Cleo Fields

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Can the gentleman explain what is the difference between the two amendments, because it appears, based on his dissertation, there is no difference between the amendment that I have and the substitute amendment that he just introduced. Would the gentleman please explain?

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment and yield to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, yesterday we debated for some time the Watt-Fields amendment as it relates to the fourth amendment of the Constitution. This amendment is similar to that amendment, but, Mr. Chairman, I want to make a couple of comments about the amendment before I proceed. First of all, under the fourth amendment of the Constitution, it says in no uncertain terms that ``the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated.'' It does not say ``should not be violated'' or ``ought not be violated.'' It says in no uncertain terms that it ``shall not be violated.'' The fourth amendment to the Constitution further states, Mr. Chairman, that no warrant, not some warrants, not two or three warrants, but it says ``no warrant shall,'' again, the Constitution deals with not the permissive language but the mandatory language, ``shall issue but upon probable cause supported by an oath of affirmation and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.'' Now, I did a little further research, Mr. Chairman, and Members, to get a good understanding of what shall actually means. According to the Webster dictionary, shall is very simple. Shall means will have to. Shall means must. Shall means used in laws to express what is mandatory. So I rise today, Mr. Chairman, to suggest to the House that this amendment is a very basic amendment. It with the fourth amendment of the Constitution.'' If we are going to pass this legislation and allow law enforcement officers to go out into the world and break down people's homes without a warrant and say, I am operating with reasonable expectations or reasonable belief that there is something wrong taking place in the household, then we shoot a big bullet in the center of the fourth amendment to the Constitution. Not only that, Mr. Chairman, we basically silence the fourth amendment of the Constitution. So if Members support the fourth amendment of the Constitution, and I think we all do, because we all by law, when we took the oath of office, said we would, we would support this amendment. It is a very simple amendment. If we want someone, a law enforcement officer, to be able to walk into our constituent's home by breaking down the doors, showing, flashing his or her badge or badges and saying, I am the law enforcement officer of this particular city, move over, I am going to search all of your personal effects, then vote against this amendment. It is very simple. Nothing complicated about it, nothing difficult about it. But if Members want that law enforcement officer to go to a judge which is clothed with the responsibility of looking at the probable cause to see if there is enough evidence to support a warrant to be issued to search a person's home, then vote for this amendment. It is a very simple amendment, nothing complicated about it. If we want to go back to the western days, where people break down doors and take people's assets and nothing is done about it, then I would suggest that Members not vote for this amendment. Let me make another point, Mr. Chairman. Someone made the statement that, well, if someone breaks in a person's home and they find no evidence and they have not violated any law, then no harm is done. I beg to differ with my colleagues on that. There is a lot of harm that is being done when you break down a person's home and go through all their personal effects, finding evidence or not finding evidence. You have violated somebody's right to privacy. That is one of the most sacred amendments to this Constitution. And to allow law enforcement officers to do that and then exempt one or two agencies to me is asinine, unconscionable, unbelievable, to say the least. So I would certainly urge my colleagues, in the interest of justice and fair play, please, the worst thing we want to do this session of Congress is to violate our own contract, our own Constitution, the one we held our hands up before the American people and said we will uphold. This bill destroys the fourth amendment of the Constitution. There is no question about that. I want to be able to leave this institution, leave this Congress and go home tonight and have a sense of security in my own home and not worry about some Rambo cop busting down the door and saying this Congress gave them the right to do it. That is wrong. There is not a Member on this side or the other side that can argue the fact that this amendment does not do that. Now, they may argue, well, if it is unconstitutional, the courts will hold it to be unconstitutional. Why would we pass a law that we know good and well is unconstitutional. Why would we even opine the thought that the American people ought not have the rights that are afforded them under the Constitution of the United States of America. I beg of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, if they really want to do something to secure people in their homes, yes, we have a crime problem in America. There is no question about it. There is a crime problem in my own district, in my own State, but it is not to the extent that we ought to take away people's individual constitutional rights.

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. I have not had an opportunity to see the amendment, but it is the exact amendment that we had on this side of the aisle?

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield further?

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the President on recommending a minimum wage increase for the hard-working people of this country. There are people who wake up every single morning in this country, go to work every day, and at the end of the day they are still poor, not because they are lazy but because we need to raise the minimum wage. It is an absolute shame, Mr. Speaker, that there are people who walk into this Chamber making $550 a day and tell people who are making a mere $680 a month that they are not entitled to a cost-of-living adjustment. I find that to be absolutely outrageous at best. Mr. Speaker, we have not raised the minimum wage since April 1991; according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there are an estimated 11 million workers who earn the minimum wage, two-thirds of which are adults. Sixty percent are women, many are heads of the households. Finally, Mr. Speaker, what better way to get people off of the welfare rolls, than by giving them a chance to be on a payroll that pays a decent wage. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to stand up for the working people in the country and vote ``yes'' to a minimum wage increase, so that people can get paid for the hard work that they do every single day of their life.

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins]. (Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment because it is an amendment that makes a lot of sense and is an amendment that this body should adopt. Let me give Members a couple reasons why. The gentleman to my right mentioned that there were no constitutional problems with this bill as it is. But let me just read one portion of the bill that I find a very significant constitutional flaw with. And that is on line 8, it starts by saying: Evidence which is obtained as a result of a search or seizure shall not be excluded in a proceeding in a court of the United States on the ground that the search or seizure was in violation of the fourth amendment of the Constitution. What this bill actually would do, this bill would basically make the fourth amendment of the Constitution moot. And I do not think that this body, first of all, has the legal responsibility nor the right to violate the Constitution by making an amendment of the Constitution moot. So, therefore, I think the bill in itself is unconstitutional, not to mention unconscionable. We talk about this bill being a bill to deal with the criminals. The biggest criminal act is the passage of this piece of legislation. Because what we are doing to the poor citizen on the street, we are telling them that they have less rights. They cannot have a fourth amendment to the Constitution. They cannot have that protection, if a law enforcement officer chooses to knock their door down or to pull them on the side and search their belongings, go into their home and search their belongings without a warrant. I think that is simply unconscionable, not to mention unconstitutional. So I would urge the Members of this body to actually look at the Constitution before we pass this piece of legislation. I mean, I am all for a contract for America, but I do not think a contract ought to be to dismantle the Constitution of the United States of America. So if we support the Constitution, the fourth amendment of the Constitution, and all of us as Members of this body, when we arrived here in January, all of us, each and every last one of us, raised our right hand and we said in no uncertain terms that we were going to abide by the laws of the United States of America, which includes the Constitution of the United States of America, so to come here and to undo the fourth amendment of the Constitution by taking the rights away from a citizen and say, under the guise that we are doing something about crime and we are being tough on crime, when some poor soul is sitting at home tonight, if the passage of this legislation, if this legislation passes tonight, some soul in the future sitting at his house, inside of his home, watching his television, some Rambo cop can bust down his door, search his belongings, go through all of his belongings and say that they have a constitutional right to do so because of this legislation, I think that is unconscionable.I would urge the Members of this body to seriously look at what we are about to do. I do not think there is any member in this Hall that would want to pass a law that would take away a Member's constitutional rights, fourth amendment constitutional rights. And that is exactly what this bill would do.

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. A further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman: The bill precisely says that evidence which is obtained as a result of a search or seizure shall not be excluded in a proceeding in a court of the United States on the grounds that the search or seizure was in violation of the fourth amendment. How is that not, Mr. Chairman, making the fourth amendment of the Constitution moot or at least revising it?

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. A further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman: My inquiry was on the bill and not the amendment.

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, since we are about to vote on this measure, I have a question: Since this bill that is before us modifies the Constitution to some degree, would this not call for a two-thirds vote of the House?

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, last week I missed a series of votes because, on January 22, at 7:14 p.m., my wife gave birth to our first child, Cleo Brandon Fields, who weighed 7 lbs., 1 oz. and was 20 inches long. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall votes 25 through 28, 32 and 33, 35, 36, 40, 43 through 48, and 50 through 55. I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall votes 29, 30, 37, 38, 39, 41, 49, and 51.

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from the State of Florida [Mr. Hastings].

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, this amendment simply provides for an exemption to be made by any Federal statute or regulation which establishes standards or standards for safety for students in elementary and secondary education. Today I offer this amendment out of concern for many children in our country who walk into unsafe schools on a day-to-day basis. There are schools in this country that do not have the proper tools for writing, much less the proper conditions to ensure their safety. We need to work hard to bring the standard of safety in our educational system across the country, bring it up to par with the rest of the world. Today our students are falling behind. We must look within our system and find ways to improve our Nation as a whole. State by State, Mr. Chairman, we need to ensure that our children are receiving the best possible education, and the buildings in which they learn must be safe. Thousands of schools open each day, Mr. Chairman, without proper ventilation, without air conditioning during the heat of summer, without heat during the middle of winter. Thousands of schools, Mr. Chairman, open with leaking ceilings. Many of them have lead paint. Many schools in our Nation, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Congress, have asbestos. I urge that the Members of this body adopt this amendment because our schools are in bad, bad shape all across America. Our jails are in better condition than our schools. This is a good amendment. I commend it to the rest of the body, and I urge its adoption.

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I offer two amendments, numbered 151 and 152, which were printed in the Record, and I ask unanimous consent that they be considered en bloc.

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. Mr. Speaker, since 1800, the residents of Washington, DC, have been the only tax paying U.S. citizens denied equal representation in Congress, denying the residents of the District of Columbia to send Representatives to Congress who can vote on taxes or decide questions of war and peace. At the same time we expect them to shoulder the burdens of citizenship--including the obligation to pay taxes and to fight and die for their country in time of war, this is wrong. The District of Columbia has more residents than three States, Alaska, Wyoming, and Vermont. Combined those three States have nine Representatives in Congress. The District of Columbia has only one nonvoting Member, that is unfair, unequal and not to mention unconscionable. I urge Members to reconsider their stand on this issue. How can we deny persons the right to fair representation, how can we provide for taxation without representation in the United States--and at the same time, in good faith, fight for democracy abroad?