Mel Watt

Mr. WATT of North Carolina

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, I do not know how this could be an absurdity unless the fourth amendment itself is an absurdity. The words speak for themselves. They say exactly what the fourth amendment says. It seems to me that preserves the Constitution, not denigrates the bill.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, Members of the House, this amendment would simply have the effect of providing that evidence could be admitted into court after a search and seizure providing that the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched. If this language sounds familiar to the Members of this body, it is the exact language of the fourth amendment of the U.S. Constitution. I want to start by thanking my cosponsors of this amendment, Mr. DeFazio and Mr. Fields, for jointly sponsoring this. We believe in the Constitution of the United States. Mr. Chairman, after I addressed the body in general debate and after I addressed the body on the balanced budget amendment, several of my colleagues have asked me why I get so excited about the Constitution of the United States. They ask me, ``Why are you so conservative when it comes to the Constitution of the United States?'' I respond to them that we all bring our different perspectives to this body. We all bring our different histories to this body. We heard an eloquent example of this during the last debate from the gentleman from Chicago [Mr. Rush]. My history is this: I learned the Constitution from a constitutional specialist, Robert Bork. My friends on the other side may understand that. They know him well, a very conservative gentleman. I also studied under Professor Emerson. These two gentleman were at opposite ends of the spectrum. But one thing they believed vigorously in was the Constitution of the United States. And when I started practicing law, it was not surprising that the first jury trial that I handled called into question the first amendment provisions, because I was called upon to represent the interests of a group of native Americans who had been demonstrating against attending school with black kids. And despite the fact that I disagreed with them in what they were demonstrating about, I thought they had a right to demonstrate and to the protection of their first amendment rights. Later my law firm was called upon to represent the Ku Klux Klan when they were demonstrating, and we also protected their rights to demonstrate under the first amendment, despite the fact that we disagreed with what they were demonstrating about. So my commitment to the Constitution does not have anything to do with whether I agree with somebody or disagree with somebody. My commitment is to defend the Constitution. And when I took the oath in this body, my commitment to that proposition continued. It is a conservative philosophy which I espouse. I love the Constitution of the United States. Even when it is not convenient for me to love it, I still think it needs to be defended and protected, contrary to some of my colleagues, apparently, in this body. For over 205 years now we have had this sacred language in the fourth amendment of the Constitution. It says that people ought to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures. Today my colleagues come in with new language, trying to add some other language that they would have the Supreme Court go back and interpret for 200 more years.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I just simply wanted to inquire of the gentleman from South Carolina whether he agreed with the amendment guts the bill by putting in the provisions of the fourth amendment, which is the Constitution. Is it the gentleman's opinion that, as the gentleman from Florida has expressed, that it guts the gentleman's bill?

Mr. WATT of North Carolina

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the President on his proposal to increase the minimum wage and encourage my colleagues to have hearings on the proposal and move it to passage immediately. Over two-thirds of working people making the minimum wage are adults over 21 years of age. They work 40 hours a week and still live below the poverty level. Let us be blunt: All the current minimum wage and 40 hours of work will get you is poverty. That is shameful. While the rich get richer over the last 15 years, the real value of the minimum wage has fallen 27 percent since 1979. If we expect working people to be responsible, we need work to pay. Let us pass the President's proposal and increase the minimum wage.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I have conferred with the leadership and have been advised by the minority leadership that, notwithstanding the fact that this appears to be inconsistent with the rule adopted by the majority which does away with absentee voting in committees, and notwithstanding the fact that it will require some Members to be in two places at one time, we will not object to this request. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I wanted the opportunity to vote this thing ought not to see the light of day. I wanted to amend it maybe to reduce it to 2 days instead of 2 weeks. Having said that, Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, what ever happened to our gift ban? Last year the House voted two separate times to stop lobbyists from paying for Members' meals, entertainment and other ``gimmees,'' but the Republicans in the other body stopped the gift ban in its tracks. On the first day of this Congress, Mr. Speaker, House Democrats moved to impose tough gift restrictions and royalty limits, but the effort failed with not a single Republican in support. In the meantime, the image of our Members continues to be battered by book deals and other appearances of impropriety. If we are looking for respect, let us pass the gift ban. Mr. Speaker, give our image a break. Let us pass a gift ban.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I was in a crime bill markup, so I will try not to take my 5 minutes. But I did want to come over and congratulate my colleague from North Carolina on this fine amendment that she has proposed to this bill, and to express my support for this amendment. Before I came to the Congress I spent 22 years practicing law, and a substantial part of my practice was workers' compensation cases. I am sure somebody is going to jump up and say, ``well workers' compensation is State regulated and that makes our point.'' Workers' compensation is State regulated. But in just about every workers' compensation case that I had in which a serious injury resulted, the workers' compensation coverage would come in and make its payments, and the victim would be partially or even in some cases fully taken care of, but there was nothing in place beyond workers' compensation to, at the State level, assure that the condition that resulted in that injury was addressed beyond just that particular victim. So, in just about every one of those cases we ended up then appealing through the OSHA laws to a standard that had been set that required the employer then to address a correction of the condition that existed so future injuries would not occur of the same kind. So, it is that standard-setting mechanism I think we have got to protect. I have heard a lot of arguments during the course of this debate about this particular amendment, and against other amendments that suggest this is just a procedural thing and we can override this mandate. The concern I have about that is I have two concerns, and the gentleman is smiling because he thinks I am going off on this three- fifths supermajority, but I am not going there yet. I have two concerns.

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

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

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I understand. Let me go on ahead and make the second point, that is the slippery slope argument, because what I see happening is as soon as we put this majority requirement in here the next step down the road is going to be to jack this up to a three-fifths majority rule which I spent so much time arguing against in yesterday's debate. But the other point I want to make, and I will yield as soon as I make this point, is that even with a majority rule situation, these national standard laws are typically designed, look at the civil rights laws, the OSHA laws, various and sundry Federal standards that have been set, have been designed to protect people who have less influence in the process, children, minorities, workers who have been injured on the job. And typically they are not the kind of people who are going to have the kind of influence in the process when this comes to a vote again on the House floor to exert that kind of influence in the process. So, it gives me no comfort when my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say, ``Well, this does not mean anything.'' Well, if it does not mean anything, why are we passing it? I cannot understand that argument. Why we have spent all this time on this bill on this floor of the House, as valuable as the Members of Congress' time is, and we are passing something that does not mean anything, because we can come back and override it next week on a majority vote? So that is the point I want to make, and I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger].

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I understand.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I understand that, reclaiming my time, I understand it in the context of this bill in this debate. But I bet the gentleman 10, 15 years ago, had he asked somebody would we be today amending the Constitution to require a three-fifths majority for anything that was not already in the Constitution, whoever was standing in the gentleman's position would have said, ``Oh no, I have no contemplation of that ever happening.'' Mr. Chairman, I encourage my colleagues to vote for this amendment.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Reclaiming my time, though, if that is the case, what is the problem with exempting these?

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

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Reclaiming my time, let me just make this point. If we have 60 amendments and each one of them is valuable, and we agree to exempt them by majority vote from this bill right now, and we acknowledge that they are valuable, what is the problem with exempting 40 different things, if we acknowledge right now that they are valuable? If they are valuable things, then your bill needs to be destroyed, or limited, or restricted to that extent. That is the point I am making.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, what is the problem with exempting these important things that my colleagues acknowledge systematically are important?

Mr. WATT of North Carolina

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, the 100-day dream has become a 100-day nightmare. The process by which this balanced budget amendment to the Constitution came to the floor of this House is the classic example. I serve on the Committee on the Judiciary out of which this balanced budget amendment comes. Two weeks ago on a Wednesday afternoon, with over 20 amendments still unoffered in committee, the committee closed down operation and went home. The Rules Committee, with over 100 amendments still pending, limited amendments on the floor to 6. To amend the Constitution, if we are lucky in this body, we will get 2 days of debate. This is not democracy, America; this is irresponsibility.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, the amendment before the House at this time would require a three-fifths majority to raise taxes. I want to spend a minute or two talking about democracy, not taxes, not balanced budget amendments, but democracy, about due process, about equal protection of the law, about majority rule. Every time we put a provision in our Constitution that goes away from a simple majority, what I want to submit to my colleagues and to the American people is that we are doing something that is undemocratic. There is diversity in this body. Four hundred and thirty-five Members of this body come from all parts of this country: different colors, different genders, different perspectives, different regions, personalities, and we reflect the diversity of this great Nation. Any time we upset that 50 percent plus one majority rule proposition, we take away the power or we give extra power to some other part of this Nation and some other view in this Nation. So I am here today to talk about majority rule and the importance of standing up for majority rule. This is not about a balanced budget amendment. It is about my ability to have the same right and the same responsibility as my colleagues in this body. This is counter democratic. It is counter equal protection. It is counter majority rule. And I encourage my colleagues to get real and defend the constitution rather than amend the constitution to give us their notion of what fiscal policy ought to be.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Visclosky]. (Mr. VISCLOSKY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Peterson]. to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Stupak].

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs].

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio].