Mel Watt

Mr. WATT of North Carolina

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the bill and in support of the motion to recommit to be offered by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt). Step by step, I guess we could say thread by thread, I think we have unraveled the viability of textiles and apparel manufacturers in this country to operate. We have done it by making it possible, indeed encouraging, the largest manufacturers to take their manufacturing operations offshore in search of cheaper labor, and by making it impossible for small manufacturers to compete staying here because they cannot take their operations offshore. So the result is an industry that just simply cannot survive. We have done it in the name of free trade, in the name of helping those in other countries. We have ignored the viability of businesses that employ people down the street from us in our own communities. We cannot continue to do this. This bill is yet another step in that direction. The gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson) is right, that if we look at this bill in single focus, it does not have the gigantic impact; but when we couple it with NAFTA and other free-trade agreements that have taken place, the totality gets us to a point where textiles and apparel in this country simply cannot exist. That is not a result that we should encourage or allow.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, on yesterday, my colleague, the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick), and I announced, in the midst of all of the important other agendas that are going on in the House, an effort to pay tribute to all of the people who were killed in the September 11 disaster. Today I rise to pay tribute to Michael G. McGinty, who, during his life in an Air Force family, moved many times. So when he and his wife, Cynthia, bought their first home in Foxboro, Massachusetts, he put down roots, planted flowers to attract birds and butterflies, and became chairman of the deacons at Bethany Congregational Church. But his great joy in life was being the father of David and Daniel. Ms. McGinty says, ``I'm the one who would say it was time to do homework, but he would come and make it fun and games.'' The night before Mr. McGinty left for his meeting at the World Trade Tower, he and his wife had a great conversation where everything clicked, and they felt really good about their family and children. She said, ``I am so glad that the last conversation we had was a really good one.'' I pay tribute to Michael McGinty today.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted today to join with my Republican colleague, the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick), from the adjoining Congressional district to me, to start what we hope will be a bipartisan effort to pay tribute to all the victims of the events of September 11. Here is the way we hope this will work: We want to try to set aside five 1-minutes each day and recruit our colleagues to join with us, to just come and make 1-minute statements about the victims of the events of September 11. If this starts to catch on, then perhaps we will come and try to do a bigger 1 hour special order, or, perhaps before the event is over, try to do a major day of tribute to the victims of the events of September 11. I would like to invite my colleagues to join with us in this effort. We will provide the materials and information to our colleagues to make this possible, and hope that they will join us in this effort to pay tribute to those victims of the September 11 events.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time I have been yielded in total?

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank both gentlemen for yielding me this time. I voted for the Committee on the Judiciary's version of the anti- terrorism bill. I voted against the bill that came to the floor because it was a far cry from the Committee on the Judiciary's bill. I voted in the Committee on Financial Services for the money laundering provisions of the bill. And I feel like I am in a really, really difficult position with these bills, now having been put together, because the money laundering provisions which were reported out of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services, I think, are worthwhile and needed provisions and strike a good balance in terms of protecting the rights of individuals in our country. I would have thought that if any committee would have been overstepping due process bounds, it might have been the Committee on Financial Services, not the Committee on the Judiciary. So I find myself in the same position that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) has expressed. Were the money laundering provisions a freestanding bill, I would certainly support them. But I think the Committee on the Judiciary part of this bill goes too far. And let me be blunt. Some of us, who have a different history in America, with delegation of authority to the Government and the abuse of that authority, proceed a lot differently than others when we talk about giving authority to the Government that can be abused. And I think that is why we are having so much trouble in this debate. We cannot just come in in the middle of a terrorism episode and forget all of the history that has occurred in our country. Some groups in our country have had their rights violated, trampled on by the law enforcement authorities in this country; and so we do not have the luxury of being able to just sit back and give more authority than is warranted, the authority possibly to abuse due process through law enforcement, even in the context of what we are going through now. This is a very difficult time. I acknowledge that it is. But I think we are giving the Government and law enforcement too much authority in this bill. We drew a very, very delicate, fine balance in the Committee on the Judiciary. Unfortunately, we took several giant steps backwards when we passed the House version of the bill; and now we have taken a couple of steps forward, more toward the Judiciary bill. But I cannot justify voting for this bill only because it is better than what the House previously passed. It still does not measure up, and I encourage my colleagues to vote against it.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the ranking member of the committee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).

Mr. WATT of North Carolina

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, like every American citizen, the emotions that we as Members of Congress and I personally have gone through over the last 31 days since September 11 have spanned the whole course. As I saw the buildings crash in New York, I wondered whether the terrorists would prevail, only to see the firefighters and police officers and rescue workers spring to their work, lift their shoulders, observe my colleagues on the steps of the House of Representatives that evening singing ``God Bless America'' and raise my head and say, we will prevail over them. When I heard the Attorney General come and say we had to pass an antiterrorism bill in 2 days following that, I wondered whether the terrorists would prevail. And the admiration that I had for our committee chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin, and the ranking member of our committee as they stood and said, we cannot do this in the heat of passion, we must honor the constitutional requirements, caused me to raise my head and say, we will prevail. When I saw the incidents around the country of attacks on Arabs and Muslim mosques, I wondered whether the terrorists would succeed. And with pride I saw my President spring and say, ``We cannot tolerate this kind of attack on our people,'' and I raised my head with pride. On the floor of this House, I saw Secretary Colin Powell and Secretary Rumsfeld come and brief us and say that we are approaching this methodically; and I raised my head with pride and said, we will prevail. Today, we have another test in this House to determine whether we will stand strong in support of our constitutional rights and be able at the end of this debate to raise our heads with pride and not to cower to the terrorists and give away the constitutional rights that our Founding Fathers have given to us. This bill in my estimation goes too far in giving away those rights. I ask my colleagues to consider carefully the provisions of this bill and its implications for whether we prevail in our fight against terrorism.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I am going to vote against the rule for same day consideration, because I think if this bill were not considered today and were considered tomorrow, we could get a much, much better bill in several respects. I am going to vote against the second rule for consideration of the bill, because I think if we were allowed to offer amendments to the bill, we would end up with a much, much better bill. But if, at the end of the day, those rules are passed and this bill comes before us, I am going to vote for the bill. Not because I think it is a perfect bill. It can be improved by adding security provisions. It can be improved by adding employee assistance provisions, which I think are gravely needed and we must pass, whether we pass them tonight or in the near future. It can be improved with amendments regarding executive compensation and a number of other things. But we must get the airlines back on a solid footing, and we must provide an assurance to the families of the victims of this tragic incident that their interests, their financial interests, will be taken care of. Those two things are in this bill. So my opposition to the bill really is about the things that are not in it, which I hope the majority will see fit to bring a bill on next week. I understand that is being considered. I think it is absolutely imperative that we deal with employee assistance provisions, whether in this bill or in some other bill. And if we were not rushing to judgment tonight, we could do it in the context of this bill. I think we are missing an opportunity.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, as I read the War Powers Act, the President actually has the authority to do what we are asking him and giving him the authority to do in this resolution because of a national emergency created by an attack on the United States or its forces. Despite that fact, this has got to be the most difficult vote I will have cast in the 9 years I have been in this body. I am absolutely terrified that we are about to declare, or authorize the President to declare war. But we have got to do it. That is what our constituents sent us here to do, to make the weighty decisions, to cast the difficult votes. I just hope the President will exercise his authority with judgment and wisdom. And I hope that God will bless America and these decisions.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution. In the aftermath of unprecedented attacks of the kind our country witnessed yesterday, no words can express the full range of emotions: horror, dismay, sadness, anger, etc. I join with all my colleagues in expressing condolences to the families of the people who were killed in these tragic incidents and in praying for the full recovery of the many people who were injured. I also join my colleagues in thanking so many people whose acts of bravery and heroism may receive little, if any, notice in the midst of this crisis. They reaffirm my confidence in our country's ability to withstand this crisis and our unity as Members of Congress should assure them of our commitment to determine who is responsible for these cowardly acts and bring them to justice. Mr. Speaker, I want to pay special tribute to the family of Sandy Bradshaw, a flight attendant on United Airlines flight 93 which crashed in Pennsylvania. Her husband, Phil and her children, Alexandria and Shenan, are still hoping against all odds that she is still alive. They are residents of my Congressional District in Greensboro, North Carolina, and I want them to know that all my constituents are praying for them in a special way.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, I am a little confused by the chairman's position on this proposed amendment. The amendment says do not raise FHA premiums above what it would cost to actually insure. Now, when I first heard the chairman's argument, he said well, we are not making any profit on FHA premiums. Then, by the time I got to the floor I heard that if we did this, it was going to cost us $280 million. The CBO says that it would cost $5 million, which is what the gentleman from Massachusetts has found as an offset to make the budget back in balance. The problem is that if FHA premiums are raised beyond the actual cost of the insurance, people who are buying houses will pay that extra cost. It is that simple. No funny business, no fuzzy math. If the premium is higher than the actual cost of the insurance, that extra cost is going to be borne by homeowners or home buyers. In a market where people are trying to acquire homes, that could be the difference between somebody being able to afford a home and somebody not being able to afford a home. So, I think this is just simple, straightforward math here. It cannot be that the provision is redundant, which is what the chairman of the committee said originally, because we are not making any profit on this. If that were the case, the amendment that the gentleman from Massachusetts has offered would simply be a redundant provision, because what his amendment says is we do not want you to make a profit. If it is as the CBO has indicated, that the offset required is $5 million, then he has found a $5 million offset, and it is an appropriate offset. If the premiums are raised $280 million, then home buyers are going to bear that cost. Whatever the case, the gentleman from Massachusetts should have his amendment passed, and we should not pass the cost on to home buyers.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, this is kind of a strange institution we are operating in here, because both the chairman of the Committee and the ranking member I think have done a good job of operating within the context of what they are operating in. Unfortunately, they are playing with a budget the size of a baseball when the size of the need is, at best, the size of a softball or a soccer ball, or perhaps even a basketball or bigger. The dramatic example of that is in the area of housing. The chairman, the Republican chairman, the Democratic ranking member, and those of us who sit on that committee have gone through hearing after hearing after hearing, and every single witness has come and said, ``We need more affordable housing in this country.'' Yet, there is nothing that will address that need in this bill. It is not because of the ranking member or the chairman of the Committee, it is because of the big tax cut that has taken all of the money that we should have been spending on low-income housing and affordable housing and sent it back to rich people, leaving poor people in destitute housing. That is a shame for our country.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the city of Thomasville, North Carolina, part of which is located in my congressional district, as residents begin to celebrate the 150th anniversary of the founding of their city. The name Thomasville might sound familiar to my colleagues, because the Thomasville Furniture Company was established there and still has its headquarters in the Chair City. This fine company has made the city's name famous around the world. The 18-foot-high chair downtown serves as a symbol of the industry's importance to the city. While Thomasville is synonymous with furniture, it is a city of around 20,000 people and a thriving community in North Carolina's Piedmont Triad region. Thomasville is named for State Senator John W. Thomas who helped pioneer the construction of the first railroad across North Carolina. He founded the town of Thomasville next to the railroad in 1852. I salute my good friend Mayor Hubert Leonard and wish all the best to the residents of Thomasville as they celebrate the city's 150th anniversary.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I find it very interesting to serve in a body where the Committee on Rules 1 week decides that democracy is all about debating every single amendment separately, and then the very next week decides that it will not allow a separate debate on an amendment that would eliminate the ability of religious institutions to discriminate in their employment practices and remove the offensive provision that everybody is concerned about from this bill. This is not a debate about government versus God. We made that choice when the Founding Fathers wrote into the Constitution ``one Nation, under God,'' and we have been living with that choice ever since. But we made a different choice in 1965 when we outlawed discrimination in this country. It was not a unanimous decision by the Nation at that time, but I am appalled 20 or 40 years later now to be debating the issue of whether we will allow religious discrimination to be engaged in in the delivery of services by church institutions, and we are doing it in the name of God. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Traficant) said, ``Beam me up.'' I want to be beamed up on that false choice. We should have a rule that allows us to offer an amendment to strike this offensive provision from this bill, and then we would have almost unanimous support for the bill. But they would rather have the issue than the support.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, to be honest, on days like today, I am just saddened to be a part of this body. We bring bills like this to the floor and we scream at each other; and the truth of the matter is that there are wonderful, good people on both sides of this issue. There are people, black and white, Republicans and Democrats, and I could use all of my time, who have spent their entire lives fighting against discrimination. Some of them are supporting this bill; some of them are opposing this bill. The ones who are supporting it, I believe, are supporting it because they believe that the benefits outweigh the detriment, and those who oppose it believe that the detriment outweighs the benefit. I happen to be in that latter category. I have spent my entire life fighting against discrimination in every form, racial, religious, gender, sexual orientation, without exception; and I will not vote for a bill that sanctions discrimination in religion. And that is what this bill does. Now, some of us can say that it is worth the price to do that, and I will respect a colleague who says that. But I will not respect anybody who gets up and denies that the bill does not do that. Even the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watts) acknowledged that right now he is going to work on it in conference. The time to work on the bill is here, now, in the committee, in the House. And if it does not measure up, we should vote it down and support the Democratic substitute.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First of all, let me address the comments made by my colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), and make it absolutely clear to him that for those of us who have different opinions about what the first amendment covers than yours, it does not mean that we do not have political heart. It just means we have a difference of opinion. Those of us who have stood for the first amendment to the Constitution are people like myself who, in the practice of law, actively defended the right of the Ku Klux Klan to march. Mr. Speaker, maybe my colleagues can say I do not have any heart. Maybe my colleagues can say I am looking for political cover. But when I go back into my community and stand up for the right of the KKK to march and express themselves, I think that gives some indication of what I feel about the first amendment and the right that all of us, I think, are fighting to protect, which is the right of people to express themselves, whether we agree with what they are saying or disagree with what they are saying. This is not about seeking political cover. This is about protecting the very Constitution that we are operating under and have been operating under for years and years. Mr. Speaker, I want to make that clear to the gentleman. This is not, as the gentleman characterized it, a political exercise. And the gentleman should also be clear that this is not the Republican side versus our side, that is the Democratic side. The last time I checked, there were people of goodwill, both Republicans and Democrats, on both sides of the aisle on this issue. The one thing that I think we all agree on is that we believe in this country and the principles on which it was founded, and we will all fight and defend those principles. I finally got to that point with the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), my good friend, who is in the Chamber. We got past that. Let us not call names.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Reclaiming my time, I have a very limited amount of time. Had the gentleman been on the floor at the outset of this debate, he would have heard what this amendment is all about. The only way I can do that now is to go back and restate it. It is in the record, though. I will just stand on the record. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green), outside of the debate on this amendment, to speak on general debate.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the underlying proposed constitutional amendment that is the subject of this debate, and which has been the subject of general debate for now almost 2 hours, reads: ``The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.'' The proposed amendment in the nature of a substitute, which I am offering to the underlying proposed constitutional amendment, reads: ``Not inconsistent with the first article of amendment to this Constitution, the Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.'' We should be clear that many people think that the desecration, the burning of a flag, is a part of an expression against the United States, against some action of the United States, and is a protected means of speech. The Supreme Court has so held, and if the Supreme Court did not hold such, I think that we would be in a position where we could selectively decide who could burn a flag and who could not burn a flag based on whether we agreed with the expression that they were intending to make or whether we disagreed with the expression they intended to make. As we will hear, I am sure, from the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), who has studied this issue at some length, there are many, many occasions, and many of us in this House have been invited to occasions where the United States flag is burned. It is part of the ritual for doing away with a flag in a graceful way. That is an expression of our respect for the flag, because we have a designated way to dispose of the flag. On the other hand, when people rise and make a statement against the United States government, many of them, some of them, have chosen to make that expression against the United States by burning the flag. So when we talk about desecration of a flag or burning of a flag, one means of burning the flag would be protected when we agreed or the majority agreed with the expression that was being made. The other means, when we disagreed with the expression that the protester or person who was making a statement against the United States was making, then we would, in effect, be stopping that person from exercising their freedom of speech. The problem comes that if we put the proposed constitutional amendment in our Constitution as it is written, the Supreme Court is going to come to a very serious fork in the road. One amendment would say that we prohibit the physical desecration of the flag, and the Supreme Court has already held that in some cases that is constitutionally protected free speech. The first amendment will still be on the books, so the Supreme Court will have to decide which one of these constitutional amendments, the first amendment or this proposed constitutional amendment which we are debating, will it give precedence to. The amendment in the nature of a substitute resolves that dispute. It basically says that if one can do away with or if Congress can pass a law that prohibits the physical desecration of the flag of the United States in such a way that it does not impinge, does not discriminate against people who are expressing their views, then it can do so. But if the Congress passes a law which does impinge on the freedom of expression, then it should be clear that the first amendment to the Constitution, which has served this Nation well for low so many years, should be the controlling amendment to the Constitution. And so it is in that context that we offer this substitute. I wanted to give this opening statement so that everybody would understand that we are trying to resolve a potential dispute between two potentially conflicting provisions in the Constitution. Mr. Speaker, having kind of framed the issue in that way, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.