Donald Manzullo

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

Mr. MANZULLO. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, the fact that the Federal government gives about 6 percent of the total school budget allows the Federal government the authority under the Constitution to establish State rules of tort liability? The gentleman has not answered my question because there is no answer to it. What we have here is the Federal government, and I think this is a very dangerous piece of legislation, though it is well-intended. If I were a member of the State legislature, I would vote for it. But what this is saying is that Congress knows best; that Congress is here with a great idea on tort liability. The problem here is every State, including my State of Illinois, has a tort immunity act involving teachers, people working. Every State in this Nation has its own body of laws dealing with State and local governments. What we are doing here is attempting to have a one-size- fits-all plan, though it looks good on its face, imposed upon the States. That sets a very dangerous trend. It is the same trend that we set for voluntary organizations. I was one of five members, I believe, of this House that voted against that law that imposed a Federal standard on voluntary organizations. This is a usurping of the power of the States to concern and to regulate their own tort laws. I would suggest to my good friend, the gentleman from Indiana, that this is not a conservative measure, this is not an anti-Federalist measure, which goes along with our conservative opinions, but this goes way beyond what our Constitution envisions is the proper role for the Federal government with regard to local State claims.

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I rise reluctantly in opposition to this amendment offered by my good friend, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh). I have one question I would like to ask the gentleman: Where in the Constitution does the Federal government have the authority to interfere, to govern, to establish rules of civil liability in areas involving local school districts, especially in light of the gentleman's philosophy, which is the same as mine, that the Federal government should stay as far away from local education as possible?

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing an amendment to the Constitution to ban the Judiciary at any level of government from levying or increasing taxes. Why? Because levying and increasing taxes is a function of the legislative branch of government. Consider, after all, the separation of powers doctrine. Most citizens of our great country have heard at one time or another about separation of powers. We were taught about it in our civics classes growing up. We learned about it in our history classes. We read about it in the Constitution. I, for one, believe that the Constitution is clear in its delineation of duties. I don't believe the Founding Fathers meant to leave much to interpretation. There really are no mincing of words. Please consider: Article I. Section 8. The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States, but all duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.--United States Constitution Article I. Section 7. All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other bills.--United States Constitution These words are succinct and explicit, and they spell out exactly how taxes are to be raised. If there is any question, consider the following quotations from other relevant sources: ``Were the power of judging joined with the legislative, the life and liberty of the subject would be exposed to arbitrary control for the judge would then get the legislator. Were it joined to the executive power, the judge might behave with all of the violence of an oppressor.'' ``There can be no liberty where the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or body of magistrates, or, if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers . . . ''--James Madison, Federalist Number 47, quoting Montesquieu to defend the Constitution's separation of powers. ``[T]he judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them. The executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary on the contrary has no influence over either the sword or the purse, no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society, and can take no active resolution, whatever. It may truly be said to have neither Force nor Will, but merely judgement; and ultimately must depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgements.''--Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Number 78 ``The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is in fact, and must be, regarded by the judges as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body.''--Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Number 78 If there is any phrase that sums up the reason for the existence of this republic, that phrase is ``no taxation without representation.'' These are the words of Thomas Jefferson, who, when he wrote the Declaration of Independence, cited King George for three things: (1) the king refused to pass laws that would allow people the right to be represented in their own legislature; (2) he called together legislative bodies at unusual times so nothing could be done; and (3) he imposed taxes on the people without their consent! Finally, James Madison asked the rhetorical question in Federalist number 33, ``[w]hat is a power but the ability or faculty of doing a thing? What is the power of laying and collecting taxes but a legislative power?'' Why, then, 210 years after the ratification of our nation's Constitution do we have unelected judges--from the ``least dangerous'' branch--who are appointed for life, levying and raising taxes? Some people with whom I have spoken have asked me if judges can really do this. Well, they are doing it because they can. They can because Congress allows them to get away with it. What is judicial taxation? It is the act whereby a federal court orders a state or political subdivision of a state to levy or increase taxes. In Missouri vs. Jenkins (110 Sup. Ct. 1661 (1990)), the Supreme Court held that a federal court had the power to order an increase in state and local taxes. Specifically, the 5 to 4 majority ruled that a federal district court has ``abused its discretion'' by directly imposing a local property tax increase to finance implementation of a school desegregation plan for the Kansas City, Missouri school district. BUT, the court stated that ``[a] court order directing a local government body to levy its own taxes is plainly a judicial act within the power of a Federal court,'' and that the federal judiciary may also block enforcement of state law limitations on local tax efforts that interfere with the funding of constitutionally-based desegregation plans. This is an ``indirect'' tax. The dissenters in the Jenkins ruling criticized the direct versus indirect distinction as a ``convenient formalism.'' However, the decision EXPANDED SIGNIFICANTLY THE POWER OF THE FEDERAL COURTS! Those who oppose attempts to curb this power claim that the Kansas City case is the only case where a federal judge, Russell Clarke, ordered a tax increase to finance the building of a magnet school system to make it more appealing. Similarly, judicial taxation took place two decades ago when federal Judge Leonard Sand forced the elected representatives of Yonkers, New York to raise taxes on their constituents in order to finance the construction of public housing in middle-class neighborhoods. In New Hampshire, the state Supreme Court decreed that local schools must be funded with a statewide tax in order to equalize spending per pupil across the school districts. In the congressional district I represent, Judge Michael P. Mahoney, the federal magistrate judge overseeing a desegregation case in Rockford, Illinois, concluded that the school district had authority under Illinois' Tort Immunity Act to issue bonds without referendum and to levy taxes to fund the remedial programs. Pursuant to this finding, the school district issued bonds and levied taxes from 1991 through 1997 under the Tort Immunity Act. Although the Tort Fund is not subject to voter control and was originally intended to be used to pay damages to individuals in civil liability suits, the federal magistrate ordered its use. More recently, the federal magistrate again ordered each member of the school board under threat of contempt and jail to increase taxes. Following that threat in late 1997, the school board capitulated and approved the $25 million tort levy for that year. After the vote, School Board Member David Strommer said, ``It's a disgrace for an American public official to face this kind of pressure.'' Since 1989, the city of Rockford, with a population of 140,000 people, has paid $183 million to comply with the court orders. That is a lot of money for such a small population, and that's for schools alone. All of these examples run counter to the intentions of the Founding Fathers. Our nation cannot allow its liberties to slip by the wayside. We have judges raising taxes. We have a regulatory body, the FCC, imposing a telephone tax. We have a Congress that doesn't believe this is a problem. Of these, it is Congress that is directly accountable to the people. So, what I have done legislatively to address judicial taxation? During the last Congress, I was able to insert a provision into the Judicial Reform Act. The provision was straight forward and was designed to severely limit the imposition of judicially imposed taxation. It would have applied to any order or settlement that directly or indirectly required a State, or political subdivision of a State, to increase taxes. My efforts to bar the federal judiciary from directly or indirectly raising taxes were defeated by a gutting amendment. However, in a sense we succeeded because this may have been one of the few times and possibly the only time in the history of our republic where the issue of Congress ceding taxing authority to the courts has ever been debated. Putting a halt to judicial taxation is NOT about desegregation, prison overcrowding, environmental law enforcement, housing, or what have you. It is all about abiding by the fundamental tenants of our Constitution. This Congress, I am focusing on a two-pronged approach. It is not going to be easy, but given the options, I believe that we have very few alternatives. I have introduced a joint resolution to amend the Constitution which reads simply, ``Neither the Supreme court, nor any inferior court of the United States, nor the court of any State in its application of laws under this Constitution or any Federal law, shall have the power to instruct or order a State or political subdivision thereof, or an official of such State or political subdivision, to levy or increase taxes.'' The second approach, and this is very important, is through the states proposing a constitutional amendment. Currently, states cannot propose amendments to the Constitution without first the calling of a constitutional convention. However, there is a proposal--H.J. Res. 29-- which was introduced by Virginia Representative Tom Bliley that would allow for a mechanism by which the states could propose amendments to the Constitution without calling for a constitutional convention. I am a cosponsor of this resolution. Right now, as I understand it, 15 states have passed either a Resolution or a Memorial calling upon Congress to send to the states for ratification of an amendment to the U.S. Constitution banning federal judges of inferior courts or the Supreme Court from having the power to levy or increase taxes. Those states include Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Nevada, New York, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee and Utah. As it stands, there are no teeth in those resolutions because there is no mechanism. H.J. Res. 29 would provide that mechanism. We should all be working to pass that amendment, as well. Levying taxes should remain a prerogative of the legislative branch. Thus, I will continue my efforts to stop judicial taxation.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the chairman for using for his superb leadership in bringing this bill to the floor. Our farmers in this country have a lot of challenges. Many times we can do nothing about those challenges here in Congress. We can do nothing about too much rain or lack thereof. Oftentimes there is very little we can do about the price of commodities that is so important to the farmers. One thing we can do is everything possible to open up trade opportunities so our farmers can export their agricultural commodities. We have in Illinois the distinction of exporting about 47 percent of our farm products. That is, almost half of the farmers in the State of Illinois are dependent upon exports. We are presently involved in a battle with the Europeans over their acceptance of cattle that have the growth hormone, and also involved in a battle with them battle over their acceptance of genetically-altered grains and things of that nature. One thing we can do is get the government out of the way of hindering markets that already exist for the purpose of allowing exports by our farmers. We only have to look back to the days of the Russian grain embargo, which was disastrous. Russia ended up buying their grain from other sources, and this country has never recovered from the loss of sales to Russia, simply because Russia looked to Argentina and other countries that do not use trade embargoes as a method of foreign policy. The purpose of H.R. 17 is to eliminate that, to open up these markets. I would encourage my colleagues to vote for H.R. 17.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 186, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes''.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, as my colleagues know, NATO is the alter ego of the United States. Whatever NATO does, it means the United States does, and what have we done? Milosevic is still in power, close to 200 schools in Serbia have been destroyed, a half-dozen bridges across the Danube, power plants. We have destroyed a country. We have wasted our precious military resources. The American people have been asked to pay not only for the war, but the President will come back and ask us to rebuild Serbia. It is wrong. It is fiscally wrong and it is morally wrong. The President needs to be stopped in this unwanted use of taxpayers' dollars. That is the purpose of the Souder amendment, to bring some sanity to what is going on in the world. This war never should have been started, and the American taxpayers should not be called upon to complete it.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to introduce on May 27th, along with Representatives Bob Menendez, Ben Gilman, Sam Gejdenson, and 44 other Republican and Democrat Members of Congress the Export Enhancement Act of 1999. We are all concerned about the recent anemic export performance of the United States and the ballooning U.S. trade deficit. While this legislation is not a cure-all for this problem, it provides one tool in the effort to promote U.S. exports abroad. This legislation would reauthorize most commercial export promotion programs of the U.S. government, including the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC), the Trade and Development Agency (TDA), and the export promotion functions of the International Trade Administration (ITA) at the Department of Commerce. First, the legislation re-authorizes OPIC for four years and does not raise OPIC's liability ceiling. For 27 years, OPIC has been the U.S. government agency providing political risk insurance and financing for projects that help America compete abroad and promote stability and development in strategic countries and economies around the world. OPIC's political risk insurance covers three main areas where the government has a proper role to influence--expropriation (loss of an investment due to nationalization or confiscation by a foreign government), currency inconvertibility (inability to remit profits from local currency to U.S. dollars); and political violence (loss of assets or income due to war, revolution or politically-motivated civil strife, terrorism or sabotage). Since 1971, OPIC supported projects have generated $58 billion in U.S. exports and created more than 237,000 American jobs. Over the last five years, OPIC supported projects will buy about $1 billion worth of goods and services from Illinois suppliers, half of which are small firms, which will create over 3,100 jobs. Companies in the 16th District of Illinois like Coilcraft Inc. of Cary; Oak Industries of Crystal Lake; ESI Limited, the Nylint Corporation, the Barber-Coleman Company, and the Clinton Electronics Corporation of Rockford have all used and benefited from OPIC services in the past. And, unlike most government programs, OPIC operates totally on a user-fee self- sustaining basis at no cost to the taxpayer. OPIC is estimated to bring in $204 million in revenue to the U.S. Treasury next year. In response to Congressional input, OPIC has undertaken a series of initiatives since its last reauthorization. These include new initiatives in Africa, Central America, the Caribbean, and the Caspian Basin. In addition, OPIC has stepped up efforts to help more small businesses enter the global economy. As Chairman of the Small Business Exports Subcommittee, I held a hearing last month examining the new small business outreach efforts by OPIC. OPIC is particularly important for small business exporters because unlike large companies, small business exporters cannot pack up their bags and relocate operations overseas to take advantage of foreign equivalents to OPIC. There are 36 nations that have export credit insurance programs like OPIC. Just like OPIC, most of these nations have local content requirements. If forced to, larger U.S. multinational corporations can pick and choose from one of these other foreign export credit insurance programs. But the work and the jobs, then, are transferred overseas. Small business exporters do not have this luxury. OPIC is needed to maintain the competitive edge of these small business exporters in the United States. Mr. Speaker, let me give you one concrete example from the hearing last month. Jane Dauffenbach, President of Aquarius Systems, located in North Prairie, Wisconsin, testified how foreign governments constantly try to undermine her small company's export prospects, even to the point of competing against free donations of similar equipment. Aquarius Systems manufactures aquatic weed harvesters. In Asia, Aquarius Systems lost a large equipment sale when the Canadian government gave a ``free'' aquatic weed harvester to the monarch of the country. In Kenya, Ms. Dauffenbach also testified about how the Japanese and the Israeli governments almost snatched another huge export sale from her company to clear water hyacinths clogging Lake Victoria. It was only because she had a World Bank contract, backed by OPIC political risk insurance, that she was able to win and complete the sale. She said, ``(s)imply put, Aquarius Systems is not competing with foreign companies. We are competing with foreign governments . . . It is imperative that the financing and insurance programs from OPIC exist so that we have the necessary tools available to accomplish our goals.'' Second, the legislation reaffirms the importance of Trade Development Agency (TDA). This small 43 person agency, which develops feasibility studies designing in American specifications so that U.S. exporters can win major infrastructure projects in developing countries and emerging economies later down the road, has generated $12.3 billion in exports since its inception in 1981. Every $1 in spending for TDA projects has led to the export of $32 in U.S. goods and services overseas. The Export Enhancement Act requires, to the maximum extent possible, the imposition of ``success fees'' on companies who win export deals thanks to the groundwork laid by a feasibility study conducted by the TDA. Third, the bill examines the three export promotion arms of International Trade Administration (ITA) at the Commerce Department-- the U.S. & Foreign Commercial Service, which as 100 U.S. export assistance centers located throughout the United States and 141 posts located in 76 countries around the world; Trade Development, which monitors trade developments in key industries and supports the United States Trade Representative in key industrial sector trade negotiations; and Market Access and Compliance, which ensures that U.S. companies obtain full market compliance with existing trade agreements with various countries of the world. The Export Enhancement Act makes a few changes to these programs to make sure that the ITA keeps its focus on helping more small businesses export, particularly to underrepresented regions of the world, like Africa, in the most efficient way possible. Finally, the Export Enhancement Act proposes to make a few changes to the Trade Promotion Coordinating Committee (TPCC) to insure that the 19 federal agencies that are involved in trade promotion operate more in tandem together. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support the Export Enhancement Act of 1999.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. I yield to the gentleman from Arkansas.

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn).

Mr. MANZULLO. Reclaiming my time, one of the Coburn amendments saves the taxpayers $500,000.

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I reclaim my time and yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.

Mr. MANZULLO. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. MANZULLO. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, our Nation is on the verge of sending in ground troops into Kosovo. Just look at the headlines in today's Washington newspapers. Estimates, however, take between 150,000 and 300,000 ground troops in Kosovo, with casualties of between 7 and 12 percent, and 65 percent of those ground troops would be Americans. Casualties of up to 20,000 Americans in Kosovo, and who is pushing it? NATO, many of whose members still continue to ship oil to Serbia. Who is pushing it? The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom who uses the word ``we.'' His Nation sends 20 airplanes to Serbia, while the United States sends over 600. It is time to negotiate a settlement now. It is time to stand up and say, the American people do not want any blood of American soldiers spent on the fields of Kosovo.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1183, the Fastener Quality Amendments Act of 1999. In 1990, Congress enacted the Fastener Quality Act in the belief that public safety was at risk because of the sale of faulty and mismarked fasteners in this country. In its desire to ensure quality, Congress ended up creating a bureaucratic and regulatory nightmare that threatened the existence of smaller fastener manufacturing companies. The act proved rigid and obsolete as quality assurance technology within the industry advanced quickly. In the district that I represent, we have over 80 fastener companies, the Pearson family, the Goellner family, all the way to the larger fastener companies, such as Elco-Textron. There are employers that employ as many as 1,800 people down to those that employ as few as 12, and every single one of these companies supports passage of H.R. 1183. These manufacturers understand that the FQA in its current form imposes redundant testing requirements and regulations that simply do not work. I am pleased to be able to inform these hard-working Americans that H.R. 1183 addresses their concerns by creating a better system for identifying, reporting, and prosecuting the knowing misrepresentation of a mismarked fastener. The bill targets the true essence of the problem; that is, it attacks fastener fraud, instead of trying to regulate quality. Any fastener maker worth its reputation will ensure the quality of its product, or else it will not be in business very long. Many businesses wait anxiously for January 1 of 2000 to see the effects of the Y2K bug, but to the American fastener industry, the dreaded date comes much sooner, next month in fact, and its impact will not be a mystery. For on June 24, unless Congress passes H.R. 1183 and the President signs it into law, the Fastener Quality Act will take effect. This will set in motion the process of fastener companies going out of business, and the dire consequences that that in turn will have on industries dependent on the production of fasteners. I am pleased to support H.R. 1183, and urge its speedy passage.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I object.

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I had a conversation with one of my 700,000 constituents to whom I am accountable under the Constitution of the United States, and she said, ``Congressman, my three brothers and my husband fought in World War II. My two sons fought in Vietnam. What are you going to do to keep my grandsons from fighting in the war in Kosovo?'' And I told her, I said, ``Under the Constitution, Congress has two powers and the President has one. And the power that Congress has under the Constitution is to declare war and to provide the funds for war. And the power that the President has is to be the Commander in Chief.'' Now, we have had votes this past week, the so-called limitation votes, but I would submit to my colleagues that those votes do not mean anything. First of all, the Fowler amendment and the other votes that we took here at the end of April are not finding their way to the other body to be voted upon, so they will die. So the only way to limit any type of use of the funds would be to occur through curtailing of our constitutional power of the purse. This is our obligation. We are called to this under the Constitution, and I have to follow the Constitution. Now, if there were separate votes on increasing the pay for the military and for beefing up our military forces, I would vote for that. But I cannot vote in favor of $6 billion to bomb Kosovo, having just voted against the air strikes. This is the only authority that we have. This is the only authority that the people that we represent have. And is it not interesting that the Founders of the Constitution gave to us, to us, the Members of this body, accountable to them every 2 years, the sole power to declare war. Because if they do not like what we do with regard to the declarations of war, they have the authority to vote us out at the very next election, the genius of the Constitution to protect the people against going into war. And what are we doing? There are 900 planes involved in the air strikes. 600 are American planes. 300 more are on their way. And guess how many planes come from Tony Blair's United Kingdom? Just 20. Twenty aircraft. And is NATO united? I dare say not. At a time when NATO planes were bombing the oil refineries, members of NATO themselves were still involved in the shipping of petroleum to Serbia. That does not make sense. It simply does not. The Istook amendment simply says what the President has promised, that these funds cannot be used for ground war, period. Now, we have heard talks from many Members here. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel) talked about this war, this war, this war, this war. And he appropriately used that word. The problem is that this body has voted not to go to war, and yet today it is ready to spend the funds to go to war. Supporting the troops means something besides giving them the weapons of war, it is giving them the constitutional protection not to be put into the war if we follow our obligations under that great document. Those of us who are opposed to this supplemental are simply saying, what obligation do we have as Members of Congress? What obligations do I owe this grandmother back home? What obligations do I owe the 115,000 children in the district that I represent? What obligations do I owe to the sons and daughters who may have to go into combat in that very rough terrain? The obligation that I owe them is that if they go, I will be accountable to them on whether or not I should vote for war or not, and that is precisely what the Istook amendment says. It says if we are willing to commit this money, then it should be with the approval of Congress in a situation of war.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 1 minute on the Watt amendment.

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I was listening to the debate in my office on the Watt amendment, which would simply say that whenever the trustee or any party or any attorney requests a copy of the tax returns that that would be turned over, as opposed to having a mandatory provision requiring the filing of tax returns with a bankruptcy petition. When I practiced law, I probably had somewhere between 300 and 500 bankruptcy petitions representing petitioners, debtors and also creditors. And if we are going to require, under the present main text of this bill, the filing of tax returns, we are going to have to pass an appropriation to increase the size of the Federal courthouses in order to hold all the paperwork. So I speak in favor of the Watt amendment, if the tax return is requested by any party, that it could be turned over, as opposed to putting additional paperwork into every single bankruptcy petition that is filed.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, I have four questions to ask my colleagues and the American public: Is a ground war in Kosovo imminent? We are being pushed towards a ground war that is not in our national interests. Tony Blair, the Prime Minister of Britain, the Secretary General of NATO, Javier Solana, and our own President with his recent headlines, ``Clinton edges closer to backing the use of ground troops,'' and the President has called up 33,000 reservists. The second question, what does a ground war mean? It means between 150,000 and 300,000 troops, with American forces making up 65 percent of the troops in rugged terrain that 25 German divisions in World War II could barely occupy, with expected casualties of between 7 and 12 percent, thousands of Americans wounded and killed. Three, is it worth it? Every Member of Congress must ask himself or herself this question: Is it worth the life of my child, and, if you cannot answer that in the affirmative, then why should you force others' children to go to war, while the Clinton Administration refuses to allow the Kosovars to arm themselves and fight their own civil war. The fourth question, why vote for the Campbell bill to halt U.S. combat mission in Yugoslavia? Because this is the only way to keep ground troops from savage guerrilla warfare, and this is the only way to stop thousands of U.S. soldiers from being killed in battle.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, this bill, if it is passed, could have the law of unintended consequences. Let me explain. Kelly Springfield has a radial tire manufacturing facility in my district, and I would really appreciate if the House could listen very closely to this: Mr. Speaker, steel wire rod for tire cord which goes into radial tires is not manufactured in the United States. It has to be outsourced from foreign countries. Kelly Springfield has a radial tire manufacturing facility in the district that I represent. Because this bill is so broad, it would slap import quotas on steel wire rod for tire cords and there have the possibility of laying off workers at American plants that make tires, that make radial tires. This is not the type of bill that we need. In a neighboring county, McHenry County, Brake Parts was having rotors from China dumped in the United States. We encouraged Brake Parts to file a complaint with the International Trade Commission, got a retroactive order and stopped that practice. But we have to do something else. We have to pass the Regula bill so that any tariffs that are collected as a result of illegal dumping in this country not go to the coffers or to the Treasury of the United States, but go to the companies hurt and to the workers hurt thereby. So the bill is imperfect in its form. It would actually hurt manufacturers, it would hurt employees in this country. Second of all, we need to work towards enactment of the Regula bill so that any benefit that comes as a result of sanctions against people who are dumping here go directly to the employees.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Madam Speaker, the issue is very simple. We want, on the Republican side, to allow Americans to keep more of their hard- earned dollars. The Democrats want to increase the size of government. Let me say that again so the message is clear. On the Republican side, we want the American people to keep more of their hard-earned dollars through tax cuts. On the Democratic side, they want to increase the size of government. Let me say it again so the message is loud and clear. On the Republican side, we want the American workers to keep more of their hard-earned dollars through tax cuts. The Democrats want to spend more of our money. Let me say it a fourth time, or do I have to? Who do we trust? Do we trust big government to spend our money, or do we trust yourself to spend more of our money through tax cuts?

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. The Pledge of Allegiance is recited frequently by all Americans, including school children and government leaders. It starts each day of Congress. It is a statement that in this country, our system of justice is for all people--elected and non elected. Unequal justice is no justice under the law. Before I entered Congress in 1993, I practiced law for 22 years. I have been a student of the Constitution and the powers of Congress since college in the mid 60's and wrote a book on constitutional law, which was published in 1973. I am also a father of three young children. I, therefore, approach the subject of impeachment of the President with this perspective. I believe the President should be impeached, which means a finding by the House of Representatives that there is evidence the President committed acts sufficient for the Senate to consider the charges and vote on whether or not he should be removed from office. The Constitutional Background of High Crimes and Misdemeanors Wehn the founders of our Constitution met in Philadelphia, they used English law as the basis for our founding document. The English view of impeachment meant two things: removal from office and the imposition of a criminal penalty (sentence and/or fine). Our founders, however, when they wrote the impeachment section in the U.S. Constitution, chose to make removal from office the only penalty, but specifically allowed any criminal actions against the officeholders to be taken by others (state or federal prosecutors). This distinction means the American Constitution contemplates two very different proceedings: the removal from office was to be separate from criminal proceedings, because removal protects the people and criminal proceedings punish the officeholder. Futhermore, the impeachable offense could, but does not have to be, a violation of a criminal statute. George Mason, who wrote the Bill of Rights, said impeachment was to be used for ``attempts to subvert the Constitution.'' Hamilton said impeachment should be used for ``those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men . . . from the abuse or violation of some public trust . . . as they related chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself'' (Federalist Papers, No. 65). Other works by James Wilson, a signatory of the Constitution, and the pre-eminent jurist, Justice Joseph Story, conclusively verify this. When the House of Representatives in 1974 considered Articles of Impeachment for President Nixon, the Democratic- led House Judiciary Committee, for which attorney Hillary Rodham worked, stated the Articles were premised upon ``injury to the confidence of the nation and great prejudice to the cause of law and justice.'' Why Censure is Not an Option in the House of Representatives The House of Representatives must consider the charges to remove the President only in terms of how the Constitution governs the procedure. The Constitution speaks of this duty only in terms of ``impeachment,'' that is, the House finding enough evidence to send to the Senate for a final resolution as to whether there should be a conviction (removal) on the impeachment charges. The Constitution provides no option for the House of Representatives to consider anything less than impeachment, such as censure. Censure is a formal scolding or reprimand. It has no legal consequences. The Charges against President Clinton The Articles of Impeachment charge President Clinton with perjury, which is lying under oath, before a federal grand jury and during a deposition (a sworn statement under oath with attorneys for all parties present). He is also charged with encouraging a witness to lie under oath. These charges cannot be dismissed and are not ``simply about sex.'' Watergate was not about breaking and entering, but about cover up and perjury after the fact. It is the same here. Why is perjury and encouraging a witness to lie under oath so serious? The U.S. Supreme Court (US v. Mandurano, 1974) said that ``perjured testimony is an obvious and flagrant affront to the basic concepts of judicial proceedings.'' When somebody perjures himself under oath, this does two things: first, it deprives a party to the lawsuit of the constitutional right to a fair trial (because truth is frustrated) and, second, it is a frontal assault upon the intergrity of the system of justice in this Nation. The fact that President Clinton lied under oath at the federal grand jury and the deposition is not refuted. Period. Does his perjury have to be of such a nature that criminal charges could be brought against him? The answer is no, (even though I believe criminal charges could be brought). Under the English system, the question is probably yes. But because impeachment under the American Constitution is aimed at removal and not criminal punishment of the officeholder, the criminal rules of evidence and other rules in a regular criminal proceeding sumply do not apply. That's why it is incorrect to compare impeachment proceeding in the House of Represenatives with a criminal trial. Encouraging a witness to lie under oath is akin to the following: you own a business (Party A) and get involved in a lawsuit with another businessperson (Party B). Your livelihood is threatened. An independent distribution who has a business relationship with you and Party B can verify your claim. Party B has a conversation with the independment distrubutor and says, ``I understand you have been named as a witness in this case. I know you'll do the right thing, possibly by simply signing and filing an affidavit in court. That way you might not be called as a witness. By the way, I understand you are looking for more business, and perhaps we could do something on that.'' Party B's attorney then picks up the distributor, takes him to another lawyer's office. That lawyer prepares an affidavit that is false, and that lawyer goes over the affidavit with Part B's attorney. The affidavit is filed in court. You lose your lawsuit, or it is greatly hindered, and the trial suffers a serious blow because the notion of justice based upon truth is destroyed. This is what the President is charged with. The President discovers Monica Lewinsky is on the witness list in the case where Paula Jones has charged the President with a federal Constitutional civil rights case of sexual harassment. The President suggests to Ms. Lewinsky that if an affidavit is signed, she won't have to testify and that he is sure she'll do the right thing. The President talks to his close friend, attorney Vernon Jordan, who then takes Ms. Lewinsky to another lawyer, who prepares a false affidavit about Ms. Lewinsky's relationship with the President. Her attorney goes over the affidavit with Mr. Jordan. After she signs the affidavit, Mr. Jordan again enters the picture and Ms. Lewinsky gets another job. The U.S. Supreme Court rule unamimously that Paula Jones has a right to file and pursue her federal constitutional remedy against the President while he is in office. Paula Jones has a constitutional right to a trial based upon factual--not perjured--testimoney, and thus the false affidavit deprives her of that constutional right. Second, the entire judicial system, based upon people seeking redress for legal wrongs, suffers a serious blow. This is why perjury is so serious. This is why 115 people are sitting in federal prison because they committed perjury. This is why four Northwestern students have been indicated for perjury because they lied about betting on sports. This is why a 17-year-old student in McHenry County, Illinois, received six months in jail for lying in open court under oath. The Northerwestern students cannot defend their actions because they were simply lying about ``just a little sports betting'' any more that the President can defend his lie because the Jones lawsuit was ``just about sex.'' And this is why impeachment, in the words of the founders, is to remove those officeholders who violate the ``public trust and subvert the Constitution.'' The Oath of Office As a member of Congress, I swore an oath ``to defend the Constitution of the United States. . . .'' This means I have an obligation to defend the Constitution and to do everything I can to make sure the powers and protections of the Constitution are enjoyed by the rest of America. This is a solemn obliation. That is why elected officials have oaths. The President's Constitutional oath says he is to ``preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.'' The Constitution further provides that the President ``shall take Care that the Law be faithfully executied.'' The worlds ``care'' and ``laws'' in the Constitution are purposely, capitalized for emphasis. Other words for ``take Care'' are to ``nurture,'' ``conserve,'' ``supervise,'' and ``be vigilant over'' the law of this land. The President is, therefore, constitutionally charged with being a caretaker of the Constitution and the laws of this nation, holding these in trust for the protection of the American people. This is such an awesome responsibility that the Constitution makes the President the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces with the power to use force, if necessary to protect the people's Constitutional right to equal application of the Constitution and the laws. Teddy Roosevelt said it best, as recorded in The Strenuous Life (1900): ``We . . . differ on the currency . . . tariff and foreign policy; but we cannot . . . differ on the question of honesty if we expect our republic permanently to endure. Honesty is . . . an absolute prerequisite to efficient service to the public. Unless a man is honest, we have no right to keep him in public life, it matters not how brilliant his capacity . . . No man who is corrupt . . . who condones corruption in others can possibly do his duty by the community. If a man lies under an oath or procures the lie of another under an oath, if he perjures himself or suborns, perjury, he is guilty under the statute law.'' This paper opened with the Pledge of Allegiance, which is a pledge taken by Americans, including those who serve in public office, to do whatever is necessary to assure equal justice under law. Unequal justice is no justice under the law. Even if the President were my best friend, I would still vote to impeach him because the Rule of Law is more important to me than friendship, popularity or politics.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, the Constitution makes the President the caretaker of the laws of our Nation. This means the President protects the people by nurturing and supervising our legal system, plus he must lead by example. The facts show the President has lied under oath, obstructed justice and abused the power of his office. How can he possibly serve as the caretaking of our laws if he cannot abide by them? Our legal system demands equal justice under law. To treat the President differently than other Americans brings grave consequences for the sanctity of our judicial process. And everyone likes to talk about polls for what they are worth. Let us talk about this one. According to the Scholastic News, a weekly magazine circulated in schools, 85 percent of fourth graders nationwide stated they believe a President who lies should lose his job. We have taught our children the importance of telling the truth and the value of their word. We cannot afford to change that message now.