Henry Hyde

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4276, the Commerce, Justice, State appropriations bill for the fiscal year 1999. I want to thank my colleagues at the committee for working closely with the Committee on the Judiciary in deciding what amendments to the substantive law should be included in this spending bill, and I deeply appreciate the cooperative spirit. The CJS bill comes to the floor on the heels of H.R. 3303, the Department of Justice appropriation authorization act for fiscal years 1999 through 2000, the first reauthorization of the Department passed by the House in years. With respect to the Justice Department, I want to commend the Committee on Appropriations for producing a strong, balanced spending bill. Working within tight budget controls, Commerce, Justice, State reflects the Congress' continuing commitment to provide resources for America's top domestic priority, fighting crime. Over the past 3 years we witnessed a dramatic drop in most categories of crime across America. This decline has been breathtaking. Many factors have converged to bring it up. Some, like demographic changes, were purely fortuitous, but we do know that specific crime-fighting measures have made a difference, and Congress has played an important role in funding some of these measures. For example, tens of thousands of police officers and crime-fighting equipment have been put on the streets through local law enforcement block grants and the COPS grant program. While I believe that Congress should not necessarily fund these programs in perpetuity, now is not the time to let up on the criminals. We must continue to fight to make our communities safe again. This bill will provide $4.9 billion for State and local law enforcement, $400 million more than the President's budget request. Mr. Chairman, the bill will also provide substantial funding for counterterrorism, protection against biological and chemical weapons, and the continuing fight against drugs. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 4276 is a strong, balanced bill that will, with respect to the Justice Department, give it the resources it needs to carry out its many diverse missions. I again congratulate the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) and his committee for their intelligent cooperation with the Committee on the Judiciary, and I urge my colleagues to support passage of this important legislation.

Mr. HYDE

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

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gerald Solomon), the distinguished author of this fine legislation. (Mr. SOLOMON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2070) to amend title 18, United States Code, to provide for the mandatory testing for serious transmissible diseases of incarcerated persons whose bodily fluids come into contact with corrections personnel and notice to those personnel of the results of the tests, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, 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. 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. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to support H.R. 2759, legislation that is responsive to a crisis facing some large hospitals with high percentages of Medicare and Medicaid patients in health professional shortage areas. The viability of essential health care for large numbers of people is threatened when certain acute care facilities in medically underserved, impoverished communities cannot recruit sufficient numbers of registered nurses to meet their requirements. H.R. 2759 provides such hospitals relief in compelling circumstances by facilitating the temporary administration of registered nurses in an H-1C nonimmigrant visa category, subject to a nationwide ceiling of 500 visas issued annually and limits of 50 or 25, depending on a State's population, on the numbers of nurses who can be approved each year for hospitals in any one State. This narrowly focused program, which will sunset after a 4-year period, is designed to address urgent needs that cannot be met in any other way. St. Bernard's Hospital, located in the Englewood community in Chicago, brought its precarious situation to my attention. Because I knew the continued functioning of St. Bernard's Hospital would be so essential to the residents of the Englewood community, I decided to endorse an appropriately limited legislative remedy. The bill that our colleague, the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush) introduced, clearly merited bipartisan Congressional support. It provided relief to particularly vulnerable hospitals and incorporated many safeguards designed to protect American jobs. I commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims, and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), ranking minority member of our full committee, for their important contributions to this carefully-crafted legislation. Of course I commend my colleague, the gentleman from Chicago, Illinois (Mr. Rush), for his initiative. It is most helpful. I certainly urge my colleagues to support this measure.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Madam Speaker, first of all, I want to thank the chairman for allocating so much time to me. I hope and pray I do not use it all. I know I express the feelings of everyone in the chamber that I do not use it all. I also want to say at the outset that I will not yield, and I would appreciate the courtesy of not being interrupted, because I do not choose to yield. I also want to briefly respond to my good friend, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey). I do not know any one I admire more than she. This is a soul-wrenching issue. Your passion, your commitment, is respected on my side, and certainly by me, and all I ask is that you respect our passion and our commitment, because people of goodwill can be on both sides of this issue. That is the wonder and the beauty of this debate, that we are here today talking about the most fundamental issues, life and death, health versus a life. That is the problem. You are trading apples and oranges, or chickens and horses. A life and health. To me if you put those on the scale, life weighs heavier. Health has been defined by the Supreme Court almost amorphously. It is a state of well-being. Roe v. Wade and the other case, Doe v. Bolton, they defined health for us in the most poetic way, a state of well-being. So the problem is, if health is an exception and the abortionist defines what is an impairment of health, I would suggest that the little unborn ought to have an Independent Counsel, because there is a conflict of interest there between the abortionist finding that a woman's health will be impaired. So it is not a simple question. Demeaning to women? Over half the children that are aborted are women. I do not want to demean women; my God, no. I was married for 45 years. I have had a mother, a sister, a daughter. I never would want to demean women. But I do not want to trivialize the unborn either. Now, I go through life trying to offend as few people as possible, and I do not always succeed. I may offend some people today, because I want to talk about slavery. I am keenly aware that there are some people who resent bitterly any discussion of slavery or the Holocaust, emphasizing the uniqueness, the singularity of those two realities that are part of our human history, and saying that nothing can compare to them in evil, and I agree. I think slavery is absolutely unique in its horror and in its evil, and I think the Holocaust similarly is unique. But there are lessons to be learned. History is nothing if it does not teach us something. I analogize, I do not compare; I look for the common thread in slavery, the Holocaust and abortion, and, to me, the common thread is dehumanizing people. I intend to make that point, because I think we have to learn from history, so that at least in this context, past will not be prologue. So I would like to tell you about a recent movie I saw called Amistad, named after a Spanish sailing ship used in the African slave trade in 1839, where some 39 survivors of the mutiny find themselves in a legal battle before the United States Supreme Court. It is based on a true story, and they are represented by an elderly, infirm John Quincy Adams, played magnificently by Anthony Hopkins. Adams' summation to the Supreme Court struck me as remarkably appropriate to the issue before us today. Adams tells the justices that this is the most important case ever to come before the court because it concerns the very nature of man. Of course, that was the central issue in debating the legitimacy, the morality of slavery, namely, the humanity of the slave. Is the slave a chattel, mere property, to be bought and sold? Or is he or she a human being with human rights? We here today make the same argument, that that little, almost-born baby, whose tiny arms and legs are flailing, whose little chest harbors a beating heart, is a human being, with human rights, even if his or her human life can be snuffed out by the plunge of the abortionist's surgical scissors into the back of her tiny neck. Yes, partial birth abortion concerns the very nature of man. Later Adams stands near a framed copy of the Declaration of Independence and he asks the question that we who support preborn life have been asking for years. Looking at the Declaration, he says, ``What of this annoying document? This Declaration of Independence? What of its conceits, all men created equal, inalienable rights, life, liberty and so on. What on earth are we to do with this?'' He then says he has a modest suggestion, and he takes a copy of the Declaration and tears it up. A tall, impressive man, Cinque, exuding strength, is the leader of the slaves, and he has told John Quincy Adams that in his tribe in Sierra Leone, the Mende, when they encounter a hopeless situation, they call on their ancestors. Adams tells the court this belief, that if they summon the spirits of their ancestors, their wisdom and strength will come to their aid. He then points to Cinque and speaks of his ancestors, from the beginning of time, and tells the court that this man, Cinque, is the whole reason his ancestors have ever existed at all. When you think about it, each of us has ancestors that go back to the beginning of time, and we, here now, are the whole reason they ever existed. We are their progeny, we are their culmination. And just think of what our ancestors had to endure through the long and bloody centuries, the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, conquest, slaughter, famine and death, wars and plagues, natural disasters. And they survived it all, so that we might be born here and now, to debate the issue of partial-birth abortion. So we have this little infant, arms flailing, legs squirming, little heart pounding away, and, with the plunge of the abortionist's surgical scissors, in a painful and cruel instant, that ancestral odyssey through the centuries is extinguished. Think of Whittier's great lines: Of all the sad words of tongue or pen, The saddest are these; ``It might have been.'' Loneliness. We all know something about loneliness. It is one of life's most mournful experiences. We have all been lonely, and it teaches us how much we humans need each other. What a special loneliness it must be for that little almost-born baby to be surrounded by people who want to kill him. I stand in awe of anyone who could perform, much less participate in, such a grisly inhuman act. It must take a heart of stone and a soul of ice. A vote against this motion to override is to legitimize thousands of acts of appalling cruelty, not to an animal, a creature of the sea or of the forest, but a fellow human being who has the misfortune to be temporarily unwanted. You have this chance today to put an end to the process of unspeakable destructive cruelty, unworthy of a civilized society. Our beloved America is becoming ``The Killing Fields.'' One state has accepted euthanasia, so the elderly can be killed legally, and the abortion culture has resulted in 35 million abortions since Roe v. Wade in 1973. Kill them in the womb, and now, with partial birth abortion, kill them out of the womb, but keep killing them. Those whose real agenda is to keep all types of abortion legal, at any stage, for any reason, have built their case on one lie after another. There is no polite way to say this. Deceptive? Misinformation? If one wants to be intellectually honest, you have to call a lie what it is. First they claim this procedure did not exist. When a paper written by the doctor who invented it surfaced, they changed their story, asserting it was only used when a woman's life was in danger. But then the same doctor admitted that 80 percent of his partial-birth abortions were elective. Then they lied about anesthesia. Planned Parenthood told us the baby does not feel any pain. The anesthesia given to the mother transfers itself in the womb to the baby, and the baby does not feel any pain. The anesthesiologists went off the wall, because that frightened women into thinking their babies are at risk if they get anesthesia, and the anesthesiologists came in and testified that was a falsehood, and they shot this down in a hurry. The Executive Director of the National Abortion Federation admitted on Nightline, and these are his words, that he had ``lied through his teeth'' about this procedure, thousands of them are performed on healthy little babies, and he was distressed at the loss of credibility the abortion cause was suffering because of the lies. Former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop reacted to the President's veto with this statement: ``I believe that Mr. Clinton was misled by his medical advisors on what is fact and what is fiction. Such a procedure can not truthfully be called `medically necessary' for either mother or the baby.'' Gee, the administration listens to Dr. Koop on tobacco. I wish they would listen to him on partial-birth abortion. For over two centuries of our national history, we have struggled to create a society of inclusion. We keep widening the circle for those for whom we are responsible, the aged, the infirm, the poor. Slaves were freed, women were enfranchised; civil rights and voting rights acts were passed; our public spaces were made accessible to the handicapped; Social Security for the elderly, all in the name of widening the circle of inclusion and protection. This great trajectory in our national history has been shattered by Roe v. Wade and its progeny. By denying an entire class of human beings the welcome and the protection of our laws, we have betrayed what is best in our tradition. We have also put at risk every life which some day someone might find inconvenient. Madam Speaker, we cannot repair the damage to our culture done by Roe v. Wade. We cannot undo the injustice done to 35 million tiny babies who have been exterminated because seven Justices, strip mining the Constitution, found a right to abortion that no one had ever seen for 200 years. We cannot unring the bell, we cannot undo that injustice, but we can stop the barbaric butchery of partial-birth abortion. We betray our own humanity if we do not. Matthew 25 is often read at Catholic funeral masses. It is a lovely passage. ``I was hungry and you fed me; I was naked and you clothed me; I was a stranger and you took me in.'' That is what I ask for here today. Welcome the little stranger. Vote to override.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I think the greatest threat to society today is the assault on the family. No matter what direction we look in, the authority of the parents is being eroded. It is particularly true in entertainment. I have yet to see a movie where the parents are smart or know as much as the children do. But the fact is, parental authority is certainly a far cry from what it once was. Now, this bill seeks to reinforce the primacy of the parent. Parents are most suitable, when it comes to caring for, nurturing care for their young daughter. We pass laws for the normal situation, not the abnormal. We deal with the abnormal situation in the judicial bypass. But the fact is, the overwhelming majority of parents love their daughters, care for their daughters, are concerned for their daughter's welfare, health, safety more than anybody else is, more than a social worker, more than a relative no matter how close. There is something about parental love that is unique. Now, what about the parents that are not there? What about the abusive parents? What about the child that is terrified that telling a parent would result in some bodily harm or some irrevocable estrangement? That is why we have a judicial bypass. Twenty-two States have these laws requiring parental notification, but every law requires the placement of a judicial bypass for those circumstances where it is inappropriate for whatever reason to try to notify the parents. How do you get to the judge if you are a young girl and you have this problem pregnancy? Well, the abortion clinic, euphemistically so- called, should require the parents be notified if that is the law of the State. And if the parents are not notified, they can direct the young lady to a social worker who will take care of the judicial bypass. So the mechanics are there. The process is there. But what you have to have is an adult, preferably the parent, the loving, caring, nurturing, uniquely caring parent making a decision, providing advice, supporting, helping the child in this very important operation. Now, to me it is grotesque that in a school you cannot take a Tylenol, you cannot have your ears pierced without parental consent. But abortion, which is an irrevocable act that has consequences perhaps permanent, if it is not done just properly, if the uterus is damaged or perforated; and that reminds me of another thing, do not forget, follow-up care following an abortion. What if the young lady goes across the State with whomsoever, has the abortion and then comes back and has adverse consequences, starts hemorrhaging? Well, the clinic that performed the abortion on her is nowhere to be found. That is when you need your parents. That is when you need somebody to care about whether you live or die and that you get the medical care you need. So it is a terrible mistake to avoid parental authority, parental responsibility, to camouflage that and to go to another State to avoid the laws of the State of residence of the young lady for the purposes of an abortion. Now, lastly, as a grandparent, I would be very concerned if my daughter were to be young and have an abortion and I not know about it, because I have an interest as a parent, too, in the children of my children. But this protects the child. This provides the follow-up care that may be necessary, if you obey the law. Let us reinforce the family. Let us not tear it down. I hope Members will support this well thought out, necessary bill.

Mr. HYDE. Madam Speaker, I have already spoken and redundancy is not the happiest thought. But I just wanted to say something. I have listened very carefully to this serious debate, and I have not heard one word about the little baby. That, I guess, just is kind of a given because we have a million and a half abortions every year since Roe versus Wade. That is about 35 million so far. We are so used to it, we are so desensitized that abortion is a good thing. I think abortion is an evil thing because it kills a human life, an innocent human life. Why is it helping a young girl by assisting her to kill her unborn child and saddle her for the rest of her life with wondering what her first little baby might have looked like? Yes, it is tragic to have an unwanted pregnancy. Yes, there are parents who are awful, who are less than human, and you do not want to saddle a little girl who is in real trouble with that kind of a situation. That is why you have a judicial bypass. The judges are going to be very sympathetic to that situation. But my God, somebody say a kind word for the little baby. Why is it helping, why is it helping a young girl to go behind the backs of her parents, take her across the State line to kill her unborn child? Now, grandma, who we are assuming is far superior to the mother in any given situation, grandmother is always available but not necessarily to help her kill the child. Maybe to help her have the child. Maybe to help her get the child adopted. Maybe to counsel her. Maybe grandmother can talk to mother and break the news that the daughter is so afraid to do. Grandmothers are not blocked out of this, nor grandfathers, nor a loving anybody. But taking the child across the State line to frustrate the law, to deny the parent the right to some say-so in this critical, crucial, life-threatening situation, that is what you are opting for. If abortion is a good thing, then you are right. But if abortion is killing an innocent human life, give some little passing concern for that little baby.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, one of our nation's great experts on education, Dr. D.L. Cuddy has written a valuable article on current legislative initiatives that we all can profit from reading. I herewith share it with my colleagues. The New Transatlantic (By D.L. Cuddy, Ph.D.) In the U.S. Congress, Rep. Henry Hyde has been warning people about school-to-work (STW) education initiatives, and Senator John Ashcroft has amended the Workforce Investment Partnership Act now being discussed to prohibit its funding of STW. At the state level, N.C. Rep. Don Davis is chairing a House Select Committee for Federal Education Grants, which has been investigating STW grants among others, and invited Richmond Times-Dispatch op-ed editor Robert Holland to address the Select Committee on this subject. While the implications of STW at the state and national levels have been widely debated, not much has been written about the international connections. On May 18, the White House released a statement at the conclusion of the U.S.- European Summit in London, indicating that ``through the New Transatlantic Agenda (NTA), created in 1995, the United States and the European Union have focused on addressing the challenges and opportunities of global integration.'' One part of this ``global integration'' in 1995 was the agreement between the U.S. and the European Community establishing a cooperation program in higher education and vocational education and training. The agreement, signed December 21 of that year, called for ``improving the quality of human resource development . . . Transatlantic student mobility, . . . and thus portability of academic credits.'' In this regard, a Joint Committee would reach decisions by consensus. As part of the NTA, the U.S. and European Union then convened a major conference, ``Bringing the Atlantic: People- to-People Links,'' on May 5-6, 1997 calling for ``thematic networks for curriculum development,'' and further stating that in an information-based global economy, ``governments too are obliged to adapt their economic, training and social welfare programs.'' The conference final report noted that in the U.S., ACHIEVE has been one of the organizations at the forefront of defining key issues in this regard and developing strategies to address them. ACHIEVE has been measuring and reporting each state's annual progress in establishing internationally competitive standards, and business leaders involved have indicated their commitment to consider the quality of each state's standards when making business location or expansion decisions. The ``Partners in a Global Economy Working Group'' of the conference discussed ``what redesigning of curricula is required . . . (i.e. what career skills are needed), . . . portability of skill certificates, . . . and institutionalizing cross-national learning/training activities.'' Most people debating STW in the U.S. are familiar with the role of Marc Tucker, president of the National Center on Education and the Economy. He's also on the National Skill Standards Board (NSSB), and on its website under international links, one finds ``Smartcards Project Forum,'' under which one reads: ``The Tavistock Institute and the European Commission are working on a feasibility study to research the affect of using Smart Cards in competence accreditation. The study will be carried out in the USA and parts of Europe.'' The project involves assessing and validating students' skills, with information placed on personal skills Smartcards, which ``become real passports to employment.'' If without a passport one cannot enter a country, does this mean that without a skills passport one may not be able to get a job in the future? In October 1997, the Tavistock Institute (and Manchester University) completed the final report for the European Commission, and described in a report summary were the relevancy of Goals 2000, SCANS (U.S. Department of Labor ``Secretary's Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills'') typology with its ``profound implications for the curriculum and training changes that this will require,'' valid skills standards and portable credentials ``benchmarked to international standards such as those promulgated by the International Standards Organization (ISO).'' The report summary went on to say that ``there is increasing attention being focused on developing global skill standards and accreditation agreements,'' and there will be ``partnerships between government, industry, and representatives of worker organizations . . . (and) a high degree of integration . . . embedding skills within the broader context of economic and social activity, and specifically within the areas of secondary education, work- based learning and local and regional economic development. . . . The NSSB, Goals 2000, STW Program are all combining to act as a catalyst to promote the formation of partnerships to develop skills standards. In this regard, a system like O*Net can be seen as the `glue' that holds everything together.'' O*Net is a new occupational database system sponsored by the U.S. Department of Labor's Employment and Training Administration, and is being piloted in Texas, South Carolina, California, New York and Minnesota. It includes information such as ``Worker Characteristics'' (abilities, interests and work styles) and ``Worker Requirements'' (e.g., basic skills, knowledge and education).

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, one of the nation's experts on education, D.L. Cuddy has written an important article I would like to bring to my colleagues' attention. The New Transatlantic Agenda (By D.L. Cuddy) In the U.S. Congress, Rep. Henry Hyde has been warning people about school-to-work (STW) education initiatives, and Senator John Ashcroft has amended the Workforce Investment Partnership Act now being discussed to prohibit its funding of STW. At the state level, N.C. Rep. Don Davis is chairing a House Select Committee for Federal Education Grants, which has been investigating STW grants among others, and invited Richmond Times-Dispatch op-ed editor Robert Holland to address the Select Committee on this subject. While the implications of STW at the state and national levels have been widely debated, not much has been written about the international connections. On May 18, the White House released a statement at the conclusion of the U.S.- European Summit in London, indicating that ``through the New Transatlantic Agenda (NTA), created in 1995, the United States and the European Union have focused on addressing the challenges and opportunities of global integration.'' One part of this ``global integration'' in 1995 was the agreement between the U.S. and the European Community establishing a cooperation program in higher education and vocational education and training. The agreement, signed December 21 of that year, called for ``improving the quality of human resource development . . . Transatlantic student mobility, . . . and thus portability of academic credits.'' In this regard, a Joint Committee would reach decisions by consensus. As part of the NTA, the U.S. and European Union then convened a major conference, ``Bridging the Atlantic: People- to-People Links,'' on May 5-6, 1997 calling for ``thematic networks for curriculum development,'' and further stating that in an information-based global economy, ``governments too are obliged to adapt their economic, training and social welfare programs.'' The conference final report noted that in the U.S., ACHIEVE has been one of the organizations at the forefront of defining key issues in this regard and developing strategies to address them. ACHIEVE has been measuring and reporting each state's annual progress in establishing Internationally competitive standards, and business leaders involved have indicated their commitment to consider the quality of each state's standards when making business location or expansion decisions. The ``Partners in a Global Economy Working Group'' of the conference discussed ``what redesigning of curricula is required . . . (i.e. what career skills are needed), . . . portability of skill certificates, . . . and institutionalizing cross-national learning/training activities.'' Most people debating STW in the U.S. are familiar with the role of Marc Tucker, president of the National Center on Education and the Economy. He's also on the National Skill Standards Board (NSSB), and on its website under international links, one finds ``Smartcards Project Forum,'' under which one reads: ``The Tavistock Institute and the European Commission are working on a feasibility study to research the affect of using Smart Cards in competence accreditation. The study will be carried out in the USA and parts of Europe.'' The project involves assessing and validating students' skills, with information placed on personal skills Smartcards, which ``become real passports to employment.'' If without a passport one cannot enter a country, does this mean that without a skills passport one may not be able to get a job in the future? In October 1997, the Tavistock Institute (and Manchester University) completed the final report for the European Commission, and described in a report summary were the relevancy of Goals 2000, SCANS (U.S. Department of Labor ``Secretary's Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills'') typology with its ``profound implications for the curriculum and training changes that this will require,'' valid skills standards and portable credentials ``benchmarked to international standards such as those promulgated by the International Standards Organization (ISO).'' The report summary went on to say that ``there is increasing attention being focused on developing global skill standards and accreditation agreements,'' and there will be ``partnerships between government, industry, and representatives of worker organizations . . . (and) a high degree of integration . . . embedding skills within the broader context of economic and social activity, and specifically within the areas of secondary education, work- based learning and local and regional economic development. . . . The NSSB, Goals 2000, STW Program are all combining to act as a catalyst to promote the formation of partnerships to develop skills standards. In this regard, a system like O*Net can be seen as the `glue' that holds everything together.'' O*Net is a new occupational database system sponsored by the U.S. Department of Labor's Employment and Training Administration, and is being piloted in Texas, South Carolina, California, New York and Minnesota. It includes information such as ``Worker Characteristics'' (abilities, interests and work styles) and ``Worker Requirements'' (e.g., basic skills, knowledge and education).

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I associate myself completely with the remarks of the gentleman from Florida.

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

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 H.R. 3303.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3303) to authorize appropriations for the Department of Justice for fiscal years 1999, 2000 and 2001; to authorize appropriations for fiscal years 1999 and 2000 to carry out certain programs administered by the Department of Justice, to amend title 28 of the United States Code with respect to the use of funds available to the Department of Justice; and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3303, the Department of Justice Appropriation Authorization Act for fiscal years 1999, 2000 and 2001. This important bipartisan legislation, which I introduced with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) in March, is a comprehensive 3-year authorization of the Justice Department's activities and programs. On April 29, 1998, the Committee on the Judiciary reported the bill as amended by voice vote. As you know, authorization is the process by which Congress creates, amends and extends programs in response to national needs. It is perhaps the most important oversight tool that Congress can employ. Through authorization, legislative committees establish program objectives and they set ceilings on the amounts that may be appropriated for them. Once a Federal program has been authorized, the Committee on Appropriations recommends the actual budget authority, which allows Federal agencies to enter into obligations and actually spend the money that is authorized. With respect to the Department of Justice, the law requires that all money appropriated must first be authorized by an act of Congress. Notwithstanding this obligation to authorize, Congress has not properly reauthorized the department's activities since 1979. Since that time, several attempts have failed, either because of bad timing or because the reauthorization bills were loaded with controversial amendments. This 19-year failure to properly reauthorize the department has forced the appropriations committees in both houses to reauthorize and appropriate money. This reauthorization money endeavor is both an attempt to improve the efficiency of the department and an opportunity to reaffirm the authority and responsibility of the Committee on the Judiciary. Let me say, the passage of this bill today does not mean the end of the Committee on the Judiciary's oversight of the department. To the contrary, it is my intention that, with the assistance of recently approved additional staff and resources, the committee will take an even closer look at the operations and policies of the department in the coming months. Let me briefly summarize H.R. 3303. The bill contains four titles. Title I authorizes appropriations to carry out the work of the various components of the department for fiscal years 1999, 2000 and 2001. Title I largely adheres to the department's budget request for fiscal year 1999 by providing nearly $15.5 billion, and it would authorize a 5 percent increase for fiscal years 2000 and 2001. The proposed increases for fiscal years 2000 and 2001, though an approximation of the department's actual budgetary requirements, are the result of consultations with the department and an analysis of the historical trend. I have a high degree of confidence that the H.R. 3303 appropriation authorizations for fiscal years 2000 and 2001 are accurate. Section 151 of title I would authorize, but not require, the Attorney General to transfer 200 lawyers from among the six litigating divisions at Justice Department headquarters in Washington, D.C. to the U.S. Attorneys. The provision is intended to raise the productivity of Washington-based lawyers who litigate criminal and civil cases for the department across the Nation by moving them to the field. Title II reauthorizes for two additional years a number of successful programs whose authorizations will expire at the end of fiscal year 1998. These reauthorized programs will, for example, expedite the deportation of aliens who have been denied asylum, combat violence against women, and fund specialized training for and equipment to enhance the capability of metropolitan fire and emergency service departments to respond to terrorist attacks. Section 204 of title II would amend the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, also known as CALEA, by changing the effective date for purposes of compliance enforcement and the grandfathering of telecommunications carrier equipment facilities and services. This amendment does not alter the substance or effect of CALEA, and it enjoys widespread bipartisan support. Title III would grant permanent authorization for certain inherent and non-controversial functions of the department. The department has requested permanent authorizing authority in the past, and proposed authority has appeared in several reauthorization bills since the last reauthorization in 1979. Title III largely mirrors the language of these earlier bills, except to the extent it has been updated to meet the changing needs of Federal law enforcement in the 1990s. I believe the department should have, for example, permanent authority to purchase aircraft and police-type motor vehicles, as well as firearms, ammunition and uniforms, for its employees. This permanent authority would be subject to available appropriations. Title IV would, among other things, repeal the permanent open-ended authorization of the United States Marshals Service. The service's permanent authorization is an anomaly among the department's components that immunizes it from congressional scrutiny. It should be subject to the same oversight that other department components of the departments are. H.R. 3303 would grant the Marshals Service narrower permanent authority in line with the permanent authority to be granted the rest of the department. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3303 reaffirms the role of Congress in the oversight of the Justice Department. Through this reauthorization endeavor and our continuing oversight, we will enhance the department's efficiency and increase public confidence in all of its many missions. I urge my colleagues to support the passage of this important legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I am certainly no expert in this field and campaign reform is a legitimate subject that needs attention and a lot of it. I would just say to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton), my friend, that all that money spent on that election out there was almost the first weekend's take on the Titanic when they showed it. Everything is relative. The one glaring problem with Shays-Meehan is we do not take into account for contributions in kind. Labor unions, at least where I come from, can throw all kinds of bodies into the precincts on the weekend. They work the shopping malls, hand out the shopping bags, work the phone banks, go door to door. Labor does that and God bless them for doing that. They are participating in the most important act, civic act they can. But the business community does not do that. They play both sides of the street. They cover their bets. Soft money is the only way Republicans who do not have access to the bodies that organized labor throws into the turmoil, it is the only way to equalize that. They can buy people's time who can work the phone banks and hand out the shopping bags. One would like to have volunteers and tries to have them. But one cannot equal what labor can throw into an election. And neither bill takes care of that. It gives advantage to the Democrats because by limiting, if not eliminating soft money, the Republicans are left bereft of resources to equal the hundreds of people that can work in a precinct for a Democratic candidate sent in by the Teamsters or some other union. Mr. Chairman, as I say, I am not critical of that. But if we are reforming, we ought to take into consideration the consequences of the reform. Giving the Democratic Party such an advantage in my judgment is not reform.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, words are very inadequate to encompass the dimensions of this tragic event. Everybody is shocked by it. It is a tragedy of immense proportions. It is right that the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) and her colleagues bring this resolution to the floor. Attention has to be paid to these acts of inhumanity. It is my strong feeling that the problems of racism will never be solved without a spiritual component until people realize we do share a common humanity. We are made in the image and likeness of our creator, and we are, indeed, brothers and sisters in the most profound way, not in the superficial way. These events have to shock the conscience of the country. When they stop shocking us, then we have lost some sensitivity and some of our humanity. So let us not forget that these things happen. They happen today. They happen in our country. Let us not look away. Let us not avert our eyes. Let us focus, let us try to find out what crazy, irrational impulses cause this. Let us try to root them out. Let us, again, take a renewed look at each other and try to find the things that we share in common and remember we are children of God.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, before I talk about the bill in chief, I would like to say parenthetically that I am a little disturbed at the controversy over whether or not I kept my word in asking for an open rule. I did ask for an open rule. It was not formally asked. It was down here at the desk to the chairman of the Committee on Rules. I did not make a commitment that there would be an open rule because that is not my prerogative. That is up to the Committee on Rules. I suppose the fact that there were 43 amendments offered at the markup was a disincentive to have an open rule, but, nonetheless, I offered to use whatever force and effect I would have to get amendments that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) wanted that were serious amendments made in order. And, again, unfortunately, because of weather, I was in an airplane yesterday afternoon coming from Evansville, Indiana by way of Cincinnati, and planes were canceled. I was not here. I just hope nobody feels I did not live up to my commitment which was to ask for an open rule. I just wanted to state that.

Mr. HYDE. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very much. I can only say, one cannot overestimate my lack of influence with some of the institutions around here. In any event, I am pleased that the Committee on the Judiciary, after a 3-day markup in May, favorably reported bankruptcy reform legislation designed to address deficiencies in current bankruptcy processes and mitigate adverse impacts of bankruptcy filings. We recognized the importance of responding to the many developments since the Bankruptcy Code's enactment a generation ago, including a burgeoning bankruptcy case load that reached a new high of over 1.4 million filings during the 1997 calendar year. Last September, our colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum), introduced H.R. 2500, the Responsible Borrower Protection Bankruptcy Act, a bill designed in part to implement the concept of needs-based bankruptcy. In February the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law, the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas), built on this approach by introducing H.R. 3150, the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1998. H.R. 3150 incorporated, with modifications and additions, most of H.R. 2500's consumer bankruptcy provisions while also addressing other bankruptcy related subjects. Our committee sought to achieve an appropriate balance between debtor and creditor rights in endorsing a needs-based bankruptcy process that would increase creditor recoveries while offering relief to deserving debtors. Those who needed an immediate fresh start would get it, but those who could afford to pay a substantial portion of their obligations out of future income before getting a fresh start would be required to do so. Under H.R. 3150 as reported, individuals or couples with income levels equaling or exceeding national median figures that take into account family size may be ineligible, depending on certain calculations, to be chapter 7 debtors. Chapter 7 offers a fresh start, without encumbering future income, to individual debtors who are prepared to give up all of their nonexempt assets. Those denied access to chapter 7 under the pending legislation generally will have the option of making payments under a chapter 13 plan for a number of years and qualifying for a limited discharge eventually. The chapter 7 disqualification is more limited in scope as a result of committee action raising the income threshold for disqualification from 75 percent to 100 percent of national median income figures. The higher cutoff point, endorsed by the committee, addresses a major argument of opponents of this legislation that the needs-based formula was too harsh in its treatment of people with very limited means. Our committee sought to ensure that family support obligations would be protected under the reported version of the bill. It adopted an amendment that I offered to prevent any dilution of the priority treatment accorded claims of spouses, former spouses and children for alimony, maintenance, or support, and also adopted four family support related amendments offered by the learned gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher). Although this legislation was never intended to derogate from the preferred treatment of family support obligations under bankruptcy law, the Committee on the Judiciary welcomed the opportunity to take action emphasizing, in a number of contexts, its firm commitment to facilitating the fulfillment of such obligations. In addition, as a result of a provision in the manager's amendment, the priority in distribution for support related obligations is substantially enhanced compared with current law. I wish to commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas) for introducing H.R. 3150 and conducting important hearings on bankruptcy reform in his subcommittee. He is performing, as he does so often, an important public service by serving as our floor manager for this bill. The remedial legislation before us not only covers consumer issues but also addresses business bankruptcy, tax related issues in bankruptcy, and transnational bankruptcy. It merits the support of this body. I hope in the months ahead we will be able to point to bankruptcy reform as one of the significant achievements on a bipartisan basis of the 105th Congress.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I listened with great interest to my friend from Massachusetts being highly critical of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) for bringing his own amendment forward, complaining that it was not slowed down by a markup in the Committee on the Judiciary, where it might not have squeaked out and still be residing in the desk drawers over there. That is unusual, that someone would object to expedited treatment of their legislation. That makes this an historic day. But really why we are here is to address perhaps a philosophical question as to the astonishing statement of the distinguished minority leader, that you cannot have healthy campaigns in a healthy democracy and free speech. That is a startling statement. I think we are entitled to wonder and explore whether or not that truly expresses the sentiment of Members of this House, because it has always seemed to me, naive as I may be, and certainly unlettered in the nuances of the Constitution, that you cannot have healthy elections without free speech. It is a condition precedent to a healthy election. Now, Thomas Jefferson, who was no stranger to free speech, said in 1808, ``The liberty of speaking and writing guards our other liberties.'' So we should be very careful. I think the phrase the court uses is ``strict scrutiny.'' We should impose strict scrutiny on any efforts to limit the first amendment, which has served us pretty well for 222-some years. Yet here we are in this Chamber, under the watchful eye of Lafayette on my left and George Washington on my right, debating essentially the downsizing, the rationing of free speech, this very precious freedom. George Orwell, in a review of a book by Bertrand Russell, said, ``We come the task of the intellectual to speak of the obvious.'' I certainly do not make any claim to being an intellectual, but the dangers of the amendment of the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), cosponsored by the distinguished gentleman and learned constitutional scholar from Massachusetts, those dangers, it seems to me, are painfully obvious. Is it not obvious that the ability of citizens, individually or in groups, to publicly criticize political candidates or public policy or public officials is the heart and the soul of our political system? Now, we proclaim, most of us do, that we are for limited government. But this amendment, if it became law, is Big Brother run amuck. Have you thought about the enhanced power of the media as the rest of us try to cope with the Federal speech police? This amendment allows the State to regulate campaign expenditures, therefore to regulate free speech. That is the dream, the wish fulfillment of every tyrant since the dawn of recorded history. This amendment, if it became in the Constitution, would be a massive consignment of power to the courts, who will then make the determinations as to what is reasonable, an invitation to endless litigation. Our Declaration of Independence tells us that government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed. That means an informed electorate is indispensable to a functioning democracy, and free speech, political debate, ideas, proposals for governing, are the necessary conditions for informing the electorate. How do you communicate your ideas, your proposals, your criticisms; how do you effectively campaign when free speech is rationed? Newspaper ads, television, radio commercials, signs, leaflets, buttons, telephone banks, U.S. postage, all of these things cost money, and to limit a candidate's ability to raise money is to limit his or her speech, and, therefore, and thereby, limiting the information available for informed decisionmaking. History has got a way of repeating itself, and this amendment reminds me of the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, where the Federalists tried to suppress criticism of the government. They, too, had the idea that there was just too much political advocacy, and the government could be trusted to decide and enforce the correct amount. This amendment is a frontal assault against our most cherished principles, principles that monuments and military graveyards from Arlington to Iwo Jima remind us were paid for with American blood. If this amendment were to pass, we would demean the towering accomplishments of our founders and our framers, and we were not sent here to demean or downsize the Bill of Rights, but to defend it. One hundred thirty-four years ago in a little cemetery in Pennsylvania, one of my State of Illinois' most illustrious sons asked a haunting question, whether this Nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal, can long endure. Each generation has to answer that question for itself, and I wonder what our answer will be? Mr. Chairman, I hope we can defeat this amendment and the inadvertently pernicious philosophy behind it, and, for this generation, keep faith with those who gave us these blessed freedoms.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to place in the Record the correspondence between Chairman Bliley and myself on this legislation. House of Representations, Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC, June 3, 1998. Hon. Tom Bliley, Chairman, Committee on Commerce, House of Representatives, Washington,