C. Cox

Mr. COX of California

Mr. COX of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, what I hear from the minority side is that they are in support of granting immunity to these witnesses; just not now, just not at this time and this place, just not in this way, because they are busy protesting the committee and its existence. It is perhaps politically acceptable to engage in acts of political protest in an election year, but obstruction of justice is not an acceptable form of protest. Today, the minority stands alone in obstructing the grants of immunity to these 4 witnesses, because the Clinton administration---- Point of Order

Mr. COX of California. Mr. Speaker, with the permission of the gentleman, I will withdraw the remark, to the extent that it conveys violation of statute. I do not mean to suggest that. What I mean to suggest very explicitly is that the minority is obstructing what the Justice Department itself wishes to do. In its defense of the Clinton Administration, the minority is more tendentious than is the administration itself. The administration has no objection to the grant of immunity to these witnesses. The most important of the four witnesses whose testimony we seek to immunize is Kent La. Kent La is the United States distributor for Red Pagoda Mountain Cigarettes, the largest Communist Chinese brand. The man who is a distributor for these cigarettes in the United States is the person whose testimony we seek to hear. The contributions that Mr. La is going to testify about, from Communist Chinese tobacco billionaire Ted Sioeng, his family and their associates in the worldwide tobacco business, totalled over $400,000 to the Democratic National Committee in 1996 alone. All these contributions were solicited by John Huang. $50,000 of them came from Kent La himself. We can differ about the facts, but we should not differ about whether to get the facts. Let us get the truth. Let us grant immunity to these witnesses, as the Clinton administration agrees we can and must.

Mr. COX of California. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 440) expressing the sense of the Congress that the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight should confer immunity from prosecution for information and testimony concerning illegal foreign fundraising activities.

Mr. COX of California

Mr. COX of California. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to rise in support of H.R. 1872, the Communications Satellite Competition and Privatization Act, which will bring a notable and lasting achievement for the current Congress. I would particularly like to commend the work of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley), the chairman of the Committee on Commerce, whose diligent efforts have made it possible for us to bring this important privatization initiative to the floor. It has significant bipartisan support. The law that we are amending today, the Satellite Communications Act, was enacted in 1962. That was less than 5 years after the launch of Sputnik. We have to remember that, at that time, it was widely assumed that no private company could ever assume the financial burden of putting a satellite into orbit. It should not have come as a surprise, therefore, that the 1962 Satellite Communications Act gave COMSAT and INTELSAT, the intergovernmental treaty organization which COMSAT helped create, a virtual monopoly on the world's international satellite business. It remains a profitable monopoly. We have come a long way since 1962, and the myth that no private company could afford to get in the satellite business has long since been shattered. This is the right bill. I urge support for H.R. 1872. There is no longer any defensible reason for governments to be in the business of providing commercial satellite services.

Mr. COX of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I think we have just heard from the ranking member on the Committee on Commerce that he is prepared to accept as a norm for debate and decision in the House in futuro the decisions of the Washington Legal Foundation. I think that will actually help us a great deal here in our deliberations in the House. I think he is quite right, the Washington Legal Foundation is a fine outfit. I will look forward to holding the ranking member to his new principle. But the Washington Legal Foundation, which he sings the praises of, has written us a letter subsequent to the one that he is describing that says, ``I want to make it very clear, the Washington Legal Foundation does not in any way oppose this bill or in any manner support amendments to this bill.'' Specifically, the letter was written so that we would all know that they oppose this amendment. That is the position of the Washington Legal Foundation. Furthermore, the Congressional Research Service has written us on the same point telling us that it is their legal analysis that the impacts described in the gentleman's presentation are not likely to support successful takings claims. That is the view of the Congressional Research Service. So the question is not whether we are going to expose taxpayers to spending huge amounts of money because Congress did something wrong. This amendment would expose taxpayers to huge expenditures of their hard-earned money because Congress did something right, which is to take away the monopoly powers that this bill in fact takes away from COMSAT. This is not a Fifth Amendment taking. Private actors can be disadvantaged in any number of ways by governmental action. A private landowner can discover that the value of her real estate is reduced to zero because of the land being declared essential habitat. That is an example of governmental action that ought to be considered a taking and the landowner in that case ought to be fairly compensated. But here our private actor is not some innocent landowner trying to recover from government regulation. This is a private company seeking to compel continued government protection for the unique monopoly powers, the privileges and benefits that flow from those monopoly powers that it enjoys. This is an anticompetitive policy that is in fact hostile to true property rights. In fact, current law unfairly restricts the ability of private companies to compete. Instead it guarantees to COMSAT's investors monopoly-sized returns on their investments. What property does COMSAT have that it alleges is being taken? It suggests that takings claims are raised by the ``fresh look'' provisions of this bill. That is the language that enables the FCC beginning in 2000 to permit users or providers of telecommunications services to renegotiate contracts they signed with COMSAT prior to the repeal of its statutory monopoly as the only U.S. company authorized to sell INTELSAT services. In other words, COMSAT wants to retain its monopoly powers and anything less would be considered a taking. The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that persons doing business in a regulated marketplace should expect the legislative scheme to change from time to time, even in ways that might be unfavorable to their interests. This principle was most recently reiterated by the Supreme Court in its unanimous 1993 decision in Concrete Pipe, which quoted from the Court's 1958 decision in FHA v. The Darlington. Here is what the Court said. ``Those who do business in the regulated field cannot object if the legislative scheme is buttressed by subsequent amendments to achieve the legislative end.'' Even if COMSAT were to pretend that it is not a participant in a heavily regulated marketplace, and, that would be a tough argument for COMSAT to make because they testified before Congress just last year that their company is hamstrung by a burdensome regulatory regime, Congress took special care when it created COMSAT in 1962 to let investors know that there would be no guaranteed return on their investment. These days COMSAT gets an 18 percent guaranteed rate of return. These days INTELSAT gets immunity from antitrust lawsuits. There is no doubt that H.R. 1872 will impair COMSAT's ability to obtain monopoly rents in the international satellite marketplace, and that is the purpose of the bill. While the bill does end an obsolete and outdated international monopoly, it does not deprive COMSAT of the right to compete in the new competitive marketplace. Instead, COMSAT will be forced to compete. Nor will H.R. 1872 bar COMSAT from providing service to the same customers to whom it presently provides service. But apparently in COMSAT's view, the company should be compensated by U.S. taxpayers if it is not guaranteed anything less than the absolute right to sell its services at inflated monopoly prices. That is a bad idea. Therefore, this amendment is a bad idea. I urge my colleagues to reject it.

Mr. COX of California

Mr. COX of California. Mr. Chairman, I would like to focus us, if I might, on the text of what is before us because, frankly, I find it difficult to disagree with much of what has been said on the Democratic side. I, too, like my colleagues on the Democratic side, support affirmative action. I certainly want to lead the fight, as we always have here in the Congress, against discrimination. A higher percentage of Republicans, in fact, than Democrats voted for the historic 1964 Civil Rights Act, and for every landmark civil rights act this Congress has passed. This is a bipartisan effort, and it always has been in our Congress. Let us take a look at the language that is before us. Section A is titled Prohibition. What is prohibited? ``No public institution of higher education shall, in connection with admission to such institution, discriminate against or grant preferential treatment to, any person or group, based in whole or in part, on the race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin of such person or group.'' It also says this: ``Affirmative action encouraged,'' not abolished, not done away with, encouraged. ``It is the policy of the United States,'' reading from the language of the amendment, ``1, to expand the applicant pool for college admissions; 2, to encourage college applications by women and minority students; 3, to recruit qualified women and minorities into the applicant pool for college admissions.'' If we can focus ourselves on what the amendment actually says and does, I think we can quickly see that this vindicates the very purpose of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which its chief Democratic sponsors were careful to point out, never, ever, ever was meant to require quotas. The Democratic floor manager of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was the Senator from Minnesota, Hubert Humphrey. He told a critic of the legislation, which as I said was supported by more Republicans than Democrats, ``If you can find anything in this legislation that would require people to hire on the basis of percentages or quotas, I will start eating the pages of the bill, one after another.'' Quotas, preferences, set-asides, are the antithesis of what the 1964 Civil Rights Act is all about and what affirmative action is all about. The use of racial preferences, moreover, is today in America, and has been for years, unconstitutional. The Supreme Court and the Federal courts of appeal have struck them down in virtually every contest, in contracting, in voting rights, and most certainly in education. Recently three Federal courts of appeal have struck down racial preferences in education, including the 5th Circuit in Hopwood v. Texas, the 4th Circuit in Podberesky v. Kirwan, and the 3d Circuit in Taxman v. Piscataway. In fact, the Taxman case was appealed to the Supreme Court, which was so clearly prepared to strike down these preferences nationwide that supporters of the preferences and set- asides and quotas settled the case rather than risk certain defeat. All of these decisions had one thing in common: They all followed from the argument that Thurgood Marshall made to the Supreme Court when he argued Brown v. The Board of Education for the NAACP in 1955. He said that ``Distinctions by race are so evil,'' evil, ``so arbitrary and so invidious, that a State bound to defend the equal protection of the laws must not invoke them in any public sphere.'' Now, many of my colleagues, many people of goodwill, are troubled by racial preferences, set-asides, and gender preferences and set-asides. But they want to know, nonetheless, what would be the practical effects of returning to a policy of affirmative action, the most aggressive possible outreach and recruitment combined with merit-based admissions decisions. Fortunately, we now have some answers to that question. This amendment is very closely modeled on the California Civil Rights Act, the California Civil Rights Initiative which, in 1996 was passed by a significant majority of voters in the most populous State in our country; and CCRI, the California Civil Rights Initiative, is helping to make admissions at the University of California, which we have discussed here on the floor, color blind. We have had some discussion and debate on the floor about what has happened in the UC system in the wake of the passage of CCRI. The number of African-American admissions after the passage of CCRI increased 34 percent at the University of California Riverside. The number of Asian-American admissions increased at four University of California campuses. The number of American Indian admissions increased at two University of California campuses. The number of Filipino admissions increased at three University of California campuses. The number of Hispanic admissions increased at two University of California campuses. This shift of students among the campuses of the University of California is good news because graduation rates are expected to increase significantly. When colleges accept students who are best prepared for the level of academic intensity required at the institution, the probability that the students will graduate increases exponentially. In the University of California system, graduation rates are expected to increase by almost 20 percent for blacks and Hispanics. UCLA Chancellor Albert Carnesale stated in the Orange County Register that UCLA has admitted the academically strongest class in its history. Students in the UC system are now being judged by their qualifications, by their own merits as individuals, not as members of a class. Mr. Chairman, that is the purpose of this amendment. Let us return to the purpose of affirmative action. Let us redouble our efforts against discrimination and let us vote indeed for this amendment.

Mr. COX of California

Mr. COX of California. Madam Speaker, I thank the majority leader for yielding me this time and thank him for bringing this to the floor for the kids. That is what this is about. It is not about legality, it is not about technicality, it is about whether these kids are going to get a chance. The truth is, they need a chance. Last year for the first time District students, for which Congress is responsible, we are not responsible as the mayor of any city in the country, but we are responsible for D.C., and the kids for which we are responsible, in this Chamber right here, took the Stanford 9 achievement test for the first time. This test is used across the country, has been since 1923. Millions of kids have taken it, but the District schools never took it before, and here is what we found out. In reading, 15 percent of the first-graders tested ranked below basic. That means that they did not have even the minimum skills necessary to go to the second grade. That was not all that far off the national average; it was a few points ahead of the national average, but that was for first-graders. What we found is that the longer these kids stayed in the D.C. system, the worse it got for them, who are just like the other kids around the rest of the country. Forty-one percent of the second-graders tested below basic, compared to 15 percent the year before. By the time they were in tenth grade, 53 percent were below basic. That means they could not go on to the next grade because they could not read. The same thing happened in math. By the tenth grade, 89 percent of D.C. kids are below basic in math. We already spend over $9,000 per pupil. That is the fourth highest in the Nation. Money is not the problem; the system is the problem. Let us not put the system ahead of the kids, let us put the kids first. This is our chance to do it. If we turn our backs on these kids now, it is their future, but we can do something to help them, and this is our opportunity to help them. I thank the majority leader for giving us this opportunity on the floor. Now, let us just do it. Madam Speaker, I include the following for the Record. How D.C.'s Schools Can Lead the Nation (By Rep. Christopher Cox) Every parent knows that early education is essential to a child's future. But new reading and math achievement tests in the District of Columbia show that D.C.'s public schools are failing an entire generation of students. D.C. students have the same potential as every American child, yet the more time they spend in D.C. schools, the more poorly they do compared to other American children. Today, just as the District of Columbia is poised to reap the benefits of tremendous economic growth, its young people may not be able to take advantage of unprecedented opportunities. Good jobs are plentiful, and the unemployment rate in the region is one of the lowest in the nation. It is imperative that children growing up in the Nation's capital receive the kind of education that will permit them to take advantage of these opportunities. Congress is constitutionally responsible for the District of Columbia. If a national education policy is ever to be taken seriously, then Congress must first show it can achieve results in this modestly-sized city by the Potomac. d.c. in the 1990s: awash with opportunity for new graduates The District of Columbia is one of the wealthiest regions in the nation. Despite a population of only 500,000, the District has a gross economic product of almost $50 billion, with nearly two-thirds coming from non-governmental sources such as services, finance, insurance and real estate, and transportation and utilities. According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, District residents' per capita personal income was $34,129 in 1996--higher than any state in the union, and almost $10,000 above the national average. The District also compares favorably to other metropolitan areas. D.C. metropolitan-area average annual pay is ninth in the country, behind such lucrative locales as New York, San Francisco, and the wealthy suburbs of New Jersey. Furthermore, the District is expected to remain wealthy area for the foreseeable future: its gross economic product is projected to increase at least 20% by 2025. Today's students will benefit from these job opportunities only if they learn the skills employers will need in the years to come. Already, the region suffers from a shortage of skilled workers. The unemployment rate in the D.C. metropolitan area was only 3.9% in 1996, significantly below the so-called ``natural'' unemployment rate of 5.5%. The District itself, however, suffers from unemployment well above the natural rate, indicating that District residents, many of them products of the D.C. schools, are unable to satisfy employers--even in one of the nation's best markets for job seekers. In the 21st century, the D.C. economy will be even more dependent on knowledge-based workers. Unfortunately, knowledge-based workers will need two basic skills--reading and math--that D.C. schools are failing to provide to their students. recent test results from d.c. schools Last year, for the first time, District students took the Stanford 9 math and reading achievement tests--the nation's best-known achievement test. The Stanford 9 is a privately owned and operated test used by school systems across the country. It is the ninth version of the exam, which millions of American schoolchildren have taken since it was created in 1923. Stanford takes great care to ensure that the test is not biased in any way, including having a panel of prominent minority-group educators review the test. The results show that D.C. students' scores, upon entering the D.C. public schools, are roughly comparable to average student scores nationwide. The longer students remain in District public schools, however, the more their scores fall below both their initial levels of achievement and the national average. In fact, in the highest grades tested, the number of D.C. students who lack basic skills was twice the national average in reading, and one and a half times the national average in math. Reading Fifteen percent of the first-graders tested ranked ``below basic'' for reading on the Stanford 9 test. This means they had little or no mastery of the skills needed to enter second grade. This figure is roughly comparable to the national average of 12%. But the number of students ``below basic'' grew dramatically as children continued in the D.C. schools: 41% of the second graders tested ranked ``below basic,'' and 53% of tenth graders tested were ``below basic.'' Math Thirty-seven percent of the third graders tested (the youngest students to take the math test) ranked ``below basic'' in math. The next level tested in math, the sixth grade, showed 55% ``below basic''--an increase of 33% after three years in D.C. public schools. By the tenth grade, a staggering 89% were ``below basic'' in math. Another 8% ranked as ``basic''--possessing only partial mastery of the most rudimentary math skills. Only three percent of District tenth graders were either proficient or advanced in math. Many of the individual schools are far worse than even these dismal overall scores. At no less than 22 D.C. public schools, over 90% of the students rank ``below basic'' in math. At three of these schools, 100% of the students tested ranked ``below basic.'' Not one student at any of these schools showed any of the math skills needed for their grades. Worse, as the Washington Post reported on January 8, 1998, these results do not include ``almost 4,000 tests that could not be scored because so few answers were filled out.'' This is 10% of the reading tests that were scored, and a quarter of the math tests that were scored. In other words, 4,000 D.C. students lacked the skills needed to fail the test. They were all below zero. The Solution: Educational Choice, for the Kids The D.C. public schools must change if their graduates are to succeed in life. And Congress--which bears the constitutional responsibility for the governance of the District--must help. Already, Congress and the American people have been generous with tax dollars: according to the most recent Department of Education figures, the District spends $9,335 per pupil, the fourth highest in the nation. This year, it will cost more than one-half billion dollars to run the District's public education system. Clearly, money alone is not enough. Instead, both Houses of Congress have separately passed the District of Columbia Student Opportunity Scholarship Act of 1997. This measure, which passed the House as part of the 1997 D.C. appropriations package, has already been introduced as freestanding legislation by Majority Leader Dick Armey (H.R. 1797). The bill will provide tuition scholarships to about 2,000 low-income students in the District of Columbia to enable them to attend the school of their choice, as well as providing extra tutoring assistance for 2,000 public- school students. D.C. parents clearly want better opportunities for their children than the D.C. public schools provide. The non-profit Washington Scholarship Fund announced that it would provide 1,000 new scholarships to enable low-income District children to attend the private or religious school of their parents' choice. As of the January 31, 1998 application deadline, 7,573 children had applied for the 1,000 scholarships. According to House Majority Leader Dick Armey, ``This response is the strongest evidence yet that parents are frustrated by their lack of access to the best possible education for their children.'' \1\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Footnotes at end of article. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Research from school systems that offer educational choice demonstrates that giving parents the opportunity to choose their children's schools improves learning, and test scores, for children throughout the entire system. Data from Milwaukee, for example, show clear increases in reading and math scores--so much so that, according to a recent study, ``If similar success could be achieved for all minority students nationwide, it could close the gap separating white and minority test scores by somewhere between one-third and one-half.'' And parental choice provides competition that can help reduce costs in public and private schools alike, resulting in better deduction that is also more affordable. New York City's Catholic schools, for example, educate students at approximately one-third the cost of the city's public schools. According to Samuel Stanley, Vice President for Research of the Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions, ``Several studies of public school competition with other public and private schools have found competition improves public school performance. We need to create similar markets for students within school districts to provide the right incentives for using current resources productively and efficiently.'' \2\ Brian Bennett, Director of School Operations for the School Futures Research Foundation, agrees: ``The most striking example of the competitive change that can result is no doubt found in Albany, New York, where a most generous philanthropist, Virginia Gilder, offered a $2,000 scholarship to every child in one of the city's lowest performing schools--and one-sixth of the student body left. Changes then instituted by the local board were dramatic--the principal of the old school was ousted, nine new teachers where brought in, two assistant principals were added, and the school received investments in books, equipment, and teacher training that had been neglected for years. Competition works to improve the education of all children.'' \3\ As Peter M. Flanigan, the investment banker who founded the Student/ Sponsor Partnership in New York, put it, ``The alternative to a crushing monopoly is competition. When a monopoly faces real competition it always reacts by improving itself.'' \4\ The D.C. Student Opportunities Scholarship Act will enable D.C. students to succeed in the expanding economy in which they live. While President Clinton promised to veto the Opportunity Scholarship Act, even if it meant killing all funding for the District, these latest D.C. test scores show the status quo is unacceptable. We can no longer trap thousands of students in schools that fail to prepare them for the marvelous opportunities at their very doorstep. Mr. Clinton owes it to the children of America's capital city to sign the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Act the moment it reaches his desk. The following are the results of Washington D.C. students' spring 1997 Stanford 9 Achievement Test in reading and math. (Excerpt from The Washington Post, October 30, 1997) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ DC public schools National Grade level below average basic (percent) (percent) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Reading: 1............................................. 15 12 2............................................. 41 25 3............................................. 41 25 4............................................. 45 24 5............................................. 36 22 6............................................. 31 21 8............................................. 34 22 10............................................ 53 26 Math: 3............................................. 37 11 6............................................. 55 43 8............................................. 72 42 10............................................ 89 61 11............................................ 53 36 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Note: The reading test covers areas such as sounds and letters, word reading, reading vocabulary, sentence reading, and reading comprehension depending on the students' grade level. The mathematics portion of the test focuses on problem solving and math procedures. The test was given for the first time to D.C. school students in May 1997. It was not administered to children in all grade levels because it was a part of a pilot program administered by the school district. This year, every D.C. student in grades 1-11 will take both the mathematics and reading portions of this exam. footnotes \1\ The evidence in other cities is just as stark. In New York City, 23,000 families applied for 1,000 private scholarships for grades 1-5 at private schools of their choice. Peter Flanigan, Founder, Student/Sponsor Partnerships, Testimony before the House Education and the Workplace Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee, Education at a Crossroads Field Hearing, May 5, 1997. \2\ Samuel Staley, Testimony before the House Education and the Workforce Oversight and Investigations Committee, Federal Education Programs Evaluation--Field Hearing on Public School Choice, May 27, 1997. \3\ Brian Bennett, Testimony before the House Education and the Workforce Committee Early Childhood, Youth and Families Subcommittee on School Choice in D.C., March 12, 1998. \4\ Flanigan Testimony.

Mr. COX of California

Mr. COX of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. I would like to focus our attention on precisely where we are. We are being asked to increase the United States' commitment to the International Monetary Fund by 45 percent over the longstanding level of U.S. support. We are being asked to add $18 billion to our commitment. Which works out, incidentally, to over $150 for every single working taxpayer in America. Can my colleagues imagine calling them up and asking for the money and telling them we only have time to debate this for an hour because it is not in the bill? We are adding it on the floor at the last minute. It has been pointed out here that the IMF needs some reform. We have got to exercise some leverage, even if we were going to give $18 billion to the IMF, if we want those reforms. But if we simply sign on at the last minute without any questions, there will not be any reforms. This proposal hurts American agriculture because the IMF, as is well known, is going to continue its policy of supporting devaluations which hurt our market for exports. This hurts U.S. exporters. Without question, the IMF causes as many problems as it creates. This deserves real debate, has not anything to do with our El Nino storms, which is what this bill is supposed to be about. Keep it out.

Mr. COX of California

Mr. COX of California. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. COX of California. I think the gentleman raises a very important point. We were just having a debate about what are procedural rules and what are substantive rules. The gentleman from Massachusetts insists that it would be antidemocratic were we to have a two-thirds vote requirement to have procedural rules that govern revenue bills, and yet the gentleman makes a very fine point. The Founding Fathers who wrote the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights that we now so cherish and would not amend without a two- thirds vote, said there could be no income tax at all, not Medicare payroll taxes, not any kind of tax. And it required the 16th Amendment to the Constitution in the 20th century, which passed not only the Congress by a two-thirds vote but all of the State legislatures, three- quarters of them by another majority vote in each, in order to change that rule. Clearly the constitutional requirements to raise revenue are the sorts of procedural rules that the Founding Fathers intended would be governed by Article V of the Constitution, and clearly the consequence of the amendment that the gentleman is proposing here today is not only to ensure that two-thirds of the House and Senate are with us, so it is clearly majoritarian, but also all of the States get in on this debate. In 75 percent of the State legislatures, at least we would have to have a majority vote in support of this proposal before it can become law. I can think of no more deep trust in democracy than this proposal. Mr. Speaker, I would point out that the constitutional fathers wanted to make it impossible to have an income tax, so you could have had 100 percent vote, and it would have been unconstitutional, because direct head taxes were unconstitutional. It took an amendment to the Constitution in 1914 to make income taxes permissible. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Granger), the former mayor of Fort Worth.

Mr. COX of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I would point out in response to my colleague who just spoke that she is incorrect about the way that the amendment would work. It would be very easy for us by mere majority vote to have a tobacco tax, even with this amendment in the Constitution. However, it would be very difficult for us to raise $300 billion or more from the American people and grow the government by that amount. What would be required by this amendment is that we have a thorough debate on whether we want to grow the government with those new taxes or whether we want to offset other taxes on the working Americans that the gentlewoman says she favors simultaneously. If the net effect is to grow the government by $300 billion rather than impose a new tariff on tobacco, but return those revenues to the American people who earn the money in the first place in the form of other tax cuts, it makes a big, big difference. What this legislation is all about is the tax burden on the American people, which right now is higher than at any time in two centuries of American history. It is worth dwelling on that. In fact, we should have a moment of silence for the hard-working American people bearing this tax burden. Not just the highest tax burden in the history of the United States of America in terms of the raw number of dollars, not even the highest tax burden in terms of inflation-adjusted dollars, but the highest tax burden as a share of the economy in two centuries of American history, even with this large and growing economy, as a share of that economy, with the exception of 2 years, 1944 and 1945, when income taxation by the Federal Government reached 20.9 percent of gross domestic product. We are up over 20 percent again now in peacetime, not World War II. That is where the tax limitation amendment passed the House of Representatives on April 15th, 1997, a year ago, with 233 votes, a significant majority. But the defenders of majority rule over there, who say we distrust majorities, are hiding behind the fact they have to have a two-thirds vote in order to pass this, and claiming victory because a minority of them want to have higher taxes on the American people, and it is minority rule and minority dictation that are actually controlling this debate today, because we need to get from 233 votes to 290 votes in order to succeed, where the State legislatures then, after we propose, and that is all we do in this process as Congress, is propose a constitutional amendment, will pass it or not by a majority vote. A majority will rule in the State legislatures. That is how constitutional amendments under Article V of the Constitution become part of that charter document. Seventy-five percent of the State legislatures would have to enact it by a 50 percent vote. So do not give us this stuff about ``We are for majority rule.'' You are hiding behind the supermajority vote requirement here to defeat tax limitation for the American people so you can keep taxes high and make them easier to raise. The tax burden on the American people now is unconscionably high, and we need relief. It is currently a rule of the House of Representatives that we have a supermajority vote to raise taxes. That is the way we operate right now. Ever since Democrats lost their status as the majority party here in 1994, we have operated under this rule, and we have not raised taxes. In 1993 we had the largest tax increase in American history, and that was the penultimate act of the Democratic Congress before they lost their status as the majority party. In 1994, when we won majority status as Republicans in this Congress, the Dow Jones industrial average was at 3900. Today, it is around 9000. Today, tax collection by governments at all levels are higher than ever as a result of wise tax policy; not trying to soak the American people for every last red cent they are worth, but as a result of some common sense and moderation. The 16th amendment to the Constitution, which made the income tax possible, was proposed by a Republican Congress. In the House of Representatives, in this very building, in 1909, Representative Sereno Payne of New York offered what became the 16th amendment to the Constitution; and Champ Clark, the minority leader from Missouri, also spoke in favor of that. Both of them were opposed to the kinds of tax regime we have today. Mr. Payne, the chief sponsor of the 16th amendment, said he wanted to make sure that we had this power added to the Constitution so that we could exercise it only in time of national security emergency, in time of war. As to the general policy of an income tax, he said, I am with Gladstone. I believe it tends to make a Nation of liars. It is, in a word, a tax upon the income of honest citizens, and an exemption, to a greater or lesser extent, of the income of rascals. That is the chief sponsor of the 16th amendment that made this possible. It took two-thirds of both the House and the Senate to give us that amendment in the first place. If you want to trust democracy, then trust our State legislatures, who, by majority vote, will give us this tax limitation upon the Congress, or they will not. Seventy-five percent of them must act by majority vote in order for this to happen. If you want to trust democracy, consider the results of the last half century, when the income taxes exploded by leaps and bounds. As recently as the eve of Pearl Harbor, only one in seven Americans had to file an income tax. My folks, when raising me, making the average national income, like every family making the average national income in the 1950's, paid income tax at a rate of 2 percent. The FICA tax on my dad's paycheck was 1.5 percent. Look at where we are today. If you think taxes need to be higher, vote against this. If you think it is undemocratic that we require two-thirds of the United States Senate to ratify a treaty, vote against this. If you believe in the United States Constitution, if you believe in the wisdom of the Founding Fathers and the Constitution that they gave us, if you believe in the American people, and you do not think this is a giveaway, but rather letting them keep their money, vote with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) and vote for this amendment. We desperately and dearly need it for the future of America.

Mr. COX of California. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. COX of California. I would point out, if I understood the gentleman, he said the Founding Fathers set up this balance, and that the Constitution is not a draft document. But the Constitution the Founding Fathers gave us made taxes unconstitutional and it took the 16th amendment to make it possible. So we are only amending the 16th amendment.

Mr. COX of California. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman understands that when we considered this the last time it got 233 votes, a majority. The only reason that they carried the debate with a minority is that it takes two-thirds in order to amend the Constitution. Does the gentleman from Massachusetts think that Article V of the Constitution distrusts democracy? Does the gentleman think when three- quarters of the State legislatures have to approve what we are doing here today by a bare majority vote, not a supermajority, that it is not distrusting democracy?

Mr. COX of California. If the gentleman would yield for a point of personal privilege, I went to the same law school at the very same time, and the gentleman and I were classmates.

Mr. COX of California. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. COX of California

Mr. COX of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. Mr. Chairman, everything that was just said makes a great deal of sense provided that we stipulate that the Federal Government is the low-cost provider, that the most efficient way to get the most roads, the most bridges, and the most transportation is to send the money to Washington first where the freight charges can be deducted or where it can be run through the bureaucracy here and then shipped pack to the States. If we think that Washington is the best way to do it, getting the Washington bureaucracy involved is the most efficient way to do it, then, by all means, keep sending our gas taxes to Washington, D.C., even after the Interstate Highway Program was all finished, which it was in 1991. If we think the Washington bureaucracy is the low-cost provider, then, by all means, vote for the status quo. If we think Washington knows best, send all our money back here. But if we want more transportation, more highways, more bridges, more infrastructure, more transit, then take the full dollar of gas tax and spend it at home. This program guarantees us a full 90 percent of what we send to Washington. It is time to get 100 percent. That is what this amendment will do.

Mr. COX of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema). I congratulate her for bringing to the floor such a useful way to improve ISTEA, our transportation bill, so that it promotes affirmative action and so that it outlaws discrimination. First, let us focus on what this amendment really does. It would declare the policy of the Federal Government in favor of affirmative action. That means encouraging bidding by minority-owned and women- owned businesses, expanding the applicant pool, recruiting qualified women and minorities into the applicant pool, and encouraging contractors to do the same. That is what affirmative action is all about. In 1964, in the other body, the Democratic floor manager of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Hubert Humphrey, told a critic of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, a critic of affirmative action, ``If you can find anything in this legislation that would require people to hire on the basis of percentages or quotas, I will start eating the pages one after another.'' He knew that quotas are the enemy of affirmative action. Mr. Chairman, I heard a Member in defense of this discrimination provision say that it is a voluntary program, but the law says, as it is proposed to be passed on the floor, 10 percent. That is a quota. It has nothing to do with disadvantaged people. The definition of ``disadvantaged'' in the bill says if a company has sales of $16 million, year after year after year, they are disadvantaged. As the Federal court said when it struck down a provision just like this as unconstitutional, under this standard the Sultan of Brunei could qualify. Mr. Chairman, let us not cheat those who are really disadvantaged. Let us do something for them with affirmative action. Let us get rid of discrimination and let us make it illegal. Let us vote for the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New Jersey.

Mr. COX of California

Mr. COX of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from New Mexico for yielding this time to me, and I echo what the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fox) just said. He said, ``We love you, Steve.'' Steve is not with us here, but he really is still here with us. Steve is a classmate of mine. We got elected as freshmen together, and tomorrow night over at my house we are having a get-together, the class of 1988. We have been planning this for a long time. We have not had enough get-togethers of our class, and so even though Steve has been seriously under the weather, we were hoping at least a few months back that he would be able to be there with us tomorrow night. His office is right next door to mine, and we got together as freshmen routinely for many years, had an office together, and his seat is right next to me on the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight. When I go to the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight meetings now, I sit next to his empty chair, and the sign is still there for his name; we do not take it away. I just sit next to his empty chair and go back to my office and pass the open door to his office where his staff have been coming to work every day. Steve is not gone, really. I mean, Steve is still here. He is only 5 years older than I am. This is not an old man who is passing on at the end of a long life. This is the same as somebody getting run over by a car or bus right in the middle of a very healthy and active life. We know that he was a lawyer and prosecutor. And some people have in fact said, how does a Jewish lawyer from New Mexico end up representing Anglo Protestants and Hispanic Catholics? And people who ask that question are not from America, because that is the way America works. And, of course, Steve was the perfect representative for New Mexico, and Steve will always be the perfect model for a Representative back here. But sometimes we forget that Steve was a lot more than just a very able prosecutor and a very able lawyer on the Committee on the Judiciary, or a very able government reformer looking after ways to streamline the Federal Government and make it work better on the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight. At the time of the Gulf War, when we had one of our best debates ever on the floor of the House, Steve not only supported the decision that President Bush took to use force in the Gulf, but then as a colonel in the Air Force Reserves, he went there. He was in Turkey, he was in northern Iraq. He opposed President Clinton's sort of cockeyed Dayton plan for Bosnia, but once that decision was taken to send troops to Bosnia, he went to the mission op center at Aviano Air Force base in Italy and volunteered. That is what Steve Schiff did. He was a great defender of our national labs on the Committee on Science, and of course while we are always as Republicans looking for ways to save money and cut spending and so on, he was dedicated to making sure that that part of government which worked got more attention, and he firmly believed that that was true about our national labs. He was tough on crime. We all know that he personally, single handedly, virtually pushed through Congress successfully the Sexual Crimes Against Children Act, and basically that was because he was a very tough and strong prosecutor. But he was also responsible for our 1996 crackdown on health care fraud. Tomorrow night when my class of 1988 gets together, in the same way that I walk by that open door when I go back to my office and I sit next to that empty seat in the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, we will have a seat at the table for Steve, and he will be there with us.

Mr. COX of California

Mr. COX of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me the time. I rise in opposition to the resolution offered by my good friend and colleague the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell), but not because I lack any respect for his legal acumen for the policies, which are very serious, that he raises or for his punctilious avoidance of the question of President Clinton's Bosnia policy. The resolution itself makes it very clear that is not what this is about. Section 1(c) says, ``The requirement to remove United States armed forces from the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina does not necessarily reflect any disagreement with the purposes or accomplishments of such armed forces.'' What is under discussion here is not whether troops should be in Bosnia, according to the resolution itself, but rather the War Powers Resolution. I agree wholeheartedly with the words spoken by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, just a moment ago that the War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional. I too have been on the floor trying to repeal it for some years. I too have opposed it through the tenure of both Democratic and Republican Presidents. And of course, as we all know, the War Powers Resolution has been every day since it was first passed declared unconstitutional by Presidents Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, Ford, and Nixon. The War Powers Resolution, paradoxically, weakens both the Congress and the executive branch. Here is how it weakens Congress. Under article I, section 8, clauses 1, 11, and 14, Congress has the power ``to provide for the common defense, to declare war,'' and to ``make rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval forces.'' The appropriations clause, article I, section 9, clause 7, grants the Congress the power of the purse, which we could use here very effectively if we wish to oppose the President's Bosnia policy. That power obviously extends to the fields of foreign affairs and defense. So too does Article I, section 8, clause 12, which explicitly empowers Congress ``to raise and support armies.'' As Justice Jackson stated in the Steel Seizure case, ``The President has no monopoly of `war powers,' whatever they are.'' But the War Powers Resolution, with its 60-day grace period, purports to give the President carte blanche to make war for a full 2 months without congressional authorization. That subverts the Constitution. Here is how the War Powers Resolution weakens the President: The vesting clause, Article II, section 1 of the Constitution, unambiguously grants the President the totality of, quote, the executive power. Section 2 provides that, quote, the President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy. For centuries, American Presidents have relied on these grants of authority to use our Armed Forces in a host of contexts without prior congressional action, such as responding to attacks on or threats to American forces, citizens or property; or when secrecy or surprise are essential; or when the urgency and immediacy of a military response leaves no opportunity for congressional action. But the War Powers Resolution purports to shrink these historic, inherent Presidential powers to just one circumstance, a direct attack on the United States, or our forces. This is a distortion of our Constitution. It ignores the entire course of our constitutional history. If it were correct, then Presidents Adams, Jefferson, Lincoln, Grant, Wilson, FDR, Truman and Eisenhower are all law-breakers. No American President of either party, including President Clinton, has ever recognized this perversion of our constitutional order. None has even pretended to follow its terms. The resolution offered today offends the Constitution not merely in the ways I have just outlined, but in an entirely novel manner, by linking the forced withdrawal of U.S. forces to a decision on its own constitutionality by a Federal court. Federal judges and Federal courts ought not to be in charge of troop deployment decisions. In addition to violating Article I governing Congress and Article II governing the President, this resolution violates Article III governing the judiciary as well, because as the Supreme Court established over two centuries ago in Hayburn's Case, under our Constitution Congress may not impose on a Federal court duties that are repugnant to the judicial function. For these reasons, while I wish to compliment the gentleman from California, I urge a vote against this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to Mr. Campbell's resolution on Bosnia, which comes to the Floor pursuant to the War Powers Resolution. Many of us have long been troubled by the substance of the President's unfocused, hand-to-mouth policy in Bosnia. The deployment occurred in the absence of a national consensus or even a broad national debate, because of an abject failure of presidential leadership. President Clinton failed to consult Congress or the American people prior to ordering the deployment, and thereby failed to build the requisite public support before sending 20,000 American soldiers in harm's way. That is why in October 1995 strongly supported H. Res. 247, which called on the President to obtain congressional authorization before deploying U.S. troops to Bosnia--a process that would necessarily have resulted in the sort of broad national discussion that should precede such operations. Such a debate would also have required the President to articulate the mission he was ordering our troops to undertake--something he has yet to do. And it might well have avoided the ignominious process whereby the President twice broke commitments to the American people concerning the length of the deployment. As it is, the President's open-ended commitment of forces in Bosnia is undermining U.S. military readiness around the world in the present, and diverting resources needed to protect U.S. security in the future. In my view, the President's Bosnia policy is an abject failure, and the way in which he arrived at it is a case study in how not to conduct foreign affairs. But the merits of the President's Bosnia policy is not the subject of this Resolution, as the Resolution itself makes clear. Section 1(c) states categorically that ``[t]he requirement to remove United States Armed Forces from the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina * * * does not necessarily reflect any disagreement with the purposes or accomplishments of such Armed Forces; nor does it constitute any judgment of how the Congress would vote, if given the opportunity to do so, on either a declaration of war or a specific authorization for the use of such Armed Forces.'' And the dissenting views added by the Resolution's sponsor to the International Relations Committee's unfavorable report explain that ``[t]he style of section 5(c) [the part of the War Powers Resolution pursuant to which this Resolution is offered] requires that the concurrent resolution call for the removal of troops. If it did not do that, it couldn't be called a 5(c) concurrent resolution. However, [the Resolution] is otherwise entirely neutral on whether the policy of the United States should be to have armed forces in Bosnia under the present circumstances or not.'' Whatever else the vote is today, it is not a vote on the President's Bosnia's policy. In addition to my concerns about the substance of the President's policy, I share the concerns felt by many of my colleagues about the constitutional implications of the President's repeated decisions to commit U.S. forces to areas of conflict without the assent of Congress--not just in Bosnia, but in Iraq, Haiti, and Somalia. I believe that this constitutional concern is at the core of my colleague's Resolution, and I should add that I greatly respect his legal acumen. But the War Powers Resolution, under which this Resolution is offered, is not the way to address any of these policy and constitutional issues. It is itself a symptom of the current confusion over the constitutional roles of the President and Congress in the field of foreign affairs. And it is worse than useless as a tool for addressing either flawed policy or usurpation of constitutional responsibility. The War Powers Resolution is now, and has been every day since the moment it passed, unconstitutional. Presidents Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, Ford, and Nixon have all opposed the Resolution. It paradoxically weakens both the President and the Congress. In time of crisis it increases the risk of war. And it offends two centuries of constitutional history. Here is how it weakens the Congress: Article I, section 8, clauses 1, 11, and 14 of the Constitution give to Congress the power to ``provide for the common defense,'' to ``declare war,'' and to ``make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval forces.'' And the Appropriations Clause, Article I, Section 9, Clause 7, grants Congress the power of the purse--a power that extends to the fields of foreign affairs and defense. So too does Article I, Section 8, Clause 12, which explicitly empowers Congress to ``raise and support Armies.'' As Justice Jackson stated in the Steel Seizure Case, ``[The President] has no monopoly of `war powers,' whatever they are. While Congress cannot deprive the President of the command of the army and navy, only Congress can provide him an army and navy to command.'' But the War Powers Resolution, with its 60-day grace period, purports to give the President ``carte blanche'' to make war for a full two months without congressional authorization--a statutory easement across the Constitution. Here is how it weakens the President: the Vesting Clause--Article II, section 1 of the Constitution--unambiguously grants the President the totality of ``the executive power.'' Section 2 provides that ``The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy. * * *'' For centuries, American Presidents have relied on these grants of authority to use our armed forces in a host of contexts, without prior congressional action: such as responding to attacks on, or threats to, American forces, citizens, or property; or when secrecy or surprise are essential; or where the necessity for immediate military response left no opportunity for congressional action. But the War Powers Resolution purports to shrink these historic, inherent presidential powers to just one circumstance--a direct attack on the United States, or our forces. This is a distortion of our Constitution. It ignores the entire course of our constitutional history. If it were correct, then Presidents Adams, Jefferson, Lincoln, Grant, Wilson, FDR, Truman, and Eisenhower were all lawbreakers. No American President of either party, including President Clinton, has ever recognized this perversion of our constitutional order; none has even pretended to follow its terms. The War Powers Resolution claims to force an end to hostilities in 60 days, unless Congress has affirmatively acted. This unwise and inflexible rule has emboldened our enemies abroad to doubt our resolve. It has tempted them to think that America's staying power in any conflict was limited to 60 days. It is ironic that a measure, designed to minimize the use of force, vastly magnified the risks of war. And the War Powers Resolution illegitimately pretends to allow Congress by simple concurrent resolution to compel the President to break off military action. That is a flatly unconstitutional legislative veto, as the Supreme Court made clear a decade and a half ago in Chadha v. INS. This resolution offered by Mr. Campbell is just such a concurrent resolution pursuant to the War Powers Resolution. Whatever one might think of the continued deployment of American troops in Bosnia, Mr. Campbell's concurrent resolution represents just such an unconstitutional legislative veto. Indeed, it offends the Constitution not merely in the ways I have described above, but in an entirely novel manner--by linking the forced withdrawal of U.S. forces to a decision on its own constitutionality by a federal court. Thus, in addition to violating Article I, governing Congress, and Article II, governing the President, this Resolution violates Article III, governing the judiciary, as well. As the Supreme Court established over two centuries ago in Hayburn's Case, under our Constitution Congress may not impose on a federal court duties that are repugnant to the judicial function. I believe it would be difficult to imagine a duty more repugnant to the judicial function than the exercise of Congress' war powers and the President's authority as Commander-in-Chief to determine when and if American troops are withdrawn from what the proponents of this Resolution insist is a theatre of war. Mr. Speaker, I understand that some Members may be tempted to support Mr. Campbell's Resolution today precisely because they agree with me that both the War Powers Resolution and this Resolution are unconstitutional, in the hope that we can use this legislation to gain a definitive judicial decision that the War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional. That hope is unavailing. No federal court either would or should entertain such a lawsuit. Judge Bork and Justice Scalia have long maintained that Members of Congress have no independent standing in court to challenge enfringements of our prerogatives. And just last year the Supreme Court agreed with them when it refused to hear a congressional challenge to the line-item-veto statute. Moreover, a dispute between the political branches over war and foreign affairs powers is the quintessence of a non-justiciable political question. The War Powers Resolution already distorts the constitutional authority of both Congress and the President. I would be sorry to see it become the vehicle for the judiciary, as well, to usurp non-judicial functions. Mr. Speaker, in closing I wish to reiterate my respect for the great legal ability of my distinguished colleague from California, and for the extraordinarily serious legal and policy concerns that animate his Resolution. Since I share his concerns, I wish I could support his Resolution. But the Framers of the Constitution ordained a very different process when Congress seeks to correct errors of policy and vindicate its constitutional prerogatives.

Mr. COX of California

Mr. COX of California. Mr. Speaker, today, one of our Nation's great leaders, one of our California leaders will be laid to rest at Arlington National Cemetery. He is a dedicated public servant and a gentleman. Brigadier General Thomas F. Riley passed away in Orange County on February 19, 1998. He was known to millions of us affectionately as just the General. Tom Riley embodied every virtue that we seek in our public service. He was born just 2 days after the 4th of July in 1912 in Harrisonburg, Virginia. He received his training as an engineer at Virginia Military Institute. And he went on to serve his country for just one year short of 30 years in the United States Marine Corps. He worked for another decade in the aerospace industry. Before 1974, President Reagan appointed him to fill out the remaining term of supervisor on the Orange County Board of Supervisors. He served for 30 years, nearly 30 years on the Orange County Board of Supervisors, where he was its chairman. In those years when he was not its chairman, he was always its most important person. He was reelected five times, always by large margins, to preside over what he always called the fabulous 5th District. General Riley served his community in many ways, not the least of which was his service to his church. He was a Catholic, and he was a member of the Knights of Malta and the Order of the Holy Sepulcher of Jerusalem. He was always eager to assist. One of his favorite charities was the Sisters of the Sacred Heart. General Riley helped establish a fashion show known as the Gentleman's Haberdashery, an event that has become a beloved tradition in Orange County. He was never alone in his efforts. His community was always anxious to serve him and to help him in his service. But most of all at his side for so long, for over 50 years, nearly 60 years, was his wife Emma Jane, who is with us today. She stood with him shoulder to shoulder in all of the hard work, and all the victories, and all the triumphs that he has achieved during a long life. I know that I speak for all of us in Orange County when I say that our hearts and prayers are with you and your family in this time of your grief. But we must remember that, just as General Riley was not alone in this life, neither will he be in the next. When he is laid to rest later today in Arlington National Cemetery, he will join the company of other American heroes whose watchwords were always duty, honor, and country. General Tom Riley was one of our heroes in California, and we will never forget him.

Mr. COX of California

Mr. COX of California. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas), the chairman of the committee, for discussing with me my concerns about this bill and for his good work in bringing this bill to the floor. Madam Chairman, the Federal Agency Compliance Act, H.R. 1544, is intended to do two things: first, to ensure that the executive branch obeys the law, a good purpose; second, to discourage the relitigation of settled questions and to avoid the needless expense for both the government and private parties of unnecessary and wasteful litigation. As one who has worked long and hard on civil justice reform, I could not agree with the gentleman more about the importance of reducing needless, wasteful and expensive litigation, both for the benefit of the parties and for the taxpayers, who, in the case of government litigation, of course, are footing the bill. The Federal Agency Compliance Act contains essentially two parts, one dealing with the relitigation of decisions of the courts within a judicial circuit and another dealing with the relitigation of questions that have been decided in one circuit but perhaps not in all others, or that have been decided in others but where multi-circuit litigation is undertaken to address the question anew. In the inter-circuit, the multi-circuit part of the bill, there is the following sentence: ``A decision on whether to initiate, defend or continue litigation is not subject to a review in the court by mandamus or otherwise on the grounds that the decision violates subsection A''. In other words, there will not be collateral litigation, a new cause of action created, by virtue of the alleged violation of section 708, the decision by the government whether to continue to defend or to initiate a lawsuit. That is a very good part of this bill. It relies upon not only the good faith of the executive branch in making decisions whether or not to litigate inter-circuit but also upon the notion that it is the responsibility not of private litigants but of the government to take care, and the President is head of the executive branch of government, to take care that the laws are faithfully executed. That is the executive branch's constitutional responsibility. The prohibition against that kind of wasteful, needless collateral litigation in this bill ought to apply not to just half of it but all of it. So my amendment makes clear that the sentence that I just read, that decisions whether to litigate or continue litigation are not subject to review, not subject to additional collateral litigation, that will apply to both the inter- and intra-circuit parts of this legislation under my amendment. As a consequence, I offer it for the consideration of the Members. I believe that, absent this provision, we would do two things that we ought not to do. Number one, we would unnecessarily and deeply intrude upon the constitutional prerogative of the executive branch to take care that the laws are faithfully executed; and, number two, we would be actually fomenting additional wasteful, expensive litigation. It is the very purpose of this bill to do just the opposite. Reading from the purpose and summary of the bill: ``Unnecessary litigation is a needless expense, for both the government and private parties.'' I could not agree more. Hence, my amendment, and I urge my colleagues to consider it. Madam Chairman, I should add, having just discussed this for the first time with the chairman and ranking member, I understand their reticence in accepting it, although they have been gracious in discussing the merits with me and understanding the purpose by which I offer it now. Because there is similar legislation pending in the other body, because I expect that we have an opportunity to resolve this during conference, I will not be disheartened if my amendment is defeated today, but I do look forward to working with the chairman and the ranking member as well as our colleagues in the other body to see if we can improve the bill in this respect.

Mr. COX of California. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. COX of California. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. COX of California

Mr. COX of California. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 21, I am recorded as voting no. I wish to be recorded for the record as aye.