John Johnston

Mr. JOHNSTON

Mr. JOHNSTON. I just quoted his opinion.

Mr. JOHNSTON. You understand Attorney General Barr, to quote Attorney General Barr: I do believe Congress should consider including language in the amendment that would expressly limit judicial review to actions for declaratory judgments. If, however, such a provision would prove to be politically unpopular, I believe for the reasons detailed in my written statement that Congress can safely pass the amendment in its current form without undue concern that the courts will entertain large numbers of suits challenging Congress' actions under the amendment or that, even if the courts do entertain some suits, they will order intrusive injunctive remedies. General Barr says we ought to clear up the ambiguity because according to him, he says they--I mean the obverse. He says they will not entertain large numbers of suits. I do not know what large numbers are to him, and I do not know what intrusive injunctive remedies are.

Mr. JOHNSTON. I yield 2 additional minutes.

Mr. JOHNSTON. Does it not follow, if you have the power to invalidate a tax act, that you also have a power to order a tax?

Mr. JOHNSTON. Will the Senator yield at that point?

Mr. JOHNSTON. Would----

Mr. JOHNSTON. Until I know what makes up the cuts, I cannot vote for the amendment.

Mr. JOHNSTON. What appropriate role would the Senator think the courts ought to have?

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. JOHNSTON. Could we answer the questions on the other side's time, because I think we are about to run out?

Mr. JOHNSTON. Yes.

Mr. JOHNSTON. That is correct.

Mr. JOHNSTON. Yes.

Mr. JOHNSTON. I wonder if the Senator would not agree with me that section 2 involves, really, a yes or no proposition--that is, that the limit on the debt of the U.S. public shall not be increased except by a three-fifths vote. It is subject only really to a yes or no proposition. That is, you either had the three-fifths or you did not have it. It does not get into all the fiscal questions that might flow from that; rather, it is a yes or no proposition. So I wonder if the Senator from Washington does not agree that really about all the court could do on that is say, yes or no, you did or you did not, and if you did not, it is not valid and the President could not sign it anyway if it violates the Constitution.

Mr. JOHNSTON. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I yield the floor. If no other Senator is seeking recognition, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that it be equally divided.

Mr. JOHNSTON. Yes.

Mr. JOHNSTON. I do not mean to be evasive. I am just saying that the judicial power of the United States would extend to cases and controversies arising under section 2. The court can do what it thinks is proper, if it finds standing, if it finds there is a justiciable question and it extends to such powers as the court thinks are proper.

Mr. JOHNSTON. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. JOHNSTON. There is a huge amount of difference between ``little likelihood'' and ``clear.'' See, the difference is that we would have this litigation going through the courts. As Judge Bork said, thousands of cases with inconsistent results. Bond issues, contracts, subject to lack of clarity. It is not too much to say that the capital markets of this country could, during the pending litigation, be put into complete chaos.

Mr. JOHNSTON. I just read to you the most distinguished professors in the country, including Mr. Bork, and you have not one single expert, not one, who supports your position. Name me one. I mean, you do not like Judge Bork; you do not like----

Mr. JOHNSTON. Is that not the real answer; that some of your Members are for it and some are against it, and you want to please both sides, so you leave it ambiguous?

Mr. JOHNSTON. Does the Senator understand what he just said? He has just been saying that this matter is clear that there is no jurisdiction, but are some people we cannot foresee who may have jurisdiction and may want to sue, and the courts ought to be enforcing their rights.