[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 153 (Thursday, September 28, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H9625-H9628]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
THREE-JUDGE COURT FOR CERTAIN INJUNCTIONS
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Riggs). Pursuant to House Resolution 227
and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of
the bill H.R. 1170.
in the committee of the whole
Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole
House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the
bill (H.R. 1170) to provide that cases challenging the
constitutionality of measures passed by State referendum be heard by a
three-judge court, with Mr. Ewing in the Chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today, the
amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder] had
failed by voice vote and a request for a recorded vote had been
postponed.
amendment offered by mrs. schroeder
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs.
Schroeder] on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The Clerk designated the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
recorded vote
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 177,
noes 248, not voting 9, as follows:
[Roll No. 692]
AYES--177
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Bevill
Bishop
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Cardin
Chapman
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (MI)
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Danner
de la Garza
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Durbin
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Holden
Houghton
Hoyer
Jackson-Lee
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Klink
LaFalce
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lincoln
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Pickett
Pomeroy
Poshard
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Richardson
Rivers
Rose
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Spratt
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Tanner
Thompson
Thurman
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Williams
Wise
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates
NOES--248
Allard
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brewster
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Horn
Hostettler
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Manzullo
Martini
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
McNulty
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Montgomery
Moorhead
Morella
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thornton
Tiahrt
Traficant
Upton
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
[[Page H 9626]]
NOT VOTING--9
Bateman
Collins (IL)
Conyers
Duncan
Olver
Reynolds
Tejeda
Torkildsen
Tucker
{time} 1523
Mr. FLANAGAN and Mr. ROTH changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Ms. KAPTUR, Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas, and Mr. SPRATT changed their
vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. WATT OF NORTH CAROLINA
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Watt of North Carolina: Page 3,
beginning on line 1, strike ``each of the several States and
the District of Columbia;'' and insert ``the State of
California;''.
Page 3, line 4, strike ``a'' and replace with ``the''.
Page 3, line 5, strike ``a'' and replace with ``the''.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I am offering this
amendment to restrict the effect of this bill to the State of
California, rather than to the entire United States, because the bill
is being offered to address a specific problem.
{time} 1530
This is a terrible bill, my colleagues. If we have a terrible bill,
it seems to me that the least we ought to try to do is limit it to as
small an area as we can possibly limit it to.
This bill comes forward simply because some of the folks in
California do not like the results of a lawsuit that was filed and a
court decision that was entered in California which declared the
results of a referendum unconstitutional under the Federal Constitution
of the United States.
There is not but one other instance, one instance in the law now
where a three-judge panel of judges is required, and that is in the
area of voting rights. The effect of this bill would be to create a
three-judge panel every time a constitutional issue was raised where a
referendum has been conducted in a State. It makes no sense to do that.
We had a law on the books from approximately 1945 to 1976 which
required three-judge panels. It was taken off of the books, repealed
because the judiciary, lawyers, and the general public all concluded
that it was the worst part of the judicial system that existed at that
time.
Now we are being called upon simply because some of the
representatives in California do not like the results of a lawsuit to
put that law back on the books to apply to every State in the Union.
The effect of this bill would be to require three judges to decide a
case when one judge has been deciding it in the past.
Once we start doing it in referendum cases, then I am not sure how we
restrict it.
My colleagues, this is a bad, bad bill. It is bad, bad public policy.
We should be serious about it if we are interested in saving taxpayers
money. We have been here trying to balance the budget, we say. Yet, in
this one instance to play politics with one person from California, we
are getting ready to add substantial cost to the judiciary and make a
public policy decision that makes absolutely no sense.
A State court judge held the referendum in this case
unconstitutional. A Federal court judge held the referendum and the
results of that referendum unconstitutional. It would not have mattered
who decided this case; the issue on that referendum was
unconstitutional. To go back and try to address that by changing the
process makes no sense.
To say that we are going to convene three Federal judges to come
together in one location, when we have the substantial backlog in our
courts that we have, every time we got some referendum that somebody
does not like the results of, we have got to convene three Federal
judges, take up their time, take up their clerk's time, expose the
taxpayers to this additional expense, I submit to my colleagues is
very, very, very bad public policy.
I understand why the gentleman from California is offering this. It
is good politics at home. He can go home tomorrow and say, look, I got
something for the State of California and I can deliver. I am a Member
of Congress now. But it is our responsibility as Members of this body
to set good public policy.
I want to say, this amendment would limit this abomination of a bill
to the State of California.
Mr. MOORHEAD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, with apologies to my good friend, the gentleman from
North Carolina, California is still in the Union. This is kind of the
silly season because it gives us an opportunity, I guess, to redebate a
bill which has already been debated for well over an hour.
This is a good bill. Anyone that has listened to the debate
understands that we are protecting the rights of every citizen
nationwide to the right to have their vote protected when they vote on
a referendum. This bill is for all voting citizens, not just those
living in California. The procedure already exists for similar cases
and is used more in Voting Rights Act cases and apportionment cases
than it would be in referendum cases, but it is an important procedure.
The procedure is already set up. It is one which will not affect 187
in California. There is no relationship to this bill and 187 in
California, because the bill is gone. It is defeated. We cannot go back
to it. We will not go back to it. It will only protect the rights of
people for the future.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde].
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say, sort of in passing, to my
friend from North Carolina [Mr. Watt], who is one of the most valuable
members of the House Committee on the Judiciary, but I was taken aback
by his remarks about the extra cost and the burden on the court. I was
somewhat taken aback by the gentleman from North Carolina's concern
about the extra burden on the courts for convening a three-judge panel
to decide a State referendum or initiative that the constitutionality,
because my memory could be faulty, I concede that, but I do not recall
the gentleman being at the point in habeas corpus reform where cases go
up and down and up and down and up and down. I can think of one that
lasted 14 years, with 52 appeals. I just do not recall the gentleman
being a leader in trying to reform that burden on the courts.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MOORHEAD. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I want to respond to the
chairman that the last time I checked the Constitution, there is
nothing in the Constitution that guarantees anybody a three-judge
panel. There is something that talks about habeas corpus and the writ
of habeas corpus.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield,
justice delayed is justice denied. If it takes 14 years to process a
habeas corpus petition and 52 appeals, there is something very wrong. I
would expect the gentleman who is sensitive about burdens on the court
to help us lead that fight.
Mr. MOORHEAD. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California
[Mr. Bono].
Mr. BONO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and I
want to thank the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt] for giving
me the distinction of bringing forth the worst bill he has ever heard
of in his life.
However, it is a bill that I am very proud of and simply for this
reason: We are here to represent the people. And why do they have a
referendum? Because sometimes people are not represented so they can do
that themselves.
Five million people from a State speak and feel that they have been
the victim of an injustice. And I have heard the Constitution brought
up over and over and over. But nobody brings up that our State has been
suffering from crime, from illegal aliens. That means against the law.
So I think that carries a weight as well as the Constitution does.
So, we have people that continue to violate the law. The State is up
to here with it. They wanted it ended. Government did not end it. So
they decided to end it themselves. I respect their position. After they
ended it, again they were duped. And now they are the victims of this
dupe.
[[Page H 9627]]
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
parliamentary inquiry
Mr. MFUME. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. MFUME. Mr. Chairman, is it not parliamentary procedure that, when
the time on one side has expired, the Chair acknowledges for
recognition those seeking time on the other side?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman was the first one seeking recognition.
The Chair will alternate. There was no committee member seeking
recognition on the gentleman's side that came to the attention of the
Chair.
Mr. MFUME. Mr. Chairman, if I might respectfully disagree with the
Chair, the Chair's call for the culmination of the gentleman's time was
so fast and the time that he recognized the other gentleman, that there
were persons on this side that did not even know that the Chair was
seeking other Members.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will alternate between sides.
The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Buyer] is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make several points. I will
not take the full 5 minutes.
That is, I think the 1965 Voting Rights Act rightfully mandates the
three-judge panel to pass judgment on issues dealing with voting
rights. When we have a State acting as one voice in a State referendum,
there is a proper nexus between the State's voice and that of issues of
voting rights under the Voting Rights Act. So with that proper nexus, I
think it is a very good issue for this Congress to take.
So what we are saying here, if in fact we are going to always mandate
in a voting rights case so that it be decided by three Federal judges
and now the nexus, it is not also proper for us to have a three-judge
panel decide the issues of a State referendum on the issues of
constitutionality?
{time} 1545
I would submit that, yes, it is, because we do not want to take such
a paramount issue and allow it to be decided by one.
Now one can debate on either side whether it is arbitrary or
capricious. I think it is extremely important to move to the three-
judge panel, especially when we are talking about the people's voice.
It is the people's voice under the law. The people's voice under the
law is the protection of the minority, and I think that is what is so
wonderful about our country and society as a republic, a nation of
laws, not people, and I compliment the gentleman from California. It is
a side issue to talk about, well, what is the underlying reason. I
think that this is a good bill and should be applied across to all
States.
Mr. Chairman, that is why I rise in opposition to the gentleman's
amendment and say, oh, we are just going to allow it to apply to
California. No, we should apply this to any State out there, so let us
vote down the gentleman's amendment, and let us side with ration and
reason and not with the side of politics.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt].
The amendment was rejected.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments?
If there are no other amendments, the question is on the committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Hefley) having assumed the chair, Mr. Ewing, Chairman of the Committee
of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that
Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 1170) to
provide that cases, challenging the constitutionality of measures
passed by State referendum be heard by a three-judge court, pursuant to
House Resolution 227, he reported the bill back to the House with an
amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
The question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A record vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 266,
noes 159, not voting 9, as follows:
[Roll No. 693]
AYES--266
Allard
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brewster
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chapman
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clement
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Green
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kim
King
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Luther
Manzullo
Martini
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
McNulty
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Minge
Molinari
Montgomery
Moorhead
Morella
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thornton
Tiahrt
Torricelli
Traficant
Upton
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOES--159
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Baldacci
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Berman
Bevill
Bishop
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Cardin
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Coyne
de la Garza
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Doyle
Durbin
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Holden
Hoyer
Jackson-Lee
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
[[Page H 9628]]
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Klink
LaFalce
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Mfume
Mineta
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Pickett
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Richardson
Rivers
Roemer
Rose
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Skaggs
Slaughter
Spratt
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Thompson
Thurman
Torres
Towns
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Williams
Wise
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates
NOT VOTING--9
Bentsen
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Lincoln
Reynolds
Tejeda
Torkildsen
Tucker
Volkmer
{time} 1606
Mr. GUTIERREZ changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. BARCIA changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The title of the bill was amended so as to read: ``A bill to provide
that an application for an injunction restraining the enforcement,
operation, or execution of a State law adopted by referendum may not be
granted on the ground of the unconstitutionality of such law unless the
application is heard and determined by a 3-judge court.''
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________