Or is this a real constitutional right that we are wiling to pay for as we pay for all other constitutional rights in this country? So when our constituents come and say, ``We can get recovery if our values are diminished,'' will we scratch our heads and say, ``Oh, well, if we appropriate the money, you will get a recovery''? If someone gets a judgment against the United States of America and the agency does not have the money, will we say to them, ``Oh, no, the agency is bankrupt now. You must wait until next year's appropriation''? That is what the bill says. ``It shall be the duty of the head of the agency to seek the appropriation of such funds for the next fiscal year.'' I have never known anybody who got a judgment against the United States who we can put off until the next fiscal year and tell we are not going to pay that judgment until a year from now, or 2 years from now, or we may not pay it at all if they do not appropriate the funds. The question I ask my colleagues in this amendment is to abolish this provision that says you can get your money only from an agency. There is no agency. This is the U.S. Government. I call on my colleagues to make this a first-class constitutional right, not a second-class constitutional right.
Melvin Watt: “Or is this a real constitutional right that we are wiling to pay for as we pay for all other constitutional rights in…”
Editor's note · Context
Debating the implications of a bill regarding judgments against the U.S. government.
Share
More from Melvin Watt
But that is not a justification for an individual member of a collaborative body to make a unilateral decision to turn over confidential information.
I thank the gentleman for yielding time. Mr. Chairman, I want to rise not so much in opposition to the manager's amendment, but in opposition to the bill and so that we can try to make sure that people understand what it is that they are…
There is nothing worse, I have found, in this area of the market than uncertainty, and the longer this drags out, the more uncertainty there is.
I think the 30-year fixed-rate mortgage has become a standard for American homeowners, and it is important to retain that.





