Henry Hyde

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bill H.R. 2589, the ``Copyright Term Extension Act,'' reported by the Committee on the Judiciary by voice vote, without objection. This is an important bill for our economy. It will mean 20 more years of foreign sales revenue coming back into the United States for our intellectual property products sold abroad. We are by far the world's largest producers of intellectual property and it is one of our most significant trade surpluses. Copyright is a property right. It is meant to be handed down by its creator to his or her children and grandchildren. This amendment provides for a small extension in the term of copyright which will allow the heirs of our nation's creators to benefit from the work of their family members. Writing a song or a novel is no less significant than contributing to a family business to be passed on to those we choose. The Berne Convention for Literary and Artistic Works, of which we are a Member, has a provision called the ``Rule of the Shorter Term.'' It states that a country need not give a foreign work any more protection than that work is given in its country of origin. The European Union countries recently adopted the term for copyright that we propose in this bill, life of the author plus 70 years. Under the Berne Convention, they need not give American copyrighted works the benefit of that term, but may limit protection in their countries of our works to our current term of life of the author plus 50 years. That, of course, means that their works are protected in their countries for 20 years longer than our works are protected in their countries. While that may be good for their products, it is not good for ours. I am proud of the fact that American creators and owners of creations have made the U.S. the dominant producer in the world of copyrighted material. It reflects the ingenuity of our people and indicates that through freedom and democracy, people will use their powers of creativity for their own benefit and, consequently, for society's benefit. This bill will maintain our dominance and continue to allow for the exploitation of that creativity which brings it to consumers for their enjoyment. I want to say a special word about the creative community that is the bedrock of our great film and television business. I refer to the screenwriters, the directors and the performers. Through their respective guilds, they have consistently supported the extension of the copyright term, and have asked that they be specifically made beneficiaries of the extension. In particular, they requested remuneration during the new term for those who currently receive no residuals and no royalties for films made before 1960. These films include such masterpieces as Casablanca, The Best Years of Our Lives, and Sunset Boulevard. This bill does not give them that because the Committee believes that private negotiation between private parties is always the best place to start when determining remuneration. I am certainly a believer in the marketplace. But this bill does contain a very strong and very serious admonition, a ``Sense of the Congress,'' that urges film studios and the guilds to voluntarily negotiate what remuneration screenwriters, directors and performers of pre-1960 films shall receive for the new term. Congress will be watching the negotiations. I expect that both sides in good faith will negotiate a fair outcome, and it will certainly not be taken lightly if the ``Sense of the Congress'' is not turned into a contractual reality. Mr. Speaker, this is a good and balanced bill which will ensure our global competitiveness while urging fair compensation for the creators who, with the investors and owners, make great copyrighted works our national treasures. I urge my colleagues to support this fine legislation.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) for taking this moment to commemorate the loss of our mutual friend, Steve Schiff. I knew Steve years ago before he was involved in Republican politics. Actually he was a lawyer for the Democratic Party in the State capital of Illinois, Springfield, when I first encountered him. I took an immediate liking to him because he was very smart, he was very serious about government and was a very honorable young man. You can imagine my delight when I learned a few years later that he had become a Republican and was elected the State's attorney in his community in New Mexico and then ran for Congress and got elected. Again it was my good fortune to serve with him on the Committee on the Judiciary. Steve, as I say, was bright, he was serious. He brought to government a desire to make things better. He loved the law, yet he had a compassion, a sensitivity and understanding about people and their problems. He was always someone you could count on for a very thoughtful appraisal and analysis of difficult situations. As the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Redmond) just said, he will be sorely missed. I think it is St. John who said when you love somebody, they are no longer where they were, they are always where you are. It will be impossible to turn around and look at the seats and the spaces that are left for the members on the Committee on the Judiciary without imagining Steve there and without missing him terribly, his wise counsel and his support. A death is always beyond expression in terms of adequate language. Martin Luther King had a wonderful saying, the inaudible language of the heart. And so it is with the inaudible language of the heart that I extend to his family, whose loss is tremendous, because he was such a tremendous person and so his being taken from them is a tremendous loss. I extend to them my deepest sympathy. Life is a mystery and death is a mystery. The way he met a not terribly pleasant illness at the end was typically Steve Schiff, brave, courageous, uncomplaining, hopeful. We remember you, Steve. You have made us better people for having known you.

Mr. HYDE

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

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

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 118, the Traffic Stops Statistics Act of 1997, was introduced by the ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers). This bill has bipartisan support and the support of the Department of Justice. H.R. 118 will authorize the Attorney General to conduct a study of the reasons why police make routine traffic stops. Racial profiling is a law enforcement method that uses race, age, dress, vehicle type, and other factors to identify people who police believe are more likely to be involved in crimes. Profiling is often used to stop those suspected of crimes without any indicia of criminal activity. However, there is a growing number of reported incidents and allegations that black American males are being stopped for no reason. They are merely stopped, not given tickets, not given citations. The fourth amendment provides, ``The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.'' Traffic stops based solely on race are wrong and must not be tolerated. The study will provide for the collection of data that will help determine whether police are using race as the predominant reason to stop motorists of color. The study will include consideration of such factors as the race and age of the individual stopped; the traffic infraction alleged to have been committed that led to the stop, if any; whether a search was instituted; the rationale for the search; whether contraband was discovered during the search; whether any warning or citation was issued as a result of the stop; and whether an arrest was made as a result of the stop or search. The study will also report on the beneficial efforts of law enforcement departments to fight the war on drugs by recording the approximate quantity of the drugs and the value of drug proceeds seized on an annual basis as a result of traffic stops. The Department of Justice will submit the results of the 2-year study to Congress. Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill, and I am pleased to support it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. (Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 118) to provide for the collection of data on traffic stops, as amended.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 4 minutes. I find myself in an awkward situation here. I think the War Powers Act is unconstitutional. I think it is a bad law. I thought so when Ronald Reagan was President, not so my friends over there. They thought it was a great idea. When George Bush was President, I still thought it was not a great idea. But so many Members over there, at least some of the more mature, the ones with graying hair, thought it was a great idea. But today they do not think it is such a great idea. Now Congress would like to finesse this whole question of troops in Bosnia. If something goes wrong, nobody asked us. So the troops are there. They probably should be there. For how long, I am not sure. But we have this War Powers Act, which, in my judgment, is an invasion of the constitutional power of the Commander in Chief. But, on the other hand, it is a way to get Congress to face up to its responsibility as to whether or not we should put our troops in harm's way. So in a way, inartfully however it is drafted, it does strike a chord in favor of the involvement of Congress in the decision, the very dangerous decision, of committing troops. So, as far as I am concerned, there has been a double standard on this issue, just as there is on the independent counsel laws. So many people loved the law when the Republicans were in the White House and now they find it fraught with flaws. So we have the War Powers Act, which was a wonderful thing as long as it put restraints on Ronald Reagan and George Bush. But now that we have another occupant of the White House, why, it is shot through with flaws and it is unwise. So look, it is the law. We have sworn to uphold the law. We have taken an oath to uphold the Constitution. And so, as long as it is the law, the other principle at play here is we should enforce it, we should obey it. As long as we ignore it, we are weakening the very fabric of our laws. And so much as I do not like the law, it is the law. And since we have not repealed it, and June 7, 1995, I lost here on the floor 201 to 217 ``no'' to repeal the act, and some of my friends over there who are defending it today voted against me and gave me no help in repealing what I think is a bad law. So we have the law. And today I intend to uphold the law because it is on the books and it is one way to involve Congress in this very important decision. So I thank and I salute the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) for bringing this forward. Otherwise, this very important and controversial law would just be ignored, and I think that is not exactly adhering to our sworn duties. So my colleagues are making us face up to a tough question. It is on the books it is the law. As much as I do not like the law and as much as I would like it repealed, it is not repealed. They will not let it be repealed. So let us enforce the law and hope for the best.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the ``Department of Justice Vacancies Clarification Act of 1998.'' This legislation will end the practice of appointing acting personnel for indefinite periods of time to important jobs in the Department of Justice. For too long, the Department of Justice has used this method to evade the political accountability provided by the Senate confirmation process. In 1988, Congress reenacted the Vacancies Act to prevent the filling of Executive Branch positions with acting personnel for long periods. Generally speaking, the Vacancies Act says that a person may serve as an acting head of an office for no more than 120 days. 5 U.S.C. Sec. 3348. (These times are tolled while a nomination is pending or when Congress has adjourned sine die.) Most organic statutes for government departments have language that says the head of the agency may delegate his functions to anyone within the Department. See, e.g., 28 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 509-10 (language for the Department of Justice). Both Democrats and Republicans in the Executive Branch have interpreted this kind of language to be an alternative method of filling vacancies that is not subject to the 120-day period provided in the Vacancies Act. That interpretation effectively nullifies the Vacancies Act. The Department of Justice Vacancies Clarification Act of 1998 would make it clear that the general language in the Department of Justice statute is not intended to override the Vacancies Act and that the Vacancies Act is the only method for filling vacancies in the Department of Justice. In addition, to insure that the language is not ignored, the Act provides that when any acting person serves beyond the time provided in the Vacancies Act, the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit will step in to appoint someone to fill the job until someone is nominated and confirmed. The Court could not appoint a person who had previously served as an acting head for that particular vacancy or a person who was nominated, but did not get confirmed. This is similar to language that already exists with respect to United States Attorney positions. 28 U.S.C. Sec. 546. My intent is not so much that the Court ought to make such appointments, but to give the Executive Branch an incentive not to let the time lapse. I believe that this legislation will clarify the law, vindicate our system of checks and balances, and be to the advantage of all concerned. I hope that all of my colleagues will support it.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, one of the few genuine legends of Chicago journalism, Irv Kupcinet, has just completed 55 years of writing one of the most popular columns in the midwest. ``Kup'' has countless friends in the worlds of entertainment, politics and sports. His entire career has been spent with the Chicago Sun-Times and predecessor newspapers. And on January 18th, the Sun-Times published a warm editorial which I am pleased to share with my colleagues: Kup a Treasure For 55 years, Kup's Column has been a staple of Chicago journalism. And its author, Irv Kupcinet, has been a dean of his profession. It is not just that he has done what he does for so many years. It is that he has done it with a grace, quality and compassion so often missing from contemporary American culture. Kup has been a gentleman away from his keyboard as well. Over the years, he has spent his time and money supporting the Weizmann Institute of Science, the Chicago Academy for the Arts, Little City Foundation and the Variety Club, and working on telethons raising money for Easter Seals, muscular dystrophy and cerebral palsy. Last, but certainly not least, he spent an amazing 50 years hosting the Purple Heart Cruise to thank veterans for their service to the country. And to think this whole, wonderful career happened only because an injury ended his first career as a professional football player. Football's loss was Our Town's gain. Chicago, and the Sun- Times, are lucky to have you, Kup.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I hate to prolong this debate, it has been prolonged too long, but there are some things that need to be said about the situation we find ourselves in. Mr. Chairman, I really feel badly about the fact that this bill is going to be voted on and there will be a lot of red lights up there. I think the purpose of this bill is to honor a great American President, a great American President who is in the evening of his life, and of whom can be said more people are walking free in the world today because he was our leader for two terms. The very phrase ``free world'' owes much to this man whom we seek to honor, but whom we are trivializing, and whom this great honor for him has become a victim of what really is raw and petty politics. ``Mr. Gorbachev, tear down that wall''; the democratizations of central Europe, the unification of Germany, the dissolution of the Soviet Union, these are cosmic occurrences in our time and in our century that are worthy of recognition. And, yes, I think the gentleman in whose district the airport belongs has an important role to play, but the airport is a national airport, and Ronald Reagan was a national figure, and I think there is something beyond the parochialism of a district. I say that with respect, but that is how I feel. This man, Ronald Reagan, gave this country dignity, he gave it hope, he gave it optimism. It was his fervent desire to make this country a city on a hill, and he did it. He did it. He made us proud of our chief executive, proud of our government, proud of America, and he gave us something to look forward to. This is simply a small effort to recognize that, and it ought not fall victim to petty politics. If Members deny there are petty politics involved here, I can only say they are fooling themselves, because everybody knows what is the problem here. But here is a man deserving of the fullest recognition, especially as he is still living, and might in some way learn of what we are doing. But to put red lights up there is to me demeaning and sad and unfortunate. Let us recognize the man who made America proud.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman had an opportunity not to take the Washington name off of the Washington National Airport, but simply to add to it Ronald Reagan, and the gentleman did not like to do that. Also, just let me say, the gentleman is quite right. The Reagan building such as it is ought to satisfy people. But we have the George Washington Parkway, we have the Washington Monument, we have the City of Washington, D.C. It would seem to me in the Washington National Airport there would be room for a few more letters acknowledging and honoring President Reagan.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I have a statement covering an outline, a brief outline, of some of the services and contributions that Sonny Bono made as a member of the House Committee on the Judiciary, and I am going to ask that that be printed in the Record, but I have some remarks I would like to make that are more of a general nature than a specific recitation of his great contributions to the House Committee on the Judiciary. Mr. Speaker, contemplating the untimely death of our colleague and really our brother, Sonny Bono, forces us to confront the mystery of life and death. It makes us ask the question to which there is no answer in this lifetime: Why me, Lord? Sonny's impact on us was like a skyrocket. It was bright, it was beautiful, and very brief. He left us many examples of how we should understand our vocation as legislators, how we should treat each other as brothers and sisters and of the value of laughter and inner joy. Sonny, in one brief lifetime, was a resounding success in 4 difficult careers: Songwriting, performing, mayor of an important city, and a Congressman. Sonny laughed often, he loved much, especially his wife, Mary, and his children. He won the respect and the affection of all who knew him. He appreciated beauty and he saw the good in others. He was an authentic free spirit. Among the many lessons we can draw from his example, the one most important to me are three words that his life said to every person, young or old, who has a burning desire to achieve. ``Yes, you can.'' Sonny, I know you are up there. Do not forget us, because we will never forget you. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow this House will remember in a memorial service the life and work of Representative Sonny Bono, who lost his life tragically in a skiing accident on January 5, 1998. As we convene to reflect on his remarkable life, I would like to recognize his achievements as a valued member of the House Judiciary Committee. Sonny was not a lawyer, and yet he requested to become a member of the Judiciary Committee out of his concern for the issues entrusted to its jurisdiction. I was happy to recommend his placement on the Committee and I know that I speak for its entire membership when I say that his refreshing approach to legislation and his immediate contributions were appreciated on both sides of the aisle. How Sonny became a Member of Congress is a classic American tale that should be studied by anyone interested in pursuing politics. Unable to cut through the municipal bureaucracy necessary to simply put a sign in front of his restaurant in Palm Springs, California, Sonny ran for Mayor to fix the problem himself. Elected twice to that position, Sonny succeeded in bringing government closer to the people and in bringing new revenue, including an International Film Festival, to his city and its surrounding areas. Elected to the 104th Congress in 1994, this ambitious freshman's first bill called for another initiative to bring government closer to the people: the appointment of a three-judge court panel, already used in Voting Rights Act and apportionment cases, to hear constitutional challenges to popular referenda voted upon by the entire population of a state. His reasoning was simple: when the citizens of a state vote directly on an issue that is important to their lives, and a direct majority speaks, one judge should not be able to delay the execution of the will of the people of an entire state for years. This sophisticated measure was aimed at addressing the legal aftermath of the affirmative action and immigration referenda in his home state. Sonny Bono, the self-proclaimed non-lawyer, had to argue for this bill before a Judiciary Committee comprised of legally-trained members. He effectively laid out his case. Sonny's bill was reported to the full House by the Committee. Then, as a freshman, Representative Bono went to the floor of the House armed only with the logic of his arguments and convinced a majority of his colleagues to support passage of his bill. Mr. Speaker, Congress can be a daunting institution for anyone to master. Sonny Bono, as a freshman, tackled a serious subject like judicial reform and made it his first effort at lawmaking. His legislation has been reintroduced this Congress and is pending before the Judiciary Committee as part of the Judicial Reform Act of this Congress. His gifts reflected Sonny's diverse background as a songwriter, entertainer, business owner and Mayor. Those experiences gave him a unique perspective on issues as diverse as tax reform, immigration and intellectual property. As a member of the Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property, he worked hard to negotiate difficult legal solutions to problems facing the country as the Internet becomes a new means of distributing books, music, software, and movies. To Sonny, these were not just theories to be discussed, they were part of his life. He had the unique distinction of being someone who could understand the practical effects of legislation in this area. Many of us attended the funeral service in Sonny's home of Palm Springs and saw, along with the rest of the country on their televisions, the hundreds of people who stood in line to pay their last respects to this unique and gifted citizen. Sonny will be remembered as an ambitious member of Congress who represented with distinction the interests of his district and the interests of our country. I join with my colleagues in remembering his political career, and send prayers of comfort to his wife Mary and his children Chesare, Chianna, Chastity and Christy. The people of the 46th District of California are fortunate to have had Sonny Bono as their Representative, and those of us who worked closely with him are fortunate to have experienced his refreshing candor and lighthearted wisdom.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1753, legislation that will further Congress' support for the expansion of Boys and Girls Clubs of America--one of the best examples of proven youth crime prevention. This legislation is part of a continuing initiative to ensure that--with Federal seed money--Boys and Girls Clubs of America can expand to serve an additional one million young people through at least 2,500 clubs by the year 2000. We are all aware that young people need a safe, positive, environment to help them avoid the dangers of crime and violence, and Boys and Girls Clubs of America provides a safe haven for 2.6 million children. Indeed, Boys and Girls Clubs of America has received widespread recognition as one of America's most efficient charities. Last year, Congress recognized the value of Boys and Girls Clubs when we authorized $100 million in seed money over 5 years to establish more clubs in public housing and distressed areas throughout the country. Currently, 90 percent of Boys and Girls Clubs funding comes from the private sector. The seed money provided by Congress is being used for start-up costs and program enhancements. H.R. 1753 would make several administrative changes to current law-- streamlining the application process for clubs to obtain seed money and ensuring that at least 2,500 clubs are established by the year 2000. The bill would also permit a small amount of funds to be used to establish a role-model speakers' program to encourage and motivate young people nationwide. The Senate passed a companion bill sponsored by Senator Hatch--S. 476--without amendment by voice vote last May. On October 29, the Judiciary Committee ordered H.R. 1753 reported--with one minor amendment--by a voice vote. The amendment clarifies that clubs can be established in rural areas and Indian reservations that have significant populations of high risk youth. Mr. Chairman, this is a terrific bill that enjoys bipartisan support, and I want to compliment my colleague from Wisconsin--Tom Barrett--for the work he has done on behalf of the Boys and Girls Clubs America. I urge the House to pass this bill so that we can foster one of the best ways of stopping crime and helping children that I know of.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I ask that this exchange of letters between me and Chairman Bliley be placed in the Record following debate on H.R. 2472. House of Representatives, Committee on Commerce, Washington, DC, November 8, 1997. Hon. Henry J. Hyde, Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Henry: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 2472, a bill to extend provisions of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) through September 1, 1998. EPCA is one of the legislative cornerstones of our national energy security policy. Among other things, it authorizes the operation and maintenance of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and provides limited immunity to American oil companies to participate in activities pursuant to the International Energy Agreement. In light of current actions in the Middle East and the important activities authorized by this Act, prompt passage of this EPCA extension is necessary. I appreciate your interest in H.R. 2472 and I acknowledge that I will bring it to the House Floor in the form of a simple extension through September 1, 1998 without any substantive change to the antitrust provisions. I also acknowledge that your action in allowing this legislation to go forward does not affect any future rights of the Committee on the Judiciary. Consistent with the Judiciary Committee's jurisdiction over antitrust issues under Rule X and with the Commerce Committee's jurisdiction over energy issues under Rule X, I would be pleased to work with you to develop legislation which ensures an effective national energy security policy. In keeping with your request, I will place your letter and this response in the record of the debate on H.R. 2472. Sincerely, Tom Bliley, Chairman.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, a democracy depends on an informed electorate. If the information about how the government is being run or what the truth is about controversial issues is withheld from the public, from the people who are the ultimate governors in this representative democracy, we have a flawed democracy. When we only permit the print media to cover hearings, to cover important testimony, we are depending then on the news as filtered through the bias, the space limitations, the concerns of the journalist to get the information. We deprive the public of the immediacy, the graphic, unvarnished, spin-free version of the truth by not letting them see with their own eyes. The Lucky Luciano rule is what this is, back in the old days when the big boys did not want their pictures on television, so they took pictures of their hands, as I recall, in the Kefauver committee. But it just seems to me we have here a classic conflict of rights. One right is the right to privacy and the other is the right of the people to know. And in that conflict, they both cannot prevail. In my judgment, the right of the people to know is absolutely indispensable. Yes, you can be abused. Yes, you can be slandered. You can be slandered in the print media, you can be slandered in conversations and certainly in campaigns. It seems to be the vogue. But I would hope in a committee made up of Democrats and Republicans, somebody would have the courage to defend the witness if somebody is being abusive. I have seen Members of Congress be abusive to people. I have also seen them shut up and be told they are liars and give as good as they get and get as good as they give. I know if the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley] were present or the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Kanjorski] were present in a hearing and a witness was being abused, they would not stand for it, and the abuser would not come out unscathed. This is not an easy question. This is a tough question. We have a conflict of rights, a conflict of interest. But it seems to me the paramount right is for the public to know, and they should not have to rely on the narrow availability, the judgment, the taste, the writing ability of print journalists. Not everybody can see those papers, not everybody reads the paper every day. But you put the good old C-SPAN on and you know what is going on. That is an advantage for democracy.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I also rise in support of S. 1377. I have introduced an identical bill, H.R. 2835, which expands the Vietnam-era eligibility dates for membership in the American Legion. It is very significant that the House is voting on this veterans bill on the eve of November 11th, Veterans Day. Hopefully this great Nation can remember its veterans throughout the year, not only in November. The American Legion, founded September 16, 1919, is a great service organization and is well deserving of our full support. I urge a favorable vote on this important legislation.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, please permit me to share with my colleagues the tremendous work of a half-dozen young men and women who live in my District. Each year, my office in cooperation with numerous junior and senior high schools in Northern Illinois sponsor an essay writing contest. A board, chaired by Vivian Turner, a former principle of Blackhawk Junior High School in Bensenville, IL, chooses a topic, and evaluates results of the submitted essays. Winners share more than $1,000 in scholarship funds. This year, Marta Kuersten, a student at Algonquin Junior High School in Des Plaines, IL, placed first in the junior high division with an essay entitled What I can do for my Country, a text of which I include in the Record. Placing second in the junior division is Tina Rasane, a student at Mary, Seat of Wisdom School in Park Ridge, IL; and John Tadelski, a student at St. Alexander School in Villa Park, placed third. In the Senior High School Division, Thomas W. Repetto, a student at Maine South High School in Park Ridge, placed first with his essay entitled Towards the Preservation of the Government by the Citizen, a text of which I include in the Record. Shrujal Baxi, a student at Glenbard North High School in Carol Stream, IL, placed second; and Shannon McNamara, a student at Lake Park High School in Roselle, placed third. What I Can Do For My Country (By Marta Kuersten) ``Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.'' Well, there are the things that naturally come to mind. I could pick up litter, volunteer at the local hospital, make donations to charities or even join the army when I'm old enough. But I think real service to my country has to do more with my attitude which can affect my actions. It's got to do with the choices I make, and the way I face life. I'm choosing to go to college, and earn a degree, so I'll have the skills to get a good job. I'll avoid premarital sex, so I don't have to worry about unwanted pregnancy or sexually transmitted diseases. And even the simplest choices are important, like choosing to throw my trash in a garbage can instead of on the ground. Okay, so how does this affect my country, you ask? Simple, unemployment is a problem in our country, and if I don't get a college education, why should I expect not to join the ranks? Welfare is what your country does for you. Paying taxes is what you do for your country. And why should I take the place in a hospital of a person with cancer because I have hepatitis, or worst of all, HIV/ AIDS? I can save myself and the person with the unavoidable illness, (like cancer), a lot of grief if I choose wisely and remain abstinent. And that is to say nothing of the grief shared by both the mother and a child born of an unwanted pregnancy. A hospital bed or Medicaid is what the country can do for you. Saying ``no'' is what you can do for your country. Although it may seem small next to chastity and a college degree, choosing not to litter means that someone else doesn't have the responsibility of picking up your garbage. ``Keep Your Town Beautiful'' crews are what your country does for you. Finding and using a trash can is what you can do for your country. The point is, the choices we make, big or small, affect our country in one way or another. If I'm really asking myself what I could do for my country, I'll make a wise decision that will not only do the country good but will also probably do me good as well. And John F. Kennedy would surely agree with that thinking. Towards the Preservation of the Government By the Citizen (Thomas W. Repetto) ``We the People . . .'' The first three words of the United States Constitution affirm that the true leaders of government are the millions of people who are governed by it. In a government that is representative of the people, it is the will of the people that directs a government to satisfactory levels. As John F. Kennedy told Americans to ``Ask what you can do for your country,'' he echoed the most necessary component of a healthy and successful government: popular participation. The participation of citizens is necessary so that a government can truly serve the needs of its constituents. In many foreign nations, the only way one can voice his opinions and help his country is through a ballot box. While Americans still honor the significance of the vote, they have found numerous other ways to do something for their country and respond to President Kennedy's request. Citizens can serve in the military, and fight for one's country. Programs such as the Peace Corps and Americorps allow citizens to travel to other countries and work to preserve world peace. This helps the United States by strengthening foreign relations and creating a world where our children and our children's children do not need to deal with the rigors and heartache that war can bring. Promoting peace in our domestic wars with crime, gangs, and drugs can be aided by organizations like the Guardian Angels and Community Watch programs. Battles are fought every day, and our willingness to resolve these problems is the first step in combating the crime that surrounds us. Only through peace and safety can we truly find happiness in our lives and in our government. The Puritans who settled in the Massachusetts Bay Colony believed in the philosophy that ``We are our brothers's keeper.'' Likewise, citizens of America, a country of the people, by the people, and for the people, can help their country by being their brother's keeper, aiding the people who make up this great nation. When one helps serve food at a soup kitchen, visits people at a nursing home around Christmas time, holds a door for a handicapped person, or tutors disadvantaged children, he helps to promote the general welfare of the community and subsequently the nation. As an individual with deeply rooted Catholic beliefs, I believe that acting as a ``Good Samaritan'' is the ultimate way to serve the United States. One can join a local branch of political party, join a union, actively participate in a special interest group, or assist a political campaign. For example, when my government teacher was running for trustee in his village, myself and several other students went door to door passing out campaign literature. In government, we work so that the best people are elected and the best views are represented. Unions fight for the rights of their members and work to improve working conditions. As the son of a union member, I respect the union's activity in trying to promote a better workplace. Involvement in a special interest group demonstrates a desire to see that a concern is respected. Joining any organization that is active in trying to influence public policy is a positive way to be an active citizen. Criticisms of the government help to illuminate problems and propose solutions. Satirical cartoons, commentary articles, and political discussions and debates demonstrate a citizen's desire to improve his country's ability to protect and serve the people. It is our duty as Americans to read commentaries on the government, watch political discussions, keep up to date on issues that affect our community, and argue with our friends on datable issues. Demonstrations are effective in conveying concerns of a large sect. While we may not march in front of an abortion clinic, we must be aware of why the people are marching and understand their position as not to be ignorantly biased one way or another. A citizen who simply abides by the laws of his community supports his country. A person who chooses not to drive recklessly, who chooses not to cause a public disturbance, who refrains from taking away the rights of another individual, preserves the order and justice with which the government is designed to protect. When we respect the unalienable rights of others, we promote the ideals of American society and protect our nation from falling into an abyss of immorality and injustice. Only a few people can be elected to serve in Congress. Only several individuals can represent a community in local politics. Yet, every American can participate and do something for their country. There are always improvements to be made and problems to be solved. A letter to a Congressman, a letter to the editor of a local newspaper, a phone call to a friend who might generate interest: whatever the form of communication, citizens must dictate their concerns. Then, after the concerns are exposed, the individual must take it upon himself to see that the problem is fixed. In the words of Learned Hand, ``Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it.'' Only with a eminent desire to right what is wrong, to make just what is unjust, to equalize what is unequal, and to improve what is imperfect can man truly make a difference. Citizens must passionately believe in a cause and do their best to make sure that their dream is fulfilled. If, and only if, the hearts of man bubble with painstaking ability to fight for the liberty ingrained in the stars and stripes of America, then we can exclaim that no barrier is unbreakable, no problem is unsolvable, no aspect of moral degradation is unstoppable.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, I do not like disagreeing with my good friend, the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher], but I do oppose his motion to instruct. I would tell the gentleman, 245(i) does not give anybody an amnesty or give anybody a pass. It is a procedure whereby people who have been in this country and have attempted to regularize their status, and have applied and are on a list, and whose number has come up and a visa is available, it prevents them from being forced to go out of the country and wait either 3 years or 10 years to apply to come back. It keeps the families that have been established together. It is humanitarian. Yes, we are dealing with illegals who can be deported anytime, but it is a process for people who are ready to become regularized, to become regularized without having to break up the family. It deals with the reality that the people are here. If we abandon 245(i), they are going to stay here. They are not going to have to leave. But that visa that would be used up by one of those applicants will be used by another immigrant, so we add to the totality of immigration, not reduce it.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a bill to codify and enact certain general and permanent laws, related to aliens and nationality, as title 8 of the U.S. Code. This bill has been prepared by the Office of the Law Revision Counsel of the House of Representatives as a part of the responsibilities of that Office to prepare and submit to the Committee on the Judiciary, for enactment into positive law, all titles of the U.S. Code. This bill makes no change in the substance of existing law. Anyone interested in obtaining a copy of the bill and a description of the bill, containing a section-by-section summary should contact John R. Miller, Acting Law Revision Counsel, U.S. House of Representatives, H2-304 Ford House Office Building, Washington, D.C., 20515-6711. The telephone number is (202) 226-2411. Persons wishing to comment on the bill should submit those comments to the Acting Law Revision Counsel no later than January 30, 1998.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, you know, it is very unfair debating Barney Frank, because he can get 20 minutes into 3 minutes. Never forget, this is a Federal constitutional right we are seeking to vindicate, and if the Federal courts do not want to hear these cases, this is a shame. That is denying justice. Justice delayed 9 years is not justice, and we ought to seek a remedy. This bill provides a remedy, and I urge its support.

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

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, under the bill with the manager's amendment, you do not get immediate access to the Federal court. You have to apply to the local land use agency. You get a ruling, you reapply, taking the conditions of the denial into account. Then you must appeal the application, or as much as necessary, to reach a body of elected local officials, if available. If all of the above are denied, you have concurrent jurisdiction. You may go the State route or you may go the Federal route. Now, I hasten to point out what we are vindicating here is a constitutional right, and the Federal courts exist to vindicate constitutional rights. The fifth amendment discusses the taking and the rights of property owners; the seventh commandment talks about thou shalt not steal. The real problem is delay. Data indicates nine years it takes to wend your way through the maze of local jurisdiction. The Federal judges are local people. These cases are not too tough for them to decide. Concurrent jurisdiction is given, and there are many civil rights cases that get expedited treatment under the statute. Why is not the right to have your property treated properly and legally a civil right? It is a human right. I simply say the Federal courts are not some exotic bizarre branch of justice only taking a few cases. Those judges can handle these cases. They are not tough. They handle a lot tougher cases. But give the property owner some relief before 9 years have elapsed. Justice is what the court systems are all about, and concurrent jurisdiction gives the property owner an opportunity to get his Federal right, his constitutional right, vindicated in a Federal court. I do not think there is anything improper with that.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, then the gentleman agrees with me and ought to withdraw his motion.