Mel Watt

Mr. WATT

Mr. WATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 150, the Internet Tax Nondiscrimination Act, and urge my colleagues to support its passage. It has been a long journey to get here, but I believe that the compromise forged in the Senate preserves the goals we sought here in the House both at the subcommittee and full committee levels. Specifically, S. 150 extends the existing moratorium against taxes on Internet access by all State and local governments, including those that were previously grandfathered by the Internet Tax Freedom Act, and there is a new grandfather for States that imposed taxes on access to the Internet until November 1, 2005. Although this bill will necessarily result in the potential loss of some revenue to some States, it will promote the continued development, emergence, and widespread access to the Internet; and it will do so in a fair and technologically neutral manner. During the proceedings on this bill in the House, I, together with the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law, on which I am the ranking member, offered an amendment to help clarify the meaning of Internet access and to put an end to the current confusion that has led to discriminatory and inconsistent State taxation on Internet access. The bill before us today represents a compromise on that amendment which is supported by the relevant stakeholders, including the industry and the State and local government representatives. The principle I pursued in offering the amendment was simple: If we are to prohibit taxes on Internet access, we must do so regardless of how that access is provided. Otherwise, we would give a competitive advantage to those providers covered by the moratorium over those providers that remain subject to taxation. This would limit the choices of consumers and raise the cost of alternative means of accessing the Internet such as DSL. By making the moratorium applicable to all Internet service providers, we have created a level playing field for the consumer. In the process, we have had no intention to otherwise undermine State and local telecommunications tax bases. With this issue now behind us if we pass this bill, this Congress must turn to the issue of State sales and use taxes. I, along with the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) and other colleagues on our subcommittee, have insisted throughout our deliberations to ban Internet access taxes that we remain mindful of the fiscal crisis currently confronting many of our States. Toward that end, the States' attempt to establish a unified tax system that would enable them to impose and collect sales taxes on transactions over the Internet in a manner that is fair and manageable has progressed; and I believe that during the next term of Congress we will be able to work toward a sensible solution to solve the remote sales tax issue when remote sales are taking place over the Internet. In closing, I believe that S. 150 will ensure that the ban on Internet access taxes is neutral as to technology, speed, and provider. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this bill. I thank the gentleman for his hard work on this and certainly thank the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon), my subcommittee Chair, in his absence, for the tremendous amount of work he has put into this issue. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time either on S. Con. Res. 146, which I thought I was debating the last time, or on S. 150, which I understand we are debating now, so I will be happy, unless the chairman wants to promise me he is going to work with me on this remote sales tax issue and wants to have a dialogue about that, I am happy to yield back the balance of my time, or yield to the chairman if he wants to comment on it. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, which will be a very short amount of time, just to make two points. Number one, the chairman of my committee and I have served so long together that he did not even flinch when I was debating a bill that I thought was all part of one big parcel, because he has seen me many times debate something that we were not discussing in committee, so it did not come as any surprise to him at all. He did not even flinch. So I think on that what I will do is roll the statement that I read on S. 150 into this debate. That was the discussion on the last bill. I thought we were doing this, all this part and parcel of one big bill here, rather than in two stages. So I hope I can just roll that last statement on to this debate and save myself from having to read it again. Second, I would just say to the gentleman on his ``do not surprise us in the next Congress'' that I think there has been a long-term agreement and commitment to making the Internet exempt from taxation a permanent moratorium. The thing that has held that up is that, at the same time, States and local governments have wanted to work out a national uniform system for taxing remote sales that take place over the Internet so that they do not lose substantial revenues from that source. So I think if we could come up with a system to put into place some uniform standards for taxation of remote sales over the Internet, making the moratorium on Internet access would be a no-brainer and a very noncontroversial step. So I would hope that I would be able to join the chairman of the full committee in supporting a permanent moratorium on Internet access taxes, but I would be able to do that only if we can work out this other deal having to do with putting in place a taxation system for taxation of remote sales that are taking place over the Internet. Because what is happening now is that brick and mortar retailers in all of our communities are collecting sales taxes on sales that are taking place in those brick and mortar stores and, at the same time, people are able to buy over the Internet the same product and be exempt from paying taxes on it because there is no uniform way for collecting those taxes at remote locations. That is costing local governments and State governments in some cases enormous amounts of tax revenues, because most of them are supported by sales taxes or local property taxes, and this is eroding a primary base of tax income for local communities and State communities. So if we can get that part of this equation worked out, I think the chairman would see a virtual landslide of support for making the moratorium on Internet access a permanent moratorium, and I would be right in the lead of the march with my chairman, and I hope he will join us in trying to make that happen in the next term of Congress.

Mr. WATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to assure the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) that he did not really say anything that I disagree with. Neither did the chairman say anything that I disagree with. I agree that taxation of Internet access and taxation of remote sales are like apples and oranges. But both of them have economic impact on State and local communities, and just because they are apples and oranges does not mean that they do not have an economic impact. So what has been keeping this from moving forward is that if you take away the Internet access issue and you do not resolve the remote sales issue, then local and State communities are being doubly impacted in some cases, and they would like us to resolve both of those issues. They do not necessarily want us to mix orange juice and apple juice together, but they do want us to be able to drink apple juice at one point and drink orange juice at the other point, and they are not mutually exclusive, and they have a similar impact in local communities. So I am in full agreement that we ought to make this moratorium permanent on Internet access. I am supporting both of these bills, and I do not think there is any controversy about that. My only point is we also need to now roll up our sleeves in this next term of Congress and resolve the remote sales tax issue so that we can put all of this to rest, and then we can drink both apple juice and orange juice and enjoy both of them in due course. Mr. Speaker, I have no other speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WATT

Mr. WATT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and congratulate Taiwan on its forthcoming National Day, October 10, 2004. In recent years, Taiwan has impressed the world with its economic and political accomplishments. It is the world's 17th largest economy, with the world's 15th largest trade volume. Clearly, in this time of global economic interdependence, Taiwan has much to offer the world. I commend President Chen Shui-bain of Taiwan on his efforts to seek greater recognition for his country in the world. President Chen has also committed Taiwan's resources to combating global terrorism and Taiwan is a valued partner of the United States in this effort. Congratulations to the people of Taiwan on their National Day.

Mr. WATT

Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, since 9/11, numerous groups have found that, along with the imperative to enhance the flow of information necessary to detect, combat, and prevent future acts of terrorism, comes a parallel and increased imperative to protect the privacy and civil liberties of individuals. These groups believe that balancing security and liberty is not only possible but fundamental to the fight against terror. In other words, they believe that individuals should have personal rights and privacy even after 9/11. The report of the 9/11 Commission was equally clear on this point, stating that, ``The shift of power and authority to the government calls for an enhanced system of checks and balances to protect the precious liberties that are vital to our way of life.'' Chief among the Commission's recommendations was the recommendation that an entity within the executive branch be established ``to look across the government at the actions we are taking to protect ourselves to ensure that liberty concerns are appropriately considered.'' That was a clear unequivocal recommendation of the 9/11 Commission. I find it astonishing that this bill that we are considering today completely ignores this recommendation and fails to create a board to protect the civil liberties of the American people. Refusing to establish a civil liberties watchdog is an insult to the unanimous bipartisan 9/11 Commission report and an affront to the values we cherish. Further, by refusing to establish a civil liberties watchdog in this bill, the bill is also inconsistent with the bill reported favorably from the Committee on the Judiciary and it is inconsistent with the Senate Bill. Last month, at a joint hearing of the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law and the Subcommittee on the Constitution, two members of the Commission testified that the board should have quite robust powers, and that the board should be independent and should be powerful enough so that it gets listened to. Consistent with these views of the distinguished members of the 9/11 Commission, during the markup of H.R. 10 in the Committee on the Judiciary, I offered an amendment to create a strong bipartisan board to supervise civil liberties compliance. After substantial debate about one aspect of the amendment, whether the board should have subpoena power, the Committee on the Judiciary passed a bill that included a version of my amendment. But it did include a civil liberties board. It is, therefore, unbelievable that this bill, while giving the government even broader powers that may affect the freedoms of our citizens, flatly rejects the obligations to protect those freedoms from abuse. The American people should not be asked to sacrifice the very liberties they are defending against terrorist attack without the benefit of a board with genuine oversight authority. I request my colleagues to reject this bill and support the substitute.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Menendez substitute amendment. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Menendez Substitute, and in particular, its creation of a Privacy and Civil Liberties Board within the Executive branch as unanimously recommended by the 9/11 Commission. After months and months of study, and months and months of hearing testimony and reviewing volumes of documents, the 9/11 Commission unanimously recommended that there be a board ``within the government whose job it is to look across the government at the actions we are taking to protect ourselves to ensure that liberty concerns are appropriately considered.'' Because I take the protection of our constitutional rights and liberties very seriously, I offered an amendment during the Judiciary Committee markup of this bill to establish an independent, bipartisan board to oversee compliance with civil liberties and the Judiciary Committee bill included a version of the oversight board. The Menendez substitute establishes such a board. Now there are those who might suggest that an advisory board created by the President by executive order satisfies the mandate of the 9/11 Commission. It does not. That board consists of Administration insiders with advisory functions. In the words of the Vice Chairman of the 9/11 Commission, we must establish a board that is ``robust,'' one that has the authority to secure our freedoms against abuse. We all agree that our Nation must adjust to confront the terrorist threat, but in doing so we cannot undermine the principles for which Americans stand. One need not look far to imagine the types of abuses that a Privacy and Civil Liberties Board could expose and prevent. Should innocent Americans be held merely on suspicion, without the opportunity to consult with counsel and without the ability to speak with their family? After two years of detention without access to family or counsel, a U.S. citizen was recently released from Guantanamo because he was no longer of ``intelligence value.'' Should Americans be willing to miss graduations, baptisms, weddings, and funerals, because their names are erroneously on a no-fly list? If Senator Kennedy, Congressman John Lewis and Congressman Young find themselves detained as suspected terrorists, who will be next? Just last week, a federal district court ruled that the FBI's use of ``national security letters'' to compel the production of customer records from internet service providers was unconstitutional. In short, just as we need to make adjustments as we fight terrorism, we also need this independent board to make sure that fighting terrorism is done in a manner that does not change the fundamental nature of our society. In closing, let me quote directly from the 9/11 Commission's findings in connection with its recommendation that there be a board to protect civil liberties: We must find ways of reconciling security with liberty, since the success of one helps protect the other. The choice between security and liberty is a false choice, as nothing is more likely to endanger America's liberties than the success of a terrorist attack at home. Our history has shown us that insecurity threatens liberty. Yet, if our liberties are curtailed, we lose the values that we are struggling to defend. The substitute implements the recommendation of the 9/11 Commission and should be supported. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''

Mr. WATT

Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, when I was in law school, one of the first things I learned is that if you win a debate, you sit down and quit arguing about it. The other side has asked us several times, well, how far does the Supreme Court have to go, how far does the court have to go before we step in? You have won the lawsuit. Newdow has been reversed. Get a grip. You have won and you are here asking me, how far the Supreme Court has got to go? Imagine this, no Supreme Court, no jurisdiction in the Supreme Court, and the State of South Carolina or New York strips out ``under God.'' Who would have decided the case? Who would have decided the case? Nobody would have been there to reverse Newdow. Fifty different States, 50 different rules under your bill. What happened to the word ``indivisible'' under God? Indivisible. Does indivisible not count anymore? Fifty different rules, is that indivisibility? What have we got to do? You won the case. This bill is not about the Pledge of Allegiance. This is an assault on the judiciary and on the right of the American people to a uniform interpretation of what the law is. It is not the Pledge that is in need of protection. It is our constitutionally established system of government. As long as you are in control in asserting it, every time you get a result that you do not like you will be back here.

Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).

Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, who has the right to close?

Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would restore the bill to its original form. The original bill that was introduced, H.R. 2028, actually stripped only the lower courts, not the Supreme Court, of jurisdiction to hear these cases. My colleague, the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert), who was an original supporter and sponsor of the original bill, both of us submitted amendments to the Committee on Rules asking the Committee on Rules to restore the bill to its original intention, and the Committee on Rules decided it would make my amendment in order, I guess so that it would not send a signal to the Republicans that this is a bipartisan amendment. So I want to offer this amendment to restore the jurisdiction of the United States Supreme Court to determine constitutionality.

Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).

Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding me time. If this debate were really about whether ``under God'' was going to be in the Constitution, and that was all it was about, I would be right there. I have been reciting the Pledge of Allegiance ever since, even before I knew what it meant, and ``under God'' has been in it. I have had no real objection to it, even when I did not understand what it meant. But this debate is about much, much more than that. It is really about whether there is going to be a constitutional framework in which we operate and who is going to decide ultimately what is constitutional, the United States Supreme Court and the Federal courts of our Nation or the arrogance of my colleagues here in this body. There are actually some people here who believe that they should be the ultimate arbiter of what is constitutional; and if they do not get the result that they want in any given case, they want to take jurisdiction away from whoever gave them a different result. So that is what this is about, how do we protect a constitutional framework which historically has had the legislative body doing its job and the courts determining what is constitutional and ultimately the United States Supreme Court determining what is constitutional. Now, the fear that they might get a result that is different than the one they want has these people here in our body saying to us that we should give that ultimate authority not to the United States Supreme Court but to State courts. So this really is not even about whether ``under God'' is going to be in the pledge or not, even at that level, because if a State court determines that ``under God'' is unconstitutional, then what are we going to do in that case? In North Carolina, it might be constitutional. In California it may be unconstitutional. We may have 50 different standards about when we can recite ``under God'' in the Pledge of Allegiance under the standards that this bill would allow us to set up. This is not about whether we retain ``under God'' in the Pledge of Allegiance. The court has already decided that. This is a great vehicle for the majority to be able to come out here and tell us they believe in God. I believe in God, too, but there are some citizens in this country who do not necessarily believe in a god or who believe that having to profess it publicly is idolatry. We have an obligation to protect their rights, also. They are citizens, also, in this country.

Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass).

Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner).

Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?

Mr. WATT

Mr. WATT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. And were the subject of this Special Order not so immeasurably important, I could spend many minutes talking about the issue that the gentlewoman from Texas just identified that was dealt with in the Committee on the Judiciary. But if she will be kind enough to allow me, I think I will wait until next week to make that debate. That bill will be on the floor, and hopefully, we will have ample opportunity to point that out. I am honored today to join my colleagues from the Congressional Black Caucus, the chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) and the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) to be a part of this Special Order which focuses on voter intimidation and efforts that are being made by some in our society to deter people who wish to exercise their democratic rights, the right to vote. I would be less than honest if I said I was delighted to be here debating this, because I concur with the chairman of our caucus that these many years after the passage of the Voting Rights Act, we would like to be in a position not to have to be here to engage in these kinds of discussions on the floor of the House concerning voter intimidation, deterrence of voters from exercising their right to vote. And I would add to that that I do not think there would be any people who would be more delighted on November 3 of this year than the Congressional Black Caucus if we could stand up and say on November 3 that we overreacted and did not need to be here today talking about this. But if that eventuality occurs, I am going to get up; I am coming to the floor to say, I am delighted to say that we overreacted, because I will be happy about it. I do not think we can talk about voter intimidation without putting it in a larger context, and that is the context of democracy. All around the world, the United States was recognized by country after country after country as the gold standard for democracy for years and years and years, and I wish I could say that the United States still holds that distinction. Unfortunately, we do not have that distinction anymore. While we were encouraging the government, the forming government, of South Africa to assure representation of all factions in their new government, we were at the same time in the United States Supreme Court discouraging minority representation in the United States. While we were encouraging the residents of South Africa to make their ballots understandable by putting pictures on the ballots if necessary to identify the candidates, we were at the same time making it impossible for folks to cast ballots that did not have hanging chads and other problems in the United States. While we were encouraging the folks of South Africa to make it easier for people to vote by allowing voters to cast their votes on Saturdays and Sundays, in the United States, that is anathema to us. Although, it seems to me and other members of the Congressional Black Caucus that that would be the ideal to maximize voter participation. So we do not have the honor of holding the gold standard of democracy anymore. Those of us who believe that, somehow, Florida was the exception rather than the rule are deluding ourselves because not only in Florida were we having problems in 2000, but in every single State where votes were being cast, there were problems with the voting process. And unfortunately, those problems were disproportionately disqualifying minority voters from voting and poor people because they had the worst machines in every jurisdiction. So if one checks all around America, this is not a Florida problem that we are talking about. This is a national problem that deprives America from being able to hold out its chest and say, we are the gold standard for a democracy. If we ignore that larger context when we talk about voter intimidation and discouraging people from voting, then we miss a major point. Now, there is intimidation going on, and there is discouragement going on, and I want to make sure that America knows and that everybody knows that we are preparing to be ready for that kind of intimidation, discouragement, roadblocks by police, every kind of negative discouragement of our voters from voting on November 2. We are preparing to combat that. It is a shame that somebody could show up at our meeting today and hand out a flyer saying, we are recruiting 10,000 lawyers to be available on Election Day in the United States of America. Who could imagine that we would need 10,000 lawyers to assure that people in the United States, in our democracy, get to do what our Constitution says they are entitled to do. There is something wrong with that picture, and I just wanted to be here today to add my voice to the chairman's voice and to our caucus' voice that, on November 2, this simply will not be tolerated.

Mr. WATT

Mr. WATT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Let me first agree with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle that I do not think anybody really likes frivolous litigation, and this bill provides an opportunity for people to get up and say that. I think if we were to ask either the Republican or the Democratic nominees for President and Vice President that are out there running, all of them will say, no, I do not like frivolous litigation. The problem here is that my colleagues just do not want to be confused by the facts, because this bill is going to do more to encourage frivolous litigation, potentially, than it is going to do to discourage frivolous litigation. The Judicial Conference of the United States has made that clear in the letter that has been introduced into the Record in which they say that the provisions of this bill, which go back to the rules that were in effect prior to 1983, those rules were changed because they spawned a whole cottage industry of litigation related to frivolous lawsuits. So even if this were going to discourage frivolous lawsuits, which they say it would not, you are going to engender a whole new set of problems because what they say happened was Rule 11 motions came to be met with countermotions that sought Rule 11 sanctions for making the original Rule 11 motion. What sense does that make that we would set up a system to encourage people to file countermotions against each other claiming that the other side was frivolous in what they were doing in the lawsuit? The Judicial Conference is clear that this bill would provide incentives to encourage litigants to keep a frivolous claim in court because if they ever withdrew the frivolous claim, it in effect would be a concession that it was frivolous. So somebody files a lawsuit, realizes they have a bad claim, then has no way of getting out of it because they are afraid to withdraw the claim because somebody is going to hit them with sanctions, and the fact that they withdrew the claim is an admission that it was a frivolous claim. It is going to set up situations where lawyers are put in conflicts of interest with their clients because the client wants to pursue a claim that may be frivolous, the lawyer does not want to pursue it, realizes that the claim is frivolous and cannot back out of it without getting into a conflict of interest with their client. All of that is outlined in the letter from the Judicial Conference. This is not really about doing something that is going to discourage frivolous lawsuits, this bill is going to encourage frivolous lawsuits and encourage pursuit of frivolous lawsuits in a way that the Judicial Conference has outlined clearly. There seems to be this mentality, I hate frivolous lawsuits and do not confuse me with the facts because that is not what I am interested in. We should vote this bill down and keep the rules in place that are there that allow judges to make reasonable decisions in their courts.

Mr. WATT

Mr. WATT. Mr. Speaker, on a number of occasions during the 12 years that I have been in this body, I have risen on this floor to chide my colleagues from the Committee on the Judiciary and my colleagues in the House for the arrogant and irresponsible belief that we are somehow smarter than the Founding Fathers, for the belief that process in the system and the form of government that we operate in is less important than the result that we seek on a particular issue. I think today is the ultimate irresponsible, extreme act in that direction. How arrogant and irresponsible is it to say to our American people that the United States Supreme Court will not have jurisdiction to decide the constitutionality of an issue? How extreme is that? It just blows my mind. I have trouble coming to grips with the notion that anybody could believe that this is responsible legislating, whether it is constitutional or not, that we would deprive the United States Supreme Court the authority to determine the constitutionality of an issue and disperse it to 50 different supreme courts of the States and not have one court that would be the ultimate arbiter of constitutionality. How arrogant and irresponsible can we be? That is exactly what this legislation does today. It says to the American people that the Supreme Court of the United States no longer has the authority to determine constitutional issues. How arrogant, how irresponsible can we be?

Mr. WATT

Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me, because it will not take me 5 minutes to do what I want to do. I am with my colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo), on this. I do not understand the priorities that the Small Business Administration are using when they talk about not supporting a loan program that has generated 360,000 jobs in the last year. How could this administration, that has lost as many jobs as it has through the almost 4 years of being in office, now be talking about doing away with a program that is a job creation mechanism? I, for the life of me, do not understand that. And the only thing I can say is, this is just not rational decision-making being made. This argument that somehow we are going to restore these funds by increasing fees on small business people who apply for the loans just makes even less sense to me. Because those are the very people who need the money without additional fees being generated and charged and assessed to them. So the priority setting here in an appropriations process tells a lot about the values of an administration and the values of an SBA. And, apparently, this SBA and this administration simply do not care about small businesses or about job creation, even though it is giving lip service to it throughout the country. I think we should support this amendment, and I appreciate the gentlewoman yielding to me. It does not take a long time to say this administration's priorities are out of whack on this issue, and we should support the amendment that has been offered by the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo), who cannot understand the priorities that this Republican administration is putting forward any more than we can on this side.

Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. WATT

Mr. WATT. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to honor all those who have died in military service with a moment of silence. I am particularly reminded of the courage and sacrifice of our World War II soldiers as we celebrate the long-awaited opening of the monument to those who died in that war. As Americans we express our gratitude to them this year as we reflect on the fact that men and women are again fighting and dying for our country. Almost 800 American soldiers have died since the beginning of hostilities in Iraq. I would like to recognize four of these individuals, all reservists and residents of the 12th Congressional District of North Carolina, who died this past year. Specialist Mark A. Bibby, a twenty-five year old student at North Carolina A&T State University in Greensboro, NC, was killed on July 21, 2003 when a bomb exploded near his Humvee in Baghdad. Specialist Lunsford Brown, also a native North Carolinian and student at North Carolina A&T, died on September 20, 2003, in a mortar attack at the Abu Ghraib Prison in Baghdad. He was twenty-seven years old and the father of a three-month- old baby girl, Amber. On April 23rd, 2004 the remains of Army Sergeant Elmer C. Krause, also a resident of Greensboro, North Carolina were identified. Sergeant Krause had been listed as missing on April 9th when his convoy came under attack. He was forty years old and had a nine-year-old son, Jonathan. Relatives said he wanted to go to Iraq ``so someone else could come back home.'' Most recently, on May 3rd, Sergeant Gregory L. Wahl, of Salisbury, North Carolina, died when his vehicle flipped into a canal in Balad, Iraq. He was thirty years old and the father of four- year-old Alexis. I extend my condolences to the families, friends and communities in my congressional district who mourn the loss of these men. Today, I honor all our fallen heroes and sincerely hope that our soldiers in Iraq will soon come home safely and honorably.

Mr. WATT

Mr. WATT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I voted for H.R. 2844, the expedited election procedure which provides that States should try to have expedited elections in the event of a catastrophe within 45 days. I voted for that measure because I thought it was better than nothing, and prior to that we did not have a process in place. I voted for it because, on a motion to recommit, the opposing side, the Republican side, decided that they would accept the motion to recommit to at least make whatever State procedures were in place subject to the civil rights laws of our country and other voting rights laws. H.R. 2844 provided a transition position that will expedite an election within 45 days, but I still think that there is a need to have a debate about whether there ought to be a different process for replacing Members in the event of a catastrophe in a shorter time frame, and I am satisfied that the only way that that can happen would be through a constitutional amendment. I am probably the least likely person to be supporting a constitutional amendment, and I rise today neither in support of nor in opposition to H.J. Res. 83, the proposed constitutional amendment that the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) has offered. What I am disappointed about is that we have taken this very weighty national issue and turned it into what has essentially become a partisan issue, a political issue; and we have used this opportunity, instead of as an opportunity to hear from the people and to try to form a consensus about what should happen under these circumstances, to basically one-up the other side. Let me rush this thing to the floor without any real debate. I think the sad thing today really is that we have not had an opportunity to review and study and have hearings on either the Baird proposal or a number of other proposals that are out there that cry out for hearings and the kind of debate that we believe are necessary and that the public deserves.