Mel Watt

Mr. WATT of North Carolina

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

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

Mr. WATT of North Carolina

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. Mr. Chairman, I have sat throughout this debate, the entire course of it, and I think we beat this dog probably as much as we can beat it, as we say in North Carolina. I have not heard anybody come here who has not expressed a commitment to a balanced budget. But the American people should know that it is really the debt, the national debt that is the drag on us. So a balanced budget is not going to get us there. It is going to take a series of surplus years to start the reduction in the national debt. I think everybody has talked about that at one level or another. I want to come at this from a slightly different angle because the real problem that I have with the balanced budget amendment, this balanced budget amendment and all of the balanced budget amendments that are coming before us under the series of amendments, is that they jeopardize my right to have an equal vote in this institution. Every amendment that is coming before this body has a three-fifths majority of some kind in it. Everything that I stand for tells me that my vote and the votes of my constituents, based on constitutional principles, ought to be equally valued. So I cannot support a constitutional amendment that says to me that next week or next year or in the year 2002 somehow my vote in this body is going to be less valuable than another Member of this body. This three-fifths majority devalues my vote. The second problem is that despite all of the protestations to the contrary, the American people do not operate their lives on a balanced budget every year. We fund the acquisition of homes by borrowing, we finance education by borrowing. Those are investments that we make because we think they are important. Over time, over a long period of time, we pay those things off, but they pay dividends to us in the meantime. Now I had an amendment that I offered before the Committee on Rules, I tried to get it to address this issue of devaluing my vote. I went to the Rules Committee and I said, ``Here is an amendment that would have a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, but when we were going to waive that balanced budget amendment, we come back in here and we would take a vote by majority so that every Member of this House would continue to have an equal value to their vote because that is the constitutional principle, that is the majority rule principle, that is the American way, that is the fair way.'' But the Committee on Rules, I say to my colleagues and the American people, elected not to make this amendment in order. I had nine other amendments that I tried to offer to this bill in the Committee on the Judiciary on which I sit. The committee closed down at 6:30 on Wednesday, 2 weeks ago, and said, ``We are not going to take any more amendments. We don't care whether you are a member of this committee or not, we are not going to let you offer any amendments.'' So I am being deprived of the value of my vote; I am being deprived of the opportunity to offer amendments on this floor, and I think that is the disservice that we are doing to the American people. We have got to debate these things regardless of the outcome of the vote and come in and vote and take those hard choices, and then we can maybe balance the budget.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I first read it in the Washington Post and I had my doubts about it. Then I read it in the Farm Journal. This is a quote. ``We have to explain to people in advance what a balanced budget amendment is going to mean. I am for it, but you got to tell people you can't have it without giving something up.'' Our Senate majority leader, a Republican. He needs to tell the people on this side in the House the same message. Unlike his Republican counterparts over here who steadfastly refuse to discuss the actual cost of the balanced budget amendment, claiming that if Americans knew the real costs, their knees would buckle. The balanced budget amendment may be good political public relations. but it is not integrity and open government, which is what the Republicans say they want. We have to be honest with the American people about the balanced budget amendment.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina

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

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I would simply want to inquire of the gentleman, if you support this or you do not support it, do you want to leave this question up in the air or do you want it resolved? Because if you want it resolved, then the only way too resolve it is to pass the amendment. Now if you want it up in the air, as I do, then you should vote with me, and leave it unresolved, so that, as the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff] knows, every criminal defendant will take every opportunity they can to raise any conceivable constitutional or legalese right they can. So if we want to resolve it, then I would think we would want to vote ``yes'' on this amendment. If we want to leave it mushy and up in the air and unresolved, then I would say Members ought to be voting against this amendment.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I find myself in an usual position of rising in opposition to this amendment and in the process to point out the irrationality of the underlying bill and what is happening in this body. I was one of the few people in this body who actually spoke against this provision in the crime bill when it was inserted. I think the provision is unconstitutional. It is counter everything that our criminal laws have stood for in this country, the presumption of innocence. It is counter the notion that I learned all the way through law school and in 22 years of practice that once a person has served his or her time, they have done the time, they should be given a new start, and I expressed this concern. So I have consistently been of the position that this provision in the crime bill is unconstitutional. But what is happening here on this bill is irrationality. There is a marching in lockstep without regard to the public policy consequences of what is being done. Even people who are on the opposite side of me philosophically on this issue and want to keep this bill intact do not want to amend it even when it makes good sense from a public policy perspective and in support of their own position, and that is unforgivable. We should not be here just kind of marching, keeping every amendment from going forward. I think we ought to defeat this amendment, because I think the speakers before are absolutely right. People who now believe this provision to be unconstitutional are going to have another day in court to come and assert that right which they ought to have. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle in order to keep any amendments from going forward on this bill, even though they do not want that right to happen, do not want that right to be real, are marching lockstep just to show their muscle on this issue. I am telling Members that it does not make sense. In all respects, this probably should be the endorsement of a no vote that gets this passed, but I tell Members, I think the provision in the underlying bill was unconstitutional and I think we ought to stand up and vote against it and I intend to vote with you.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, on this anniversary of the landmark Roe versus Wade decision I want to express my disgust at the recent outbreaks of violence at our Nation's family planning clinics. Roe versus Wade affirmed that the women in this country have a right to reproductive choice. This right to choose, like every other constitutional rights, must be vigilantly guarded regardless of one's individual beliefs. The outbreaks of violence we have seen recently at family planning facilities are chilling reminders of the violence we saw surrounding polling places in the 1950's, 1960's, and 1970's, as African-Americans attempted to exercise their constitutional right to vote. We must not allow any constitutional right to be abridged through campaigns of violent intimidation.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, in the Judiciary Committee a couple of weeks ago, we adopted a set of rules which provide that a hearing can be called only by the committee on 7 days' notice. We conducted a hearing that was not so called, and the chairman of that committee advised the committee that the word ``committee'' does not mean committee, it means chair instead and invited us to seek an opinion from the Parliamentarian which we did, and the Parliamentarian's opinion indicated that the word ``committee'' means, in fact, ``committee.'' My parliamentary inquiry is: Should we take this as an indication, in conjunction with yesterday, that we are going to make up the rules as we go along and make technical changes to suit the whims of the chairs of the committees and whoever is presiding over the House, or can we rely now on the rules as they are written?

Mr. WATT of North Carolina

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, on last Wednesday at approximately 6 o'clock the Judiciary Committee, after 1 day of markup on the balanced budget amendment, and with the Democratic members of that committee having in excess of 20 amendments to the bill that was pending, closed debate and went home on Wednesday afternoon. On yesterday, congressional accountability came to the floor without the benefit of any deliberations or debate in committee. Today we stifle debate on the floor of the Congress. I would just say to the American people that gridlock is being replaced in this body by totalitarianism.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I intend to vote for this bill, but the American people should note that there is nobody who has gotten on the floor today who has not expressed some reservation about the content of this bill. The reason for that is the process by which this bill is here. In that sense, it is business as usual and the American people ought to know that it is business as usual. We come here without the ability to amend this bill even though as soon as this bill is debated, we will be off for the rest of the day. Last week we were in committee debating a balanced budget amendment and marking it up. At the end of the day, at 6, despite the fact that it was Wednesday afternoon and we were going home, we adjourned for the day. Still we cannot take the time to debate these issues that are important to the American people.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, if we believe in term limits on committee Chairs and limits on proxy voting, then we should vote for it. That is the majority way. That is the democratic way. However, I draw the line when Members start to diminish the value of my vote by requiring a 60-percent rule on anything. That is not the majority way. That is not democracy. That is not any way to treat a minority. I would submit that it is un-American, it is unconstitutional, and the 60-percent rule by majority vote is un-American and unconstitutional. I ask you to vote against this idiocy.