J. Thurmond

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services, I report favorably 18 nomination lists in the Air Force, Army, Marine Corps, and Navy which were printed in full in the Record of January 7, 1997, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar, that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators:

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, today I am reporting to the Senate the rules of procedure for the Committee on Armed Services as provided for in rule 26.2 of the Standing Rules of the Senate. These rules were unanimously adopted by the committee today, January 30, 1997, and I ask unanimous consent that they be printed in the Record.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, today, I am introducing legislation to amend the Hobbs Anti-Racketeering Act to reverse the 1973 Supreme Court decision in United States versus Enmons, and to address a serious, long term, festering problem under our Nation's labor laws. I am pleased to have Senator Hatch, chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, join me in introducing this bill. The United States regulates labor relations on a national basis and our labor management policies are national policies. These policies and regulations are enforced by laws such as the National Labor Relations Act that Congress designed to preempt comparable State laws. I believe it is time for the Government to act and respond to what the Supreme Court did when it rendered its decision in the case of United States versus Enmons in 1973. Although labor violence continues to be a widespread problem in labor management relations today, the Federal Government has not moved in a meaningful way to address this issue. It is this decision's unfortunate result which this bill is intended to rectify. The Enmons decision involved the Hobbs Anti-Racketeering Act which is intended to prohibit extortion by labor unions. It provides that: ``Whoever in any way * * * obstructs, delays, or affects commerce in the movement of any article or commodity in commerce, by robbery or extortion or attempts or conspires to do so or commits or threatens physical violence to any person or property * * *'' commits a criminal act. This language clearly outlaws extortion by labor unions. It outlaws violence by labor unions. Although this language is very clear, the Supreme Court in Enmons created an exemption to the law which says that as long as a labor union commits extortion and violence in furtherance of legitimate collective-bargaining objectives, no violation of the act will be found. Simply put, the Court held that if the ends are permissible, the means to that end, no matter how horrible or reprehensible, will not result in a violation of the act. The Enmons decision is wrong. This bill will make it clear that the Hobbs Act is intended to punish the actual or threatened use of force or violence, or fear thereof, to obtain property irrespective of the legitimacy of the extortionist's claim to such property and irrespective of the existence of a labor management dispute. Let me discuss the Enmons case. In that case, the defendants were indicted for firing high-powered rifles at property, causing extensive damage to the property owned by a utility company--all done in an effort to obtain higher wages and other benefits from the company for striking employees. The indictment was, however, dismissed by the district court on the theory that the Hobbs Act did not prohibit the use of violence in obtaining legitimate union objectives. On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed. The Supreme Court held that the Hobbs Act does not proscribe violence committed during a lawful strike for the purpose of achieving legitimate collective-bargaining objectives, like higher wages. By its focus upon the motives and objectives of the property claimant who uses violence or force to achieve his or her goals, the Enmons decision has had several unfortunate results. It has deprived the Federal Government of the ability to punish significant acts of extortionate violence when they occur in a labor management context. Although other Federal statutes prohibit the use of specific devices or the use of channels of commerce in accomplishing the underlying act of extortionate violence, only the Hobbs Act proscribes a localized act of extortionate violence whose economic effect is to disrupt the channels of commerce. Other Federal statutes are not adequate to address the full effect of the Enmons decision. The Enmons decision affords parties to labor-management disputes an exemption from the statute's broad proscription against violence which is not available to any other group in society. This bill would make it clear that the Hobbs Act punishes the actual or threatened use of force and violence which is calculated to obtain property without regard to whether the extortionist has a colorable claim to such property, and without regard to his or her status as a labor representative, businessman, or private citizen. Mr. President, attempts to rectify the injustice of the Enmons decision have been before the Senate on several occasions. Shortly after the decision was handed down, a bill was introduced which was intended to repudiate the decision. Over the next several years, attempts were made to come up with language which was acceptable to organized labor and at the same time restored the original intent of the Hobbs Act. Although bills achieving the same goals as the bill I am introducing today have made progress and one even passed the Senate, none has been enacted. It is time for the Senate to re-examine this issue and to restate its opposition to violence in labor disputes. Encouraged by their special exemption from prosecution for acts of violence committed in pursuit of legitimate union objectives, union officials who are corrupt routinely use terror tactics to achieve their goals. From January 1975 to June 1996, the National Institute for Labor Relations Research has documented more than 8,700 reported cases of union violence. This chilling statistic gives clear testimony to the existence of a pervasive national problem. Mr. President, violence has no place in our society, regardless of the setting. Our national labor policy has always been directed toward the peaceful resolution of labor disputes. It is ironic that the Hobbs Act, which was enacted in large part to accomplish this worthy goal, has been virtually emasculated. The time has come to change that. I think that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle share a common concern that violence in labor disputes, whatever the source, should be eliminated. Government has been unwilling to deal with this problem for too long. It is time for this Congress to act. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, yesterday, I introduced S. 223, a bill to prohibit the use of Federal funds to encourage labor union membership. I ask unanimous consent that the text of S. 223 be printed in the Congressional Record. The bill follows:

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, each morning for more years than anyone can remember, millions of Americans have religiously opened their newspapers and consulted their horoscope, checking their astrological sign for an idea of what good or bad fortune their day might hold. Whether these people did this out of a true belief that the stars could predict their fate, or just out of a sense of fun, it was the work of a prominent Washingtonian, Jeane Dixon, whose column more often than not they were reading. Sadly, her fans will no longer be able to gaze into the future over a cup of coffee and an English muffin, as Mrs. Dixon passed away this past Saturday at the age of 79. Mrs. Dixon gained notoriety as an astrologer and psychic when she made some eerily accurate predictions concerning the tragic fate of the late President Kennedy, the election of Richard Nixon to the Presidency, that China would become Communist, and the eventual election of Ronald Reagan as Chief Executive. Whether she truly had the ability to see into the future will forever be a mystery, but she certainly made enough accurate forecasts about events that she earned a degree of credibility. From what I understand, she was often consulted by individuals inside and outside of Government, and she was certainly a favorite in Washington social circles, which is how I came to know Mrs. Dixon many years ago. Those who only knew the Jeane Dixon whose name graced horoscope columns were not familiar with the generous and concerned nature of this woman who worked very hard to help build a better world through philanthropy. A devout Catholic, Mrs. Dixon gave freely to the church, supporting many worthy charities and relief projects designed to help the less fortunate and those in need. Additionally, Mrs. Dixon established the Jeane Dixon's Children to Children Foundation, an organization that has undertaken many fine efforts to help some of America's most vulnerable citizens, its children. I am proud to have been able to count Jeane Dixon among my friends. She was the godmother to my youngest son, Paul, and the two would visit whenever possible. Unfortunately in later years, Paul's schedule as a tennis player and college student, and Jeane's busy traveling and business schedule did not permit as many get togethers as either would like. Still, they were good friends and did enjoy being able to see each other several times a year. As Jeane lived in town, I would see her frequently, and always enjoyed being able to host her and her friends for lunch in the Senate dining room. Without question, she was a kind and warm-hearted woman who was always interested in politics and the events of the day. She was a witty conversationalist and it was always amusing and intriguing to hear what she believed was in store for the Nation and prominent figures in Government and entertainment. Mr. President, Jeane Dixon led a full and unique life. She was known, admired, and liked by countless people and we shall all miss her. My condolences go out to her sister, Evelyn P. Brier; her brother, Dr. Warren E. Pinckert; and her nieces and nephews, all of whom survive her.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, today, I am introducing legislation to amend the Hobbs Anti-Racketeering Act to reverse the 1973 Supreme Court decision in United States versus Enmons, and to address a serious, long term, festering problem under our Nation's labor laws. I am pleased to have Senator Hatch, chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, join me in introducing this bill. The United States regulates labor relations on a national basis and our labor management policies are national policies. These policies and regulations are enforced by laws such as the National Labor Relations Act that Congress designed to preempt comparable State laws. I believe it is time for the Government to act and respond to what the Supreme Court did when it rendered its decision in the case of United States versus Enmons in 1973. Although labor violence continues to be a widespread problem in labor management relations today, the Federal Government has not moved in a meaningful way to address this issue. It is this decision's unfortunate result which this bill is intended to rectify. The Enmons decision involved the Hobbs Anti-Racketeering Act which is intended to prohibit extortion by labor unions. It provides that: ``Whoever in any way * * * obstructs, delays, or affects commerce in the movement of any article or commodity in commerce, by robbery or extortion or attempts or conspires to do so or commits or threatens physical violence to any person or property * * *'' commits a criminal act. This language clearly outlaws extortion by labor unions. It outlaws violence by labor unions. Although this language is very clear, the Supreme Court in Enmons created an exemption to the law which says that as long as a labor union commits extortion and violence in furtherance of legitimate collective-bargaining objectives, no violation of the act will be found. Simply put, the Court held that if the ends are permissible, the means to that end, no matter how horrible or reprehensible, will not result in a violation of the act. The Enmons decision is wrong. This bill will make it clear that the Hobbs Act is intended to punish the actual or threatened use of force or violence, or fear thereof, to obtain property irrespective of the legitimacy of the extortionist's claim to such property and irrespective of the existence of a labor management dispute. Let me discuss the Enmons case. In that case, the defendants were indicted for firing high-powered rifles at property, causing extensive damage to the property owned by a utility company--all done in an effort to obtain higher wages and other benefits from the company for striking employees. The indictment was, however, dismissed by the district court on the theory that the Hobbs Act did not prohibit the use of violence in obtaining legitimate union objectives. On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed. The Supreme Court held that the Hobbs Act does not proscribe violence committed during a lawful strike for the purpose of achieving legitimate collective-bargaining objectives, like higher wages. By its focus upon the motives and objectives of the property claimant who uses violence or force to achieve his or her goals, the Enmons decision has had several unfortunate results. It has deprived the Federal Government of the ability to punish significant acts of extortionate violence when they occur in a labor management context. Although other Federal statutes prohibit the use of specific devices or the use of channels of commerce in accomplishing the underlying act of extortionate violence, only the Hobbs Act proscribes a localized act of extortionate violence whose economic effect is to disrupt the channels of commerce. Other Federal statutes are not adequate to address the full effect of the Enmons decision. The Enmons decision affords parties to labor-management disputes an exemption from the statute's broad proscription against violence which is not available to any other group in society. This bill would make it clear that the Hobbs Act punishes the actual or threatened use of force and violence which is calculated to obtain property without regard to whether the extortionist has a colorable claim to such property, and without regard to his or her status as a labor representative, businessman, or private citizen. Mr. President, attempts to rectify the injustice of the Enmons decision have been before the Senate on several occasions. Shortly after the decision was handed down, a bill was introduced which was intended to repudiate the decision. Over the next several years, attempts were made to come up with language which was acceptable to organized labor and at the same time restored the original intent of the Hobbs Act. Although bills achieving the same goals as the bill I am introducing today have made progress and one even passed the Senate, none has been enacted. It is time for the Senate to re-examine this issue and to restate its opposition to violence in labor disputes. Encouraged by their special exemption from prosecution for acts of violence committed in pursuit of legitimate union objectives, union officials who are corrupt routinely use terror tactics to achieve their goals. From January 1975 to June 1996, the National Institute for Labor Relations Research has documented more than 8,700 reported cases of union violence. This chilling statistic gives clear testimony to the existence of a pervasive national problem. Mr. President, violence has no place in our society, regardless of the setting. Our national labor policy has always been directed toward the peaceful resolution of labor disputes. It is ironic that the Hobbs Act, which was enacted in large part to accomplish this worthy goal, has been virtually emasculated. The time has come to change that. I think that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle share a common concern that violence in labor disputes, whatever the source, should be eliminated. Government has been unwilling to deal with this problem for too long. It is time for this Congress to act. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a very important piece of legislation that would affect every American taxpayer. This measure would prohibit Federal funds from being used to encourage labor union membership. Mr. President, I was shocked to learn that the Department of Labor has published and distributed brochures which state, If you don't have a union, you may want to consider joining an existing union or working with others to start one. These brochures are designed to help American workers know their rights when it comes to various forms of discrimination. I recognize the importance of these brochures, but I firmly believe that it is not the responsibility of the Federal Government to encourage or discourage labor union membership in any form. Organized labor has the resources and the manpower to do their own recruiting. They certainly should not be receiving free solicitation at the expense of the American taxpayer. The legislation that I am introducing today specifically prohibits any Federal agency from using Federal funds for programs, seminars, staff positions, or publications which would compel, instruct, encourage, urge, or persuade individuals to join labor unions. As I stated before, it simply is not the responsibility of the Federal Government to encourage union membership. The American taxpayer should not bear the burden of promoting labor unions. My distinguished colleagues, Senators Faircloth, Helms, Hutchinson, Kempthorne, Shelby, and Sessions, join me as original cosponsors of this measure that I send to the desk. I invite our other colleagues to join us in support of this important legislation.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a very important piece of legislation that would affect every American taxpayer. This measure would prohibit Federal funds from being used to encourage labor union membership. Mr. President, I was shocked to learn that the Department of Labor has published and distributed brochures which state, If you don't have a union, you may want to consider joining an existing union or working with others to start one. These brochures are designed to help American workers know their rights when it comes to various forms of discrimination. I recognize the importance of these brochures, but I firmly believe that it is not the responsibility of the Federal Government to encourage or discourage labor union membership in any form. Organized labor has the resources and the manpower to do their own recruiting. They certainly should not be receiving free solicitation at the expense of the American taxpayer. The legislation that I am introducing today specifically prohibits any Federal agency from using Federal funds for programs, seminars, staff positions, or publications which would compel, instruct, encourage, urge, or persuade individuals to join labor unions. As I stated before, it simply is not the responsibility of the Federal Government to encourage union membership. The American taxpayer should not bear the burden of promoting labor unions. My distinguished colleagues, Senators Faircloth, Helms, Hutchinson, Kempthorne, Shelby, and Sessions, join me as original cosponsors of this measure that I send to the desk. I invite our other colleagues to join us in support of this important legislation.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. THURMOND. I yield 3 minutes to the able Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. THURMOND. Five minutes?

Mr. THURMOND. I now yield 1 minute to the able Senator from New Hampshire, Senator Smith.

Mr. THURMOND. Madam President, how much time do we have left?

Mr. THURMOND. Madam President, I now yield a half-minute to the able Senator from Rhode Island, Senator Chafee.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the able Senator from Virginia, Senator Warner.

Mr. THURMOND. Madam President, how much time do we have left?

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, how much time do I have on my side?

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I now yield 2 minutes to the able Senator from Texas, Senator Hutchison.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes. I want to thank the majority leader, Senator Lott, and the minority leader, Senator Daschle, for taking up the nomination of our former Colleague Senator Bill Cohen to be Secretary of Defense. As all Senators know, Secretary Perry, who has ably led the Department of Defense for the past 3 years, has departed. It is therefore essential that we fill the position of Secretary of Defense as quickly as possible. The Armed Services Committee met this afternoon in an executive session and unanimously voted to recommend the confirmation of Senator Cohen as the 20th Secretary of Defense. Senator Cohen is well known by all Members of the Senate for his distinguished 18 years of service in the Senate representing the people of Maine. Each of us is aware of his character, ability, and dedication to providing unquestioned support for our men and women in uniform. Senator Cohen has repeatedly demonstrated a vision for how the United States must meet its defense needs. I believe that as the Secretary of Defense, Bill Cohen will continue to demonstrate the strong independent characteristics of New England gentlemen and will lead the Clinton administration to provide adequately for the security of the Nation and those who serve in our Armed Forces. Mr. President, as chairman of the Armed Services Committee, I urge the Senate to confirm William S. Cohen, a dedicated public servant, as the next Secretary of Defense.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I now yield 10 minutes to the able Senator from Maine, Senator Snowe.

Mr. THURMOND. Madam President, I now yield the remainder of the time to the able Senator from Idaho, Senator Kempthorne.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Are we going to vote, Mr. President?

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, today, I am introducing the voluntary school prayer constitutional amendment. This bill is identical to Senate Joint Resolution 73 which I introduced in the 98th Congress at the request of then President Reagan and reintroduced every Congress since. This proposal has received strong support from our colleagues on both sides of the aisle and is of vital importance to our Nation. It would restore the right to pray voluntarily in public schools--a right which was freely exercised under our Constitution until the 1960's, when the Supreme Court ruled to the contrary. Also, in 1985, the Supreme Court ruled an Alabama statute unconstitutional which authorized teachers in public schools to provide ``a period of silence * * * for meditation or voluntary prayer'' at the beginning of each school day. As I stated when that opinion was issued and repeat again-- the Supreme Court has too broadly interpreted the establishment clause of the first amendment and, in doing so, has incorrectly infringed on the rights of those children--and their parents--who wish to observe a moment of silence for religious or other purposes. Until the Supreme Court ruled in the Engel and Abington School District decisions, the establishment clause of the first amendment was generally understood to prohibit the Federal Government from officially approving, or holding in special favor, any particular religious faith or denomination. In crafting that clause, our Founding Fathers sought to prevent what has originally caused many colonial Americans to emigrate to this country--an official, State religion. At the same time, they sought, through the free exercise clause, to guarantee to all Americans the freedom to worship God without government interference or restraint. In their wisdom, they recognized that true religious liberty precludes the government from both forcing and preventing worship. As Supreme Court Justice William Douglas once stated: ``We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being.'' Nearly every President since George Washington has proclaimed a day of public prayer. Moreover, we, as a nation, continue to recognize the Deity in our Pledge of Allegiance by affirming that we are a Nation ``under God.'' Our currency is inscribed with the motto, ``In God We Trust''. In this body, we open the Senate and begin our workday with the comfort and stimulus of voluntary group prayers--such a practice has been recently upheld as constitutional by the Supreme Court. It is unreasonable that the opportunity for the same beneficial experience is denied to the boys and girls who attend public schools. This situation simply does not comport with the intentions of the Framers of the Constitution and is, in fact, antithetical to the rights of our youngest citizens to freely exercise their respective religions. It should be changed, without further delay. The Congress should swiftly pass this resolution and send it to the States for ratification. This amendment to the Constitution would clarify that it does not prohibit vocal, voluntary prayer in the public school and other public institutions. It emphatically states that no person may be required to participate in any prayer. The government would be precluded from drafting school prayers. This well-crafted amendment enjoys the support of an overwhelming number of Americans. I strongly urge my colleagues to support prompt consideration and approval of this bill during this Congress.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Curt Flood Act of 1997, which I am cosponsoring with Senator Hatch, Senator Leahy, and others. Our legislation would repeal the antitrust exemption which shields major league baseball from the antitrust laws that apply to all other sports and unregulated businesses in our Nation. This bill is virtually identical to S. 627 in the last Congress which was the result of discussions between myself and Senators Hatch and Leahy following the February 1995 hearing I chaired on this important issue. The bill is a compromise which has been carefully drafted to ensure that it achieves its purpose without imposing any unnecessary hardship on major league baseball. It is fitting that this bill is named after Curt Flood, who died yesterday, for the Supreme Court denied Mr. Flood the relief he sought by upholding the antitrust exemption which we now seek to change. In his 1972 Supreme Court case, Mr. Flood challenged baseball's reserve clause which bound players to teams for their entire careers. Although unsuccessful because of the judicially-created antitrust exemption, Mr. Flood's selfless actions paved the way for the success of other players through arbitration. It is now time for us to resolve the antitrust exemption. The bill we are introducing today eliminates baseball's antitrust exemption, with two exceptions. The legislation maintains the status quo for franchise location, and for the relationship with the minor leagues. It is important to protect the existing minor league relationships in order to avoid disruption of the more than 170 minor league teams which exist throughout our Nation. Continuing to shield franchise relocation decisions from the antitrust laws resolves the uncertainty facing team owners in other professional sports. Mr. President, it is my belief that the Congress should repeal the court-imposed antitrust exemption and restore baseball to the same level playing field as other professional sports and unregulated businesses. In the last Congress, we were successful in passing S. 627 in the Antitrust, Business Rights, and Competition Subcommittee and in the Committee on the Judiciary. In this Congress we should make a concerted effort to enact the Curt Flood Act.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to prohibit Federal judges from ordering new taxes or ordering increases in existing tax rates as a judicial remedy. In 1990, the Supreme Court decided in Missouri versus Jenkins to allow Federal judges to order new taxes or increases as a judicial remedy. It is my firm belief that this narrow 5 to 4 decision permits Federal judges to exceed their proper boundaries of jurisdiction and authority under the Constitution. Mr. President, this ruling and congressional response raises two constitutional issues which warrant discussion. One is whether Federal courts have authority under the Constitution to inject themselves into the legislative area of taxation. The second constitutional issue arises in light of the Judicial Taxation Prohibition Act which I am now introducing to restrict the remedial jurisdiction of the Federal courts. This narrowly drafted legislation would prohibit Federal judges from ordering new taxes or ordering increases in existing tax rates. I believe it is clear under article III that the Congress has the authority to restrict the remedial jurisdiction of the Federal courts in this fashion. First, I want to speak on the issue of judicial taxation. Not since Great Britain's ministry of George Grenville in 1765 have the American people faced the assault of taxation without representation as now authorized in the Jenkins decision. As part of his imperial reforms to tighten British control in the colonies, Grenville pushed the Stamp Act through the Parliament in 1765. This Act required excise duties to be paid by the colonists in the forms of revenue stamps affixed to a variety of legal documents. This action came at a time when the colonies were in an uproar over the Sugar Act of 1764 which levied duties on certain imports such as sugar, indigo, coffee, linens and other items. The ensuing firestorm of debate in America centered on the power of Britain to tax the colonies. James Otis, a young Boston attorney, echoed the opinion of most colonists stating that the Parliament did not have power to tax the colonies because Americans had no representation in that body. Mr. Otis had been attributed in 1761 with the statement that ``taxation without representation is tyranny.'' In October, 1765, delegates from nine states were sent to New York as part of the Stamp Act Congress to protest the new law. It was during this time that John Adams wrote in opposition to the Stamp Act, ``We have always understood it to be a grand and fundamental principle . . . that no freeman shall be subject to any tax to which he has not given his own consent, in person or by proxy.'' A number of resolutions were adopted by the Stamp Act Congress protesting the acts of Parliament. One resolution stated, ``It is inseparably essential to the freedom of a people . . . that no taxes be imposed on them, but with their own consent, given personally or by their representatives.'' The resolutions concluded that the Stamp Act had a ``manifest tendency to subvert the rights and liberties of the colonists.'' Opposition to the Stamp Act was vehemently continued through the colonies in pamphlet form. These pamphlets asserted that the basic premise of a free government included taxation of the people by themselves or through their representatives. Other Americans reacted to the Stamp Act by rioting, intimidating tax collectors, and boycotts directed against England. While Grenville's successor was determined to repeal the law, the social, economic and political climate in the colonies brought on the American Revolution. The principles expressed during the earlier crisis against taxation without representation became firmly embedded in our Federal Constitution of 1787. Yet, the Supreme Court has overlooked this fundamental lesson in American history. The Jenkins decision extends the power of the judiciary into an area which has traditionally been reserved as a legislative function within the Federal, State, and local governments. In the Federalist No. 48, James Madison explained that in our democratic system, ``the legislative branch alone has access to the pockets of the people.'' This idea has remained steadfast in America for over 200 years. Elected officials with authority to tax are directly accountable to the people who give their consent to taxation through the ballot box. The shield of accountability against unwarranted taxes has been removed now that the Supreme Court has sanctioned judicially imposed taxes. The American citizenry lacks adequate protection when they are subject to taxation by unelected, life tenured Federal judges. There are many programs and projects competing for a finite number of tax dollars. The public debate surrounding taxation is always intense. Sensitive discussions are held by elected officials and their constituents concerning increases and expenditures of scarce tax dollars. To allow Federal judges to impose taxes is to discount valuable public debate concerning priorities for expenditures of a limited public resource. Mr. President, the dispositive issue presented by the Jenkins decision is whether the American people want, as a matter of national policy, to be exposed to taxation without their consent by an independent and insulated judiciary. I most assuredly believe they do not. This brings us to the second Constitutional issue which we must address in light of this Jenkins decision. That issue is Congressional authority under the Constitution to limit the remedial jurisdiction of lower Federal courts established by the Congress. Article III, Section 1, of the Constitution provides jurisdiction to the lower Federal courts as the ``Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.'' There is no mandate in the Constitution to confer equity jurisdiction to the inferior Federal courts. Congress has the flexibility under Article III to ``ordain and establish'' the lower Federal courts as it deems appropriate. This basic premise has been upheld by the Supreme Court in a number of cases including Lockerty versus Phillips, Lauf versus E.G. Skinner and Co., Kline versus Burke Construction Co., and Sheldon versus Sill. This legislation would preclude the lower Federal courts from issuing any order or decree requiring imposition of ``any new tax or to increase any existing tax or tax rate.'' I firmly believe that this language is wholly consistent with Congressional authority under Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution. There is nothing in this legislation which would restrict the power of the Federal courts from hearing constitutional claims. It accords due respect to all provisions of the Constitution and merely limits the availability of a particular judicial remedy which has traditionally been a legislative function. The objective of this legislation is straightforward, to prohibit Federal courts from increasing taxes. The language in this bill applies to the lower Federal courts and does not deny claimants judicial access to seek redress of any Federal constitutional right. Mr. President, how long will it be before a Federal judge orders tax increases to build new highways or prisons? I do not believe the Founding Fathers had this type of activism in mind when they established the judicial branch of government. The role of the judiciary is to interpret the law. The power to tax is an exclusive legislative right belonging to the Congress and governments at the state level. We are accountable to the citizens and must justify any new taxes. The American people deserve a timely response to the Jenkins decision and we must provide protection against the imposition of taxes by an independent judiciary.