C. Cox

Mr. COX of California

Mr. COX of California. Mr. Chairman, of course I agree. And this amendment is not about our central bank, which is the Federal Reserve. Let me respond. I only have a moment left. We are not talking about our central bank here. We are talking about the Exchange Stabilization Fund, which is set up by statute for the purpose of defending the dollar. It is clarified in the amendment by the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] and I think it is a very sound amendment. Mr. Chairman, I am one who believes in energy in the executive. Before I served in Congress, I worked in the White House counsel's office. When Bill Clinton is in that White House, I want Bill Clinton to be a strong, energetic executive, because that is what America needs. I support executive powers. I support the line-item veto. I support repeal of the War Powers Resolution. I was down here a few days ago arguing in behalf of that. I support revising the 1974 Budget Act to put the President back in the process. But that is not what this is about. This is about the power of the purse, which under any reading of the Constitution belongs here in Congress. We are here on this vote to reclaim it. Vote ``yes'' on the Sanders amendment.

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

Mr. COX of California. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time and yielding no further, because I only have a finite amount, the rest of the story, which the gentleman from Massachusetts conveniently leaves out, is that we came back to the floor after the President unilaterally acted and deprived us of the opportunity to vote. The gentlewoman from Ohio was especially active in the Banking Committee drafting a resolution that I would be surprised if the gentleman from Massachusetts did not vote for. We did schedule a vote, although the President presented us with a fait accompli. We said, ``All right. At the very least provide us with documents. Show us what it is that you think justifies your acting unilaterally, because Congress does not intend simply to abandon its responsibility and give up the power of the purse.'' There was a deadline that the President did not observe. He did not provide the documents in response to the overwhelming vote of this House. Perhaps somebody can tell me precisely what the vote was, but it was more than 300 of us who voted, out of 435, to require that by a date certain in March the President send up those documents. When the President did not do so, we acted again in Congress. We passed the Mexican Debt Disclosure Act. It was a statute signed into law by the President. He did not have any choice, even though he did not like it, because it was attached to the Defense supplemental appropriations bill. Under that statute he was required to turn over documents. That statute required that the President turn over all of the requested documents and that the President certify that all of those documents had been provided. The President has yet to make that certification, long after the deadline in the statute. The President, according to the opinion of the general counsel of the House of Representatives, is now violating the law in that respect. So, Mr. Chairman, do we have the right to come to the floor and say that even though some of us are strong supporters of Mexico. Some of us who live in California and share a border with Mexico believe that nothing is more important than our relationship with our closest neighbor in terms of our foreign trade, our international security and so on, that even though we support that relationship and believe very strongly in friendship with our Mexican neighbors, that we think before we give anyone $20 billion in U.S. resources, we ought to vote on it first in Congress. Mr. Chairman, I am a strong supporter of Israel. We had a nationwide debate on whether to give $10 billion, half the amount, in loan guarantees to Israel. It was a tough vote. I voted in favor of it. Some Members voted against it, but that is the way these decisions should be made. Never in American history has $20 billion been extended through the Exchange Stabilization Fund, or any other piggy bank of the President of the United States, to some foreign government without the assent of Congress. What is our entire foreign aid budget this year? $11.5 billion. Roughly double that is the amount the President committed without checking with this Congress. The gentleman from Vermont would now have us vote on a very simple amendment and I would like to [[Page H 7220]] refer to the text of that amendment, because it is different than described by some of the opponents. What it says is that we cannot spend appropriated moneys under this act on the Exchange Stabilization Fund if the purpose is to bolster a foreign currency. We can continue to do it without checking with Congress at all if the purpose of it is to defend the dollar in international exchange markets. So, yes, we could even use the Exchange Stabilization Fund to defend the foreign currency if the President would check with the Congress first. And for that reason, I urge all of my colleagues to vote for this amendment.

Mr. COX of California. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] headed up the Democratic task force that was drafting the legislation that would have come to the floor, if the President had not acted unilaterally.

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

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

Mr. COX of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. I thank him for bringing this amendment to the floor. I am happy to rise in support of it. I would like to go through a little bit of what we have heard on the floor thus far and respond to it. First, my distinguished colleague from Iowa has said that Congress is to blame for refusing to deal with the issue of the Mexican bailout. I beg to differ. Along with my colleague, I worked on a task force appointed by the Speaker of the House.

Mr. COX of California. If the gentleman will continue to yield, does the Mexican Government not have the sovereign capacity to issue pesos to repay their sovereign debt?

Mr. COX of California. The gentleman is aware that the tesebonos were payable in pesos rather than in dollars. Why does the gentleman believe they would have defaulted?

Mr. COX of California. Mr. Chairman, is the gentleman speaking of the tesebonos?

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

Mr. COX of California

Mr. COX of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of Bob Henry, a dedicated law enforcement officer for the city of Newport Beach, CA, who earlier this year was slain in the line of duty. In the early morning hours of Sunday, March 15, 1995, Officer Robert Henry, 30, was shot in the head during a struggle with an intoxicated man intent on committing suicide. Officer Henry battled for his life, but passed away after more than a month of struggle on April 13. He was the first officer in the history of the Newport Beach police department to be killed in the line of duty. A native Californian and a devout Catholic, Bob Henry joined the Newport Beach police force 5 years ago, and dedicated his life to serving and protecting the residents of Newport Beach. In his service there, he earned the respect of his colleagues and of his community. He is remembered as a model police officer, an officer who was always prepared to do whatever the job called for--bringing his strength, compassion, courage, and sense of humor along with him. Above all, Mr. Speaker, Bob Henry is remembered as a loving and devoted family man. He leaves behind his wife, Patty, and their three children: 6-year-old Bobby, 2-year-old Jenna, and Alyssa--who was born only 1 month before the shooting. While nothing can compare to the incalculable pain they all feel at his loss, I hope it is of some comfort to them to that all of us feel a profound sense of gratitude for the sacrifice he was willing to make. I ask my colleagues to join me in saluting the bravery and honor with which Officer Henry carried out his duties. His children must always know that their father's death was in the service of others, and that we will always honor his memory. Although we are overwhelmed with sadness, we are grateful that such a man graced us with his example, his commitment, and his sacrifice.

Mr. COX of California

Mr. COX of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, the preceding speaker in the course of his remarks acknowledged that the War Powers Resolution that we have before us that has been in effect for the last 22 years is toothless and weak. It is the weak version that was adopted that contains no restraint whatever on the Commander in Chief exercising the war power legitimately given to the Congress under the Constitution. In fact, it is a 60-day grace period during which this resolution unconstitutionally purports to confer that power for a time on the president. I rise in wholehearted support of the amendment of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] to repeal the War Powers Resolution. It is now, and has been every day since it was passed, unconstitutional. As has been pointed out several times in the course of this debate, President Clinton, President Bush, President Reagan, President Carter, President Ford and President Nixon all have said that this War Powers Resolution in effect for the last 22 years is injurious to the national security of the United States. It is harmful to the United States. This resolution weakens both the President and the Congress. It is that bad. In time of crisis, it actually increases the risk of war. Most importantly for purposes of this debate, it offends two centuries of our constitutional history. First let us take a look at how it weakens the Congress. It is very important to recognize that that is exactly what this is all about. It is a 60-day abdication of Congress's legitimate war-making power. Article I, Section 8, clauses 1 and 11 of the Constitution give to Congress the power to provide for the common defense and to declare war. There is no requirement that the Congress wait 60 days in order to exercise its constitutional authorities in these respects. But the War Powers Resolution with its 60-day grace period purports to give the President carte blanche to wage war for a full 2 months without any congressional authorization, just as President Clinton did in Haiti. The War Powers Resolution has provided political cover for this Congress to sit back and do nothing for months, to abdicate its responsibility so that later it can take political pot shots at the President and the Commander in Chief after our troops are already in the field. It has bread flabbiness in the real war-making power of this Congress. It has caused this body to retreat utterly and shamelessly as it did in Haiti when the then-Speaker of the House went so far as to prevent this House of Representatives from even debating the use of force in Haiti. It weakens the Congress as well as the President. Here is how it is weakening the President. The vesting clause, Article II, section 1 of the Constitution, unambiguously grants to the President, not to the Congress, the totality of the executive power. Article II, section 2 of the Constitution provides that the President shall be the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy. For centuries American Presidents have relied on these sweeping grants of authority to use our Armed Forces in a host of contexts without prior congressional action such as responding to attacks or threats on American forces, citizens or property, or when secrecy or surprise are essential. No one thinks that we ought to have weeks and weeks of debate before the Commander in Chief could act in those circumstances or where the necessity for an immediate military response leaves no opportunity for congressional action. But the War Powers Resolution in effect over these last 22 years purports to shrink these historic inherent Presidential powers to just one circumstance: a direct attack on the United States. Thankfully the War Powers Resolution was not on the books for a single one of the major wars in which our Nation has been involved over 200 years. It 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 perversion of our constitutional order. None has ever pretended to follow its terms. It is instructive that in the course of this debate not a single Member has pointed to a single instance in which the War Powers Resolution was in fact invoked to withdraw U.S. troops from combat. It has not ever happened. 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. They have every reason to doubt our resolve.

Mr. COX of California. It has tempted our enemies to think that America's staying power in any conflict is limited to those 60 days. It is ironic that this measure enacted 22 years ago ostensibly for the purpose of limiting the use of force, minimizing it, has vastly magnified the risks of war, and it will continue to do so every day that it is on the books. 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 chairman, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], has pointed out so eloquently, through the exercise of its legitimate constitutional powers this Congress has ample means to achieve the same result. Mr. Chairman, we can redress a grave constitutional injury today. We can improve the stature and the standing of Congress. We can protect our legitimate war-making prerogative by repealing the War Powers Resolution. We can strengthen the Commander in Chief simultaneously and restore his legitimate constitutional authority. And we can better defend the national security against tyrants and other external enemies by letting the world know our staying power in any conflict extends beyond a mere 60 days. Mr. Chairman, our Constitution is right. The War Powers Resolution is wrong. Let us repeal it today for the sake of our national security and for the peace of the world.

Mr. COX of California

Mr. COX of California. Mr. Speaker, I hope it is not considered pandering to the American people, as the previous speaker suggested, to permit our senior citizens who are receiving Social Security benefits to keep something of what they earn. In 1993, in the context of the largest tax increase in American history, President and the then Democrat Congress imposed a 70-percent income tax rate increase on senior citizens who work. An important part of the bill that we are now bringing to the floor is going to roll that back. It was criticized as a tax increase on seniors who are rich, on rich retirees, on rich Social Security beneficiaries. In fact, the 70- percent income tax rate increase on Social Security benefits started for senior citizens who work and who make as little as $30,000 a year. They are not, in my book, the rich. I do not think they are anywhere else in America. I hope all of us will take this opportunity to repeal that onerous tax increase.

Mr. COX of California

Mr. COX of California. Mr. Speaker, the occasion of President Clinton's visit to Haiti is occasion to reflect on the ill wisdom of his policy there. It is ``his'' policy because, as he did with Mexico, he bypassed the Congress. The following article by Sir Eldon Griffiths is a sobering analysis of the Clinton Haiti policy. Clinton Relishes His Unnecessary Invasion By the time you read this, U.S. troops in Haiti will be pulling out in favor of a U.S.-led, U.S.-munitioned, and largely U.S.-financed U.N. army. President Clinton is in this tiny speck of an island, ready to pass the baton--I almost said the buck!--to U.N. Secretary General Boutros Boutros- Ghali, whose thankless task now becomes to hold the ring in Haiti while the smallest, poorest country in the Western Hemisphere struggles to construct a ``viable democracy.'' I wish the United Nations better luck than its hapless multinational forces experienced after the United States handed over Somalia. Let's also acknowledge that six months-- and several billion dollars--after Jimmy Carter brokered his deal and Bill Clinton sent in an air-sea armada with more firepower than all the armies of Latin America combined. Port au Prince is probably less dangerous than it was under the rule of Raoul Cedras and his thugs. With the U.S. embargo lifted, some, though by no means all, of Haiti's services and small firms are back in business. Most of those Haitian boat people intercepted by the U.S. Coast Guard as they tried to get to Florida are being repatriated, many forcibly, from the unsanitary camps that shame America in Cuba and Panama. Last Tuesday's high-noon murder of a prominent Haitian lawyer who had criticized President Aristide is, however, a reminder that Port au Prince still is riven by dangerous elements, but thanks to the U.S. Marines (and a growing Haitian police force), the situation in the capital has improved to a point where it's less frightening to walk in the streets at night than it is in, let's say, Washington,

Mr. COX of California

Mr. COX of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida [Mr. Bilirakis].

Mr. COX of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Christensen]. (Mr. CHRISTENSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. COX of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond to the gentleman from California by saying he is correct that as a result of the health care lawsuit reform passed in California, by a Democratic legislature I should add, medical liability premiums are 33 percent to 50 percent lower on average than those in other States that do not have these reforms. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the distinguished coauthor of this amendment, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Pete Geren], 2 minutes. (Mr. PETE GEREN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. COX of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, we are coming to the conclusion of our debate about reform of our civil justice system in America so that the courts will once again earn the maxim ``Equal justice under law,'' and no longer will people have to fear the courthouse and think it is not a place for them and think it merits rather the admonition from Dante's Inferno, ``Abandon hope, all ye who enter here.'' It is impossible, it is unthinkable, to handle lawsuit reform in the Congress without considering health care, because nowhere in our American life have the skyrocketing costs of lawsuits done more damage than in our health care system. For the last 2 years, in 1993 and 1994, we debated health care in this country. And during that last 2 years of debate, in 1993 and 1994, through all the hearings, we all know the story. The American people came to the essential realization that we need to control health care costs so that we can increase access for those who are least able to afford basic care from doctors and good hospitals. We decided we did not want a government-run system, but we decided if we can, we would like to get rid of all of the extra costs that lawsuits and lawyers suck out of our health care system, to get rid of all of the extra costs that defensive medicine imposes on our health care system, that is all the unnecessary tests that all doctors perform. Three-quarters admit they do this because of the threat of liability, if for no other good reason, $9 billion in extra malpractice premiums attributed to defensive medicine. Another $20 or $30 billion according to various estimates are attributed to this defensive medicine, which is doctors behaving not in the best interests of the patients, but lawyers, so Ralph Nader and Joel Hyatt seem to have more to say about the kind of health care we have in this country than doctors and patients. We have a system in place in several States in this country, in particular my home State of California, that has worked very well, called MICRA. It has limited our health care premiums for the average Californian from somewhere between 33 percent and over 50 percent less than other States without these reforms. That is what I propose in this amendment today. The only change that this makes is in health care cases; not all civil cases like the last one, just health care cases. We believe that we should have a system in America that compensates without limit, 100 percent of all of the damages that somebody might suffer. They should be able to claim these through a lawsuit, all of the damages for their medical expenses, for their doctors' expenses, for their hospital expense, without limit, all of their rehabilitation expenses, all of their future estimated lost income and earnings. All of these things called economic damages should be compensable without limit. We have already decided that on top of that, they should be able to multiply all of their real, actual damages times three and get that in punitive damages. In our country uniquely we have something called noneconomic damages. That means things we cannot really monetize, we cannot figure out how much it is worth, but we just want to add extra on top of all the real damages and punitive damages. Only four other countries in the world allow this kind of damage. For the rest of the world it is zero, and for the other countries that allow it limit it sharply. In Canada this type of damage award is limited to $180,000. In California we limit it to $250,000. That is what we would do in this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote for this vitally important health care reform. We know we need it. I hope that Members will act upon it. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COX of California. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

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

Mr. COX of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Roth].

Mr. COX of California. Would the gentleman from Massachusetts who gentleman to ask a question?