly 100 organizations involved in organ and tissue procurement and transplantation. The thrust of its campaign is to motivate more Americans to discuss with family members their decision to become donors. The coalition estimates that permission required from next-of-kin is denied in 50% to 85% of the cases where there is high potential for donation. Discussions prior to death can eliminate confusion and uncertainty about the desire to be a donor and help make it easier for family members to carry out a donor's wishes, said coalition president Howard Nathan. More than 45,000 critically ill Americans are on waiting lists for organ transplants, with a new name added every 18 minutes. Last year, more than 19,000 transplants were performed in the United States. But 3,000 people died while waiting for a suitable donor. In Utah, 190 people are awaiting vital organ transplants. And many more are in need of tissue such as bone, skin and corneas. During 1995, 207 patients received organ transplants from 57 Utah donors. Utah Gov. Mike Leavitt is joining the effort by holding a press conference at 10:15 a.m. today at University Hospital in the second-floor conference room. And at noon, Intermountain Organ Recovery System will hold a tree planting ceremony in Canyon Rim Park, 3100 S. 2900 East, in a tribute to donor families and transplant recipients. The decision to donate was an obvious choice for Tracy and Conan Robison. As a nurse at Utah Valley Regional Medical Center, Tracy Robison witnessed miraculous changes in patients' lives after their diseased organs were replaced by healthy ones. She was working at the hospital on the evening of Sept. 12 when her mother called and said Travis had been hit by a car a half-block from home. ``She said he was unconscious and his legs were twisted. I didn't totally panic at that point because unconscious to me is possibly not as critical,'' Robison said. ``We see it here all the time.'' But then the E.R. got a call from the ambulance en route. ``They said they were coming in Code 3, which is the worst you could come in with,'' she said. Travis' pupil's were fixed and he was breathing erratically. ``The worst insult was to his brain.'' Tests two days later confirmed Robison's worst fear: Travis was brain dead. Within a few hours, transplant technicians were removing his organs. In addition to his heart going to Ellis, Travis' liver went to a father of five in Springville and both kidneys went to two different women in Salt Lake. And his eyes restored the sight of two others. ``I really think that somebody else should have the opportunity to improve their life with something that somebody else doesn't need,'' Robison said. ``It's not going to do any good for Travis to keep it. And for me, it has brought an incredible amount of peace and happiness that others have been benefited.'' When looking at Ellis, she added in a choked voice, ``I can see Travis in so many ways. I can't think of a better person that his little heart could have gone to. Travis had a big heart and Bill does, too.''

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, the Chicago Tribune of last Sunday provided a feature article on one of my district's finer public servants, Joseph Devlin. The article describes Joe's active life and his great contributions to Roselle, IL, and DuPage County as well. I proudly share this with my colleagues: [From the Chicago Tribune, Sept. 14, 1997] The Father of Roselle--Joseph Devlin Wears Many Hats While Serving Others (By David Sharos) If public service were a commodity that could be marketed and sold, Roselle's Joseph Devlin would probably be one of the western suburbs' leading entrepreneurs. Devlin wears many hats, which currently include village trustee, the administrator for the Roselle Historical Foundation, a member of the DuPage County Stormwater Committee, the DuPage Water Commission and financial officer for the American Legion. He is also a former mayor of Roselle. Roselle Chief of Police Richard Eddington still calls him Mr. Devlin in public, but in the community he has called home for more than 40 years, Devlin says he wishes people would simply call him Joe. Devlin moved from Pennsylvania in 1953 and has seen Roselle, a town that then boasted 1,000 people and barely a square mile in size grow to 23,000 people and 8 to 10 square miles. ``Joe's the father of our village,'' said Marj Peterson, a longtime friend. ``Roselle as we know it today was really launched as a result of him.'' Before moving to Roselle, he fought in a war, went to college and earned a degree in mechanical engineering; he became president of an electric heater and supply company, helped raise three daughters and worked in public office for more than 25 years. He has also overcome personal hardships. In World War II, Devlin served on a B-24 as a navigator and was captured behind enemy lines after his plane was shot down over Romania and became a prisoner of war. In civilian life, his greatest hardship occurred three years ago when his wife, Barbara, died of cancer. Not long ago, he said, ``I received a card from board members on one of my birthdays that said, `Congratulations, you've survived another year.' When I opened it, the card said, `In fact, you've survived it all.' I guess maybe I have.'' Serving his fellow citizens and the community he loves is what continues to drive Devlin. ``I'm proud of everything I've done my whole life,'' Devlin said. ``I tend to take over things once I get involved, not because it's a power trip or anything but because I think I'm a natural problem solver and I like to get things done.'' Many citizens and public officials in the village say Devlin has lent a guiding hand in making Roselle the community it is today. From sidewalks, which were once non- existent, to upgrading sewer plants and streets, to obtaining Lake Michigan water, to building a $3.5 million Village Hall, Devlin's mark is everywhere. ``Of all the services Joe has performed, I still have this image of him carrying a shovel around in the trunk of his car . . . to repair ruts in the streets after it rained,'' said village administrator Robin Weaver. ``Joe would go over to people's houses he didn't even know and help them pump out their basements if they were flooded. He still does.'' The Village Board presented him with a plaque in 1994 for 25 years of public service. During the presentation, he listened to a letter drafted by Mayor Gayle Smolinski that cited many of his accomplishments. ``Joe is one of those pillars of the community who has just always been there when we needed him,'' Smolinski said. ``He often kids us during meetings when a female board member or I cast a deciding vote against him. He'll say, `I knew we shouldn't have given [women] the right to vote,' but Joe's been one of the greatest influences in terms of empowering women in local government that I know. He has three daughters, and I think that's influenced him.'' Devlin said that during his eight years as mayor from 1973- 81, Roselle became one of the first towns to hire a female police officer and a female firefighter. He also says having women on the Village Board is an asset because they look at things in a different way from men. Fred Koehler, who owns and manages the Lynfred Winery in Roselle, said Devlin is the person who made his business possible. ``Joe was the guy who supported the winery all the way and thought it would be a good thing for the village and would bring people here,'' Koehler said. As mayor, Devlin appealed to State Sen. Doris Karpiel, who in 1980 successfully steered two bills through the legislature that changed existing laws to allow the winery to be established. ``Even though [the winery] was a controversial decision, history has proved Joe right, and the Lynfred Winery in the old Fenz house has brought us fame and recognition,'' Smolinski said. A member of Roselle's St. Walter's Catholic Church, Devlin has been a friend since 1954 to its pastor. Rev. Francis McDonald, who says Devlin's involvement with the church has easily matched his community contributions. ``Joe is one of the founding members of the parish, and he has been involved with our administration committee for many years,'' McDonald said. ``He helped with our church's recent renovation and is working with us now on the new parish center gym we're planning to build. To me, his knowledge of the village here and the people has been invaluable. And he's a very humble man.'' Devlin, who will celebrate his 76th birthday in January, appears to be far from slowing down. He recently began his fifth term as a village trustee, a job he has held for 16 years since stepping down as mayor. He plays golf once a week, rides a bicycle and plays racquetball and handball. Devlin said he recently taught himself to play left handed because arthritis and bursitis have limited the mobility of his right shoulder. ``[Public Works Director] Rob Burns played Joe in handball a few weeks ago,''Weaver said. ``Rob's a jogger and is in great shape, and he has to be 25 years younger. The day after they played, Rob was telling us how Joe just beat the ever- living tar out of him. The poor guy was really beat up.''

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this is an updated version of the Hyde amendment which has been in the law since 1976. Essentially, the Hyde amendment denies the use of Federal funds to pay for Medicaid abortions except where the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term and except in cases of rape and incest. We have found over the years that the Hyde amendment, which as I say has been the law since 1976 in one version or the other, needs to be updated because of the prevalence of health maintenance organizations. Early on, about 9 percent of the Medicaid patients were served by health maintenance organizations and the general procedure was a fee- for-service procedure. The Hyde amendment withheld Federal funds for abortions, except, as I explained earlier, with the three exceptions. Now we find about 40 percent of the Medicaid patients are being served by health maintenance organizations, and the concern has been expressed that under the vaguely worded plans of those HMOs, abortions could end up being paid for with Federal funds. So we have clarified the intent and applied it to managed care situations so that no Federal funds can be expended for abortions, whether it is fee-for-service or under a managed care plan. I want to make clear this does not broaden the Hyde amendment. It does not include anybody that has not previously been included. What it does is clarify its applicability to the managed care situation. An HMO can still perform and provide abortion services or, as they are euphemistically called, ``reproductive services,'' if they are paid for by non-Medicaid funds, namely State funds or private funds. We also have clarified the exception for the life of the mother by requiring a greater degree of specificity from the doctor certifying the life-threatening situation. And that simply is recognizing that some doctors conclude that merely being pregnant is life-threatening and, hence, negating the effect of the Hyde amendment. So it is an updating of the Hyde amendment; it is not a broadening. It does not include anybody who was not included before. I want to say before I yield my time that every word of this amendment has been negotiated strenuously with the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey] and her supporters, the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi] and the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro] and the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Slaughter] and others, and they in no manner can be said to support the amendment. They have opposed it over the years and they do so now. But I would be remiss if I did not say that dealing with them on this highly emotional issue was a professional experience and one that I am pleased with because we retained civility while we disagreed strenuously, and that is an ideal situation.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I also wish to thank the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey]. I omitted them in my praising of the women, but they were very professional and helpful on this very difficult issue.

Mr. HYDE. I yield to my colleague from Illinois.

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

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

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman not only for giving me this time, but for his initiative in this very important resolution. Some months ago as the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly] mentioned, we had a ceremony in the rotunda and I was honored to be the master of ceremonies. I made some remarks then which I am adapting and updating for this evening. One of Mother Teresa's constant themes was how much God loves each one of us, even and perhaps especially the most humble. Proof of that love is shown by His granting Mother Teresa fullness of years. She was in our midst for 87 years before she was called home. Hers were long years of service, self-sacrifice and example. Archimedes said centuries ago, ``Give me a place where to stand and I will move the world.'' Mother Teresa stood on the streets of Calcutta and the back alleys of the world literally clutching to her bosom the diseased and the dying, and she moved the world. Mother Teresa displayed the most intensely human compassion, one that recognized the bond of humanity that links us to the poorest of the poor, a compassion which is the substance from which sanctity is forged. In the year 1666, London was decimated by a great fire. Out of the ashes of that fire, a genius named Christopher Wren emerged and he literally rebuilt London. Some 80 buildings were his legacy. The greatest was the Cathedral of St. Paul's. If you go in the back of the cathedral, you look on the floor and you kick the dust away, you will see where he is buried. The words around his burial place ``si requiris monumentum, circumspice''--if you would seek his monument, look around. I apply those words to Mother Teresa. If you would seek her monument, just look around. People all over the globe can see and benefit from one of her monuments, the Missionaries of Charity, a bright, shining oasis of self-giving in a darkened world of calculation. In a world of doubts and ambiguities and cynicism, she was blessed with certainties. And the certainties that guided her life and her self-sacrifice are ancient, they are noble and to my mind indisputable. She believed we are not lost in the stars, we are not alone in this universe which was created by a wise and benevolent Providence, and she lived the truth of that belief. She believed that every human being no matter how abandoned, no matter how poor, no matter how useless or inconvenient as the world calculates utility and convenience, is an image of the invisible God and invested with an innate and an inalienable dignity and value and thus commands our attention and our respect and our care. She poured out her life in service to that belief. She believed that love is the most living thing there is, that love is stronger than death, and that every human heart can be touched by the power of love. So often she cradled the wretched of the Earth in her arms and witnessed to that belief. She believed that the goodness of a society is measured by the way it treats the most helpless and vulnerable of its members, especially the defenseless unborn. She lived that belief and she challenged us to make that truth a living part of the fabric of our democracy. We live at the end of the bloodiest century in human history. Wars, ethnic and racial hatreds, mad ideologies and plain old human wickedness have made the 20th century, which the best and the brightest of 1897 thought would be a century of boundless human progress, instead a slaughterhouse. On the edge of a new century and a new millennium, the world does not lack for icons of evil, Auschwitz, the gulag, the killing fields of Cambodia, Bosnia, the Great Lakes region of Central Africa. What the world desperately needs are icons of goodness, and that is what she has been for us, an icon of goodness. She reminded us that hatred and death do not have the last word. She called us back to what Abraham Lincoln called the better angels of our nature. She was a blessing, a great gift of God, and we thank God for permitting us to live in her time.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I do not expect to use the full 5 minutes. This is essentially a rather simple question. It is not a simple subject but the question is simple. When I first came to Congress, 1975, it is a long time ago, the fashion in political advocacy was to use the word ``defense.'' Everything that had a ``defense'' in it was going to have a leg up in passage. The Defense Education Act. In the Clinton era, the key phrase was ``change.'' We all campaigned as agents of change. Lately, family values has become a universal aspiration. We all stand foursquare for family values. One family value is parental responsibility. Any program that deliberately bypasses parents to provide birth control devices to minors, in my judgment, is an egregious violation of family values. It is little less than legitimating promiscuity. What kind of a lesson do we teach? We teach youngsters, young ladies in particular, young women, to conceal from their parents the fact that they are engaged in sexual activity and we, the clinic, will facilitate, if not condone, that activity by providing condoms, drugs, or pills. We legislate as though every family or most families are dysfunctional. I submit there are dysfunctional families but they are the minority and not the majority. Sexual activity has serious, serious consequences, the movies on cable television notwithstanding. We frustrate family values by legitimating the concealment from parents of a child's participation in activity of the most sensitive, intimate, and consequential nature. We should be strengthening parental rights, not diminishing them. I suggest a vote for the Manzullo and Istook amendment is the appropriate one. I think if you vote for Istook and Manzullo and vote against the Castle amendment, a gentleman for whom I have boundless admiration but do not agree with him in this situation, oppose the substitute and vote for Istook and Manzullo, and then if you do that, you can campaign for family values with a straight face.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Istook-Manzullo amendment. (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield me an additional 15 seconds?

Mr. HYDE. The gentlewoman from California would have no objection then to including ``perform'' along with ``promote'' in the amendment?