[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 15 (Wednesday, February 25, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H589-H598]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     FEDERAL AGENCY COMPLIANCE ACT

  The committee resumed its sitting.
  Mr. GEKAS. Madam Chairman, I yield such time as he might consume to 
the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning).
  Mr. BUNNING. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
for yielding, and I thank him for the opportunity to comment on H.R. 
1544, the Federal Agency Compliance Act.
  Madam Chairman, I appreciate the committee's effort to prevent 
agencies from refusing to follow controlling precedents of the United 
States Courts of Appeal in the course of program administration. I 
fully agree that Federal agencies, including the Social Security 
Administration, must follow circuit court decisions. However, I do not 
support legislation that compromises the fair and impartial treatment 
of Social Security claimants.
  This bill seeks to allow administrative law judges and other 
adjudicators the latitude to apply their own interpretation of circuit 
court decisions. As chairman of the Subcommittee on Social Security, I 
have grave concerns about the impact this legislation would have on 
Social Security disability decision-making and particularly on the 
Americans' public right to unbiased treatment.
  Currently, when the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals publishes a 
decision that conflicts with the Social Security Administration policy, 
Social Security can either, one, issue an acquiescent ruling to apply 
the case in that circuit or, two, change its policies to apply the case 
nationwide or seek Supreme Court review.
  SSA's acquiescent ruling process is the means by which SSA provides 
all decision makers with directions on how to uniformly and fairly 
apply courts' decisions which conflicts with SSA's nationwide policy. 
SSA takes over 2 million new disability claims a year and processes 
over 600,000 disability appeals. SSA has over 20,000 decision makers. 
H.R. 1544 would authorize SSA, more than 20,000 adjudicators, to apply 
their own individual interpretation of a circuit court decision.
  As we all know, court decisions are often subject to various 
interpretations. If all 20,000 SSA adjudicators were permitted to apply 
their own interpretations of court decisions, different standards would 
be applied to individuals with similar circumstances across this 
Nation.
  I am not in favor of SSA adjudicators applying conflicting standards. 
Not only does H.R. 1544 jeopardize the right of individuals seeking SSA 
benefit, the bill also undermines the statutory authority of the 
Commissioner of SSA to establish rules and policies. In order to insure 
that similarly situated individuals are treated in a consistent manner, 
SSA would have to devote additional resources to monitor its 
adjudication process.
  Total SSA resources are limited. Any shift in resources to account 
for new work loads would likely have untold effects. Those untold 
effects could include delays in retirement claims, claims filed by 
widows or claims filed by severely disabled individuals waiting for 
their disability decisions. SSA's disability work load is of such 
staggering proportion that any proposal that would have even the 
slightest impact on processing time delays must be carefully examined 
and deliberated by Congress.
  The American public should not have to tolerate additional delays in 
the process that already takes too long. The American public should not 
be subjected to inconsistent and possible biased decision-making. The 
public deserves better.
  We are all aware of the challenges facing the Social Security Trust 
Fund. CBO has stated that they cannot predict the budgetary impact of 
H.R. 1544. I say we cannot move forward until we know how this 
legislation will impact the long term solvency of the Social Security 
Trust Funds.
  Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote no on H.R. 1544, and I thank 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas) for the time.
  Mr. GEKAS. Madam Chairman, having reserved some time, I now yield 
myself such time as I may consume. The gentleman from Kentucky has 
brought up some issues that require a response.
  First of all, the Social Security Administration has told us in 
different ways repeatedly that they are willing to acquiesce and that 
they have changed their procedures and are turning towards a policy of 
acquiescence rather than the nonacquiescence which we seek to cure by 
this legislation. But even if they did, if they took a complete turn 
around and now are acquiescing in full, that does not make our 
legislation obsolete because this would carry to all agencies across 
the board where all of them would be bound by the circuit court and 
other court decisions.
  So if the Social Security Administration itself says they are 
acquiescing, then opposition to this bill comes empty handed because 
all this does would be in effect codify what the Social Security 
Administration has asserted to us it is trying to do anyway. But in the 
meantime, while we pass this legislation, we are codifying their new 
system if they are acquiescing, while at the same time applying it to 
other agencies across the board whereby we would know that the court 
opinions would be respected and in which acquiescence would be a 
routine matter.
  Another point which has to be made is that from the standpoint of the 
administrative judges, and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) 
first noted this very important aspect of what we are about here, the 
administrative law judges, in the first instance, are the first 
battleground. They, too, should have a cognizance that the precedents 
already set by the circuit court should apply to them as they 
deliberate on the adjudicative level within an agency on a particular 
matter.
  So all of this helps the entire system of justice from the standpoint 
of the claimant, who makes the first claim would know that the chances 
of having to litigate and relitigate the claim that that individual is 
making for disability, for Social Security benefits, for Medicare, for 
land management questions, for labor questions, any kind of question 
that comes up before agencies would have the sweep of this law to help 
protect them against the cost. And the aggravation and the time 
involved in relitigation over and over again for a precedent that has 
already been set by the courts and should be adhered to in the first 
place, thereby saving all the time and energy and cost that would be 
involved in pursuing the case time and time again.

                              {time}  1115

  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Chairman, I believe that, subject to the amendment I am going 
to offer in a few moments, as soon as the bill is open to amendments, 
that this is an excellent bill, a bill worthy of support, and, 
unfortunately, an unnecessary bill.
  I say unfortunately because we should not have to do this. Agencies 
should not continue to deny benefits to people when the Circuit Court 
has said you are wrong in your interpretation of the law. That is not 
what Congress meant. Congress meant under these circumstances, whatever 
they may be, the person is entitled to Medicare or Social Security or 
disability or whatever the case may be.
  But we know that, under administrations of both parties, this has 
happened. It has happened repeatedly, even recently; and we should 
protect people from the necessity and the taxpayers, too. Because when 
there is a relitigation of the same points, the taxpayers are paying 
the money on one side, the individual on the other; and this is wrong.
  So I strongly support this bill; and I hope the majority, the 
distinguished chairman, will see his way clear to accepting the 
amendment so that we will have the votes to make sure that this bill is 
enacted into law.

[[Page H590]]

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Chairman, I rise today in opposition 
to H.R. 1544, the Federal Agency Compliance Act. My primary point of 
contention with this bill, is that this legislation could potentially 
cause drastic harm to our federal agencies' ability to enforce and 
protect many of our essential labor, environmental and civil rights 
laws. The fact of the matter is that our federal agencies already have 
systematic procedures to determine which cases should be challenged in 
federal appellate court, and which should not. If we were to add 
another (unnecessary) set of criteria which restricts when our federal 
agencies can seek appellate review, ultimately, we will disadvantage 
these agencies' ability to protect some of our most fundamental civil 
rights.
  Actually, many federal agencies rely upon the Department of Justice 
to be their ``arm of litigation'', because any desired appeal by a 
federal agency to an appellate court must be approved by the Solicitor 
General's office. Additionally, a court can hold these agencies to be 
financially responsible for their opposing parties' attorney's fees if 
their legal challenge is deemed to be ``substantially unjustified''. 
The fact remains that there is little incentive for federal agencies to 
bring frivolous challenges to standing circuit court precedents. 
Critics, however, respond to this evidence by saying, then why don't 
these federal agencies choose to comply with the various precedential 
decisions in the many federal judicial circuits?
  Even though, I agree wholeheartedly, with the spirit of this concern, 
I can not in good conscience, agree with its substance. The Social 
Security Administration, widely considered to be the main target of 
this legislation, has already enacted a new regulation that in effect 
is a model of H.R. 1544, so why is it a necessity to potentially 
endanger our collective civil rights? Furthermore, what sense does it 
make to pass a law to restrict circuit court appeals by federal 
agencies, which then requires these same federal agencies to challenge 
potential exemptions to this new statutory rule in federal court? What 
is the added value? If an agency feels that it meets the standards for 
exemption and files an appeal in federal circuit court, a federal 
court, again, is the only available source of clarification and dispute 
resolution.
  If this bill's intent is simply to prevent the relitigation of 
certain claims that affect individual grievances against federal 
agencies such as Health and Human Services or the Social Security 
Administration it should do that, and only that. However, as is clear 
from these many impassioned polemics against this bill, H.R. 1544 ends 
up doing far more. At least, the supporters of this bill should be able 
to say that even though this proposed legislation may very well 
endanger some of our most sacred Constitutionally-protected rights, it 
is motivated by an overwhelmingly meritorious reason. Unfortunately, 
neither I, nor anyone else that has questions about the necessity of 
this bill, has been able to find evidence of a desperate need for this 
legislation.

  I believe that my colleagues simply have failed to ask and answer a 
series of important questions in their haste to pass this bill. For 
example, what will the immediate effect of H.R. 1544 probably be? If a 
federal agency is going to acquiesce according to the letter of this 
bill, it must adopt differing policies for the many judicial circuits 
which have made rulings about a particular issue. Under these rules, it 
is highly unlikely that a federal agency could ever have a singular, 
national regulatory policy again. In the bureaucratic maelstrom that is 
our federal government, is further complication of regulatory policies 
either prudent, or pragmatic? Ultimately, how is it different for an 
aggrieved party? If a circuit court rules disfavorably to one 
claimant's position, all similarly situated parties will be judged (in 
that particular judicial circuit) by that same standard. If we agree 
that aggrieved parties are too often unaware, if not financially 
unable, to pursue any further review of their claim in a court of law, 
how does this new statute help their plight?
  And finally, the Supreme Court often has very good reasons for 
granting or not granting certiorari in matters involving controversial 
issues of law. Why enact a law that would require a multi-faceted 
standard for relief among the many judicial circuits, if we do not 
really know which is the appropriate standard of review? Often it takes 
several years for a rule of law to mature completely or even be 
overturned, so why should we force all claimants in a judicial district 
to experience the far too erratic ``growing pains'' of our federal 
judicial process.
  For all of these reasons, I would implore my colleagues to vote 
against H.R. 1544, there must be a better way to solve this problem. A 
better way, a more efficient way than jeopardizing our most fundamental 
civil rights and liberties.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEKAS. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the 
bill shall be considered by section as an original bill for the purpose 
of amendment, and pursuant to the rule each section is considered read.
  During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord 
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that he or 
she has printed in the designated place in the Congressional Record. 
Those amendments will be considered read.
  The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone a request for 
a recorded vote on any amendment and may reduce to a minimum of 5 
minutes the time for voting on any postponed question that immediately 
follows another vote, provided that the time for voting on the first 
question shall be a minimum of 15 minutes.
  Mr. GEKAS. Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the committee 
amendment in the nature of a substitute be printed in the Record and 
open to amendment at any point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is 
as follows:
       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Federal Agency Compliance 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. PROHIBITING INTRACIRCUIT AGENCY NONACQUIESCENCE IN 
                   APPELLATE PRECEDENT.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 7 of title 5, United States Code, 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 707. Adherence to court of appeals precedent

       ``(a) Except as provided in subsection (b), an agency (as 
     defined in section 701(b)(1) of this title) shall, in 
     administering a statute, rule, regulation, program, or policy 
     within a judicial circuit, adhere to the existing precedent 
     respecting the interpretation and application of such 
     statute, rule, regulation, program, or policy, as established 
     by the decisions of the United States court of appeals for 
     that circuit. All officers and employees of an agency, 
     including administrative law judges, shall adhere to such 
     precedent.
       ``(b) An agency is not precluded under subsection (a) from 
     taking a position, either in administration or litigation, 
     that is at variance with precedent established by a United 
     States court of appeals if--
       ``(1) it is not certain whether the administration of the 
     statute, rule, regulation, program, or policy will be subject 
     to review by the court of appeals that established that 
     precedent or a court of appeals for another circuit;
       ``(2) the Government did not seek further review of the 
     case in which that precedent was first established, in that 
     court of appeals or the United States Supreme Court, because 
     neither the United States nor any agency or officer thereof 
     was a party to the case or because the decision establishing 
     that precedent was otherwise substantially favorable to the 
     Government; or
       ``(3) it is reasonable to question the continued validity 
     of that precedent in light of a subsequent decision of that 
     court of appeals or the United States Supreme Court, a 
     subsequent change in any pertinent statute or regulation, or 
     any other subsequent change in the public policy or 
     circumstances on which that precedent was based.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of chapter 7 of title 5, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end of following new item:

``707. Adherence to court of appeals precedent.''.

     SEC. 3. PREVENTING UNNECESSARY AGENCY RELITIGATION IN 
                   MULTIPLE CIRCUITS.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 7 of title 5, United States Code, 
     as amended by section 2(a), is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:

     ``Sec. 708. Supervision of litigation; limiting unnecessary 
       relitigation of legal issues

       ``(a) In supervising the conduct of litigation, the 
     officers of any agency of the United States authorized to 
     conduct litigation, including the Department of Justice 
     acting under sections 516 and 519 of title 28, United States 
     Code, shall ensure that the initiation, defense, and 
     continuation of proceedings in the courts of the United 
     States within, or subject to the jurisdiction of, a 
     particular judicial circuit avoids unnecessarily repetitive 
     litigation on questions of law already consistently resolved 
     against the position of the United States, or an agency or 
     officer thereof, in precedents established by the United 
     States courts of appeals for 3 or more other judicial 
     circuits.
       ``(b) Decisions on whether to initiate, defend, or continue 
     litigation for purposes of subsection (a) shall take into 
     account, among other relevant factors, the following:
       ``(1) The effect of intervening changes in pertinent law or 
     the public policy or circumstances on which the established 
     precedents were based.
       ``(2) Subsequent decisions of the United States Supreme 
     Court or the courts of appeals that previously decided the 
     relevant question of law.
       ``(3) The extent to which that question of law was fully 
     and adequately litigated in the cases in which the precedents 
     were established.
       ``(4) The need to conserve judicial and other parties' 
     resources.

[[Page H591]]

       ``(c) The Attorney General shall report annually to the 
     Committees on the Judiciary of the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives on the efforts of the Department of Justice 
     and other agencies to comply with subsection (a).
       ``(d) A decision on whether to initiate, defend, or 
     continue litigation is not subject to review in a court, by 
     mandamus or otherwise, on the grounds that the decision 
     violates subsection (a).''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of chapter 7 of title 5, United States Code, as 
     amended by section 2(b), is amended by adding at the end of 
     following new item:

``708. Supervision of litigation; limiting unnecessary relitigation of 
              legal issues.''.


              Amendment Offered by Mr. Cox of California.

  Mr. COX of California. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:
  Amendment offered by Mr. Cox of California:

       On page 5, line 16, strike the final period and insert ``of 
     section 707 or 708.''

  Mr. COX of California. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas), the chairman of the committee, for discussing 
with me my concerns about this bill and for his good work in bringing 
this bill to the floor.
  Madam Chairman, the Federal Agency Compliance Act, H.R. 1544, is 
intended to do two things: first, to ensure that the executive branch 
obeys the law, a good purpose; second, to discourage the relitigation 
of settled questions and to avoid the needless expense for both the 
government and private parties of unnecessary and wasteful litigation.
  As one who has worked long and hard on civil justice reform, I could 
not agree with the gentleman more about the importance of reducing 
needless, wasteful and expensive litigation, both for the benefit of 
the parties and for the taxpayers, who, in the case of government 
litigation, of course, are footing the bill.
  The Federal Agency Compliance Act contains essentially two parts, one 
dealing with the relitigation of decisions of the courts within a 
judicial circuit and another dealing with the relitigation of questions 
that have been decided in one circuit but perhaps not in all others, or 
that have been decided in others but where multi-circuit litigation is 
undertaken to address the question anew.
  In the inter-circuit, the multi-circuit part of the bill, there is 
the following sentence: ``A decision on whether to initiate, defend or 
continue litigation is not subject to a review in the court by mandamus 
or otherwise on the grounds that the decision violates subsection A''.
  In other words, there will not be collateral litigation, a new cause 
of action created, by virtue of the alleged violation of section 708, 
the decision by the government whether to continue to defend or to 
initiate a lawsuit.
  That is a very good part of this bill. It relies upon not only the 
good faith of the executive branch in making decisions whether or not 
to litigate inter-circuit but also upon the notion that it is the 
responsibility not of private litigants but of the government to take 
care, and the President is head of the executive branch of government, 
to take care that the laws are faithfully executed. That is the 
executive branch's constitutional responsibility.
  The prohibition against that kind of wasteful, needless collateral 
litigation in this bill ought to apply not to just half of it but all 
of it.
  So my amendment makes clear that the sentence that I just read, that 
decisions whether to litigate or continue litigation are not subject to 
review, not subject to additional collateral litigation, that will 
apply to both the inter- and intra-circuit parts of this legislation 
under my amendment.
  As a consequence, I offer it for the consideration of the Members. I 
believe that, absent this provision, we would do two things that we 
ought not to do. Number one, we would unnecessarily and deeply intrude 
upon the constitutional prerogative of the executive branch to take 
care that the laws are faithfully executed; and, number two, we would 
be actually fomenting additional wasteful, expensive litigation.
  It is the very purpose of this bill to do just the opposite. Reading 
from the purpose and summary of the bill: ``Unnecessary litigation is a 
needless expense, for both the government and private parties.''
  I could not agree more. Hence, my amendment, and I urge my colleagues 
to consider it.
  Madam Chairman, I should add, having just discussed this for the 
first time with the chairman and ranking member, I understand their 
reticence in accepting it, although they have been gracious in 
discussing the merits with me and understanding the purpose by which I 
offer it now.
  Because there is similar legislation pending in the other body, 
because I expect that we have an opportunity to resolve this during 
conference, I will not be disheartened if my amendment is defeated 
today, but I do look forward to working with the chairman and the 
ranking member as well as our colleagues in the other body to see if we 
can improve the bill in this respect.
  Mr. GEKAS. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. COX of California. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. GEKAS. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Chairman, I would respectfully request that the gentleman seek 
unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment, only on the basis that he 
has already asserted, namely, he has brought a good point to our 
attention. In fact, this point may have been raised subliminally during 
our testimony, and, therefore, it does require our attention.
  But because it has come up at this juncture and we do not know the 
full consequences of accepting the amendment or even debating it, I 
would ask the gentleman to ask unanimous consent to withdraw his 
amendment, with the promise of the chairman and others that we are 
going to duly consider it in the pathway of this legislation all the 
way to the end.
  Mr. COX of California. Madam Chairman, reclaiming my time, I 
appreciate the gesture that the chairman has made; and, inasmuch as I 
have not been able to alert my colleagues to my concern about this, I 
myself just discussed this with lawyers in recent days and in our 
leadership meeting yesterday, Madam Chairman, I would accept the 
chairman's generous offer.
  I will note that because I will just now, as the gentleman suggested, 
ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment, that because the 
underlying bill lacks this amendment, I will not be able to support it 
today.
  Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment be 
withdrawn.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  There was no objection.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Nadler

  Mr. NADLER. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:
  Amendment offered by Mr. Nadler:
       Page 5, insert after line 20 the following:

     SEC. 4. APPLICATION.

       The amendments made by section 2 shall apply only with 
     respect to agency actions which involve a Federal health 
     benefit programs, a Federal program under which cash is paid 
     based on need or insurance benefits are paid, or the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 and the amendments made by section 3 
     shall apply on with respect to proceedings in courts which 
     involve a Federal health benefit programs, a Federal program 
     under which cash is paid based on need or insurance benefits 
     are paid, or the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
       Page 3, line 4 and beginning in line 10, strike 
     ``Government'' and insert ``agency''.
       Page 4, beginning in line 7, strike ``neither the United 
     States nor any agency or officer thereof was,'' and insert 
     ``the agency was not''.
       Page 3, line 21, strike ``of following'' and insert ``the 
     following''.
       Page 5, line 20, strike ``of following'' and insert ``the 
     following''.
       Page 4, line 19, insert before the period the following: 
     ``unless the precedents in a majority of other United States 
     courts of appeals supports the position of the agency''.

  Mr. NADLER (during the reading). Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Chairman, I am offering this amendment today, which 
would narrow the scope of this bill, to those areas where the record of 
abuse is clear, to those areas which in fact are the areas that 
motivated the introduction of the development of this bill over these 
many years.

[[Page H592]]

  Those areas are the areas of benefits and where the public actually 
deals with the government on a daily basis, the areas of health care, 
Medicare benefits, the areas of Social Security and disability 
benefits, the area of dealing with the Internal Revenue Service.
  In those areas I think we clearly need a bill such as this to say to 
the agencies, to the Internal Revenue Service, to the Health Care 
Financing Administration, to the Social Security Administration, that 
you may not deny a benefit, you may not harass a taxpayer by insisting 
on the interpretation of the law denying the benefit or imposing the 
tax when the Court of Appeals has said you are wrong. You should not 
require the taxpayer or the person seeking Social Security or 
disability benefits to relitigate that on an individual basis.
  That is what this bill is about. But I think it is a mistake to apply 
the bill more broadly in other areas, because there may be unforeseen 
effects, and it would really require more congressional study to 
determine the need and the implications.
  For example, independent agencies such as the Securities and Exchange 
Commission play no role in government litigation and by virtue of their 
independence, this bill, without the amendment, might saddle them with 
rules without bringing important issues to the court's attention. The 
majority agrees there would be a mistake and has a manager's amendment 
to solve this problem, this particular problem. But we really do not 
know how many additional such issues there may be, and I think it would 
be a mistake to pass an overly broad bill where no compelling need has 
been demonstrated. The compelling need is with regard to benefits and 
with regard to the benefits that may be denied to people who need them 
and with regard to taxpayers dealing with the Internal Revenue Service.
  That is certainly 95 percent of the problem. It is what brought this 
bill here. It is the subject matter of the hearings that we held to 
determine the need for this bill, and I say let us fix the problem at 
hand and do it right.
  I will say one other thing on this amendment. Without this amendment, 
there will be very substantial opposition to this bill from the labor 
movement, opposition, I believe, not to be correct but, nonetheless, 
very substantial opposition, which will probably be more than 
sufficient opposition to prevent this bill from being enacted into law, 
especially given the fact that the administration has already told us 
they do not like the bill at all, with or without the amendment.
  So we have the problem of getting this bill into law to deal with the 
problem that we know needs dealing with in the face of very substantial 
opposition that would be eliminated by this amendment.
  Since this amendment would not eliminate any of the solutions to the 
problems the bill was designed to deal with, I urge the majority, I 
urge my friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas) to accept 
the amendment so we can enact the bill into law and deal with the 
problems it is intended to deal with.
  That is the argument. Let us deal with the problems we know are out 
there and let us do it in a way that is realistic in terms of being 
able to enact the bill into law so we have an accomplishment and so 
that we help the people that have to deal with the IRS and help the 
people that need benefits from Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and 
disability and solve the problems and not simply have a debate on the 
floor of the House but have a real bill that helps real people.
  So I urge all Members to accept this amendment.

                              {time}  1130

  Mr. GEKAS. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Madam Chairman, when we undertook this measure from the start, most 
of us were convinced of the egregious problems that have existed for a 
long period of time under both Republican and Democrat administrations. 
What charged us into final action on this type of legislation was the 
action of the Judicial Conference.
  The Judicial Conference, in recommending this proceeding to us, this 
process to us, made no distinction among agencies. It did not 
contemplate any other visitation of these benefits on this agency or 
that agency or that type of claimant or this type of claimant, but 
rather, noted a serious problem in the enforcement of our laws, and 
said, in effect, to us, ``Please, enact legislation that would cause 
the administrative agencies to acquiesce in the precedents that the 
court system set.'' They even felt it was inadequate for themselves to 
rely on the sanctions that they are able to impose and still preferred 
that we enact legislation to do so.
  But here is the key. Here is the key. The gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) and I, on a radio symposium, touched upon 
this matter. Not only do we feel that it should apply across the board 
to all agencies, but we maintain that the language in the bill allows 
anyone who is disaffected with a problem of nonacquiescence or 
acquiescence, like the labor people to which the gentleman from New 
York alluded, the language in our bill provides for loopholes, as it 
were, which we crafted purposely; to say that if some agency, like 
whatever labor is saying should be exempted, or the Securities and 
Exchange Commission, which others say has to be exempted, the loopholes 
that we apply are the exceptions to the mandatory adherence to court of 
appeals precedent.
  And we say, for instance, ``An agency is not precluded under section 
A from taking a position, either in administration or litigation, that 
is at variance with precedent established by United States court of 
appeals if,'' and then we cite three provisions which give that option 
to whoever the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) is alluding to 
would feel threatened by a general law that asks for acquiescence in 
law.
  Therefore, we have envisioned the moment that would come that some 
agency would feel that it would be threatened in the execution of its 
duties or the administration of its responsibilities by acquiescence 
with court decisions. And if it comes to that irony, that they are 
worried about acquiescing to court precedent, which is a wild thought, 
even in that circumstance we give them the option to opt out if they 
can demonstrate the rationale that is embodied in our own legislation, 
the one to which the gentleman from New York has acquiesced as 
necessary in the new processes that we want to see established among 
the agencies.
  First, I would like to see all citizens be able to approach every 
single agency in the Nation, every single one, with equal justice 
available to all. That means no exceptions to acquiescence in the law. 
And in those egregious circumstances, which I cannot even envision, 
that acquiescence would be a terrible thing to follow the law, how 
terrible it would be to have to follow the law, in those cases the 
provisions in our bill which have envisioned that kind of circumstance 
allow an option out.
  But we ought to start with general application of the recommendations 
of the Judicial Conference that all the agencies should adhere to the 
law, should obey the law, like every citizen must. And we start from 
there, and then back away only if, under our bill, those exceptions can 
be proved.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Madam Chairman, I rise to disagree with the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania, but first, to praise him. This bill first came to my 
attention when I chaired the relevant subcommittee several Congresses 
ago, and I began to move on it. I want to pay tribute to the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania, because it is his determination, as chairman of the 
subcommittee, that got us to this point. I think there is need for 
legislation. He showed a great deal of diligence and brought it 
forward.
  But I believe in the interests of getting legislation we ought to be 
adopting the amendment. I will acknowledge that when I brought the bill 
out it looked like this, when we had it in committee, and generated a 
lot of opposition. At the time the opposition was so strong, and that 
was why it did not get anywhere. I believe we will run into the same 
wall of resistance if we do not make some changes.
  I originally got interested in this subject as the result of unfair 
decisions by which disabled people were denied disability benefits, in 
conflict with

[[Page H593]]

court opinions. That was something that began under the Reagan 
administration, and I must acknowledge that it, sadly, continued under 
the Clinton administration. I felt conscience bound to continue to 
support this bill, because I had originally dealt with it when it was a 
Republican administration, and it seems to me the same rules ought to 
apply to a Democratic administration.
  But I should also acknowledge that virtually all of the discussion 
and evidence I have seen on this bill, having been through hearings on 
it and been through debates, had to do with the denial of benefits, 
most particularly through the Social Security Administration, where it 
seemed to me the pattern had been the most egregious.
  While the Social Security Administration has from time to time, and 
the various administrations, promised us they will stop doing this, I 
do not believe them. And since we do not have a Secretary General of 
the U.N. to go get them to sign an agreement, I think legislation is 
necessary.
  So with regard to people who should be beneficiaries of subsistence 
dollars, yes, one cannot allow the nonacquiescence policy, because it 
does damage to individuals. But I must acknowledge that in all of the 
hearings I have been at, the discussion focused on benefits.
  At the most recent full committee markup some other agencies finally 
awakened to this. Maybe they had not taken it seriously before. It is 
to the credit of the gentleman from Pennsylvania that his diligence 
brought the bill forward and made them focus on it.
  The Securities and Exchange Commission and some other agencies 
expressed some problems with the bill. I agree, we have tried to deal 
with them. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has outlined some ways to do 
that, but I do not think we have done it fully yet.
  I do believe very strongly that both in terms of the information that 
we have had about the bill and the impact, there is a difference 
between nonacquiescence when it denies beneficiaries who are 
desperately in need of the benefits they should get, and the questions 
involved the Securities and Exchange Commission, the National Labor 
Relations Board, where we are not talking about anything quite so 
desperate, and where there is a legitimate right to relitigate.
  The gentleman from Pennsylvania acknowledges this. He has from the 
beginning. Yes, we do not think that once a certain number of circuit 
courts have decided something, that is it forever. Even the Supreme 
Court of the United States has been known to reverse itself and within 
a fairly short period of time. The dilemma for us is how do you work 
out a method of protecting fairness for individuals without preventing 
legitimate relitigation. That is part of our process.

  I believe that there is a compromise between this amendment and the 
bill that can deal with it. I do not think we have time to work this 
out now. I would hope if this amendment were adopted we might be able 
to revisit this before the bill finally went to conference.
  But I can say this, if the bill goes forward as is, I believe it will 
be vetoed. It might be vetoed in any case, because this President, as 
his Republican predecessors, does not like the idea of Congress 
mandating that their agencies follow the law. It is more of an 
executive-legislative dispute than it is a partisan one.
  The point I would make to my friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, 
who I honor for his work on this, is this: if we pass it in this form 
and it is vetoed, we cannot override. If we accept the amendment of my 
friend, the gentleman from New York, and leave open the possibility of 
working out some other method of dealing with the agency questions of a 
broader sort of litigation, the SEC and NLRB, then we will reach a 
point where we can override a veto.
  But if the only thing we can get would be what the amendment would be 
limited by my friend gentleman's amendment, it would be an enormous 
accomplishment. Because I would remind everybody again, the impetus for 
this bill came from actions of the Social Security Administration. We 
are dealing here with people who are disabled. They are least able to 
relitigate, least able to hire a lawyer to get the benefit of a court 
opinion.
  Where we are talking about litigants in the NLRB situation or the SEC 
situation, even if they have to go to court, they are better able to do 
it.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Frank) has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Frank of Massachusetts was allowed to 
proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. So, Madam Chairman, there is an urgency 
to providing this protection for the recipients and benefits, which is 
not the same as for more sophisticated, better financed litigants who 
were dealing with public policy in the field of labor law, securities 
law, et cetera.
  I would hope the amendment would be adopted. I would hope to work 
with the gentleman. I must say I was almost surprised the bill came up 
too soon. I think one of the issues was that we had some time to fill. 
I was hoping we could have worked a little bit more on some amendments.
  Faced with this choice now, I think it would be important for us to 
adopt the amendment because, otherwise, we run the risk of a 
nonoverrideable veto that would deny the people whose plight led us to 
get into this years ago, the beneficiaries of disability programs and 
others who were being hurt. I do not want to put their right to get the 
benefit of this good legislation at risk, and that is why I hope the 
amendment is adopted.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. I am 
delighted to participate in this debate with my friend, the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas), who I think has worked in a very good 
spirit to try to deal with a set of problems that were ones that we all 
agreed with.
  I think the problem here, though, is that we have gone too far, that 
we move now to cover every agency, department, bureau. I think that 
might lead to some results that we would regret, especially without the 
Nadler amendment.
  I am prepared to say now that, if the Nadler amendment is supported, 
that I will support the bill. But I want to remind the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas), who is one of the more senior members of the 
Committee on the Judiciary, that there have been dangerous legal 
precedents that, had this bill been law without the Nadler amendment, 
and there was a determination by the United States Government and the 
Department of Justice to go forward on the Dredd Scott case, which 
denied African American slaves and former slaves constitutional rights, 
or the Plessy versus Ferguson case, which upheld separate but legal 
facilities in the United States, or the Korematsu versus United States 
case, which gave court approval to the Japanese American internment 
during World War II, the agencies or the departments that would have 
gone to the Department of Justice to challenge these legal precedents 
would have been barred under the gentleman's proposal.
  My view is that the gentleman did not and does not intend to do that, 
but the fact of the matter is this would be the result. Because of 
that, without Nadler, we cannot support Gekas.
  The Administration is opposed to it, and I think correctly so. The 
Department of Justice is opposed to it; I think rightly so. I recall 
that one of our colleagues, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-
Lee), in the committee pointed out how civil rights litigation might be 
impacted negatively with this kind of bar that the gentleman suggests 
here.
  How would a legislative initiative of this kind limit the ability of 
Federal entities to address the encroachment of the judicial branch on 
civil liberties? The Department of Justice, in its Civil Rights 
Division, the Department of Health and Human Services, those would be 
her primary focus in this objection to the language in the gentleman's 
bill and the thrust of it.
  The limitation of these agencies' ability to appeal seemingly unjust 
court decisions to the Supreme Court, in addition to their ability to 
create novel and ingenious ways of protecting the rights of citizens, 
is literally sacred.

[[Page H594]]

                              {time}  1145

  That should be regulated only with the greatest amount of reluctance 
and the highest level of scrutiny.
  And so we must do all we can to ensure the efficient and effective 
government, but not at the expense of civil liberties and civil rights.
  Now, one of our colleagues that sponsored the version of this 
language I do not think is motivated as the author of the bill is on 
the House side, because the gentleman from Colorado, Senator Ben 
Nighthorse Campbell, made it perfectly clear one of his reasons for 
introducing this bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Conyers was allowed to proceed for 3 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Chairman, the author of the legislation on the 
other side in the other body telegraphed his intention of limiting the 
ability of the Bureau of Land Management to protect lands from grazing 
damage.
  When that bureau recently proposed reform regulations for grazing 
permits, they were challenged by ranchers. After exhausting 
administrative remedies, the ranchers went to court. And after costly 
and lengthy litigation, the appellate court ruled in favor of the 
ranchers. However, with the nonacquiescence policy, the Bureau of Land 
Management could have refused to abide by this ruling each and every 
time the issue arises.
  So I urge, for these reasons, that the Nadler amendment to this bill 
be accepted.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Chairman, I rise today in support of 
the Frank-Nadler Amendment to H.R. 1544, the Federal Agency Compliance 
Act. My primary point of contention with the original H.R. 1544 bill, 
as I have expressed previously, is that it could potentially cause 
drastic harm to our federal agencies' ability to enforce and protect 
many of our essential labor, environmental and civil rights laws. 
However, the Frank-Nadler Amendment is a breath of fresh air to a 
legislative initiative that I once thought hopeless. This amendment 
would tailor H.R. 1544 in such a way that it would benefit those who 
need certain federal agencies to recognize the precedential justice 
that is handed down by our federal circuit courts, yet not harm the 
most fundamental civil rights of those who are completely disconnected 
from this entire process.
  Since the initial authorship of this bill, I have been an advocate of 
limiting the scope of H.R. 1544 to only those agencies whose non-
acquiescence has a detrimental effect on the claims of aggrieved 
parties, and finally we have a proposed amendment that seems to do 
that. Many people have tried to urge me that my concerns were 
unfounded, but the bottom line is why should we take so dangerous of a 
chance with something as important as our Constitutionally-granted 
rights? I can not think of a compelling reason why.
  I know that this proposed threat to our collective civil rights was 
completely accidental. I am confident that no one who is a supporter of 
H.R. 1544 wants to intentionally cripple the pursuit of justice in this 
country. No one would maliciously try to impede the protection of the 
discouraged, mistreated and abused that is so much a part of the 
responsibilities of the civil rights divisions of our many federal 
agencies. The initial purpose of H.R. 1544, to my knowledge, was to 
force the government bureaucracy to recognize the rights of those who 
are being unjustly treated in particular claims, because of the 
unwillingness of certain federal agencies to acquiesce to standing 
circuit court precedents across the country.
  Obviously, this bill was created to protect those who are often 
unable to protect themselves, but how are we helping these people if we 
diminish the ability of other parts of our government to defend their 
rights to fair labor, a clean and safe environment, and a series of 
their most fundamental Constitutional rights. The answer is clear, we 
must amend H.R. 1544. For these reasons, I would ask my colleagues to 
please support the Frank-Nadler Amendment to H.R. 1544, and in turn, 
protect the sacred civil rights and liberties of the American people.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. GEKAS. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 172, 
noes 238, not voting 20, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 19]

                               AYES--172

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (OH)
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gilman
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Petri
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tauscher
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Turner
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NOES--238

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clement
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riley
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Upton
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

[[Page H595]]



                             NOT VOTING--20

     Boucher
     Brown (FL)
     DeLauro
     Ford
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Kennelly
     Klink
     Lewis (KY)
     Luther
     Mica
     Miller (CA)
     Paxon
     Pelosi
     Poshard
     Redmond
     Riggs
     Rodriguez
     Schiff

                              {time}  1214

  Mr. KASICH changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Ms. HARMAN, Mr. DEUTSCH, Mr. DAVIS of Illinois, Ms. MILLENDER-
McDONALD, and Messrs. SHERMAN, McHUGH, MURTHA, BAESLER, McINTYRE and 
HILLIARD 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 ms. jackson-lee of texas

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
       Page 3, line 11 strike ``or'', line 18 strike the period, 
     close quotation marks and period following and insert ``; 
     or'', and after line 18 insert the following:

       ``(4) the substance of the agency matter is under 
     consideration by a United States court of appeals and 
     involves issues of civil rights, labor rights, or 
     environmental protection.''.

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, the intentions of H.R. 1544 
are good intentions. I supported the Nadler-Frank legislation, and I am 
sorry that we did not see fit to add, I think, a very strong component 
to this legislation. But now, Mr. Chairman, I have to come and say that 
we need to understand that this legislation has as a potential, it may 
not be the desire, but the potential to negatively impact on some very 
serious rights of Americans.
  I am a product of civil rights laws. Many of my constituents, many 
Americans, are the product of civil rights laws. Hispanic Americans who 
recently have seen a flood of legislation dealing with immigration 
laws, dealing with laws regarding their voting privileges and as we 
look toward the renewal of the Voter Rights Act of 1965, our civil 
rights are being impacted every single day. The working men and women 
of the 18th Congressional District and of this Nation are impacted by 
labor rights. All of us, every single day, are impacted by 
environmental protection laws as implemented under the laws of this 
Nation. I am concerned that this legislation gives us the potential of 
overturning or disallowing good laws that may have been ruled against. 
I believe it is imperative that we understand the importance of 
separating out the impact on civil rights, labor rights and 
environmental protection. Allow me to read from the subcommittee markup 
my statement:
  The bottom line is how would a legislative initiative of this kind 
limit the ability of Federal entities to address the systematic 
encroachment of the judicial branch upon the civil liberties of the 
average citizen, particularly the Department of Justice, its Civil 
Rights Division and the civil rights division of various agencies? The 
Department of Health and Human Services will be my primary focus in 
this categorical objection to the language of H.R. 1544, the limitation 
on these agencies' ability to appeal seemingly unjust circuit court 
decisions to the Supreme Court. For example, autonomy of relitigation 
in addition to their ability to create novel and ingenious ways of 
protecting the rights of citizens is a sacred craft that should be 
regulated only with the highest and most hesitant level of scrutiny. We 
must do all we can to ensure efficient and effective government, but 
not at the expense of our civil rights and liberties and, might I add, 
our labor rights and environmental laws. The primary source of my 
problem with this bill is that our trained public servants working in 
Federal Government agencies will not be allowed the discretion to 
determine whether a potential threat to standing civil rights and 
liberties posed by the new circuit court precedent should be challenged 
by the relitigation of that issue in open court.
  I am sure, Mr. Chairman, that many are saying, what if the shoe is on 
the other foot, for I do realize that in years past the courts came to 
our rescue in environmental law, civil rights and labor protection. 
Tragically sometimes we have to look at the cup being half full. That 
means now we have gone full swing. Now our courts are interfering with 
civil rights around the Nation.
  In particular, as we watched the litigation of Proposition 209 in 
California, we found that as our Justice Department attempted to 
intervene in that instance, we determined and saw the results, cases 
going on in the Southern District of Texas where our administrative 
agencies are not even allowed to intervene on cases dealing with 
affirmative action and civil rights, where courts have single-handedly 
dismantled the civil rights legacy of all that occurred in the sixties 
and seventies.
  I think it is imperative as the shoe is shifted to the other foot 
that we still give our agencies if they are appealing decisions that 
infringe upon the civil rights of our citizens and infringe upon the 
labor rights of our citizens and infringe upon environmental rights.
  Under its present language H.R. 1544 would potentially restrict 
agency divisions assigned the task of protecting civil rights and 
liberties from contesting a host of adverse and intolerable circuit 
court precedents in open court. I do not oppose the stated purpose of 
this bill, but simply question whether in its current form it is the 
best way to achieve its author's desired end. Again, my primary concern 
is how this bill will affect an agency's ability to contest those 
circuit court precedents which unjustly result in the denial or refusal 
of previously acknowledged civil rights or liberties. It is good that 
the previous amendment limited it to the IRS, Social Security benefits 
and Medicare, which is what I truly believe in, but unfortunately such 
amendment did not pass. Now we have a situation where legislation has a 
potential to run away with our rights.
  Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment out of concern of the human and 
civil rights and labor rights and environmental rights of our citizens. 
I ask my colleagues to join me in upholding these rights by supporting 
this amendment.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Not only do I oppose the amendment from the basic tenets of the bill 
that we have introduced here which has as its foundation, Mr. Chairman, 
equal treatment for all of our citizens in front of the various 
agencies of the Federal Government. We start with that premise, that 
that is what we are trying to protect, and then say that in the 
furtherance of policy on the part of any agency, that they must 
acquiesce to the court decisions in their circuit or elsewhere when 
opposition to it would be, in effect, nonacquiescence in the law that 
is already established. That is a fair premise upon which to start. 
That is one reason that I oppose it.
  Secondly, to chop out of the purview of the bill this agency or that 
agency, whether it has to do with labor or environmental protection or 
any issue of the day, would mean that that would render the bill 
useless and toothless. For that reason, added to the first, we should 
have enough reason to oppose the amendment. But there is a third one, 
and the one that it seems to me allows this amendment to crash down as 
being one that we should be voting down.
  The gentlewoman herself makes the strongest argument when she says 
that the courts have historically been the last resort of our citizens 
and those who felt that the legislative process was inadequate to meet 
the problems of civil rights were exhilarated when in case after case 
the courts found that the agencies were incorrect and that the civil 
rights of individuals were paramount. It was court decisions to which 
acquiescence was preached on behalf of civil rights in the past.
  Now, the gentlewoman says the shoe is on the other foot and she seeks 
to, in effect, preach nullification, if she says that now I am 
appraising, she says that the court system is no longer able to protect 
the rights of citizens; therefore, we have to look to an agency in the 
Federal Government, in the administration, to thwart the prospective 
judgment of the court. In other words, she is preaching 
nonacquiescence, which is the reason we are here in this bill in the 
first place, because there has been too much nonacquiescence, a point 
that the Judicial Conference well noted in urging us to do something 
about this.
  The last point that I wish to make, that even if we were to give 
credence to all that the gentlewoman from Texas

[[Page H596]]

has said, that there are cases in which, my goodness, acquiescence in 
the law would be horrid, would be terrible to contemplate, to obey the 
law would be ridiculously harmful, I say to her, as I have said before, 
that in the very language of this bill, we have those exceptions 
carvable that would protect the gentlewoman's worries about what the 
court might do. Because in the last section of our bill, we say that an 
agency is not precluded in making a decision at variance with the court 
actions if, and then we list 3 exceptions that would allow a kind of 
nonacquiescence, the third one being they would be able to nonacquiesce 
if it is reasonable to question the continued validity of that 
precedent in light of the subsequent decision of that Court of Appeals 
or the United States Supreme Court, a subsequent change in any 
pertinent statute or regulation, and here is the crucial language, or 
any other subsequent change in the public policy or circumstances on 
which that precedent was based.
  The gentlewoman's concerns are addressed by the very bill which she 
is aiming to destroy by offering an amendment that would render the 
bill useless. I say to her that she should work with us in the 
implementation of this bill and to be able to in the forefront of her 
advocacy for any one of these concerns, environmental protection or 
civil rights, turn to that portion of this bill which would allow her 
to show that acquiescence would not be in the best interests of our 
people.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. NADLER. I yield to the very distinguished gentlewoman from Texas, 
the sponsor of this amendment.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member 
very much both for his leadership and for his kindness. Mr. Chairman, I 
wish in the best of all worlds we had been able to accept the Nadler-
Frank amendment that would have clarified that this legislation 
pertains to programs such as Social Security and Medicare and that it 
would not interfere with the rights, the life and death rights of many 
Americans. In fact, I disagree with my chairman, not on his leadership 
but on his interpretation. I am not advocating nullification for an 
agency to be able to ignore a circuit court precedent, but I do argue 
to preserve their right to contest unjust decisions.
  As I have said, we are now moving to the cup is half full, to the 
shoe on the other foot. I recognize that we are in different times. As 
we moved in the civil rights movement, we looked to the Department of 
Justice to send in and to be able to have FBI agents. We looked to the 
Department of Justice to go into courts and argue our cases. In that 
instance, those cases prevailed in some circumstances and generated 
legislative authority under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting 
Rights Act of 1965. We now have a circumstance where tragically the 
civil rights of our citizens, laws are being legislated, courts are 
determining the other direction. I would not want to see those 
individuals in the Federal Government who are pressing forward on 
issues dealing with the labor rights of my community and this Nation, 
with the civil rights of those children who will come behind me and the 
environmental laws that I need to protect every single citizen of this 
Nation to be denied by this legislation.

                              {time}  1230

  Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues would they want to have a 
constituent in their district denied the expertise of the Department of 
Justice or the Environmental Protection Agency or the NLRB, the 
National Labor Relations Board, and those other agencies that are 
needed?
  Allow me to put into the Record and read very briefly a letter, Mr. 
Chairman, from the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Education Fund.
  The letter referred to follows:
                                            Mexican American Legal


                                Defense, and Educational Fund,

                                Washington, DC, February 23, 1998.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the Mexican American 
     Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), I urge your 
     opposition to H.R. 1544, the ``Federal Agency Compliance 
     Act.''
       Because of your historical respect for the integrity of the 
     legal system, it is important that you consider the problems 
     inherent in the changes proposed by H.R. 1544 with respect to 
     both intracircuit and intercircuit nonacquiescence and the 
     litigation needs of those represented by various governmental 
     agencies.
       H.R. 1544 purports to address the problem of governmental 
     agencies' failure to explicitly comply with appellate court 
     rulings both within and outside a particular circuit. While 
     there is both a need for individuals to have their claims 
     heard as well as having a consistent result within each 
     agency, this bill does nothing to promote internal procedure 
     to address more efficient internal rulemaking and guidance, 
     nor enhance the ability of an agency to pursue a full 
     determination of an individual claim. By limiting each 
     agency's discretion in determining the cases it will appeal, 
     agencies such as the U.S. Department of Justice and the 
     Social Security Administration can only do less to adequately 
     and legally interpret and pursue particular cases deemed to 
     be significant in determining substantive policy.
       Furthermore, in its vagueness, this bill may instead 
     require more litigation to determine whether decisions are 
     ``substantially favorable to the government'' or whether a 
     ``substantial change in public policy'' has occurred. Because 
     most agencies have already adopted internal guidance 
     requiring intracircuit acquiescence, this legislation fails 
     to do that which it allegedly seeks, namely require agencies 
     to avoid unnecessary litigation.
       While the needs of both agencies and individuals require a 
     clear and equitable means by which to resolve pending 
     litigation, I urge your consideration of the inherent 
     problems of this bill that limits the ability of agencies to 
     seek appropriate legal remedies.
           Sincerely,
                                                Antonia Hernandez,
                                    President and General Counsel.
  Mr. Chairman, I will just simply say that their opposition to this 
legislation because of historical respect for the integrity of the 
legal system is important. They consider the problems inherent in the 
changes proposed by H.R. 1544 with respect to both intracircuit and 
intercircuit nonacquiescence and the litigation needs of those 
represented by various governmental agencies.
  While the needs of both agencies and individuals require clear and 
equitable means by which to resolve pending litigation, I urge 
consideration of the inherent problems of this bill that limits the 
ability of agencies to seek appropriate legal remedies, and I will add 
the rest into the Record at some point, Mr. Chairman.
  Let me conclude and say that this legislation is legislation that 
could be good, but it cannot be good if it denies the rights of 
citizens who need the protection of our civil rights laws, need the 
protection sometimes of the Federal Government and its expertise, need 
the protection of labor laws, need the protection of environmental 
laws. I ask my colleagues would they want to vote for legislation that 
slams the door of justice on those citizens who stand before our court 
systems and need the kind of justice that can be implemented by a 
strong fight on their behalf in the Federal Government? I would think 
not.
  Mr. Chairman, to make this legislation better I would ask that my 
amendment be voted on as well as approved by this body.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak in support of my amendment to 
H.R. 1544, the Federal Agency Compliance Act. The primary source of my 
problem with this bill, is that our trained public servants working in 
federal government agencies will not be allowed the discretion to 
determine whether a potential threat to standing civil rights and 
liberties posed by a new circuit court precedent, should be challenged 
by the relitigation of that issue in open court. I believe that the 
discretion that our federal agencies and the experts they employ 
currently wield in matters of civil justice, is, at its core, a 
political necessity that no good government can do without.
  Under its present language, H.R. 1544 would potentially restrict 
agency divisions assigned the task of protecting civil rights and 
liberties, from contesting a host of adverse and intolerable circuit 
court precedents in open court. I do not oppose the stated purpose of 
this bill, but simply question whether in its current form it is the 
best way to achieve its authors' desired end. Again, my primary concern 
is how this bill will affect an agency's ability to contest those 
circuit court precedents which unjustly result in the denial or refusal 
of a previously acknowledged civil right or liberty. In essence, the 
only reason that these sub-agencies were created was so that they could 
be champions of justice for the uninformed, disadvantaged, and 
mistreated. If this Congress moves to prevent the full exercise of 
these agencies' discretion to litigate, by passing H.R. 1544, they will 
effectively deem the civil rights divisions of these various federal 
agencies as impotent, if not irrelevant.

[[Page H597]]

  My proposed amendment to this bill will, in turn, allow federal 
agencies to proceed with appellate challenges to those matters in which 
issues of civil rights or liberties are centrally involved. I have not 
proposed an amendment that would allow only those decisions that I 
disagree with to be challenged in Circuit Court, but instead, I have 
offered an alternative to the present language of H.R. 1544 that is in 
the defense of the fair process of government. I may not agree with 
every appellate challenge made by federal agencies to federal court 
decisions, but I am surely not prepared to suspend their right to make 
such challenges in every possible regard because of my displeasure. If 
the purpose of H.R. 1544 is not to inhibit the exercise of our civil 
rights and liberties in this country, then its language should be 
changed accordingly. If it is, then the authors of this bill should 
have the courage to say so. If civil rights, and all of their many 
forms, are not the target of this legislation, passing this amendment 
is the simplest way to take them out of play.
  Furthermore, I fear that if the Civil Rights Divisions in the 
Department of Justice, Department of Health and Human Services, and the 
Department of Education, among others, are barred from relitigating 
those claims deemed ``off-limits'' by the letter of H.R. 1544, we will 
start down a slippery slope of ineffectual and indifferent regard for 
our most sacred, long-standing civil rights that will eventually 
marginalize the entire federal government's civil rights agenda. We 
must remember that the government exists not simply to protect us 
against each other, but at times to protect us against the encroachment 
of government itself. In this case, an exception for civil rights cases 
is necessary so that the government through our federal agencies can 
seek, when necessary, to defend the rights of the American people 
against the often highly-prejudiced decisions of our federal circuit 
courts. Often our federal agencies, and their activism in the arena of 
civil rights, is the only thing keeping our struggle for social justice 
in this country in balance.
  Even though, I believe that this limitation on the purview of civil 
rights activism by federal agencies was an unfortunate by-product of 
this legislation and not the original intent of this bill, it is a 
lurking problem, nonetheless. During the Judiciary Committee Mark-Up of 
this bill, my efforts to try to amend the language of this bill so that 
the effects of this potentially dangerous threat to all of our civil 
and political rights might be mitigated proved unsuccessful. So now, I 
am giving the supporters of this bill a final warning. If we are going 
to make an error in the enactment of this legislation, it is my belief 
that we should err on the side of the civil rights and liberties of the 
American people, and not in favor of a more efficient bureaucracy. Our 
government, through the vehicle of its federal agencies, must be 
allowed the full discretion to propose novel and ingenious criticisms 
of adverse civil rights precedents when it deems such action to be 
necessary. Rogue circuit court decisions like the Hopwood versus Texas 
decision in the 5th Circuit, which affects the exercise of affirmative 
action in educational settings throughout the entire state of Texas, 
must not escape the legal scrutiny of relevant federal agencies when 
such scrutiny is applicable.
  In light of these facts, I urge all of my colleagues, whether you are 
supporters of H.R. 1544 or still undecided, to keep these concerns in 
mind as you review the merits of this legislation, again. Ask yourself 
the question, why should we harm the civil rights of the many in order 
to expedite or eliminate the interaction with the judicial process for 
the few? There must be a better way to achieve this goal. So I ask you 
to oppose H.R. 1544 as it stands, and pass the Jackson-Lee Amendment.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I want to, first of 
all, commend the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) for the work 
she has done in bringing this problem to the attention of the committee 
and now to the House, and I wish that the amendment that I sponsored 
that was defeated a few moments ago had been passed. It would have 
taken, this is one of the problems that it would have taken care of, 
and one source of opposition to the bill in chief that would have been 
removed, and I hope that as we move forward with this bill in 
conference, if it passes the House, that we can work to alleviate the 
problems presented or illustrated by this amendment and by the 
amendment that I offered earlier so that we have a bill that in the end 
we can support, especially since we will need that support on final 
passage.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Nadler).
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Nadler was allowed to proceed for 30 
additional seconds.)
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, we will need all that bipartisan support in 
both Houses at the end of the day.
  So I look forward to working with the gentlewoman and I hope with the 
majority in trying to work these problems out. In the meantime, I urge 
the adoption of this amendment as resolving one of the problems with 
the bill, and even with this amendment adopted, the bill will still 
deal with the core problem with the 98 percent for which it was, of the 
problem for which it was designed, and it would be more likely to be 
passed. So I urge the adoption of the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Snowbarger). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 367, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Jackson-Lee) will be postponed.


             Amendment Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
       Page 5, insert after line 20 the following:

     SEC. 4. APPLICATION.

       The amendments made by sections 2 and 3 shall not apply to 
     an agency in its actions involving a commercial transaction 
     with a business located in a foreign country.

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, let me first say that we all 
want to see positive results coming from this legislation, but my 
concern is that I think it makes no sense to limit the ability of 
critical government agencies such as the National Labor Relations 
Board, as I spoke earlier, and the Environmental Protection Agency, 
along with our civil rights agencies, not to be able to protect the 
rights of our citizens, and of course that is the basis of the Nadler 
amendment previously and my amendment that was just on the floor.
  This amendment that I now have goes to a much narrower point. That 
point deals with the provisions that apply to an agency dealing with 
the foreign governments and foreign businesses. Whatever justification 
there might be for forcing line adherence to legal precedents when the 
cases involve U.S. citizens and companies, there is no reason for these 
entities to be forbidden when it comes to a foreign company. This 
simply says that someone who is here in America has a right to have the 
protection of their government when dealing with a foreign entity, one 
that is larger, one that is stronger, one that has the backing of its 
government. That is, I think, a clear, a clear principle that we should 
advocate, is that our citizens have our protection both by the agencies 
and both by the courts.
  For example, it is a possibility in a trade or a dumping dispute 
against a foreign company. We need to make sure the Commerce Department 
or other agency is fully armed to protect American jobs and American 
goods, and if the Agriculture Department is seeking to rid the country 
of disease through foreign products, that we need to make sure that we 
are fully prepared to protect American consumers.
  This Nation faces a record and growing deficit. In the wake of the 
recent turn down or turmoil in Asia, we might expect, for example, 
dumping claims. We do not want them, we hope we do not get them, but we 
need to have the protection of the Federal Government and agencies who 
again have the expertise to protect in these two-person situations.
  When foreign companies fight our government in court, they are forced 
to challenge work in adverse or work with adverse court precedence. 
This will not be true of our government under this bill, however. All 
my amendment does is create a level playing field with foreign 
companies, and this should be done to protect our citizens.
  Again, I say do we want justice to be slammed in the face of our 
citizens or do we want them to have the opportunity to have the 
expertise, the power of Federal agencies on their side in pressing the 
point dealing with foreign companies? I hope that my colleagues will 
join me in supporting a very fair and balanced amendment that simply

[[Page H598]]

says it gives our citizens, our businesses a working chance, a viable 
chance, in a contest with foreign entities in this instance of doing 
business in a new world order.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment 
offered by the gentlewoman from Texas.
  First of all, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Texas for bringing 
to the attention of the Members another region of the Federal agency 
world which is covered and should be covered by our bill; namely, the 
Commerce Department. That is one example that I had not yet had the 
time to show the Members should also be covered by our bill as well as 
every other agency to provide equal justice for our citizens no matter 
in which agency they appear to claim certain benefits and rights and 
privileges.
  Secondly, the Department of Commerce, for example, which is alluded 
to by the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) could make decisions 
that would disfavor American citizens as much as it could make 
decisions that would benefit them. And so the gentlewoman says do not 
bother with the courts, leave them out of it, let the Department of 
Commerce decide finally what is best for the American citizen. Even if 
a decision of the Commerce Department under her analogy finds against 
the American citizen and says in favor of a foreign business entity.
  Well, to make the decision as to whether it is beneficial to an 
American citizen or not historically and constitutionally and 
pragmatically and with the separation of powers in tact, it will be the 
court that will determine the relative merits of the proposition to 
either protect an American citizen against a foreign company or deny 
benefits to an American citizen because of a foreign company. The court 
will decide whether the Commerce Department decision is appropriate or 
not.
  But that is not the basic issue. The basic issue is should we allow 
the Department of Commerce or any other agency in the Federal 
Government to look at the court decision on a proposition that is now 
before them that is lying on the desk for immediate action and say nuts 
to that decision, we are going to apply what we think is the best 
possible plan for this claimant even if it is to the detriment of that 
claimant, and if it is depriving of a benefit, all the more reason why 
they should acquiesce to the judgment of the court.
  So we are saying follow the law, Commerce Department, follow the law, 
and then if for some egregious invisible rationale we again determine, 
my gosh, it might be disastrous to have to obey the law, then we can 
revert to the language of the bill that we have so carefully crafted 
that would allow those special circumstances in which it can be proved 
that following the policy of the Commerce Department and the example 
that the gentlewoman has given, to follow the policy would be strong 
enough to allow an exception to the purview of the bill. That is the 
way to approach this.
  We believe that in order to provide equal justice at the start, we 
also allow justice to prevail if some great wrong would be committed by 
acquiescence to the law. But the way we have crafted it, that has to be 
proved, it has to be demonstrated, and that is fair in itself.
  I urge rejection of the amendment and adherence to final passage in 
favor of the bill.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member 
very much, and I appreciate the argument of the chairman, but let me 
just simply say we do not allow foreign nationals to give monies to 
politicians; why then should we allow foreign companies to fight our 
Government in court, and they have a better leg up or greater standing 
than our own Federal agencies to be able to protect or contest the 
kinds of decisions that may negatively impact on our companies, 
citizens, and others doing business.
  As Fuji Film comes into our court system, it seems that they may have 
a greater standing in our court system than our Department of Commerce 
or Department of Justice. We are simply trying to protect jobs here. We 
are trying to give an equal playing field, if my colleagues will, which 
all of America believes in, give us an equal playing field, allow our 
agencies to go in, but again with their expertise and fight fairly in 
court against decisions that may be adverse to our business community, 
to those who are doing international trade, to those who find 
themselves in a litigation mode against a foreign entity, and why give 
that foreign entity, if my colleagues will, the chance to come and 
overcome our maybe small- or medium-sized business or maybe large 
corporation who stands by themselves without the clout and protection 
of the Federal Government.
  One of the points that we have noted when we do international 
business is that the governments of our foreign countries are 
intimately interwoven in their countries doing business. Why then, if 
we are in trouble here in the United States and have a litigation 
matter without businesses should we not allow our clout, Federal 
agencies, to be engaged in the fight and to have the ability to be in 
the fight on an equal playing field.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to join me in support on behalf of 
American businesses and American citizens to give them an equal playing 
field in the court of international thought, international business and 
making sure that they have the clout of the American Government behind 
them.


                Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair informs the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Nadler) that although time is not controlled, the time has 
passed. He cannot yield blocks of time when we are in the Committee of 
the Whole, but must remain on his feet under the five minute rule.
  The gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) is recognized for the 
remainder of his time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I want to simply observe that this 
amendment, like the last amendment offered by the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Texas, is a worthy amendment and improves the bill. I 
urge its adoption. I urge all my colleagues to vote for it.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 367, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Jackson-Lee) will be postponed.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Combest) having assumed the chair, Mr. Snowbarger, Chairman pro tempore 
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. 
1544), to prevent Federal agencies from pursuing policies of 
unjustifiable nonacquiescence in, and relitigation of, precedents 
established in the Federal judicial circuits, had come to no resolution 
thereon.

                          ____________________