Henry Hyde

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I love to get involved with projects that involve our younger generation. One of the projects I sponsor every year along with the high schools and junior high schools in my district, is an essay contest. I asked the high school students to write about how we amend the Constitution and how is it different than passing a law, and the junior high students were to write about life in colonial times. I would like to thank Mrs. Vivian Turner, the former principal of Blackhawk Junior High School, who judged the hundreds of entries received. I want to congratulate Chanda Evans from Addison Trail High School and Kathleen Steinfels of Mary, Seat of Wisdom School in Park Ridge the first place winners for their very creative papers. I was very impressed with the essays and want to share them with my colleagues. How Do We Amend the Constitution? Why Is It Different Then Passing a Law? (By Chanda Evans) Most people realize that changing the structure of the Constitution is a difficult process, and much more involved than passing a law. What most people do not know is the methods of proposing and ratifying a amendment set forth in the Constitution, or any of the specific differences between amending the Constitution and passing a law. The United States Constitution provides two methods of proposing and ratifying a amendment, both of which allow the interests of the national and the state government to be taken into consideration equally. The first step in amending the Constitution is to have the amendment proposed by one of two possible ways. An amendment can be proposed by a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress, or by a National Constitutional Convention called by Congress, on a petition from the legislatures of two- thirds of the states. All amendments proposed thus far have originated from Congress. The second step is getting the proposed amendment ratified. The Constitution also provides for two alternative methods of ratification, both methods however, leave the ratification decision to the states. Article V of the Constitution sets out two distinct modes of state ratification, leaving the choice of mode to the Congress. For each amendment proposed, whether by Congress of by a national convention, Congress must choose whether to submit the amendment to state legislatures or to conventions in each state for ratification. If the proposed amendment is given to the state legislatures for ratification, a total of three-fourths of the states must agree for the amendment to be passed. Of the thirty-three amendments that have been proposed, thirty-two have been sent to the state legislatures for ratification. The second method involves sending the proposed amendment to the state conventions for ratification. During this process each state must choose delegates, who will then vote for or against the amendment. For this method of ratification there must also be a total of three-fourths (thirty-eight) of the states in agreement. Having the Constitution amended is a difficult process simply because of the many people that must agree on an amendment for it to become passed. Our founding fathers included these alternative means of both proposing and ratifying amendments in an effort to balance the power between federal and state factions, while allowing input from the common people. A Constitutional amendment and a law are both rules that the people of the United States must obey. However, the processes that take place are quite different. Although Congress's role in amending the Constitution and in passing a law are similar, there are some differences; the percentage of votes required, the President's role, and the approval process. Both a proposed amendment and a law are put before Congress for a vote. For each of these the two houses of Congress must also approve identical forms of the amendment of law. A law however, may only be introduced by a Senator or Representative while Congress is in session. The major difference between the voting processes in Congress is the percentage of votes required. In the amendment process a two- thirds vote is required, sixty-six percent. When passing a law a simple majority vote is required, as low as fifty-one percent. This difference obviously makes it easier for a law to get a passing vote in Congress. The second difference between the amending and the law making process is the President's role. When an amendment is being proposed and ratified it goes through Congress or a Constitutional Convention, then the states. The President has no part in this procedure. When a law is being passed it goes directly to the President after being voted on in Congress. In this situation, the President has three choices. He can sign it, allowing it to become law, he can veto it, or he can ignore it and allow it to become law in ten days (excluding Sundays) without his signature. The President has a much greater role in the law making process, and has a direct influence on the content of the bill. The third difference between amending the Constitution and passing a law is the approval process, more specifically, who is involve in it. When an amendment is put up for ratification it must go to the state legislatures or the state conventions for approval before becoming an official amendment. A law, on the other hand, requires no approval or input from the states. When passing a bill into law it requires only the majority vote of Congress and the signature of the President. However, if the President decides to veto the bill Congress can override his decision by two-thirds vote in both houses. This process makes passing a law a decision involving only the legislative and executive branches, or possibly just the legislative branch. This is clearly a decision of the federal legislation, requiring little or no assistance from the state government. This process effectively cut out the state government, unlike the amendment process that requires an agreement between the state and national government to be passed. At the Constitutional Convention of 1787 George Mason of Virginia said, ``Amendments will be necessary, and it will be better to provide for them, in an easy, regular and constitutional way than to trust to chance and violence.'' Our forefathers obviously realized that laws would change and evolve over the years, and that new laws they couldn't even visualize at that point would be needed as times also changed. Fortunately, they also realized that the process to change the very framework and structure of the government, the United States Constitution, must be a much more controlled process. By providing two different methods of proposing and ratifying amendments to the Constitution they made sure that such major changes would be made in agreement by the state and national government. Protecting the interests of both factions, and also reflecting the interests of the people. Times to Remember (By Kathleen Steinfels) Snowshoes . . . candlelight . . . fireplace . . . animal fur . . . buckets of water . . . All of these are images of life in colonial America. Life was very harsh, especially when compared to life in twentieth century Park Ridge. Colonia life was centered around the family--much more so than modern American life. Because colonial families were relatively isolated and because each member of the family was counted on to help the entire family survive, family members were close and worked as a team. Chores were distributed: milking cows, feeding chickens, tending crops, chopping firewood, keeping the house in repair and as weathertight as possible, making candles, keeping the fire, collecting water for washing, for watering gardens and animals, making clothes, hunting meat, making food, and caring for younger children. All of these demanded energy and concentration. Often things like schooling became a luxury because education itself was not mandatory for survival. Each family had to be able to provide all basic necessities on its own. Sometimes trading would allow for special treats such as ready-made cloth from overseas, special foods, and shoes. These things are often taken for granted in modern America where families rarely work together, or, for that matter, rarely even see each other. They have become disjointed as each person pursues independent interests and activities. How often does the nuclear family even sit down at the table to eat a meal together? Does this help explain the disintegrating family of modern America? Colonial families were large. Many hands were needed to share the workload. Life expectancy was shorter and there was a higher infant mortality rate. Nowadays, families are much smaller and do not have such a strong common focus. In colonial times the hearth or fireplace was the center of the home, the place from which came both food and warmth. The location of the fireplace affected the way buildings were built. There were few openings to the outside, to minimize heat escaping and for security. Nowadays, the kitchen is still the center of many homes, the source of food, but because of central heating, houses have gotten more complex and full of windows. Children in colonial times usually worked with their parents whether it be as farmer, cooper, weaver, or blacksmith. Children learned a trade. Each child was important. Nowadays, parents typically go off to work someplace else and the children have little or no connection to the parents' place of work or to the work they do. In colonial times schooling was not mandatory and schoolhouses were often one-room with a single teacher for many grades. Today schools are much larger and have many teachers, often even more than one per grade. Colonial Americans came to this New World, abandoning friends, families, and the life they knew to face a challenging new life. Often immigrants came seeking the opportunity to worship God as they wished: Puritans in New England, the Quakers in Pennsylvania, and the Catholics in Maryland. Religion was probably especially important because of the hardships their life imposed. Even if they could not regularly have formal services, God was an important part of life. Today religious freedom is guaranteed, and perhaps even taken for granted. Gone are the snowshoes, the candles, and the hearth and so too it seems the family-centered life which characterized colonial times.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, In a declaration issued on June 7 in Prague, participants at the CIVITAS PRAGUE 1995 conference pledged to create an international network to help make civic education a higher priority on the agendas of participating nations as well as on the international agenda. The conference was one of the largest international gatherings of educators and representatives of the public and private sectors supporting civic education ever held. Four hundred twenty-five representatives from 52 nations participated. The conference was sponsored by 36 civic education organizations from North America, Eastern and Western Europe, and the former Soviet Union. The declaration by CIVITAS participants asserts that civic education is essential for developing the support required for the establishment and maintenance of stable democratic institutions, economic development, national security, and for overcoming destructive religious and ethnic conflicts. The declaration also argues that civic education should have a more prominent place in the programs of all government and international organizations. The text of the CIVITAS declaration follows. I urge my fellow Members to join me in supporting the declaration and in giving greater recognition to the need to improve civic education for students in the United States and in other nations throughout the world. On June 2-6, 1995, representatives from fifty-two countries met in Prague at one of the largest international meetings on civic education ever held. The following is a declaration adopted by the participants. A list of the individual signers is available on CIVNET. The wave of change toward democracy and the open economy that swept the world at the beginning of this decade has slowed, and, in some respects, even turned around. Religious and ethnic intolerance; abuses of human rights; cynicism toward politics and government; corruption, crime and violence; ignorance, apathy and irresponsibility--all represent growing challenges to freedom, the marketplace, democratic government, and the rule of law. All this makes clear how central knowledge, skills, and democratic values are to building and sustaining democratic societies that are respectful of human rights and cultural diversity. Once again, we see the importance of education which empowers citizens to participate competently and responsibly in their society. Despite great differences in the more than fifty countries represented among us, we find many similarities in the challenges we face in our civic life. These challenges exist not only in the countries represented here; they also exist in other parts of the world, and in all aspects of social, economic, and political life. People involved in civic education have much to learn from one another. It is time again to recognize the crucial role that civic education plays in many areas of concern to the International community: Shared democratic values, and institutions that reflect these values, are the necessary foundation for national and international security and stability; the breakup of Cold War blocs, while bringing much good, has also [[Page E 1365]] created openings for aggressive and undemocratic movements, even in the established democracies themselves; civic development is an essential element in--not just a side effect of--economic development. Investments and guarantees made by private enterprise, governments, and international financial institutions will fall where political and legal systems fall, and where corruption and violence flourish. The challenge of civic education is too great for educators alone. They need far greater cooperation from their own peoples, governments, and the international community. We seek increased support for civic education--formal and informal--from the widest range of institutions and governments. In particular, we urge greater involvement in civic education by international organizations such as the Council of Europe, the European Union, the North Atlantic Assembly, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, the United Nations, UNESCO, and the World Bank. We seek an active personal and electronic on-line-exchange (through CIVNET) of curricular concepts, teaching methods, study units, and evaluation programs for all elements of continuing education in civics, economics, and history. We pledge ourselves to create and maintain a worldwide network that will make civic education a higher priority on the international agenda.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, ``If I were President of the United States, I would * * *'' was the title of an essay contest sponsored by the Chicago Sun Times. The eighth grade English class at Churchville Junior High located in Elmhurst, IL, participated in this contest. I would like to share with my colleagues the issues these young people see as important and how they would correct the problems if they were President. If I Were President of the United States I Would * * * (By Aaron Hubalik) If I were the president of the United States I would help homeless people have job opportunities, clean up crime, and lower taxes. First, I would give the homeless people a chance to have a job opportunity. I would lower the price of cars and put it towards job opportunities. I would also build amusement parts and take 15 percent of the money earned every month towards more jobs. Second, I would clean up the crime in our cities. Since gangs are the major problem, I would increase police presence especially in bigger crime areas. Lastly, I would lower taxes to about 7% so people would have more money to spend for their needs. This would also help the economy grow and create work opportunities. In conclusion, as president I would give homeless people opportunity, clean up crime, and lower taxes. (By Jodi Carnevale) Make all countries come to peace with each other. I would improve every state, and close Abortion clinics. I would put together a committee who will go to one state and straighten up that state, then that state can help improve the other states. It might take time, but if we all help, it will happen. While I'm improving states, I would close all the Abortion clinics by destroying the clinics, and building a playground in it's place. It's better to see kids happily playing, that not to see them at all. I'll have all the Countries sign a treaty, so there will never be another war. So instead of helping just our country, I helped the world. I could make the World better by straightening up states, closing Abortion clinics, and making peace. This way, we're guaranteed a better future than the one we have in store for us. (By Amy Byrne) If I could be president I would make more places for homeless people to go and I would give more money to schools. Everybody complains about people being dirty or living on the streets and sleeping on benches, so why don't we give these people somewhere to go? I would build large dormitories (large buildings) every couple of blocks for people to sleep, eat and entertain themselves. There would be things for kids to do and we would find jobs for adults or if they needed to learn to read or write we would teach them. Another thing I would do is give more money to schools. If the schools had more money we could have better uniforms, and more activities, like more dances and a softball team. If I had a chance to be President of the United States of America I would have places for homeless people and give more money to schools (By Fred Fang) As president, I would increase funding to space exploration and conservation programs. I would also cut defense spending to pay for new programs. First, funding space exploration is crucial. The earth is crowded and resources are depleted. Many possibilities show up when traveling at light speed. Not only could we explore new planets, but also colonize them, and mine their usable resources. Secondly, I would grant funding to conservation groups like ``Green Peace'', and make environmental issues more important. Until we find new planets with usable resources, we must conserve. We must conserve so that the earth will stay comfortable. Finally, I would cut defense spending. Prime Time Live aired a special on government spending. It showed many warehouses with munition surpluses. I propose to sell one- third of surpluses. In conclusion, my job is to better the world. If these goals are met, my presidential term would be successful. (By Maja Garmager) If I were president of the United States I would have all abortion clinics closed, there will be no more homeless people, and nothing at the grocery store would cost more than fifty cents. First, all abortion clinics will close. If any other doctor is doing abortions they will be arrested and put in jail. If people want to give up the baby, put it up for adoption. Second, there will be no more homeless people. We will build more apartment buildings, and they will have no rent, so they can live there. Lastly, at the grocery store nothing will cost more than fifty cents. So that everybody could afford it. If they don't have money they can use food stamps. In conclusion, all abortion clinics will closed, there will be no more homeless people, and everything at the grocery store will be fifty cents. (By Katie Durkowski) I would help the homeless get jobs, money and housing. I would also extend the school year. To start off, I would help the homeless get jobs, money, and housing so they can raise a family and their self esteem. They would get free job training and they would be placed in a job that best suits them. They would make enough money to raise their family, keep their house, and have extra spending money. Secondly, to lengthen the school year. I would take the many unneeded holidays. Many kids don't appreciate them anyway. I would also add every other Saturday. This will improve learning and test scores. In conclusion, as President of the United States I would help the homeless get jobs, money and housing. I would also extend the school year. (By Chris Buenz) As President, I would give money to the poor. I would also help finance schools and give some important accessories to the schools. Firstly, I would give money to the poor people. The reason's why I would give money to the poor people are it would help clean up our streets and make it look better. Also, they could buy a nice suit and tie which would help them get a job. Then, they could provide for themselves. Next, I would give money to the public schools. Kids going to school need up to date equipment like computers, books and other accessories. If kids don't have these they won't learn the right stuff and be behind in technology. In conclusion, as President I would give money to the poor, help finance schools and give schools nice equipment. (By Kristi Marotta) As President I would help the country get on its feet. I would do this by getting people jobs and having stricture crime laws. To help people get jobs, I would lower the amount of imports from other countries. This would eliminate some of the competition from other countries. This way we would have to make more products at home and need more workers to make them. This is how I would create more jobs. Next, I would make stricter crime laws. To accomplish this, stricter punishments for serious crimes are needed. I would support the death penalty and caining. Also teenagers should be tried as adults for serious crimes. These are examples of crime laws that I would support. In conclusion, as President, I would help people get jobs and make stricter crime laws. (By Jeannie Gleser) If I were President of the United States, I would develop a better country. The following are things I would do. First, I would ban abortion, then take care of the homeless and hungry. Last, I would destroy all weapons. First, I would ban abortion. Abortion is killing an unborn baby. Abortion leaves guilt with the mother. It is also inhumane. Secondly, I would take care of the homeless. I would make more jobs for them, by creating more stores and businesses. I would first hire bosses and managers to employ homeless workers. Lastly, I would destroy all weapons. I would burn the weapons. Weapons just hurt and kill. They are unnecessary for humans. This would also cut down on crime. In conclusion, if I became President I would ban abortion, make jobs for all, and destroy all weapons. I would then be famous for my great actions. (By Samantha Hiza) If I were President of the United States I would focus on refining welfare. First, I'd change the requirements to get welfare. You should only be eligible for welfare if you have children. Adults should try to fend for themselves, but we should help the children who have no control over it. Secondly, people shouldn't get more money for more children. If you go on welfare receiving money for one child, you should continue receiving that rate no matter how many children you have. That way people aren't just having children to get more money. Lastly, you should only receive welfare for a short while. That way people aren't living off tax money and are motivated to find a job. In conclusion, my main concern would be to refine welfare by only giving money to people with children, not giving more money for more children, and only giving money for a short while. (By Jim O'Sullivan) If I were President, I would give motivation to the citizens and fix the prison problems. First, to motivate the people of the US to help the government out (and to show we are trying), I would cut my income from $200,000 to half. This would still allow a good income and also save money. I would also start cutting unneeded spending. Secondly, I would fix the prison problems. We have people who are in jail, and tax payers are paying their stay. I would make the prisoners work for their stay. If someone would not want to work, they would have the option of doing the alternate. Which would be to receive a warm jacket and some food and ship them into the middle of nowhere. In conclusion, if I was President, I would try to motivate the country by cutting government spending, and fix prison problems. (By Christina Suarez) If I were the President I would get more jobs and homes for the homeless. Then I would also have shorter times in the day during school. I would first, try to get jobs for the homeless. I would then start working in stores and other places. I would get the whole town to start making more shelters have more soup kitchens and donate clothes. While a person is trying to get a home they could stay in shelters. Secondly, I would have shorter times in school. What I mean is have students go to school at 10:00 A.M. and go back home at 3:00 P.M. This reason is so kids can sleep in and have more time in the afternoon. In conclusion, if I were the President I would get jobs and homes for the homeless. Then I would have shorter times in a school day. (By Kerry O'Reilly) If I were president of the United States, I would help homeless people find homes, make school years shorter, and also lower taxes. First, I'd help the homeless find homes. They'd get their homes free of charge for about a year or until they get a job. Homeless people need shelter because of the dangerous conditions that occur outside our homes. After they're able to support themselves, they'll be treated exactly as every other American homeowner. Secondly, the school year would be shorter. Kids ages 10-18 have so much pressure during the school year. They deserve a big break!! The year would be from September 1-May 1. Thirdly, I'd make sure to lower taxes. Americans pay too much. Let's cut down! Especially on the stuff we don't need! This would keep people from going poor. Again, if I'm president, I'd help homeless find homes, make school years shorter, and lower taxes. (By Jeffrey Knabe) If I were president; Firstly, I would pass a law outlawing automatic weapons. Then I would expand the Police to stop the sale of those weapons. Secondly, instead of letting people have welfare money for as long as they like, I would set a certain limit. Firstly, I would do what I could to get automatic weapons off the streets. Then I would try to expand police to try to get automatic weapons off the streets. Secondly, I would try to change the welfare policy. To ``If you are out of a job you can apply for welfare for a limited time''. I think that some, not all, people who are on welfare should try harder to get a job. In conclusion, if I were president I would try to stop the sale and the illegal trading of automatic weapons. Secondly, I would set a limit on welfare. (By Justin Scully) If I were president I would make more jobs, create a better health plan but mainly for senior citizens, raise taxes on rich and a little on the middle class to get us out of debt. Also I would build low cost housing, get more police and bring peace in Bosnia. I would make more jobs by re-creating the CCC but for all ages. To get people off the streets. For better health plans I would make sure everybody is covered and get rid of the law suits on doctors. I would raise taxes mainly on the rich to get out of debt, and build low cost housing. Lastly crime I think we should hire more police officers and that would create more jobs. In conclusion I think I would be a good president because of all the reasons. (By Daniel Jugle) If I were the president of the United States I would help the homeless more and I would try harder to reduce crime. First, I would help the homeless more I would do this by giving them money, making more homeless shelters, and having more food drives. Second, I would try harder to reduce crime I would do this by providing more police and having a strong Death Penalty. In Conclusion, helping the homeless more and trying to reduce crime are the two things I would do first if I were president of the United States. (By Jaffray McCarthy) I think that government thinking in programs and creating new jobs needs restructuring. Firstly, I would stop outrageous spending. One type of spending is congressional spending. One example of this is a congressman's frequent travel by transport plane, costing up to $50,000*. Another type of spending is money for unneeded programs. One example of this was a funded program was to study how long it took ketchup to come out of a bottle*. Secondly, I would use the money saved from the unneeded programs to create new jobs. One of the jobs I would create is construction crews to build low cost housing for poor people. Another job I would create is a street clean-up crew to clean streets from litter and graffiti. In conclusion, these are my restructuring ideas. I think any reasonable person would agree with at least one idea.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, my good friend from New York that preceded me was quite amusing, and he reminded me when he said the flag cost $7.59, or whatever, of the old saying about a person. They say he knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing. What is at work here is something larger than the flag itself; it is a protest against the vulgarization, the trashing of our society. This amendment asserts that our flag is not just a piece of cloth, but, like a family picture on your desk, it represents certain unifying ideals most Americans hold sacred, ideals that are wonderfully expressed in the Declaration of Independence. It represents the ``unum'' in the ``e pluribus unum'' of our country, and as tombstones are not for toppling, as churches and synagogues and places of worship are not for vandalizing, flags are not for burning. Some of our critics have accused us of trivializing the Constitution. With great respect, I believe it is they who trivialize democracy itself, by reducing it to a matter of process, a matter of procedure, rather than substance. Their democracy is one-dimensional, consisting only of free speech as they define it. They elevate a method of communication or process over the substance of democracy, equal protection, due process, and the majestic values so timelessly expressed in our Declaration of Independence, our country's birth certificate: Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Free speech is protected by this amendment. It is not harmed or diminished. This amendment takes free speech a dimension forward and it validates the duties and the responsibilities that are part and parcel of every right that exists. A right does not exist without a correlative duty. We have a duty to respect your rights, and you have a duty to respect our rights. Those responsibilities and duties are the essential underpinnings of the ordered liberty that is the soul of America. There are well-defined limits to freedom of speech: obscenity laws, perjury, slander, libel, copyright laws, classified information, agreements in restraint of trade and the old yelling fire where there is no fire in a crowded theater. The question is, is that list commodious enough to include flag desecration? Somebody tell me why it is a Federal crime to burn a $20 bill but it is okay to burn a flag. Walk down Independence Avenue without your clothes on, and you will find very quickly the limits on freedom of expression. I consider the flagpole that holds that flag high to represent Jefferson's famous tree and liberty which is nourished, as he said, with the blood of martyrs. Think of the words of our national anthem: ``and the rocket's red glare, the bombs bursting in air, gave proof through the night that our flag was still there.'' That expresses something sublime, something profound, something extraordinary in history. Too many men have marched behind the flag. Too many have returned in a wooden box with the flag as their own blanket. Too many parents and kids and wives have clutched to their grieving bosom a folded triangle of the American flag as the last remembrance of their loved one not to honor and revere that flag. Stand among the crosses in the cemetery at Arlington or go to Normandy and read the names on the crosses and the Stars of David, and you will come across some that say: Here lies in honored glory a comrade in arms known but to God; and ask yourself, what honored glory? Here is a young man, thousands of miles away from home in the ground who died defending freedom. How do you honor, how do you glorify that? I will tell you how. You honor Old Glory on behalf of that hero. From Valley Forge to Iwo Jima to Anzio, that flag is symbolized, and we live by symbols. Justice Felix Frankfurter in 1940 said we live by symbols. So honor Old Glory, and that is how you honor that comrade-in-arms known but to God. The flag is falling. Catch the falling flag and hold it high. There may not be any rocket's red glare, any bombs bursting in air, but anyone with eyes to see will see that our flag is still there.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I do not know how the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] can make it any clearer. These are not difficult ideas. Abortion is not a proper part of family planning. Family planning has to do with getting pregnant or not getting pregnant. But once you are pregnant, it is a different situation. Then if you want to move into abortion, you are killing a life once it has begun. Now, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith], nor myself, nor Members speaking on this side of the issue, are not against family planning. We are against dollars going to organizations that promote abortion, that counsel abortion, but we are the biggest supplier of family planning around the globe. We have been, and we still will be. But we want to help organizations that do not counsel nor perform abortions, whether it is with the money we give directly or whether it is with fungible funds. We are for family planning, properly understood, which does not include killing an unborn child once it has begun. That ought not to be too complicated. I congratulate the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith]. I hope his amendment prevails, and I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, those who believe that youth are not interested in public affairs have not met the eighth grade class at Churchville Junior High in Elmhurst, IL. In a contest, sponsored by the school's social studies department, the students were asked to write an essay entitled, ``Why I would like to have lunch with Representative Hyde.'' The students used the opportunity to voice opinions on a wide range of issues. Many also expressed interest in running for public office and making positive contributions to government in the future. I would like to share with my colleagues the six winning essays, I and am happy to report that we had lunch and discussed some of the students' concerns and questions about political office. Henry Hyde (By Gwen Infusino) I wish to have lunch with the prominent politician, Henry Hyde. I would very much enjoy expressing my political opinions. I would enjoy meeting him because I want to know about the life of a politician. Also, I am interested in the way government works. I would very much enjoy expressing my political opinions. I'm concerned about society, environment, and many other issues. I'm happy to imagine that I just might make a difference. I'm sure Mr. Hyde is open to all kinds of opinions and suggestions. I would enjoy meeting him because I want to know about the life of a politician. At this point in time, many people my age are making career decisions. These will affect us for the rest of our lives. If I find a politician's life appealing, I might choose to get into that field. I am interested in the way government works. America is where I live, and so will all of our children. I want to learn a bit about our system so I know how it works and how safe it makes it for us all. I feel knowing about our political and judicial system is a must for us all. In conclusion, I would like to meet Henry Hyde for three prominent reasons. I want to know about the life of a politician. I am interested in expressing my political opinions. I want to ask him about our government and the way it works.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, ingenuity and imagination are cherished commodities in an era which demands that we do more with less. Our continued prosperity demands that we challenge our minds, see beyond the obvious, and extend our vision. It is our intellect that sets us apart. Mr. John Urbaszewski of Oak Park, IL, provides a very practical example of the creativity of the mind and the power of imagination. A retired, State-government employee, keenly intent on staying active and keeping his mind sharp, Urbaszewski, without benefit of a single art lesson, has become a very popular, local folk artist, affectionately referred to as ``Grandpa Moses.'' What most of us identify as abandoned soda bottles, plastic coffee creamers, old buttons, film packs, cereal boxes, cocktail stirrers, and other such ``trash,'' Urbaszewski sees as the basic building blocks for his versions of Frank Lloyd Wright's Mile High Center skyscraper, the Taj Mahal, Rome's Piazza di Spagna, Brasilia's baroque opera house, and Disney's castles. His creations, all constructed from rubbish, also include birdhouses, restaurants, office buildings and cathedrals. Packing many of his art works into the Grandpa Moses Mobile Traveling Museum, Urbaszewski has visited numerous schools and shopping centers exhibiting his creative talents and stimulating the minds of his audiences. His storefront and museum exhibits are instant show stoppers and crowd pleasers. Grandpa Moses clearly demonstrates the creative powers of the mind in a very entertaining and practical manner.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I am certainly supportive of the gentleman from California [Mr. Packard] and the work that his subcommittee has done, but I must say in this situation I do wholeheartedly support the substitute amendment offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Houghton]. It cuts 50 of 190 jobs. It cuts the budget by 32 percent, from $22 million down to $15 million. And it folds its functions into the Congressional Research Service. So we cut down on the money, we cut down on the personnel, we downsize to the bone, but we do not lose the function. It just seems to me in this era of fiber optics and lasers and space stations, we need access to an objective, scholarly source of information that can save us millions and billions. We should not eviscerate everything that makes us a more effective Congress. So, I support the Houghton amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. What was the gentleman's request?

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. I want to respond very briefly. There is no carte blanche authority given to the President by this amendment of mine. This amendment strengthens. There is nothing requiring notification in the War Powers Act. This amendment says the President shall in every possible--not may--shall report to Congress before, before the troops go in; and then after the introduction, the President shall. So we will be informed. The same thing goes for the report. We are not required to leave our common sense out in the Rotunda. The facts of life are Lyndon Johnson could not even go to his own convention because the people did not support what he was doing in Vietnam. And that lesson has not been lost on anybody with a room temperature IQ. So do not think the War Powers Act forces the President to consult. No President who wants to survive another week will omit consulting. Mr. Chairman, I yield 9 minutes to the Speaker of the House, the distinguished gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich].

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. HYDE. I will hold them in reserve. All right. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Barr].

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. Does the gentleman require 2 additional minutes?

Mr. HYDE. That is correct.

Mr. HYDE. Correct.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I have three more speakers left, and I understand, if I yield the gentleman 2 minutes, we will then be permitted to close.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Torkildsen].

Mr. HYDE. Would the Chair tell me how much time I have remaining?

Mr. HYDE. I do not know what knowledge Congress had of what was going on. If they knew and were looking the other way, as I suspect was the truth, nothing would have happened.

Mr. HYDE. If he was sending troops into hostilities or into a place where hostilities were imminent, that is the language of the War Powers Resolution.

Mr. HYDE. It would not. What we did was transferred destroyers to Great Britain. He declared them surplus.

Mr. HYDE. Yes. Section 2707(a)1, the War Powers Resolution, is repealed. That is the law that requires the President after 60 days to bring the troops home if we have not acted affirmatively to support the presence of the troops there. In other words, by doing nothing, the President has to call everybody home, which gives a false expectation to our adversaries, if they just wait us out. It has never been tested in court. No President ever, of either party, has recognized it as constitutional. It is unworkable. I am just trying to clean up the law so we have left a requirement of consultation and reporting timely and comprehensive and we always have that appropriations authority. You will remember the Boland amendments which cut off funds for the Contras. We passed one every year over my objection, but we did. Just one example of Congress cutting off funds for belligerencies we did not agree with.

Mr. HYDE. If the gentleman will yield, as a practical matter, the Presidents are wise enough to consult with Congress, let Congress know because you can not keep a secret when you move troops around the world. So the President has consulted. But no President has acknowledged it was pursuant to the War Powers Resolution. It was just common sense and comity between two co-equal-and-essential-to-each- other branches of government.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Skelton].

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I think it is a fact of modern history that declarations of war are gone. I think they are anachronistic. I do not think they will happen. Clearly the Constitution assigns the declarations of war function to Congress and only to Congress. But declaring war has consequences in a technologically advanced world that nobody wants to face. Had we declared war against Vietnam, the fear was China and Russia would have had to declare war against us. So you get into a cascading snowball situation. Instead what you do is you call it a police action, as we did in Korea, or you call it something else, but you do not formally take that giant leap of declaring war. So we are back to the President as Commander in Chief having the authority to move troops around but we always have the inescapable function of Congress, and that, too, is constitutional, to provide the appropriations. Without the appropriations, they cannot get a drink of water. Mr. Chairman, I just suggest that requiring consultation does not exhaust Congress's authority. We have the untrammeled authority to unappropriate, disappropriate funds. That is the key, and that makes us the king of the hill. I suggest that by repealing the foolish, nonsensical, unusable parts of the War Powers Resolution and requiring the President to keep us informed comprehensively, we enhance the use, ultimate use of our appropriation authority.