Henry Hyde

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, this is a simple amendment, and one might criticize it for not going far enough, because it only deals with computers that have a theoretical performance of more than 2,000 millions of theoretical operations per second, but there are computers with less stated capacity that can be upgraded beyond that and perform the same functions, and they are not covered. This is a simple amendment that says, these are significant resources. We are transferring them and losing track of them. There are no end users. We do not know where they go, what purpose they are put to. We do know they are capable of helping countries design nuclear weapons faster and more accurately, and to transfer technology that is so advanced without knowing what its purpose is or where it ends up is just wrong. It is stupid. So this amendment, bipartisanly, seeks to correct that by asking for prior written approval of the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Energy, the Secretary of State, and the Director of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency. Now, one may say that that is a lot of paperwork and a lot of hoops to jump through. Well, there ought to be a lot of hoops. Somebody in these sensitive agencies ought to recognize that this transfer of this technology to a country like China or the former Soviet Union countries has consequences, serious consequences. So I am very pleased to support the amendment of the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums]. I note that it is bipartisan, and it will remedy a dangerous situation that we ought not let persist.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. My friend from California, [Mr. Dellums], said this is an equity issue, and he is right. I listened carefully to his debate, I listened to the gentlewoman from California's debate, and I daresay I listened to everybody on that side in the debate, and none of them will mention a baby. All they mention is the woman. The woman has a problem, the woman wants her privacy, she wants her health taken care of, she has constitutional rights. What about the baby? The forgotten man or woman. The little tiny innocent human life struggling to live. No, they want to use taxpayer facilities, forget who is going to pay for it. This is the use of taxpayer facilities to kill an innocent unborn child. Some of us find that abhorrent. I know the woman has rights. I know Roe versus Wade has declared open season on unborn children, but if there is any way this legislation narrows it down and gives that little girl or little boy, even though unborn, a shot at living, we are for it and I am against abortions. It is not a question of funds. So the gentlewoman talks about choice. Choice? What are you choosing, vanilla, strawberry? Who has the right to choose to kill an innocent unborn child, even if it is their own? They do not own that child. So abortion is wrong. We are not in the business of having the military facilitate abortion. We are in the business of having the military win wars, not making war on an innocent little baby in the womb. The choice was exercised when the woman got pregnant. And because you drape her in a uniform does not change the equation of a human life at stake. And another tiny, defenseless, voiceless cannot rise up, cannot vote, cannot escape human being, who ought to have the right to life as promised in our Declaration of Independence. I oppose the amendment of the gentlewoman of California [Ms. Harman], and I implore my colleagues on the other side to occasionally think about the baby and whether the little baby ought to have the right to live.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate it if my colleagues would not interrupt me until I am through because I would like to complete my argument. I want to preface my remarks by saying there are good people on both sides of this argument. There are no good guys or bad guys here. A very respectable case can be made against the amendment, and it has been made by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers], the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs], and others, without question. But a very good case and, in my judgment, a better case can be made in support of the amendment; and we hope to do that. We hope we have done that today. I would like to introduce the gentleman from Illinois, [Mr. John Porter] my constituent, my friend, my neighbor, standing there clutching the flag to his bosom because next to him is the coffin of his 21-year-old son, Lance Cpl. Christian Porter, who died in Operation Desert Storm. This picture speaks more eloquently than anything I could say; and I hope my colleagues will take a look at it and, if they get a chance, look at the eyes of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] and the gentleman standing by the casket. Mr. Speaker, we are not alone in thinking as we think. We are not a bunch of yahoos, unlettered, unwashed jingoists. We have some pretty distinguished people who agree with us: Chief Justice Earl Warren, Justice Hugo Black, Justice Abe Fortas, Chief Justice Rehnquist, Justice John Paul Stevens, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, Justice Byron White. These people knew a little something about the Constitution. And so this is not a one-sided debate at all. There is authority, there is scholarship on both sides of this issue. Now there are two important questions in this dispute. First, is flag burning conduct imbued with speech and hence protected by the first amendment? Those of us supporting this amendment shout no to that question despite a 5 to 4 Supreme Court decision in Texas versus Johnson in 1989. I think the average person knows the difference between freedom of speech and vandalism. Almost any act can be called expressive speech. Blowing up a building can be expressive speech, urinating in public can be a political statement. Why, the courts have declared nude dancing and dial-a-porn services as free speech. To burn an object is to demonstrate one's contempt for it, not speech. It is the antithesis of speech. It is not a form of argument. It is an act of contempt for the very idea of reasoned argument. Flag burning is no more speech than a child's temper tantrum. And to suggest that the Founders and Framers intended to protect such public displays of childish pique, to suggest that this is what the first amendment free speech clause protects is demeaning and it is degrading. Free speech has never been absolute as our laws against libel, slander, copyright infringement, and so many more prove. By freedom of speech the Founders meant the freedom to make reasoned arguments about matters touching the common good. They did not mean a freestanding right to say anything one wants, any time and any place. Freedom of speech is a freedom inherent in the dignity of the people, and the Government should honor it and protect it so that democracy might flourish. But democracy is possible only where a civil society can deliberate the common good freely, openly and publicly. The notion that our highest value is self-expression has confused some of our leaders. What the highest court has done, by a margin of one vote, no less, is draw the line between speech and conduct at a point that maximizes expression, lest anyone's personal fulfillment be stifled. But America cannot long survive the selfishness of autonomous individuals as its highest value. There is another value; that with our rights come responsibilities, a value well expressed and embodied in our national symbol, the flag. By reducing freedom of speech to yet another freestanding personal autonomy right, the Supreme Court has once again weakened the once strong fabric of our constitutional democracy and has once again struck a blow against the idea that it is a civil society, not merely autonomous individuals, that makes democracy possible. As for the substance of the issue, to think seriously about flag protection and flag burning means thinking seriously about the nature of American democracy. The Founders and the Framers pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor to a democratic experiment of self-governance that engaged the moral energies and the imagination of the people. Democracy for that generation of Americans was not simply a matter of procedures. Democracy was an ongoing test of a people's capacity to be self-governing. Democracy was not a matter simply of rights. It was a matter of duties with rights understood as the freedom to do what we ought, not simply what we like. Procedural democracy, democracy reduced to an array of legal and political procedures, would have made no sense to Jefferson and Madison and all the rest. They were interested in the substance of democracy. They were interested in the Republican virtue that would make democracy possible. As my colleagues know, to have a successful monarchy, all that is needed is a virtuous king. But to have a successful democracy, what is needed is a virtuous people. We look around this Chamber, we see the splendid diversity of America, we see men and women whose great grandparents came from virtually every corner of the globe. What holds this democratic community together? A common commitment to certain moral norms is the foundation of the democratic experiment, and just as man does not live by bread alone, human beings do not live by abstract ideas alone. Those ideas and ideals have to be embodied in symbols. And what is a symbol? A symbol is more than a sign. A sign simply conveys information; a symbol is much more richly textured. A symbol is material reality that makes a spiritual reality present among us. An octagonal piece of red metal on a street corner is a sign. The flag is a symbol. Vandalizing a no parking sign is a misdemeanor. But burning the flag is a hate crime because burning the flag is an expression of contempt for the moral unity of the American people that the flag makes present to us every day. I said there were two questions. The second question is why do we need this amendment now? Is there a rash of flag burning going on? Happily there is not. But I believe in my heart we live in a time of serious disunity. Our society is pulled apart by the powerful centrifugal force of racism, ethnicity, language, culture, gender and religion. Diversity can be a source of strength, but disunity is a source of peril. We Americans share a moral unity expressed so profoundly in our country's birth certificate, the Declaration of Independence. We hold these truths to be self-evident, Jefferson wrote, the truth that all are equal before the law, the truth that the right to life and liberty is inalienable and inviolable, the truth that government is intended to facilitate, not impede, the people's pursuit of happiness. Adherence to these truths is the foundation of civil society and of democratic culture in America. And what is the symbol of our moral unity amidst our racial, ethnic and religious diversity? Old Glory, the Stars and Stripes, the flag. In seeking to provide constitutional protection for the flag we are seeking to protect the moral unity that makes American democracy possible. We have spent the better part of the last 30 years telling each other about the things that divide us. It is time to start talking about the things that unite us, that make us all together Americans. The flag is the symbol, the embodiment of the unity of the American people, a unity built on those self-evident truths on which the American experiment rests, the truths which are our Nation's claim to be a just society. Let us take a step toward the reconciliation of America and toward constitutional sanity by adopting this amendment. The flag is our connection to the past and proclaims our aspirations for the future. There may be no flags burning right now, but it is worthwhile to elevate our flag in our consciousness, to catch the falling flag and to hold it high as the embodiment of those ideals which we have in common. Too many brave Americans have marched behind it. Too many have come home in a box covered by a flag. Too many parents and widows have clutched that flag to their hearts as the last remembrance of their beloved one. Do not treat that flag with anything less than reverence and respect. About 183 years ago during the British bombardment of Baltimore, Francis Scott Key looked toward Fort McHenry in the early dawn and asked his famous question. To his joy he saw that our flag was still there. And he might be surprised to learn that our flag is even planted on the Moon. But most especially it is planted in the hearts of every loyal American, and we should clutch it to our bosom, as John Porter does every day of his life.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I just wonder if we could not take all of these votes on these amendments by sample, rather than actually taking them.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I just want to congratulate the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Chris Smith, and his associates for bringing this very important issue to the floor. We ought to stop funding the international abortion industry. Family planning and abortion are two separate things. Family planning asks the question, do you want a baby or not? Once you are pregnant, you have a baby. Abortion helps you dispose of that baby by killing it. It has been our policy and it ought to continue to be our policy not to subsidize that function on an international basis. The amendment offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Campbell] and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Greenwood] ignores the concept of fungibility. If you give money and say do not spend it for this, only spend it for this, who are you kidding, because it frees up other money to be spent for the forbidden function. It does not matter whether they are using ourmoney or their money. If we give money, we empower all of their activities, so it is a distinction without a difference. The Mexico City policy simply says that we will continue to generously fund family planning, but we will not subsidize abortion, we will not subsidize organizations that lobby to change laws in countries that forbid abortion, and it is in keeping with, I believe, the best ideals and policy certainly under the Reagan and under the Bush administration. I regret keenly that it was changed. I ask Members to vote ``no'' on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Campbell] and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Greenwood], which is more obfuscation than clarification, which ignores the fact that money is fungible, and if you forbid it for one purpose you free up other money for the other purpose. I hope that Members will support the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Chris Smith, who has been a real hero in this very difficult fight. When my friend, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] says the United Nations is out of China, that is rather superficial. They are not out of China.

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

Mr. HYDE. They have an office here, and they said they are negotiating for more programs.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I am strongly in support of H.R. 908. It was reported unanimously by the Committee on the Judiciary and addresses in a comprehensive manner and in a bipartisan manner some of the concerns that exist about the Federal court system. This bill creates a Commission on Structural Alternatives for the Federal Courts of Appeals. In 1990, the Federal Courts Study Committee that had been created by statute in 1988 concluded the appellate courts were experiencing a crisis of volume. The study committee expressed the view that-- Within as few as 5 years, the Nation would have to decide whether or not to abandon the present circuit structure in favor of an alternative structure that might better organize the more numerous appellate judges needed to grapple with the swollen caseload. The committee's report presented several structural alternatives, but did not endorse any of them. Instead, it called for further inquiry and discussion. The proposed commission would thus take up where the Federal Court Study Committee left off. It is important to note that recent statistics reflect the fact that in fiscal 1996, the number of appeals filed in the 12 regional courts of appeals rose 4 percent to 51,991. This is an all-time high in filings, with eight circuits reporting increases. Clearly, this study the committee proposed in H.R. 908 could not be more timely. The goal of the commission will be to study the entire Federal appellate court system, but, of course, with a particular view toward addressing the problems facing the largest and most diverse circuit we have, the ninth. The bipartisan structure of the commission is designed to guarantee a fair process, give credibility to the commission's recommendations and ensure the integrity of the Federal court system. We cannot subject something as important as the structure of our courts to political gamesmanship or predetermine the commission's recommendations. Problems do exist in the size and makeup of the ninth circuit, and the committee is convinced that the commission established in this bill will examine these problems in an equitable fashion. The study called for in H.R. 908 is a responsible method to evaluate the structure of the Federal appellate courts and make recommendations that can provide a sound foundation for congressional action in the future, and so I strongly urge my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 908.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina for yielding me the time. If I may respond to the rather strident criticism of this bill by the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt], there is a practical reason why Federal preemption occurs here. Many of the disasters, such as the earthquakes in California, the forest fires, hurricanes in Florida attract volunteers from across State lines. The Red Cross, for example, would like to be able to train people to go in for disaster relief for people to train other volunteers, and it is important that they not have to concern themselves with a checkerboard of liability laws. In addition, there is a very small insurance market to cover volunteers. The cost of that insurance becomes prohibitive if it has to be complicated by a plethora of liability standards from State to State. So from a very practical point of view, and sometimes that is inconvenient, but from a very practical point of view, it is useful to have a Federal preemption in many cases so that volunteers who cross State lines to give and risk their lives many times are not troubled by having to comply with a checkerboard of laws and are able to get insurance from the organization that attracts them to protect them.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, what the gentleman says may well be true, but common sense also has a role to play in legislating. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that today the House of Representatives is considering H.R. 911, the Volunteer Protection Act of 1997. While modest in scope, it will yield significant dividends to our communities by assuring charitably minded Americans that they can volunteer their time without the threat of suit over honest mistakes. We as a society are caring and giving by nature. Clearly Americans have taken to heart the notion that we all bear some responsibility to help the less fortunate. We recognize that in order to enrich our society, we must foster the arts, religion, education, and other such worthy causes with our contributions. Charitable donations are one way in which we show our support for these causes, but an equally important asset that we contribute is our time. For many, the donation of cash is an economic impossibility. On the other hand, all of us have skills which are as essential to providing services to the community as the funding the nonprofits receive. In fact, giving of our time is really more important than giving money, because time cannot be replaced, and in that sense, it is more valuable. Unfortunately, over the past two decades, our legal liability system has become more and more of a deterrent to people who would otherwise give of themselves. Most volunteers in most States are fully liable for any harm they cause as a volunteer, and only about half the States protect volunteers other than officers and directors of the nonprofit organization. This means that before deciding to volunteer, individuals have to consider whether they are willing to risk liability which could threaten the financial viability of their families. Not surprisingly, the tradeoffs involved in that calculation frequently discourage the volunteer. In fact, frightened by well-publicized cases where volunteers have been sued, one in seven nonprofit organizations whose officers were polled by the Gallup Organization reported that they had eliminated certain worthwhile programs simply because they could be breeding grounds for legal action. The problem is not that volunteers have been sued successfully in large numbers, but that they are named in so many lawsuits. Ultimately, the volunteer defendants in most of these cases are found not liable, for good reason. However, the cost of legal defense can be staggering, and the mental anguish a volunteer suffers when sued for exorbitant amounts of damages cannot be measured. In addition to inhibiting people from volunteering, fear of these high-stakes lawsuits arising from volunteer efforts has led to the scarcity and ballooning expense of insurance to protect against potential verdicts. Between 1984 and 1989, the cost of liability coverage for local Little League Baseball programs shot up from $75 to $795 a year. Nationally, the Little League's biggest cost is not bats and balls, but legal and insurance costs associated with liability. This means that organizations must spend more of their resources paying overhead and less in actually providing the services for which they are created. Or, put another way, in order to provide the same level of services, they must raise substantially more money. The signal that all of this gives is that volunteerism does not pay. This is absolutely 180 degrees from the message we should be delivering. Volunteers provide services which fill large gaps in government programs for the truly needy--gaps which will no doubt increase over the next decade. As both Federal and State governments make fiscal responsibility and balanced budgets the cornerstone of public policy, nonprofit organizations and the volunteers they utilize will play an even larger role. Besides, it is to volunteers that we owe a great deal of gratitude for our social cohesion--our sense of community in America. Giving money to help the needy is certainly laudable, but it cannot replace the sense of personal connection that comes from being the person who ladles the soup at a food bank, or hugs and feeds the AIDS baby, or helps a recent immigrant obtain rights under our laws. The time to enact protection for our volunteers has come, and I urge my colleagues to join in supporting H.R. 911.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I want to preface my remarks by saying that I have the maximum high regard for the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], the gentleman from California [Mr. McKeon] and the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Kildee]. They are splendid Members, they are honorable and they do marvelous work. I hope that those words will be taken seriously because I do not want to impair friendships over my dissent of their bill. I know how territorial chairmen can get over their bills. But I just cannot support this bill. I think it only fair to give a couple of reasons for my feeling. First of all, family literacy services, on page 15 and 16, really troubles me. Page 16, subparagraph B, training for parents on how to be the primary teacher for their children and full partners in the education of their children; I think that goes awfully far, beyond job training, to teach parents how to be parents. That is exactly moving in the wrong direction from having the government less intrusive, less influential on our lives. And who is the other partner, a full partner means the other partner has as much to say as you have to say. Those are troubling words and they trouble me. Another problem, and there are many with this bill, there is a migratory workers program. Funds made available under this section shall be used to carry out comprehensive work force and career development activities and related services for migrant farm workers, seasonal farm workers, which may include employment, training, educational assistance, literacy assistance and English literacy program, worker safety training, housing, so we have a housing program here, supportive services and the continuation of the case management database. Now, supportive services in this bill consists of transportation, child care, dependent care, and needs-based payments. I wondered what needs-based payments were and I found that it is money. If a worker, an X worker, a displaced worker, meaning an unemployed worker, has run out of unemployment benefits and has no other income, he is entitled to needs-based payments. So we are going to pay, provide child care and all these things and that is wonderful. Oh, if we could only afford it. But there is no requirement in this migratory workers program that they be in the country legally. Far be it from asking that they be citizens but that they even have a green card or be in the country legally. I wonder if this would invite illegal immigration. I just wonder. Now, we have a bureaucracy run amok. Instead of launching the 747, I think this is a dirigible. National partnership and special training; the secretary, not a political person, we can be sure, may award special grants to eligible entities. Guess who they are? Labor, industry, public interest groups, community-based organizations, et cetera, et cetera. So the grantsmanship that is possible under this is awesome. So for these reasons, it is too much government. It moves in the opposite direction. We promised to downsize government, to save money, to keep it out of our lives. This moves in the opposite direction. I cannot support it, and I thank the chairman for giving me the time.

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

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I wanted to associate myself with the thrust of his remarks. I may feel a little more benignly toward the uses of government than he, but essentially his critique of this bill I share.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, no one doubts that education is a vital importance to our country. The question that must be answered is what role should the Federal Government play in supporting education? We have seen more and more legislative efforts to increase the Federal, as opposed to the local role, and this trend concerns many Americans, including myself. As we engage in debate, it is useful to understand the context, the historical background, of some efforts to increase the central government's intrusion into what has been a largely local responsibility. Dr. D.L. Cuddy, a former senior associate with the U.S. Department of Education, has written an interesting historical commentary on the school to work concept which I believe warrants the attention of Members. Background of `School-to-Work' Concept (By Dr. D. L. Cuddy) With ``School-to-Work'' (STW) legislation (H.R. 1617/S. 143) soon going to conference committee in Congress, it's important to look at the background of this concept. Plank 10 of Marx's Communist Manifesto provides for a ``combination of education with industrial production,'' and in 1913 when Stalin was having difficulty getting his Marxist cadres into key positions for the ``class struggle,'' he described a ``regionalism'' strategy (e.g., NAFTA, later) against nationalism and used the slogan ``workers of the world unite.'' Self-described American communist Scott Nearing in The Next Step (1922) described how a world economic organization (e.g., GATT and World Trade Organization, later) would be the first step toward world government, but first in The New Education (1915) he applauded ``breaking away from the 3 Rs'' and Cincinnati's ``half time in shop, half time in school'' system. In the Oct. 12, 1917 New York Times, Judge John Hylan wrote about a letter by Dr. Abraham Flexner (Secretary of the Rockefeller General Education Board and formerly of the Carnegie Foundation) describing a ``secret conference'' of New York City Board of Education members to elect a Board president who would institute a type of STW/OBE (Outcome- Based Education) program. Hylan became Mayor of New York and ``pitched out the Rockefeller agents, . . . the kind of education the coolies receive in China . . . for the mill and factory,'' William McAndrew, who had been in charge of the ``new-program schools,'' admiringly referred to the ``polytechnic institute'' (which the Soviets would adopt). And in Raymond Fosdick's memorial history of the General Education Board (GEB), he described the Board as part of Rockefeller's effort toward ``this goal of social control.'' After Hylan's expose of this STW/OBE plan, it wasn't until the ``Eight-Year Study'' (1933-41) funded by the Carnegie Corporation and the GEB that another major attempt was evident. Research Director for the study's Evaluation Staff was Ralph Tyler, who would later conduct a project for the Carnegie Corporation that would in 1969 become the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). One of Tyler's associates in the ``Eight-Year Study'' was ``values clarification'' originator Louis Raths, and another associate was Estonian ``change agent'' Hilda Taba. In the early 1950s, Ford Foundation president H. Rowan Gaither told Congressional committee Research Director Norman Dodd that they were operating under directives from the White House ``to make every effort to so alter life in the U.S. as to make possible a comfortable merger with the Soviet Union.'' And in 1960, HEW published Soviet Education Programs, stating ``wherever we went, we felt the pulse of the Soviet government's drive to educate and train a new generation of technically skilled citizens. ... USSR plans to bring all secondary school children into labor education and training experiences through the regular school program.'' By 1970, Americans were coming to be thought of as ``human capital'' (note Lester Thurow's 1970 book, Investment in Human Capital), and in 1971 UNESCO'S Secretariat asked George Parkyn to ``outline a possible model'' for an education system that resulted in Towards a Conceptual Model of Life- Long Education describing how students would choose a vocational field and work part time, and receive ``certificates'' of educational attainment. Two years later, Michael Lerner (who would become an important advisor to Hillary Clinton) wrote The New Socialist Revolution, proclaiming: ``Education will be radically transformed in our socialist community ... the main emphasis will be on learning how to ... live and work collectively ... The next level is learning some series of skills, for one's first set of jobs.'' And in Vladimir Turchenko's The Scientific and Technological Revolution and the Revolution in Education (1976) imported into the U.S. is described ``linking instruction with productive labor.'' In the early 1980s, neither the Soviet nor German socialist education systems had been adopted nationwide in the U.S., as Prof. Eugene Boyce in The Coming Revolution in Education (1983) wrote that ``in the communist ideology ... education is tied directly to jobs ... No such direct, controlled, relationship between education and jobs exists in democratic countries.'' However, in 1985 two things happened. At the beginning of the year, the Carnegie Corporation gave $600,000 to establish the Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy; and later that year the Carnegie Corporation negotiated the Soviet-American Exchange Agreement for the U.S. government, whereby Soviet educators became involved in planning curricula for some U.S. schools. In the Winter 1987/1988 edition of Action in Teacher Education, Professors Martin Haberman and James Collins wrote in ``The Future of the Teaching Profession'' that ``schooling is now seen primarily as job training and, for this reason, quite comparable to schooling in non-democratic societies. Once education is redefined as a personal good and as emphasizing preparation for the world of work as its first purpose, our schools can appropriately be compared with those of the USSR.'' The next year, the National Center on Education and the Economy (formerly the Carnegie Forum) with Marc Tucker as president was asked to help in developing the National Education Goals upon which ``America 2000'' and ``Goals 2000'' would be based. Then in June 1990, NCEE (with Board members Hillary Clinton and David Rockefeller, Jr.) produced America's Choice: High Skills or Low Wages? (proposing a ``Certificate of Initial Mastery''), which greatly influenced the establishment of the Secretary's Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills (SCANS) by the Department of Labor. In September, Polytechnical Education: A Step (funded by the U.S. Department of Education) by Robert Beck was published, stating: ``The Soviet Union. . . (has) developed a curriculum known as polytechnical education. . . . rooted in Marxist- Lennist ideology. . . . The German Democratic Republic has accomplished a good deal with its polytechnical education . . . The ideology of Soviet education has blessed the melding of restructured academic studies . . . and the preparation of students for skilled labor. . . . That this should be carefully monitored for possible adaptation in American public education is not a farfetched idea.'' (Polytechnical Education: A Step was published by the National Center for Research in Vocational Education at the University of California at Berkeley just 3 months after America's Choice: High Skills or Law Wages?, a report by the NCEE's Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce which included Laura D'Andrea Tyson, the Director of Research for the Berkely Roundtable on the International Economy at the University of California at Berkeley, who has been a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and would become Chairman of President Clinton's Council of Economic Advisers.) In June of the next year (1991), the SCANS report recommended establishing a national system for certifying competency, similar to Germany's ``certificate of mastery.'' Also in 1991, Carnegie Foundation chairman David Hornbeck's so-called Human Capital and America's Future was published describing an approach he admitted might be subject to the charge of ``big brotherism.'' On Aug. 2, 1992, Assistant Labor Secretary Roberts Jones announced that the federal government was preparing to deny aid and student loans to schools that fail to prepare their graduates with the skills needed to compete for jobs in the modern workplace, saying ``this is a touchy subject.'' Shortly thereafter, Marc Tucker wrote a letter to Hillary Clinton saying he had just come from David Rockefeller's office where they were ``celebrating'' Bill Clinton's election as president, as that will allow putting into place their agenda to integrate education into a national system of ``human resources development . . . from cradle to grave . . . (for) everyone. . . . We propose that Bill (Clinton) take a leaf out of the German book'' (regarding required) ``apprenticeship slots.'' Relevant to this, however, was a paper commissioned by the School-to-Work Transition Team in the Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI) within the U.S. Department of Education (one of a set of commissioned papers published by OERI in June 1994). In this paper, ``Determinants and Consequences of Fit Between Vocational Education and Employment in Germany,'' Professors James Witte and Ame Kalleberg stated that ``the German apprenticeship's system is so expensive. . . Germany's contemporary vocational education system is closely linked to its secondary educational system. At age 10, students are tracked in a rigid educational system. . . . After initial assignment, movement between tracks is rare'' NCEE Board member Hillary Clinton had been promoting the Certificate of Initial Mastery concept, and in April 1994 NCEE's Tucker had published The Certificate of Initial Mastery: A Primer. The same year, Senator Ted Kennedy's School-to-Work Opportunities Act was passed, and a national campaign is underway to promote the concept. Recently, Miss America 1996, Shawntel Smith in Michigan spoke about ``our investment in human capital. That's what School-to-Work is all about.'' Currently, students have the most to say about what career paths they take. But as ``human capital,'' their paths increasingly will be directed by society via STW/OBE educational programs so that they ``demonstrate certain skills.'' A leading OBE consultant today, Harvard University Professor Howard Gardner, (who was involved in the infamous MACOS project), wrote Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences, in which he proposed that ``ultimately, the educational plans that are pursued need to be orchestrated across various interest groups of the society so that they can, taken together, help the society to achieve its larger goals. Individual profiles must be considered in the light of goals pursued by the wider society; and sometimes, in fact, individuals with gifts in certain directions must nonetheless be guided along other less favored paths, simply because the needs of the culture are particularly urgent in that realm at that time.'' Student ``profiles'' are an important part of certain STW initiatives, with employers having continual access to these as part of a permanent file on all individuals who are now considered to be ``lifelong learners.'' In Communist China, the file is called a ``Dangan'' and describes the value of the individual (``human capital'') to the State. Gardner has also written To Open Minds: Chinese Clues to the Dilemma of Contemporary Educations. If Americans aren't careful, STW/OBE educational programs will pave the way toward an ominous techno-feudal world of the future.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3, the Juvenile Crime Control Act of 1997. H.R. 3 gets tough on the No. 1 public safety problem in America--juvenile crime. It attacks the key problem with the juvenile justice system in America--its failure to hold all juvenile criminals accountable for their offenses. Our Nation's juvenile justice system is completely dysfunctional and badly in need of reform. Remarkably, most juveniles receive no punishment at all. Nearly 40 percent of violent juvenile offenders who come into contact with the system have their cases dismissed--and only 10 percent of these criminals receive any sort of institutional confinement. By the time the courts finally lock up an older teen on a violent crime, the offender often has a long rap sheet with arrests starting in the early teens. Juveniles who vandalize stores and homes--or write graffiti on buildings--rarely come before a juvenile court. Kids don't fear the consequences of their actions because they are rarely held accountable. How did we let this happen? First, there isn't enough detention space for juvenile criminals. Second, there are not enough alternative punishments. And third, there are still too many well intended but mistaken judges who view juvenile criminals as merely children in need of special care. Now, here's the really bad news. Experts say that juvenile arrests for violent crimes will more than double by 2010. The FBI predicts that juveniles arrested for murder will increase by 145 percent; forcible rape arrests will increase by 66 percent; and aggravated assault arrests will increase by 129 percent. In the remaining years of the decade and throughout the next, America will experience a 31-percent increase in the teenage population--as children of baby boomers come of age. In other words, we are going to have a surge in the population group that poses the biggest threat to public safety. H.R. 3 would establish a Federal model for holding juvenile criminals accountable through workable procedures, adult punishment for serious violent crimes, and graduated sanctions for every juvenile offense. The bill directs the Attorney General to establish an aggressive program for getting gun-wielding, repeat violent juveniles off the streets. H.R. 3 also encourages the States, with incentive grants for building and operating juvenile detention facilities, to punish all juvenile criminals appropriately. Punishing juvenile criminals for every offense is crime prevention. When youthful offenders face consequences for their wrongdoing, criminal careers stop before they start. H.R. 3 encourages States to provide a sanction for every act of wrong doing-- starting with the first offense--and increasing in severity with each subsequent offense, which is the best method for directing youngsters away from a path of crime while they are still amenable to such encouragements. I should emphasize that H.R. 3 is part of a larger legislative effort to combat juvenile crime. The prevention funding in the administration's juvenile crime bill falls under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Education and the Workforce. That committee will be bringing forth a juvenile crime prevention bill within the next several weeks. It is my hope that a bipartisan agreement will be reached that funds $70 to $80 million in new prevention block grants to the States-- these grants will target at-risk and delinquent youth. In addition, that bill will be a small but significant part of the more than $4 billion that the Federal Government will spend this year on at-risk and delinquent. Accountability and prevention are not mutually exclusive. We need to restore the foundation of our broken juvenile justice system by holding young offenders accountable for their crimes, and we need to invest in prevention programs that work. I believe that this dual approach will put a real dent in juvenile crime across the Nation. H.R. 3 addresses the crisis of juvenile crime in America today by establishing model procedures for prosecuting juveniles and by giving significant incentives to the States to fix their juvenile justice systems. I urge you to support this bill and begin the process of repairing America's collapsed juvenile justice system.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, the spotlight at the April Fiesta-Val Music competition held in Atlanta, GA was focused on the Choirs of Lee High School. The performance given by the 20-member Madrigal Choir earned them a superior rating by the judges, placing Lee first in their division. Achieving a superior rating over their 15 competitors, the Fiesta-Val Champion Trophy was presented to Lee Madrigals for reaching the highest numerical score of any choir in their division. The next group to be called into the winners' spotlight was Lee's Ladies' Chamber Choir. The chamber choir gave another outstanding performance before the panel of judges who rated this choir superior. The Concert Choir was the next to be honored with an excellent rating for their performance. Noteworthy is the selection of Lee's Singing Lancers as the Fiesta- Val's recipient of the 1997 Grand Champion trophy. To receive this distinctive recognition as overall champions, the Singing Lancers marked the highest combined scores of all choirs competing in the festival. The awards cited above have become a tradition for Lee's choral program through the hard work and dedication of its director, Mr. Lindsey Florence. Were it not for this outstanding director, the students may never have reached this plateau in their high school music experience. This remarkable contribution was recognized when the festival sponsors presented Mr. Lindsey Florence with the coveted Award of Distinction in recognition of his notable contribution to musical excellence. Congratulations to the director, Mr. Florence, and his wonderful students: Shely Abbott, Matt Aberant, Denise Absher, Karen Albers, Jessica Alonzo, Alex Arndt, Mary Assad, Nicki Baugher, Ashley Bush, Nicki Clark, Amy Cole, Cindy Craig, Elizabeth Crego, Rachel Cully, Abigail Dosch, Kelly Drier, Mary Fitzgerald, Heather Flemming, John Goff, Craig Goheen, Brian Gresham, Rachel Griffin, Kristen Hampton, James Hare, Brandon Henrich, April Holloman, J.P. Javier Wong, Erlend Johnson, Kim Johnson, Mary Kim, Peter Laver, Mike Lazear, Corrine Leahey, Darcie Lee, Dan Lee, Ruth Leeds, Chrisina Lewis, Anna Lipari, Courtney Mallon, Tara McCabe, Caroline McClaugherty, Heather McDonald, Darin McMillion, Dave McMullin, Abby Meyer, Jamie Michaud, Michelle Montvai, Carrie Moore, Shawn Newman, Ty Oxley, Vanessa Pannell, Alicia Peretti, Corey Perrine, Jessica Piansky, Sara Poh, Alicia Powell, Anna Ramdeo, David Reynolds, Terri Richards, Miranda Romero, Julie Saholsky, Beth Silvola, Leslie Simpson, Justin Smallwood, Julie Stoops, J.R. Stratton, Damara Thompson, Nhien To, Kristin Unger, Melissa Wilkerson, and Audrey Wright.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. What about provisional rights? Does the gentleman agree that there is protection called provisional rights following publication? The inventor then says, ``Look, I did this, I invented this''?

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

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

Mr. HYDE. Will the gentleman agree that once publication occurs at 18 months, the average patent is issued at 19 months? Would the gentleman agree to that?

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I just have a very brief statement I want to make. I want to say to my friend, the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher]: First, I disagree with him comprehensively in his interpretation of the bill; second, a local Capitol Hill-newspaper has quoted me according to some anonymous source, as referring to him with a highly uncomplimentary name. I would like the public record to show that I hold him in the highest regard, I hold him in the highest esteem, in the highest respect, and that I disavow such terms and dislike personalizing any disputes. I hope the gentleman does not put any credence in that published statement because that would be wrong. But again, I reiterate my comprehensive disagreement with the gentleman. Publication is protection. Yes, it is published. Yes, people can read it. But you have provisional rights as though you had a patent issued. What the publication does is say, yes, this is my idea, I was here first, do not tread on me. And it is that publication of foreign applications for patents that we would like to see, inasmuch as they see ours when we file over there. But notwithstanding that, that is not the real thrust of my remarks. The thrust of my remarks is to say that the gentleman is persistent and tenacious and a very worthy adversary; and I hope the misstatements in the press have not colored the gentleman's view of my opinion of him, which is of the highest.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman would yield, the gentleman's periscope is always up.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman from Ohio yield?