Henry Hyde

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Madam Speaker, I appreciate being given this opportunity to talk on this very important issue. Essentially stripped of all the verbiage, this amendment seeks a couple of things: basically to permit and to guarantee a right to pray in schools and, secondly, to afford equality of treatment between faith-based social service providers and treat them the same as secular ones. So reduced to its simplest terms, this amendment provides more free speech by removing prayer in a public space from the list of constitutionally forbidden conduct. It recognizes the value to our society, as the founders and framers did, of religiously-based providers of social services. So it expands free speech. It does not narrow it. It restores free speech to the original dimensions that we find in the Declaration of Independence, where God is mentioned four times. That must drive some people crazy when they go by the Archives, knowing that in that building is the Declaration of Independence, our country's birth certificate, that talks about the Creator and nature and nature's God in four different places. It certainly would not pass muster with the Supreme Court today. So this expands free speech and seeks to correct constitutional distortions that have crept into our jurisprudence as a result of a series of misbegotten court decisions. Now, our Nation, we all agree, was founded by people searching for freedom. The First Amendment, properly interpreted, guarantees the free exercise of religion and at the same time prohibits the government from establishing a religion or showing any preference toward any sect or particular religious faith. The aggressive secularism that now constitutes our establishment was never intended by those who drafted and who ratified our Constitution. It is unfortunate that we must amend the Constitution to repair the damage done to our liberties by foolish and ill-considered interpretations of the Constitution by the Supreme Court, but this is the situation we find ourselves in today. Basic liberties are being infringed because of judicial wrong-headedness and, frankly, secularist bias. Today we must seek to restore the equality and genuine neutrality with respect to religion that inspired our founders and framers. Neutrality towards religion, not hostility, is the ideal we seek. That is what the Religious Freedom Amendment is intended to repair. This amendment preaches more than mere tolerance. It says equal protection of the law applies to religious expression with the same force as it does to secular expression. In a word, it preaches equality. This is not a perfect vehicle, but it makes a statement that I share and am proud to associate myself with.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1023) to provide for compassionate payments with regard to individuals with blood-clotting disorders, such as hemophilia, who contracted human immunodeficiency virus due to contaminated blood products, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. HYDE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute and 30 seconds to the gentleman Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).

Mr. HYDE. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 8 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), one of the driving forces behind this excellent legislation. (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks and include extraneous material.)

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

Mr. HYDE. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis). (Mr. DAVIS of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HYDE. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).

Mr. HYDE. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis).

Mr. HYDE. Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains?

Mr. HYDE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1023, the Ricky Ray Hemophilia Relief Fund Act of 1998. This legislation has 270 cosponsors in the House, including our distinguished Speaker; and I am informed the Minority Leader also supports this legislation. When communities in our great Nation are devastated by a natural disaster such as floods or tornadoes, we rush to their aid, as well we should. The hemophilia community has been devastated by another type of natural disaster, the HIV contamination of the blood-clotting products which they need to treat their hemophilia. This legislation provides the disaster relief necessary to assist this community through a very difficult time. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, half of all people with blood- clotting disorders in the United States were infected with HIV due to their use of blood-clotting products which were on the market at that time. During this period, people with blood-clotting disorders needed to use these products to live a relatively normal life; and because each dose came from a pool of thousands of blood donors, it was almost certain that they would become HIV infected. However, at that time HIV had not been identified and no tests were available to detect its presence. Most people with blood clotting disorders are already financially strapped by the medical costs they incur to treat their disorder. With earlier medical costs of over $150,000 and the added tragedies of an HIV infection, these families have been emotionally and financially devastated. In cases involving other types of blood and blood products, such as transfusion cases, where a primary provider or a small child was infected, settlements usually were for hundreds of thousands of dollars. Many of the HIV infected people with hemophilia were young fathers and children. After many years of litigation, the manufacturers of these blood clotting products containing HIV have set up a fund which provides $100,000 to individuals and their families. However, when considering the incredible financial burden placed on these families due to medical costs and, in many cases, loss of the primary provider of the family, this amount will not sufficiently lift this community out of the financial crisis that has developed. While no amount will completely alleviate the losses felt, H.R. 1023 provides a payment equal to that of the industry. The amount available to these families would then be comparable to that potentially realized by other HIV-infected blood victims through settlement. There is a manager's amendment to this legislation. The bill as reported by the committee included a provision of no more than 2 percent of these payments that may be used for attorneys' fees. Concern was raised during committee consideration that should there be a complication in the processing of an individual's application, 2 percent would be insufficient to address that concern, and the 2 percent limitation on attorneys' fees has been increased to 5 percent. I know my budget-conscious colleagues may balk at this expenditure, but when an extreme crisis hits an American community, we should as a Nation respond to that community's need. That is what this bill does. To aid this community in crisis, I urge a favorable vote on H.R. 1023. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HYDE. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the bill presently under consideration.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the call of the Private Calendar be dispensed with.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 10, the ``Financial Services Competition Act of 1998.'' For many years, we have been trying to repeal the outdated restrictions that keep banks, securities firms, and insurance companies from getting into one another's businesses. After all the debate, I think we have finally come up with something in this bill that will open up a whole new world of competition. Now I know that some of the players in this debate have problems with this bill. That is always the case with major deregulation bills. But we cannot ignore the future. Financial services are becoming increasingly globalized, increasingly computerized, and increasingly seamless. Banking laws passed during the Depression simply will not do in the 21st century. Do I wish that we could maintain a world where everyone knew their banker on a first name basis and loans were made on a handshake? Sure, and I think in the new world some banks will provide that kind of service to those who demand it. But we need not have laws that limit us to that kind of service, as desirable as it may seem. Everyone is better off if the market decides what kinds of services all financial firms will offer. Just think about the progress we have made in the past 10 years. When I was a child, only the wealthy owned stocks. Now, with the growth of the mutual fund industry and self-directed retirement funds, millions and millions of average Americans not only own stocks, but make their own investment decisions. These developments create wealth, increase people's incentive to produce, and relieve some of the entitlement burden of government. I believe that this bill will bring more such positive developments. I want to say a word about my friends Jim Leach, chairman of the Banking Committee, and Tom Bliley, chairman of the Commerce Committee. They have done an excellent job of putting this package together. I commend them for their work in bringing about this bill in a very difficult and contentious environment. I especially want to commend them for working with me on the bank merger provisions of the bill. Under current law, bank mergers are reviewed under special bank merger statutes, and they do not go through the Hart-Scott-Rodino merger review process that covers most other mergers. Now banks will be able to get into other businesses which they have not been able to do before. The principle that we have tried to follow is that when mergers occur, the bank part of that merger will be judged under the current bank merger statutes, and we do not intend any change in that process or in any of the agencies' respective jurisdictions. The nonbank part of that merger, which will fall under the new section 6 of the Bank Holding Company Act, will be subject to the normal Hart-Scott-Rodino merger review by either the Justice Department or the Federal Trade Commission. The managers' amendment has language that embodies that principle. In short, no bank is treated differently than it otherwise would be because it has some other business within its corporate family. Likewise, no other business is treated differently than it otherwise would be because it has a bank within its corporate family. We have embodied that same principle with respect to the Federal Trade Commission's authority to enforce the Federal Trade Commission Act and other laws. Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act specifically prohibits the FTC from enforcing the Act against banks because they are heavily regulated. The language in the managers' amendment does not change that, but it does clarify that the bank prohibition does not extend to any other nonbank parts of a bank's corporate family. I would also note that similar language was not necessary for the Justice Department because there are no specific statutory prohibitions on its ability to enforce laws against banks, other than the Hart-Scott-Rodino exemption that I have already discussed. I think that we all agree on this principle both with respect to the mergers and the other laws, but the specific language may require some further refinement in conference. For that reason, I will be requesting Judiciary Committee conferees on this narrow part of the bill, and I look forward to continuing to work with my Banking Committee and Commerce Committee colleagues in this area. I also want to announce that the Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on bank mergers on June 3, and I am hopeful that this hearing will help us determine whether we need to make any further revisions to this language Let me again commend my friends Jim Leach and Tom Bliley and everyone else who has worked on this legislation, and I ask my colleagues to support it.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, it has been said, and I do not want to be redundant, but it is difficult to not want to pay homage to the soldiers, the foot soldiers in the battle against crime. We honor our veterans on Memorial Day. We have monuments and we have parades because they courageously fought in a war to preserve our freedom. But a war had a beginning and it has an end. This war has no beginning and no end. It goes on daily, hourly, every night in our big cities and in some of our rural areas. There are people willing, for low pay and for not much recognition, to risk their lives and, of course, their families to protect civilization, protect society, and to protect freedom, just as the soldiers and the sailors and the airmen did in time of war. So we are fortunate to have people who are willing to risk everything to protect society and protect the community and to protect our way of life. So we owe them. This resolution is little enough that we can do, but it is something. It acknowledges their sacrifice and their great contribution to our society. But I think we can do more, and we should try to work to make this country and make our communities the sort of places that they are defending and they are fighting for and that they have offered their lives for. To give one's life for a cause is about as noble and high a gesture as you can make. One hundred fifty-nine law officers gave their lives last year defending the freedom and civilization that we pride ourselves on. So they are in the finest tradition of the soldiers and the sailors and the airmen, only they are fighting a never-ending war, and we acknowledge our unpayable debt to them.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, the parameters of this bill have been well explained by Mr. McCollum. It is a good bill. It is a necessary bill. It is overdue to punish those who abdicate their fundamental and their legal responsibility to provide for their children. This legislation deals with the consequences of the disintegration of the family. We do not have an awful lot of power to keep families together, but we can ensure strong condemnation is directed against those who neglect their children in violation of law. In doing so, we take a small, but important, step to support the family institution and the legal duties of parents to their children. The punishment that we as a society direct against wrongdoing is a clear indication of what we value and of what we hold dear. This bill represents our commitment to be vigilant on behalf of our families and our children. Mr. Speaker, I want to express my appreciation to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) whose impetus to get this bill to the floor has been very strong, very effective, and who supports this bill, who was present at the creation, and deserves a great deal of credit for its existence. I want to acknowledge that publicly, and I hope we get a large affirmative vote.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HYDE. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman that some of us did and some of us did not. I stand with those who did not. I thank the gentleman for his kind attention.

Mr. HYDE. I yield to the gentleman from Vermont. Beautiful Vermont. Not that Massachusetts is so bad.

Mr. HYDE. No, sir, not at all. My position is sometimes it is appropriate and sometimes it is not. This is inappropriate. So I simply suggest that we trust our committee. And, by the way, when we talk about cutting defense, I heard the other day there are soldiers and their families on food stamps. We ought to be ashamed of ourselves if that is true.

Mr. HYDE. Not at all. I think sometimes it is important to make a statement and sometimes it is not. This is not the time to make a statement. This is a time to recognize the sensitivity, the importance, the significance, and the intention which the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of both bodies give to this issue and to prefer that looking at these things in depth, understanding the consequences of emasculating them by across-the-board cuts, I think that is so important and I think it is the right way to do it. Mr. Chairman, I yield, again, to my friend from Massachusetts for whatever illumination he chooses to give us.

Mr. HYDE. I thought you were an expert on the subject.

Mr. HYDE. Was the gentleman not interested in the snakes either?

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

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I do not want to be redundant. It has been well said by many Members here in defense of the budget and in opposition to the well-intentioned but I think unwise amendment of the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders). I think the thing to remember is that we have a Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence in the House and in the Senate. It is peopled by sensitive, patriotic, intelligent, budget-minded people. They have done their job. They have looked at the budget, program by program by program. We are not dealing with the CIA. We are dealing with the intelligence community, including the CIA, the FBI, the DIA, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. There are a myriad of programs, all requiring some study to understand if they are cost-effective or not. They have done their job. The Senators will do their job. The conferees will do their job. But to come in and try to perform brain surgery with a croquet mallet, with an across-the-board 5 percent cut, makes a political statement but it does real damage to the defense of our country. Yes, a lot of seniors, a lot of children can benefit by increased domestic spending, but we all benefit, including children, including seniors, from a secure and peaceful world. Yes, the Cold War is over, but let me suggest to you the bear is only sleeping. The forest is full of snakes and other dangerous animals. There are 13 ICBMs trained on us from the People's Republic of China. I have not heard that all of the intercontinental nuclear missiles are disabled in the former Soviet Union. Narco-terrorism, terrorism, technological developments have made this a much more complicated world in terms of staying ahead of the curve.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, please permit me to share with my colleagues the delightful story of a Larry McManus and his efforts to bring a small measure of gratitude to our collective conscience. Four years ago, Larry concluded that, as Americans, we fail too often to appreciate the good deeds of others. And so, with little fanfare, but with strong determination, Larry set out to establish National Write a Letter of Appreciation Week. This holiday is a gift free event held annually during the first week in March. I commend to my colleagues excerpts of a wonderful story authored by Chicago Tribune columnist Eric Zorn that captures the essence of Larry's mission. those who shaped your life deserve a letter of thanks In your past, there is someone who was very important to you but may not know it. Is it a teacher who inspired you to better things? Is it a mentor who pushed you along when you most needed pushing? Is it a former neighbor or lost friend who gave wisdom and support? Is it a boss or a health-care professional or a pastor or a cop or a firefighter? Is it a famous person who took a moment to give you attention and encouragement, or an artist you never met but whose work lifted you? Whoever it is, chances are good this person either doesn't remember you or have any idea that you remember him or her with such fondness. And chances are also good that it would make this person's day--big time--to hear from across the years: ``Thanks for everything. You made a difference.'' These are awkward words for all but the most demonstrative among us. They seem to require the excuse of an occasion, a landmark for reflection, yet too often that occasion is death--at which point such expressions, no matter how heartfelt, are tardy. Larry McManus of suburban McHenry created a more timely occasion: National Write a Letter of Appreciation Week. Simply, he suggests that you write letters to those who have gone out of their way at some point to brighten your life. He includes in his list of potential recipients notably friendly store clerks, waiters and waitresses, repair workers, bus drivers and dentists. ``Can you imagine how pleased these people would be if you took the time to write a short letter acknowledging their kindness, concern or assistance?'' McManus asked in one of his faxes. ``I have a hunch that gratitude and graciousness are connected,'' he continued. ``By extending our feelings of gratitude to another we become, perhaps, by just a little bit, more gracious. I believe that writing a letter of thanks . . . is an antidote to what seems to me the coarsening of our national culture and spirit.'' McManus' week, which he hopes will become an annual event, has received the endorsement of Gov. Jim Edgar and McHenry Mayor Steven Cuda. He also has the informal support of many McHenry County school officials, who he says have told him they will encourage students to participate and learn the value of both correspondence and expression of gratitude. I come from a long line of educators and can report that my parents are always moved when they receive a kind remembrance from an old student--the older the better. It validates what they are doing far more than even the most positive end-of- semester student evaluation. Such a letter is where the echo is louder than the applause. I wrote one about four years ago to Pete Seeger, the septuagenarian folkie. Dr. Seuss had just died, and I'd been struck by how pleased he would have been to have read and heard all the sentimental slop from grown-ups about how much his books had meant to them. Seeger recordings gave me pleasure for years and helped inspire me to learn to play, however indifferently, several folk instruments. And I knew someday I'd wake up and read his obituary and regret never having thanked him. So, tactfully not mentioning the inevitability of his demise as my motivation, I wrote him a brief but warm letter of appreciation and received a friendly reply. And now that Larry McManus mentions it, there are some other people I should probably write to next week. You, too?