Mel Watt

Mr. WATT of North Carolina

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes. Madam Chairman, this amendment is noncontroversial, I believe, and I hope that there is no opposition to it. In this day in which we are moving toward allowing banks and insurance companies and securities companies to come together into one corporation, the concern that I hear more often than any other concern as I talk to constituents is a concern that when they go to borrow money from a bank, that bank will require them as a condition of getting the loan to use other services that are being brought into this umbrella such as requiring them to purchase insurance from a subsidiary of the bank or an affiliate of the bank, and of course that would be extremely unfair and put the customer at a disadvantage and would put the financial institution at a substantial advantage if they could require as a condition of getting a loan that insurance be bought from one of the affiliated companies. So in the Committee on Banking and Financial Services I offered this amendment. It passed overwhelmingly in the Committee on Banking and Financial Services, and for some reason when the bill was re-printed, it was not there. So I offered the amendment before the Committee on Rules to get this reinstated. Let me be clear that this does not prohibit a bank from requiring insurance to be purchased in connection with a loan, because many loans are securitized with life insurance or other kinds of insurance, title insurance. What it says is that that lender cannot require that the customer obtain that insurance from one of its affiliates, and it should be clear that the customer is free to go to an unaffiliated company to obtain insurance if in fact that insurance is required as a condition of the loan. Let me make one other quick point. This amendment becomes even more important in light of all of the discussions about privacy because if there is to be a sharing of information among affiliates, one of the things that will be able to be shared is the expiration dates on insurance policies, and that in and of itself is likely to put a subsidiary insurance company at an advantage because they may know when an insurance policy is expiring. All the more reason we need to make it absolutely explicitly clear that no customer can be required to purchase insurance from a subsidiary or affiliate of the lending company as a condition for getting the loan. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the Burr-Myrick amendment. It is true that this amendment will impact on the one company in the Nation, because this is a unique company. The company happens to be in the insurance business and it currently happens to be in the communications business. The underlying bill restricts income from nonfinancial activities to 15 percent and limits ownership before divestiture to 10 years. All this company is asking to do is to go up to those limits by acquisition. They are not at those limits now. There may be other companies that are grandfathered under this provision that are already at those limits. They are not asking to go beyond those limits. They are simply asking to be able to conduct their business within the confines of the limits of divestiture and time that are applicable to other companies. I certainly think this is reasonable. We should not restrict companies from growing as long as they are not restricting commerce and unduly exposing financial activities to risks that are not foreseen. Obviously, the risks are foreseen by this bill because the 15-percent, 10-year limit continues to apply.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot of debate about the merits or lack of merits of abortions. I want to turn the attention of the Members to another issue, and that is the legal issue that resulted in this matter coming to the Committee on the Judiciary, not the policy issue of abortion versus nonabortion. We deal with legal issues in the Committee on the Judiciary, and I would submit to this body that this is an unprecedented legal maneuver that is taking place here. There are a number of States that allow lotteries, but we do not prosecute somebody who goes from a State that does not allow a lottery to a State that does allow a lottery for doing that. There are a number of States that allow gambling. We do not prosecute a person that goes from one State that does not allow gambling to a State that allows gambling to engage in that legal activity in that particular State. This proposal would prosecute somebody for going to a State to engage in conduct that is legal in that State. So I do not think we need to be misled about this protection of States' rights. The States' rights that the proponents of this legislation are protecting are the rights of the States who have parental consent laws, not the rights of the States who do not have parental consent laws. We ought to be free to exercise the legal rights in the State in which those rights are available.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin). (Mr. CARDIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, the words keep resonating in my head from my senior law partner that I talked about yesterday, when I was sent to represent people who had demonstrated on an issue that was on the opposite side of a position that I held, and I called my senior law partner and said, ``Why would you send me here to represent these demonstrators that are demonstrating against something that I believe in?'' And his simple words to me were, ``Don't you believe in the first amendment?'' That is what I ask my colleagues today: ``Don't you believe in the first amendment?'' This is what Justice Kennedy said in his concurring opinion in the Supreme Court case: For we are presented with a clear and simple statute to be judged against a pure command of the Constitution. The outcome can be laid at no door but ours. The hard fact is that sometimes we must make decisions we do not like. We make them because they are right, right in the sense that the law and the Constitution compel the result. I call on my colleagues today to make the decision that they know is right. It is a difficult political decision. It was not easy for the Supreme Court. But they stood and upheld the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States. I ask my colleagues in this House to do the same in the face of this adversity. American Bar Association, Washington, DC, June 21, 1999. Dear Representative: On behalf of the American Bar Association, I write to urge you to oppose H.J. Res. 33, the proposed constitutional amendment to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States. The Association deplores any desecration of the flag, but we must not forget that the flag is a symbol of both national unity and sovereignty and the individual freedoms we so uniquely enjoy in this country--freedom to think one's own thoughts, to express one's beliefs, and to associate freely with those of like mind. As important as the flag is to all of us, we must never protect it at the expense of the precious freedoms it symbolizes. Proponents of this measure argue that it would merely restore 200 years of ``tradition'' of protecting our flag. In fact, the amendment would actually violate our nation's true tradition of preserving and expanding individual freedoms. The Bill of Rights has endured intact since its adoption in 1791. Previous amendments to the Constitution have acted only to expand the individual liberties guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, not to limit them. As Acting Assistant Attorney General Randolph Moss noted, ``[p]art of the unique force, security, and stature of our Bill of Rights derives from the widely-shared belief that it is permanent and enduring.'' In a recent statement, Keith A. Kreul, a U.S. Army veteran and former National Commander of the American Legion, warns that this amendment ``will neither protect the flag nor promote true patriotism.'' He goes on to say that, ``Our nation was not founded on devotion to symbolic idols, but on principles, beliefs and ideals expressed in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.'' Mr. Kreul cautioned Congress against attempting to impose patriotism by legislative fiat. ``We must not delegate to government our responsibility of citizenship lest we endanger our most precious freedoms . . . Respect for our beautiful flag can only come from the hearts of the people. Attempts to bestow honor by government decree upon the flag are idle myths and must not prevail.'' Arguments that this amendment is needed in order to address moral malaise in this country are misdirected. Moral malaise did not begin ten years ago with the Supreme Court's ruling in Texas v. Johnson. The notion of drawing a line in the sand on this issue in order to send a message on morality diverts attention and resources from real and serious problems. The issues of concern facing our nation today--violence in our streets and schools, economic security, questions of race, and armed conflict abroad--will have a far greater impact on the shape of our society than a constitutional amendment on flag desecration. It would better serve our nation if the time and effort Congress is expending on the flag amendment would be directed toward those and other critical issues. Proponents of the amendment argue that flag desecration is a serious national problem. They cite 72 incidents that have taken place over the past five years and claim that ``hundreds'' more have occurred but remain unreported. First, if they have been unreported, how can the proponents possibly affirm they have occurred? What evidence of the ``hundreds'' of cases has been offered? None. Second, of the 72 specific incidents they do cite, almost \2/3\ involved actions that are already punishable under existing law. Amending our Constitution is a serious endeavor that must be reserved for issues of the fundamental structure of American government and social order. As James Madison once stated, amending the Constitution should be reserved for ``great and extraordinary occasions.'' Infrequent incidents of flag desecration do not warrant this unprecedented action to undermine the freedom of speech guaranteed under the First Amendment. In the more than 200 years since the adoption of the Bill of Rights, we have seen that our institutions cannot be destroyed by the exercise of the First Amendment freedoms, only strengthened. Do we really want or need to go to the extreme of tampering with the First Amendment to deal with the rare actions of a few individuals? Walter Cronkite, a highly respected journalist and one who has personally witnessed and recorded for history some of our nation's most difficult challenges, says emphatically ``no.'' In his own words; ``This tiny band of malcontents has inspired a threat by otherwise thoughtful, serious citizens to amend the very foundation of our liberties, which has stood solid and unshaken through political and economic crises, through insurrection and civil war, through assaults by foreign ideologies. Even if the flag desecrators were of far greater numbers and represented a cause of some significance, they still would cause no threat to the integrity of our national emblem. But those who would amend the Constitution do threaten the integrity of that far more precious of our possessions--our freedom of thought and speech.'' The American Bar Association urges you to oppose the amendment and vote ``no'' to protect the American flag by preserving one of the most precious constitutional principles it represents--the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of expression. Sincerely, Robert D. Evans.

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.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley).

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis).

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, let me again put in context what this debate is all about. First of all, we all abhor the desecration of the flag, and the proposed constitutional amendment that my colleague the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady) and my colleague the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) have put forward express that abhorrence for the desecration of the flag in the precise wording of their proposed amendment. It says, ``The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.'' My proposed substitute amendment expresses that same abhorrence for the desecration of the flag, but at the same time it expresses a higher commitment to the command of the First Amendment that is already in the Constitution of the United States that has stood our Nation so well for over 200 years. My proposed substitute to their amendment simply says, not inconsistent with the First Amendment, not inconsistent with the First Amendment, the Congress shall still have the power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States. So we have got two clear options. Now, their defense to my proposal is, on the one hand, that it is meaningless and, on the other hand, that it is too meaningful. Now, they have got to make a choice. And my colleagues must make a choice. First of all, they say they are not doing anything to the First Amendment by proposing to protect the flag from physical desecration under the amendment that they have offered. If that is the case, if that is the case, the language that I have proposed to insert here in this amendment is meaningless. Well, it might be meaningless. But if it is, I want to be on record as saying that I support the First Amendment to the Constitution. The other side of their argument is, well, it is so powerful this language that I have proposed in my amendment that it undermines completely the amendment that they have offered. That is the opposite side of their argument. And if that is what they are saying, what I want my colleagues to know is that that is exactly what should be the case. I am not backing away from that. But if their proposed constitutional amendment is inconsistent in any respect with the First Amendment to the Constitution, which they say it is not and which I do not know because we do not know how it will be interpreted, but if it is, then I want to go on record right now as saying I want the First Amendment to rule in this conflict. And that is really what this debate is all about. We talked a lot yesterday about things that the debate is not about, and I want to go through those things one more time. We all agree that this is not about patriotism. There are patriots on every side, both sides of this issue. In the committee, the patriot the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) came. Another patriot came from the Republican side who was on our side of this issue. So second, it is not even about partisan politics. Is that not wonderful that we have something on the floor of the House of Representatives that we can debate that we can all stand up and say to America, this is not about partisan politics? We have agreed on that. Third, we have agreed that it is not a liberal versus conservative issue. Because if we read the opinions of the court, we have got conservative justices and liberal justices on both sides of the Supreme Court's opinion. So it is not a liberal-conservative issue. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady) and I even agreed that it is not even about where we went to law school. Because both of us went to law school at the same place. He is on one side of this issue. I am on the other side of it. So it is not even about that. I want to talk to my colleagues about one other thing that this amendment is not about. It is not about burning the flag. Let me repeat that. This is not about burning the flag. We have heard all this discussion about burning of the flag, but this is not about burning of the flag. There is a reason that my colleagues decided not to use the word ``burning'' in this proposed constitutional amendment. The reason is that the appropriate way to dispose of a flag is to burn it. The court has acknowledged that. Where is the language here that I can just point that out and be explicit? I had it right here. Well, I cannot find it right now. But it will come back to me. Here it is. This is from the underlying case that was decided by the Supreme Court. ``The Defendant Johnson was prosecuted because he knew that his politically charged expression would cause serious offense. If he had burned the flag as a means of disposing of it because it was dirty or torn, he would not have been convicted of flag desecration under this Texas law. Federal law designates burning as the preferred means of disposing of a flag when it is in such condition that it is no longer a fitting emblem to display.'' So we have got a Federal law that says we can burn the flag. So what is this about? What is this word ``desecration'' all about? It is about expression of an opinion. Because if we burn the flag in reverence to the flag as an honorable way to put that flag to bed, to end the use of that flag, the Federal statute protects us. But if we go out and we burn that same flag as an expression of our disgust with some idea that our constitutional government has not lived up to or some disgust with the principles for which that flag stands, it is, at that point, desecration, which has a different connotation than burning, kicks into this equation. So this is not about burning the flag. This is about what they are thinking about, what they are saying, what they are expressing when they burn that flag. That is what this debate is about. The case law clearly says they can have antiburning statutes at the local level. Sure they can have antiburning statutes. But they cannot single out the flag and say they cannot burn the flag as a process for expressing themselves. That is what the underlying amendment does. That is why the word ``desecration'' is used instead of ``burning.'' Just think about it. That is a little subtle difference. I know some of my colleagues are just going to say, well, he is just playing on words. But think about why they did not use the word ``burning'' in the statute, in the proposed constitutional amendment. Because the law already allows the flag to be burned as long as they are thinking good thoughts and supportive thoughts when they burn it. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the rule, and as the designee of the ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute, which has been made in order.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Madam Speaker, we engaged in an exciting debate yesterday, and today is the culmination and continuation of that debate in which we have an opportunity to make it explicitly clear that whatever amendment we pass in this body will be subject to the first amendment to the United States Constitution. My amendment in the nature of a substitute simply says, 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. That simply makes this proposed constitutional amendment subject to the provisions that have stood us in good stead for 200 years, and shapes and focuses the value of this debate. Madam Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman be granted 1 additional minute.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks).

Mr. WATT of North Carolina

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) has pointed to the headline in the Washington Post this morning that says the AMA Votes To Unionize Doctors, and that comes at the same time that we are considering in the Committee on the Judiciary granting an exemption for doctors to ban together and not be subject to antitrust laws. The question I ask is: How do we pass those rights to patients? How do we get them together to assert their rights? HMOs can do it, doctors will be able to do it, but who will be speaking for the patient? Mr. Speaker, that is where the Patient Bill of Rights comes into play. We have got to pass an effective Patients' Bill of Rights in this body so consumers and patients will have the rights that are being bargained for by doctors and already given to HMOs in the health care system.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Doyle).

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind). (Mr. KIND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. WATT of North Carolina

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. That is a little different than the unanimous-consent request. I guess the only thing that leaves me a little uneasy is that this could go on, and on, and on.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I wonder if the gentleman might consider revising his unanimous-consent request to that effect, and then if it becomes necessary to go beyond tomorrow, we could come back and address that tomorrow. I am just trying to make the record absolutely clear on this. I do not think either he or I can bind the leadership to this.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, let me be clear, and I do not intend to object. What I have been told is that the debate on the substitute amendment will be conducted tomorrow. I assume we are not contemplating carrying it beyond tomorrow; are we?

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