Mel Watt

Mr. WATT of North Carolina

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] for yielding time for this purpose and appreciate the opportunity to debate this important issue. I believe in support of democracy of the people, by the people and for the people. Now we are going to hear some people on the other side who will probably say they are the ones that are in support of democracy of the people, by the people and for the people, but I think we can make the only evaluation of that. I rise in opposition to this proposed amendment, and I plan to vote in opposition to all of the proposals that will come to the floor today. I think term limits, first of all, a bad idea, and I will run through quickly the reasons; a lot of those reasons have been mentioned here today. I think term limits would have the effect of turning our democracy over to the experienced staff people who staff the committees. Those people do not answer to any electorate out there, but they are going to be here regardless of whether I leave or do not leave, and they end up setting the policy. I think term limits significantly would alter the balance between the legislative and executive branch, and my colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] has ably talked about that; so, I think it is a bad idea for that reason. I think term limits would probably significantly reduce voter turnout, and I cannot prove this by any statistical study, but it just seems to me that we are already having trouble getting people to turn out to vote. Limit terms to 2 years or 4 years or 6 years; people have even less inducement to go out and vote because the person is going to be reelected for that period of time and they are going to be gone after that period of time, so why bother to go out and vote? And contrary to the arguments that many of my supporters of this amendment will assert, I think term limits have the effect of increasing the influence of special interests because the minute one gets elected to serve in this body they stop looking for a position to land in after they are no longer here, whether it is the U.S. Senate or whether it is some corporate position. I think it has the effect of increasing the influence of special interests. But those are my bad-idea reasons for being opposed to this amendment. I want to talk a little bit about the constitutional aspects of this because I agree with the chairman of our committee, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], who said that this proposal is not a conservative idea, it is a reactionary idea, and I said that over and over again because many of my colleagues have heard me say on the floor that I actually think I am the most conservative Member of this body. I am the one who comes to the floor consistently and fights for the Constitution of the United States as it is currently written, and as my conservative colleagues, who are always claiming to be conservative, who keep running these constitutional amendments at us: the term limits amendment, the balanced budget amendment, the line item veto amendment, the school prayer amendment-- this amendment, that amendment--an unprecedented number of proposed amendments to the Constitution of the United States were offered in the last quote unquote conservative term of Congress by my conservative colleagues, this one perhaps is the most arrogant one of them. There is the sense of arrogance that goes with the notion, I think, on the part of my colleagues that they can do a better job of writing the Constitution than the Founding Fathers of this country did. They are smarter than Madison and the people who were writing the Constitution back at that time, even though this Constitution has survived all of these years and has worked so well for our democracy. The arrogance of these people is particularly evident in this proposed amendment, because we have got all kinds of different variations of it. We have got nine different proposals that we are going to vote on today to amend the Constitution. We got one that would give us 2-year terms and the senators two 6- year terms, the so-called Arkansas version. We have got one that they call the Colorado version. We have got one that they call the Idaho version. We got one they call the Missouri version. We have got a Nebraska version, a Nevada version, a South Dakota version, and all of these people are coming in here saying, I am the conservative. We even got a group out there, so-called term limits--what is that group, U.S. Term Limits--who is saying, ``If you put any version of this bill on the ballot other than the version that I support, then we are going to write you up, and you are required to put something on the ballot to say you did not support my version of the term limits.'' That is arrogance. That is arrogance on the part of my colleagues who say, oh, no, I am conservative. If they got some conservative philosophy, at least it ought to be consistent. There ought not be 9 different versions of conservatism, each one of which is parading itself in this body as being the conservative version. That is arrogance, my colleagues. Finally, let me caution us against this idea that we ought to be writing a Constitution based on polling information. Let me caution us against that. For those of my colleagues who follow this body, they will remember that I was the person who came to the floor last term of Congress on a crime bill and offered the specific language of the fourth amendment as an amendment to the bill because my colleagues kept arguing to me no, we are not altering the fourth amendment to the Constitution by doing this, we are not doing anything. Well, I say what is wrong with the language of the fourth amendment? Why not support that? And it was my colleagues here who overwhelmingly voted down the specific provisions of the fourth amendment. In the context of preparing to offer that amendment, I did a little looking around, and I found that if we polled the American people, a substantial majority of them would say: I do not support the 1st amendment, the 2d amendment, the 3d amendment, the 4th amendment, the 14th amendment, and on and on and on. The Constitution was written as the framework for democracy to withstand the kinds of attacks that evidenced themselves in popular polls. And in the testimony before our committee, in the testimony before the Committee on the Judiciary, I was just flabbergasted to hear an intellectual conservative come before our body, and I am not supposed to name names so I am not going to call the name, and say I support term limits because this provision is not relevant to today's society. And I say, well now. Is the first amendment relevant to today's society? Our debate has gotten shrill, our debate has gotten very partisan and mean-spirited in many cases. Does that mean we ought to rewrite the first amendment to the Constitution also? I guess not relevant to today's society. What about the fourth amendment to the Constitution? There is a lot of crime out there on the streets. Does that mean we ought to turn over to the Government and the police the authority to kick in our doors, and search our homes, and tap our phones, in an unlimited way? Maybe the fourth amendment is not relevant to today's society. My colleagues, this framework was based on democracy and government of the people, by the people and for the people. It is the people who vote every 2 years to send us back here or not send us back here. And the notion that we ought to say to them, ``Oh no, we have got to distance ourselves from you, we do not want you to have this kind of influence in our system;'' my colleagues, it is dangerous and counter- democratic. I encourage my colleagues to support the principle of democracy and representative government that says it is the people who control our democracy, allow the people to continue to speak. Do not restrict them. Please do not restricted them.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I am sure that is true, and I am sure that is true of this amendment too. That does not defeat the purpose for which I rise today, and I hope my colleague does not think it does. I thank the gentleman for yielding me time, and I hope my colleagues will listen to their chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, in this case Chairman Hyde.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, I start kind of like the author of the cartoon, Curtis, with the understanding that you really cannot do justice to practice Black History Month in either 3 minutes or a month. The contributions that black people have made to this country require an ongoing education and input about the many facets of the contributions. So I want to limit my remarks today to a very, very narrow window, and that is some things that came out of my congressional district in Greensboro, NC, starting on February 1, 1960 at the Woolworth lunch counter where the sit-ins started, to give us the right to be able to go into a restaurant and sit down and have a meal. I mean, this is something that in 1996 is so far removed from anything that we can imagine that so many people have started to take it for granted. It was at the Woolworth's lunch counter that these sit-ins started on February 1, 1960, and they were started by four students who were attending the North Carolina A&T State University in Greensboro, NC. Those four students were freshmen Ezell Blair, Junior; David L. Richmond; Joseph McNeil; and Franklin McCain. Franklin McCain happens to be a personal friend of mine who now resides in Charlotte, NC. But all of these four individuals started a movement that picked up steam, gained momentum, that led ultimately on July 25, 1960 to black people being able to go into the Woolworth's store in Greensboro and sit down at the lunch counter and have a hot dog, buy a drink, things that we now take for granted. Throughout the South, this kind of movement was going on all across the South to provide that opportunity. To these four gentlemen, we will forever be in debt. North Carolina A&T is one of six historically black colleges and universities in my congressional district in North Carolina. I could spend hours talking about the contributions of graduates of any one of these institutions, but just to focus on North Carolina A&T, since that is where I started, that is where our current colleagues, the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Jesse Jackson Jr., and the gentleman from New York, Mr. Ed Towns, your colleague, graduated. They are illustrious graduates of North Carolina A&T. Former astronaut Ronald McNair, to whom we all owe so much in the field of space exploration, is a graduate of that institution. State Justice Henry Frye, on our State supreme court in North Carolina, is a graduate of North Carolina A&T university. I could go on and on and on talking about these people, but I will end, and reemphasize what the Curtis cartoons have been saying throughout this year: We cannot do justice to black history by having a month for it. We all have to give it the kind of ongoing respect that the kinds of contributions that our people have made over the years to the history, the culture, the music, the vitality, and the economy of this United States, deserve. The more we can come to grips with that, the more we can put this, parts of history like the sit-ins, behind us, and we can all become one Nation, indivisible, under God, with liberty and justice for all. I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I will just reaffirm what the gentleman has said, Mr. Speaker, if he will continue to yield. It took a tremendous amount of guts and determination for these four students to stand up and confront a system. The need for us to continue to confront issues head on, without fear of intimidation or being called down by our colleagues, even here in the House, certainly should be apparent to us.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, I wanted to first express my thanks to Congressman Jessie Jackson, Jr., for coming up with the idea and pulling the people together to pay tribute to my good friend Cleo Fields. I want to thank my colleague, Major Owens from New York, for reserving the time and yielding part of the time to us for this purpose. Mr. Speaker, I have been wondering how to approach this tribute, because I could approach it in a number of different ways. First of all, I could approach it as a roast of my good friend the gentleman from Louisiana, Cleo Fields, because he is first and foremost my friend and we have, in the last 4 years, during the time that we have served in this Congress together, and 4 years ago was really the first time I had met him, although I had known of his reputation, but during that 4 years we have become what I would call in the community ``ace buddies.'' We do a lot of joking around, and so I was tempted to use this evening to roast him, but I decided that that probably would not be the proper thing to do when somebody 100 years from now or 50 years from now reads the Congressional Record and finds all of these things of a humorous nature on such a serious occasion. So I started to reflect, well, why is it that we are honoring and saluting Cleo Fields this evening? We are honoring and saluting him because tomorrow or Saturday or next Wednesday or whatever day it is the leadership says we get out of here to adjourn this session of Congress will be the last day that we will have the opportunity to serve with this distinguished legislator. His term will run the balance of the year, but we will not be in a position where we can come and pay this tribute to him. The reason that we pay tribute to him is that he has been an outstanding legislator, an outstanding friend and he will no longer be able to serve that role. Now, why will he not be able to serve that role? Well, the Supreme Court of the United States has said that race cannot be taken into account in the drawing of congressional districts in a manner which results in congressional districts favoring or making it possible for minority representatives to be elected to Congress. Now, we can take race into account in a negative way. In fact, throughout the history of this country, race has been being taken into account in the drawing of congressional districts, especially in the South, for as long as we can remember and as long as history records, but when you start to take race into account in a manner which addresses this history of discrimination in the electoral process, then somehow the Supreme Court starts to feel that that is improper and that the Nation, all of a sudden, should be colorblind. So it has handed down a series of devastating lawsuits and opinions as a result of lawsuits which quite possibly will have the effect of less and less minority representation. It is ironic that the first casualty of that series of cases is the person who has chaired the task force for the Congressional Black Caucus on redistricting. Now, when we talk in the Halls, sometimes Cleo Fields will suggest to me that this would not have happened to him in Louisiana but for the Shaw versus Reno case, which originated in North Carolina, and that lawsuit was filed as a result of the drawing of my congressional district. So, in some measure, he is holding me responsible for his leaving Congress, and so in that sense, I guess I should be here roasting him and shoring him up and telling him that it is not me that bears responsibility for it but the Supreme Court, at least five members of the Supreme Court, who have promulgated this series of cases that has resulted in a district that he can no longer win in. Let me conclude, Mr. Speaker, because I know the time is and I want to make one final point before I close. We have been through this process leading to a diminution and, in fact, an elimination of minority representation in the Congress of the United States once before in our history. Maybe we could argue we have been through it twice before, because when the Constitution was written, it was written in such a way that none of us were taken into account, and so minorities, blacks, at that time, could not represent anybody in Congress because we were not even considered full-fledged citizens. But at the end of the 1800's, after we had gained a measure of representation for minorities in the United States Congress as a result of poll taxes, literacy tests, Klan intimidation, we reached a point where the number of minorities in Congress decreased from approximately 20 down to, at the end of the 1800's we had only one left, and his name was George H. White. He was a black man from North Carolina, interestingly enough. I want to close on the comments that he made in February 1901 when he took to the House floor and addressed the House for in excess of an hour in what was supposed to be a speech on an agriculture bill, and he started his speech by reciting two or three sentences about the agriculture bill, and then turned his attention to what was happening in the area of minority representation. In that speech what he said was, my colleagues, this perhaps is the temporary farewell of Negroes in the Congress of the United States, but phoenix-like, someday we will rise up and come again. And I have that same feeling about my colleague, Cleo Fields. I mean I think it is great that he is such a young guy and he started at such a young age, because I think we will see Cleo Fields again in this body. I think the words of George H. White will be prophetic. They were prophetic when he spoke them in February 1901. It took 30-plus years for any black representative from anyplace in the country to rise up and come again to the Congress. It took over 90 years for any minority, any black representative from the State of North Carolina to rise up and come again, and it might take a few years for Cleo Fields to rise up and come again, but I believe that this man, with these qualities, with this commitment, with the finesse and vitality and youth that Cleo Fields has, he will rise up and come again and he will make an impression on our Nation in this very House of Representatives. I salute you, my friend, and I wish you the very best in years to come, and I am looking forward to serving again with you. Mr. Jackson of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I do not think that we can provide a higher tribute to the distinguished gentleman from the Fourth District of Louisiana than the tribute provided by Mr. Watt of North Carolina. His historic call perspective is certainly profound. It was George H. White, as he indicated earlier, who said like a phoenix we will rise again. Today we lose a significant Member of the House of Representatives who represented not only African Americans but Anglo-Americans and Asian Americans and Latino Americans in the Fourth Congressional District. There is not one Member of this institution who can challenge the quality of leadership that Congressman Cleo Fields has brought to this institution. He belongs in this House, he belongs in the U.S. Congress, he belongs in the Senate, if he so chooses, and if he so chooses he belongs at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. But the historical perspective is particularly important as we prepare to close out this particular tribute to Representative Fields. When we look at the challenges to representation all across this Nation, when we look at the number of African Americans that have served with great honor and distinction in this institution, none have been able to provide the kind of leadership and the kind of vision over such a short period of time that the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana represents. I would like to take this opportunity as well, Congressman Fields, to support you and I wish you farewell and I wish you the best of luck. Congressman Cleo Fields Fourth District, Louisiana Cleo Fields, a Louisiana Democrat, was re-elected to serve a second term in the United States House of Representatives in 1994. Fields is a member of the House Committee on Banking and Financial Services, and the House Committee on Small Business. He sits on the Subcommittees on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit and Domestic and International Monetary Policy of the Banking Committee, and the Small Business Subcommittees of Government Programs and Tax and Finance. He is the founder of the Education Caucus, and is a member of the Democratic Caucus Committee on Organization, Study, and Review for the 104th Congress, the Congressional Black Caucus, and the Progressive Caucus. Elected to serve his first term in the House of Representatives in 1992, Fields, then 30 years old, was the youngest member of the 103rd Congress. As a freshman, he introduced the Delta Initiatives Act, the Stolen Guns Act, and the Check Cashing Act of 1993. Moreover, he assumed leadership on ATM legislation to provide consumers proper user-fee disclosure. Presently, he continues to work closely with colleagues to ensure enactment of meaningful ATM legislation. Fields' legislative initiatives also include the introduction of the ``Education Trust Fund Act of 1995'' and the ``Tax-free Savings and Investment Income Act.'' His proposed ``Education Trust Fund Act'' levies a gaming tax of five percent to create a trust fund to be used to improve public elementary and secondary schools across the country by increasing funding for teacher salaries, school infrastructure, and educational supplies. Another bill, the ``Tax-free Savings and Investment Income Act,'' encourages savings and investment by allowing tax-payers to make up to $5,000 for individuals and $10,000 for couples in unearned tax free income. In the Banking Committee, he is a persistent advocate for inclusion of adequate consumer protections in all legislation the panel considers. He is responsible for bringing issues such as tenant representation on housing boards, low-cost banking accounts and government check cashing, insurance disclosure, and ATM fee disclosure to the attention of Committee Members. As the House Banking Committee has advanced legislation to roll back consumer protections, Fields has been instrumental in attempting to maintain current standards included in the Community Reinvestment Act, the Truth in Savings Act, the Truth in Lending Act and other consumer banking laws. He has worked closely with consumers and both the banking and insurance industries to explore mutually advantageous solutions to the issue of national banks selling insurance. Congressman Fields has also spent many hours in Committee trying to remedy the BIF/SAIF discrepancy, which has put bankers at odds with the S&L industry regarding their insurance funds. As a residing member of the Small Business Committee, Congressman Fields has launched several initiatives to cultivate and increase economic development for small businesses. He organized the Fourth Congressional District Economic Development Summit, which exposed the local business community to existing federal programs that provide business development and enhancement assistance. Facilitating the Summit were prominent leaders such as the late Commerce Secretary Ron Brown, NASA Administrator Daniel Goldin, and the Regional Director for the Small Business Administration (SBA), Till Phillips. Congresman Fields also spearheaded the drive to secure the future of the SBA's 8 (a) Minority Business Development Program. He challenged attempts to dismantle the program through letters, hearings, press conferences, and special orders. Further, he introduced legislation that requires the SBA to make procurement information available to Minority Business Development Centers in order to assist small and traditionally disadvantaged businesses in securing federal contracts. One of the Congressman's most prized accomplishments is his creation of a Congressional Classroom for elementary and secondary school students. The first of its kind in the country, the Classroom was initiated to develop students' understanding of the legislative process through ``hands-on'' experience and mock legislative sessions. Numbering approximately 1200, Classroom members have had the privilege of hearing first hand from our nation's leaders including the President and Vice President of the United States, the Speaker of the House, the Attorney General, and various Cabinet Members. Each has enthusiastically addressed the students on national issues from their unique perspective of leadership. During the 104th Congress, Fields organized the first-ever Education Caucus and currently serves as its House Chairman. This bi-partisan Caucus is comprised of over 60 Members of both Congressional Chambers. The first hearing, held in May of 1996, focused on the concerns of teachers, parents, and other organizations interested in improving education in our nation. The Caucus has also highlighted the benefits of corporate involvement in education, analyzed the reasons for the success and failure of national and local education programs, featured programs that have the potential to provide national models, and discussed the limitations imposed upon educational opportunities by decreased funding. Throughout his tenure in the U.S. House of Representatives, Congressman Fields has been elected Chairman of both the Congressional Black Caucus Task Force on Redistricting and the CBC Task Force on Church Burnings. As CBC Chair of the Redistricting Task Force, Fields hosted hearings and meetings to provide Members of Congress, state legislators, civil rights leaders and constituents with comprehensive information on all issues pertinent to redistricting and the relevant cases across the nation. Chairing the Task Force on Church Burnings, Fields was able to bring together government and business resources with the congregations of burned churches to begin rebuilding initiatives. Working closely with President Clinton, the Department of Justice, and the Department of Treasury's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, Fields, along with the co-chairs of the National Church Arson Task Force, hosted the first public town hall meeting on church burnings in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Cleo Fields was born on November 22, 1962 in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. He is a 1980 graduate of McKinley High School in Baton Rouge. In 1984, Fields earned his B.A. degree from Southern University in Baton Rouge, where he also served as Student Government Association President and was elected by the Louisiana Council of Student Body Presidents to serve on the Louisiana Board of Regents. Directly following his undergraduate studies, Fields earned his Juris Doctorate from Southern University School of Law. In 1987, the same year he graduated from law school, Fields was elected to the Louisiana State Senate. At the age of 24, he was the youngest state senator in Louisiana history and the youngest state senator in the nation. While in office, Fields sponsored and passed legislation that established Drug Free Zones near school campuses, as well as legislation creating an Inner City Economic Development Program. Concerned with increasing violence in schools, and in an effort to redirect students' attention, Fields introduced school uniform legislation. In 1995, Cleo Fields, again made history by becoming the first African-American in a gubernatorial run-off in the State of Louisiana. Because of his dedicated commitment to education, the environment, economic development, and deficit reduction, he compelled the attention of the electorate. Many believe his candidacy in Louisiana's 1995 gubernatorial election has permanently changed the face of Louisiana politics. Fields is a faithful member of Mt. Pilgrim Baptist-Church in Baton Rouge. He is happily married to Debra Horton Fields, and they have a son named Cleo Brandon Fields.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I just want to caution the gentleman not to do exactly what he is cautioning everybody else not to do. Everybody else has talked about allegations. It is the gentleman who has come to the floor and sprung instinctively to the defense of somebody that we have not even charged with doing anything other than ``let's investigate,'' and for the gentleman to come to the floor and say I have concluded that I do not think these allegations have any basis is the gentleman doing exactly what he is cautioning us not to do.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. WATT of North Carolina

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill. There are a number of reasons that I could oppose it and do oppose it, but I want to speak to two or three of those in this debate since my time is limited. First of all, we asked the Justice Department, as is our prerogative, to give us a prison impact analysis of this bill. Their analysis indicates that over the next 5 years, this bill will cost the taxpayers over $268 million. This is money which, as the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Scott] has indicated, could be better spent on preventing drug use rather than building more prison space and locking up more and more people and still not addressing the underlying problem. Second, my Republican colleagues know that this bill is going nowhere. They are just playing politics with this issue. The Senate has agreed to and passed a methamphetamine bill which does not contain mandatory minimum penalties and they have stated that they will not pass one that does have mandatory minimum sentences. We are too late to conference a bill, so passing a different bill in the House than the one that has passed in the Senate gets you, in the final analysis, absolutely nothing, and that is exactly what my Republican colleagues want. They do not want any bill. They just want to make political points. The third reason I oppose this bill is because they just absolutely abandoned the process. We were in the middle in the Judiciary Committee of marking up this bill. All of a sudden they took the bill from committee, vaulted out on the floor, put it on the suspension calendar and just absolutely disregarded the process that we should be going through. We are rushing to judgment on something that is a serious, serious issue, building another disparity in our sentencing mechanism just like the one that we have between crack cocaine and powder cocaine, ignoring the fact that prevention works better than prisons and doing something shortsighted that is simply political. Oppose this bill today.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, the question I want to ask of the gentleman is if we are sending a message, has the message worked on crack cocaine? You have not deterred a thing with the failed policies of building more prisons, and so all we are doing now is spending $268 million more on prisons to send some other message that has already failed. This is a failed policy that we are pursuing.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from California for yielding me time to debate this bill. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the bill. I guess I could sit quietly. This bill is on suspension. I am sure it will pass. I know that I am swimming against the tide. But there are some things that I think need to be said about the bill, and this is not the first time I have said these things about these kinds of bills, so I feel compelled to say them. I know that tomorrow when I get the messages off my machine in the office, there will be a line of messages from people saying that I have stood up and defended sex offenders and that I have just lost my mind on this bill. That always happens. But somebody needs to talk about what we are doing here and approach this with some degree of rationality. I hope that at least some people will appreciate how I approach it. First of all, this bill has not seen itself in the Committee on the Judiciary, which is where bills of this kind normally go for discussion. Not that the result would be any different. I would be the first to concede that if it had come to the Committee on the Judiciary, it would have been voted out and would have been reported to the floor favorably. But the bill in my opinion offends some sensibilities that we as U.S. citizens ought to be aware of. There are two principles I hold very dearly, because I have been taught about them for as long as I have been in the criminal justice system as a lawyer. First of all is that once a person pays their debt to society, they ought to have the opportunity to put the offense behind them and move on. Under this bill, as under all the Megan's Law bills, there is not that opportunity because the individuals are then, after they have paid their debt to society, required to register with somebody and be basically branded with a badge for the rest of their life under this bill, because this one says that the registration process must go on for life. It used to be 10 years. Now we are extending it to life under this bill. Second, if one does not register, that in and of itself becomes a crime under this bill, which subjects a person to a penalty of up to 1 year in prison or $100,000, and subsequent offenses up to 10 years in prison and up to $100,000, even if the person has done absolutely nothing else to offend the system. They just simply did not register under this bill. Well, it offends me that failure to register should subject somebody to an additional penalty, be put in jail. They have not committed any crime against anybody. They just simply failed to be able to move on with their life. There is a second concern I have about the bill, and that is a constitutional provision which presumes that every American citizen is innocent of a crime until they are proven guilty. This bill presumes just the opposite. If a person is ever convicted of a sexual offense, for the rest of their life they are presumed guilty of some violation. They cannot move into a community and put that incident behind them. They cannot refuse to register without subjecting themselves to additional penalties. So the whole presumption of innocence goes by the board once a person commits some crime for which they have already been sentenced, served their time, paid their debt to society and yet somehow under this bill they are presumed guilty for the balance of their life. I think those two principles, in my estimation, are simply un-American. This can be politically popular. I am sure it is. I mean, Mr. Gramm and Mr. Biden, on opposite sides of the political fence. The President, I am sure, will sign the bill. Most of the public will say that this is something that we should not be concerned about, but I think we are going overboard and we are going further and further overboard the more we beat our chest and sound even tougher on these crimes, which in this bill simply happens to be, well, they did not register. I do not want a Government that requires me, or any citizen, to register. I think that is un-American, and I think it is something that we all ought to be concerned about. I appreciate the gentlewoman yielding me this time.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this bill overturns the 1995 Supreme Court case of United States versus Hubbard in which the Supreme Court overturned 40 years of case law to hold that section 1001 of title 18 of the United States Code does not allow prosecution for false statements made to the judiciary or to Congress. In essence, the Court's holding allows individuals to make false statements to Congress with impunity. When this bill was originally marked up in subcommittee, I was concerned that legislative advocacy not be criminalized. At full committee, however, an amendment providing an exception for legislative advocacy was passed unanimously. In a conference with the Senate, this exception has been further refined. As a result, statements made to Congress for the purpose of legislative advocacy will not be prosecutable. Not only Members of Congress but lobbyists and members of the public will be protected by this provision. I believe that a legislative advocacy exception is necessary, because in the heat of intense arguments over legislation, positions may be exaggerated or overemphasized. Such statements should not be subject to potential prosecution. This amendment will ensure that Members of Congress and members of the public will continue to engage in full uncensored debate over legislation. At the same time, this bill does not protect those who make false statements to Congress in other contexts. Lies about financial statements or other administrative matters should be subject to prosecution. In addition, false statements made to Members of Congress or congressional staff pursuant to authorized investigations would also be subject to criminal prosecution. In short, this bill overturns the recent Supreme Court case and, once again, makes lying to Congress a Federal crime. But it also includes an important but narrow exception designed to ensure uninhibited debate. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I wish to be heard on the point of order.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I made the parliamentary inquiry. I am asking the Chair to rule on whether I have the right to speak on the point of order.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I was on my feet and seeking the attention of the Chair. I have the right to speak on the point of order just like anybody else has the right to speak on the point of order.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Is the Chair saying that we have no right to be heard on whether a point of order is appropriate before the Chair rules on the point of order? As I understand it, Mr. Speaker, that is certainly not the rules of this House. Every party has an opportunity to be heard on whether a point of order is properly taken before the Chair rules on it.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry, if the gentleman from Missouri would yield?

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I am seeking to be recognized on the gentleman's point of order and whether it is appropriate.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I would like to be heard on the point of order, please.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. The Chair will hear me this time? I thank the Chair. I just want to submit to the Speaker that this debate is about yielding unprecedented authority to the Speaker of the House. The Speaker's integrity, the person to whom we are proposing to yield that authority, his integrity is at the heart of the matter. If we cannot get to his integrity, then how can we determine whether we ought to be yielding these unprecedented, overwhelming authorities to him? If we do not like what he was been doing, if he has been out disrespecting the House of the United States, then why should we give him some unprecedented authority called martial law? That is at the very heart. His responsibility, his ethics, are at the very heart of the matter. I would submit, Mr. Speaker, that this is germane to the issues and the matter before this House.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. My colleagues, I want to get back to what this debate is about. It is about whether we give unprecedented authority to the Speaker to bring up any legislation at any time with no advance notice, what we call in the vernacular, martial law. I tell you, I cannot think of anybody in this House I would less like to give unprecedented authority to. If I am thinking about who I am going to give some unprecedented authority to, you think I want to give unprecedented authority to somebody who would lead people to take school lunches out of kids' mouths, to take Medicare away from elderly citizens, whose reputation and ethics are at stake and will not allow anybody to talk about it, who does not want to fund education programs for our children? This is the person we are talking about giving unprecedented authority to? I would not think of giving this man unprecedented authority and voting for this rule. I can think of probably 434 other people in this House I would give it to before I would give it to this Speaker.