Mel Watt

Mr. WATT of North Carolina

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate both of these fine gentlemen for setting the table for me because the comments I have to make play right into this. I did, during the debate, try to prepare my constituents for this possibility. The problem is that nobody believed what I was saying, and I guess I even had trouble believing it myself. How could over $5 trillion in surpluses, projected surpluses disappear within 1 year? I mean, it was impossible for anybody to comprehend that. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman from Iowa would allow me to control my time, that would be helpful to me. The problem is nobody would believe that this was even possible, but I want to just go through the facts. This administration has been in office just over 1 year. We had $3.12 trillion, not even including the Social Security surplus projected as a surplus for the next 10 years, and 1 year later it is gone. Despite the administration's claims that this is all about September 11 or some economic downturn, over 40 percent of that vanishing surplus is due to the tax cut, and the commitment to hold Social Security in a lockbox has vanished. There is no commitment anymore. A year and a half ago, we were out there worrying about whether or not we were going to pay the debt down too fast in this country and whether that would be detrimental. What are we doing now? We are talking about another trillion dollars or more in additional interest on debt over the next 10 years. This is all in 1 year. So why could not my constituents believe it? Nobody could believe that this could happen in 1 year. What is the plan? We played out the plan over the last 8 years, and you have done away with it within 1 year. You have done away with it. So if you want to know the plan, the plan is to get you all out of office so that we can have some responsibility in this place again. That is the plan, and I think the American people will understand that that is the plan. The seniors, the children, the people who care about the environment, they will understand what the plan is when we worked so hard to put this country back on sound economic footing, and you will not even allow a proposed amendment to come to the floor, and you have got the nerve to come in here and say where is your plan. Where is the rule that allows anybody to offer a plan? The Blue Dogs cannot offer a plan. The Black Caucus cannot offer a plan. The Democratic Caucus cannot offer a plan because your rule does not allow any plan other than the demise of this country. That is what your plan is and the American people know what your plan is. They understand. Now, do you want to give more tax cuts to wealthy people? This is about priorities. This is about priorities. We can either give more tax cuts to wealthy people or we can give better education. We can give more tax cuts or we can give more assistance to prevent AIDS from spreading around the world. We can give more tax cuts to wealthy people or we can do more employment training so people who have been laid off by this recession, so that they can get some jobs. That is what this is all about, and our plan is to get rid of this administration and bring some responsibility back to government.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, it is always great to come to the floor and engage in a debate with members of the Committee on the Judiciary, because all of them were good lawyers before they came to Congress, so you know that they will try to build their case in the way that they would litigate a case if they were in court, and they will sometimes fudge the facts and obfuscate and do whatever is necessary to prove a point. We have had a lot of that happening already. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), of course, knows that one of the purposes for class action suits is that sometimes the amount that an individual member of the class would gain from that suit is so small that he or she cannot afford to litigate it without the benefit of putting that claim with other claims of other people who are similarly situated, so the gentleman has done a great job of making it appear that the lawyers in the cases got disproportionate amounts of money to the members of the class. What the gentleman did not tell you in each of these cases was the total amount that was going to the class members in each one of those cases, whether they were litigated in State court or Federal court, and that is the primary reason that you have class actions. I want to point out a couple of things. I want to acknowledge that there are abuses in the class action system, and anybody who gets up here and tells you that there are not abuses in the class action system probably does not know anything about litigating cases. The real question, though, is will this bill eliminate those abuses, or will this bill make it possible for other abuses to take place that are worse than the abuses that are taking place now? I would submit that this bill will not eliminate abuses, and that the bill will, in fact, add to the number of abuses in the system. The one abuse that I think is first and foremost I talked about in 1999 when we first had this bill on the floor. This is not the first time this bill has been here. This is the way I described it back then. I practiced law for a number of years before I ever got to Congress, and I raised this basic fairness argument. If a plaintiff is injured, he goes and hires a lawyer. That lawyer cultivates, researches, puts together the case, decides where the appropriate place to litigate that case is, spends months and months preparing for the case; and then, 2 days before he is getting ready to go in and start the real processing of the case, somebody from the outside, a member of the class, comes and hijacks that case and moves it to a Federal court. There is something to me that is basically unfair about that. That is what this bill will allow to happen, one of those abuses that I am talking about. The second point I want to make is that the proponents of this bill are the same people who in 1994, 1995, I guess, when they came riding into Congress and took the majority, came in talking about that they supported the notion of removing things from the Federal level and returning them to the local level. Decentralized government, they said they believed in. The whole system of federalism was in jeopardy, they said, and we needed to return power to the States. So, now, why are we on the floor today with a group of people saying to me, well, this is inefficient and this is too time consuming? Well, democracy is inefficient and time consuming. Federalism is inefficient and time consuming. But we have decided in our Constitution that some things should be done at the State level and some things should be done at the Federal level, and just because we find it convenient to bring something into Federal court should not be the rationale on which we do that. I think the same people who are out there giving lip service to States' rights should not be in here talking about let us take the whole field of tort law and federalize it and put it in the Federal courts.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I object.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I object.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to me to make a statement regarding a matter that I regard as a problem of epidemic proportions. I want to thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton) and the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn) for organizing this Special Order to deal with a very, very serious problem. The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn) has approached this from an historical perspective, and I admire him for doing that. There are many, many, many instances of just absolute overt, fraudulent, or scheming, or illegal takings of property that can be documented throughout the annals of history, takings of property from African American families who had struggled and worked so hard to acquire property. I subscribe to the gentleman's belief that those issues can be addressed and should be addressed and identified and addressed through legal action, and I hope that Professor Ogletree and other members of the legal profession will proceed with efforts to do that. There perhaps is not, except for slavery itself and the deprivation of voting rights of African Americans, not a greater epidemic or problem than the loss of land, particularly in the South, from African American ownership. It is estimated that at one point in our history, African Americans owned approximately 15 million acres of land in the South. The estimates now indicate that that land ownership is down to approximately 2 million acres. Now, there are many reasons for that, and the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn) has identified the overt historical reasons for it, but in addition to that, and this is where I want to pick up and bring it on up to date in a slightly different context so that we understand fully the issues that we are involved with, in addition to direct taking of property, swindling, fraudulent taking, intimidation of landowners and their families so that they would leave their property behind, and that property then being claimed by members of the majority race, there are other things that have contributed to this, and I want to talk about some of them. They, on their face, do not always seem like they are racially motivated. I want to be careful to say that these are not racist plots that I am talking about; they are race-neutral in their application, but they are not race-neutral in the impact that they have. They have a disparate impact on black land ownership. I want to talk about a few of those. First of all, there is this concept of eminent domain. That is a race-neutral principle that the government uses to acquire property for public purposes. But historically, if one goes back and looks, eminent domain has been used disproportionately to deprive black landowners of their property than it has been used to deprive white landowners of their property. The reason for that is that typically, property that has been owned by black landowners has been lower in value. When the government needs to take property for a public purpose, it wants to spend as little money as it can spend to accomplish that public purpose, so they go and try to acquire the land that has the lowest economic value. Or, the government will say, well, if we go to a certain section of town and start to acquire property, then we will meet with greater political opposition, so we should go through the parts of the community where we will get the least amount of political resistance. So it is not accidental that when one drives down an interstate highway, many of those interstate highways go from city to city to city, but one of the things that they have in common is that they typically go through minority communities, splitting them right in half in many instances. The reason for that is because property values were lower in those communities where the acquisitions were being made, and that was the course of the least political resistance to the taking. So eminent domain, a race-neutral concept, has a racially disparate impact, and that has been a method by which black landowners have been deprived of land. The whole concept of heir property and partition of property, again, is a race-neutral principle that in its application has a disparate impact on minority landownership. Minority families have historically had larger families. Many of them have left the South; the kids have left the South, gone to the North, spread out all over the country, and when their parents die, they die without a will, and the land becomes heir property. We have 10 children that become owners, none of them have real ownership because they do not have any real connection to the property, so there are disputes that develop about whether the property gets divided. Typically it does not get divided, it gets sold to people who will pay lesser value for it. Or it gets sold because the taxing authorities take it and sell it. Because 10 people have an interest in the property, no single one of them wants to assume the burden of paying the taxes on that property. I daresay that there is not a Member of the Congressional Black Caucus who does not have some history in their own family or in their community of people who have been deprived of ownership of land in this way, through heir property, through lack of wills, through eminent domain, through partition actions that turned out to be sales actions, and the beat goes on. So how do we get from 15 million acres of land owned by minorities in the South down to 2 million acres? We have overt, racist, intimidating acts of the kind that the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn) described, and we have race-neutral, innocent-sounding acts like eminent domain and partition and tax sales that have a racially disparate impact on land ownership. What the Congressional Black Caucus is intent on doing is trying to bring more attention to this; trying to educate the public that that is a problem of epidemic proportions, so that minority individuals understand the value of land. When I was growing up, when I got a little bit older, my parents used to say to me, land is the only commodity that the Lord is not going to make any more of. There will not be any more land made. So when you lose land, you have lost something of value. So we are trying to get that message out to the public in African American communities, and we are trying to understand and let other people understand the epidemic proportions of what we are about. I think we have the historical part of it now and the present-day part of it, and I am sure there are many other aspects to this, but there are other people here to talk about them. So I want to yield back to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton). I want to thank her and my colleague, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn) again, for reserving this time so that we can shine a light on this problem that has epidemic proportions in this country, in the history of this country, and even continuing today in sinister ways that people do not understand.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I could not resist the opportunity to come over and say how much my good friend, David Bonior, has meant to me in my service in the U.S. House of Representatives. I came to Congress in January of 1993, and David was certainly one of the people who took me under his wing and taught me the process. He is a student of parliamentary procedure, and we had a little group called the parliamentarian group that we used to use, sometimes to our substantive advantage and sometimes to the chaos of the House, but when we wanted to try to get things accomplish that the leadership would not voluntarily accomplish. It has been a great pleasure for me to serve with David Bonior. He has certainly been at the top of the list of principal people who have served in this House with strong beliefs in, and willingness to fight for, working people and the things that he believes in. This House is going to miss him immensely and wish him godspeed and the very best in the future.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor an exemplary leader, Bishop S.C. Madison, who is celebrating the 75th anniversary of the United House of Prayer for All People's Convocation, his 61st anniversary as minister and his 10th anniversary as bishop of the United House of Prayer. Bishop Madison is an exceptional leader who has championed the causes of eliminating poverty, inadequate and unaffordable housing, unemployment, illiteracy, economic disparities and spiritual depravation. The magnitude, depth and substance of his contributions to improve human welfare and social reform have brought him national acclaim. The leadership of Bishop C.M. Grace, Bishop W. McCollough and Bishop S.C. Madison has had a positive impact on the growth of the United House of Prayer since its earliest existence in tents and storefront locations. Currently, under the leadership of Bishop Madison, there has been expansion to 135 congregations in 26 states. The church's massive, nationwide building program has resulted in construction of over 800 units of low and moderate income housing. These housing complexes are located in New Haven, CT; Washington, DC; Norfolk, VA; Charlotte, NC; Augusta, GA; Savannah, GA; and Los Angeles, CA. More than 100 units have been developed for senior citizens. The extraordinary success of Bishop Madison has led to numerous honors and awards from national, state, and local organizations. Academic institutions have presented honorary degrees to him acknowledging his outstanding achievements in helping to overcome deplorable conditions that plagued people and cities. He has received Doctor of Humane Letters from the Saturday College of Washington, DC and Bowie State University of Bowie, MD. Bishop Madison continues to demonstrate outstanding leadership, dispense an abundance of love and philanthropy and support causes for young people and the elderly. Bishop Madison's ministry promotes higher education, exercises business acumen, improves the spiritual fiber of society and maintains the United House of Prayer as a beacon of light for those who need inspiration and a safe haven from the harsh realities of life. It is my pleasure to stand before the House to pay tribute to Bishop S.C. Madison as he marks 61 years in the ministry and 10 years of service as the outstanding role model and leader of the United House of Prayer for all people.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I was sitting in my office and I thought I misunderstood what my colleague who is pushing this rule had to say, and then he said it again, that a bipartisan group of people have gotten together and gotten behind a bill; and, therefore, since you have a bipartisan bill, democracy should be suspended and other people who want to offer their amendments and have their voices be heard should not be given that opportunity. I got alarmed by that, because quite often that is the way people perceive that democracy works. You get some people kind of at the center of the democracy and they say, well, we represent this perspective and this perspective, one marginally on the progressive side and one marginally on the conservative side, and we represent America, so the rest of America should not be heard. That is what this rule reminds me of. A small group of people who have decided that this bill should be the vehicle for election reform have gotten together; and the Committee on Rules has said, well, if we break apart this fragile compromise and allow people either on the progressive side or on the conservative side to offer amendments, then somehow democracy will be undermined. There is something wrong with that analysis. We all come here to represent our districts and to bring our voices to the table, and this process is not allowing that to happen. I hope we will vote down this rule and give us the opportunity to participate.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Dr. George Simkins, Jr., a resident of my congressional district, who died on November 21 and is being funeralized today in Greensboro, North Carolina. Dr. Simkins, a former president of the Greensboro NAACP for 25 years, was a civil rights pioneer who helped integrate the Greensboro City Council and open public facilities to African Americans. Dr. Simkins was a vigilant and constant warrior for equity, equality, and justice. In this role, he paved the way for many of us to achieve successes that would otherwise have been unattainable and then stood shoulder to shoulder with us to continue the fight. Politically, George was a strong supporter, adviser and mentor. Personally, George was my tennis buddy and my true friend. Greensboro, North Carolina, and our Nation have lost a sturdy warrior whose important work will be remembered for years to come. I offer my condolences to the family of Dr. George Simkins, Jr.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, several days after the events of September 11, some of my insurance company representatives who are based in my district approached me and described what would become a very, very serious problem. Essentially, they said that most of the reinsurance in this country, a lot of it is being done by off-shore reinsurers, and that those people were not going to reinsure against terrorism after the events of September 11. It became obvious that there was a serious problem that would need to be addressed, and I committed to work to try to address that problem, both in the Committee on Financial Services and in the Committee on the Judiciary, both of which I am a member of. We did that in the Committee on Financial Services. We reported out a bill that received virtual unanimous support. Unfortunately, just like the PATRIOT bill, the antiterrorism bill that the Committee on the Judiciary had reported out unanimously, the leadership got its hands on the product of our committee and rewrote the bill. They inserted provisions that had little, or nothing, I would submit, to do with the problem that the insurance companies had described to me in that initial meeting, the one dealing with reinsurance and the necessity for reinsurance. This bill has been hijacked, unfortunately, the same way that the so- called PATRIOT bill was hijacked by the leadership, and provisions have been placed in this bill which actually just make it unsupportable. We are going to have a serious problem if we do not get to a final product on this bill very soon. Insurance policies that are expiring and are having to be renewed will need terrorism coverage, and it is that kind of brinksmanship that I am concerned about; because as the ranking member has indicated, we have taken a situation which could have been resolved easily through bipartisan cooperation, that had been resolved through bipartisan cooperation on our Committee on Financial Services, and the leadership has decided that it would rather play political brinksmanship with this bill. If a product is not delivered that is satisfactory before the end of this year, I hope that the American people will hold the people who are responsible for this brinksmanship responsible for their conduct, and I encourage my colleagues to vote against this bill today.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, to my colleague the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick), I want to first express my sincere thanks to her for helping to organize this and for coming up with the idea and supporting this effort. I was listening to the tributes that have already been done this evening, and I thought about a book, and I could not think of the name of it. I thought it was Three Degrees of Separation. I was later told by the Parliamentarian that it was Six Degrees of Separation. As I recall the theory that is advanced in that book, if you go six people out from yourself, you will always find someone who has a relationship to you. Now, I may not be expressing it exactly right. The Parliamentarian probably knows the theory better than I do. But certainly, the statements that have been made this evening suggest to me that somewhere within several degrees, perhaps no more than 6 degrees, we are all related to each other in some special way. The people who were killed as a result of the terrorist acts of September 11 are related to all of us now because they have become our special heroes. I did not know any of these people personally, but every time I turn around, I run into somebody who knew one of these people personally and I know that person, so we are 2 degrees separated from a person who died on September 11. So what I would like to do is give some examples of that from my own experience. Again, these are not people that I know, but they have a strong connection to me now in some special way. Mr. James Debeuneure, a fifth grade teacher, who happens to have attended and graduated from the Johnson C. Smith University in Charlotte, North Carolina. Prior to his death, he lived in suburban Washington, a 58-year-old elementary school teacher, and died while making the kind of effort to which he dedicated much of his adult life, helping children learn. On Tuesday, the jet carrying Debeuneure and dozens of other passengers on a flight from Dulles Airport outside Washington to Los Angeles was hijacked by terrorists and crashed into the Pentagon. His family says that he was headed to California to attend a National Geographic program designed to help teachers in presenting geography and science issues. ``He was going to learn as much as he could about rivers and ocean sides so he could bring it back for his kids,'' his son, Jacques Debeuneure, said. Speaking from his family's home in Upper Marlboro, Maryland, Jacques recalled the extra efforts that his father always made for his fifth grade students at the Ketcham Elementary School in Southeast Washington. ``My dad was a good man who loved to teach kids,'' his son said, his voice cresting with emotion. ``He would give his own lunch to those kids in his class when they would forget their lunch. He was a very compassionate man whose focus was educating youngsters. He wanted to make a difference in their lives.'' Three degrees of separation from a gentleman who attended college in my congressional district. The story of Sandra Bradshaw, who grew up on a 90-acre farm in Climax, North Carolina. Sandy Bradshaw dreamed of being a flight attendant, but the reality was that she and her 4 siblings had to tend to more than 30,000 chickens being raised for a poultry producer. But Pat and John Waugh did not hold their children back. At age 16, they were allowed to find another job other than tending chickens. Ultimately, Sandy Bradshaw kept her eyes on the goal of being a flight attendant, and in 1990 joined US Airways as a flight attendant. Five months later she was laid off during cutbacks, but beginning in October when she married U.S. Airways pilot Phil Bradshaw, her luck changed. By December of that year, she was working for United Airlines. While family vacations in North Carolina had rarely ventured beyond the State's borders, the Bradshaws saw the world: Australia, New Zealand, Hawaii, the Caribbean, and most of the United States. ``Every place we went we had a blast,'' Phil Bradshaw said. ``My wife loved to travel. That is why we waited so long to have kids. Alexandria was born in 1998, Nathan last year, and Sandy cut her flights to the bare minimum, 2 day-trips a month from Newark to San Francisco, or to Los Angeles. She always wanted to be here for the kids,'' her husband said. Yet, she loved the days she had between return flights since it gave her a chance to relax, do her nails and catch up on magazine reading before returning home to Greensboro, North Carolina and her husband, children, and her flower garden. Sandy Bradshaw died in the crash in Pennsylvania. A third connection to people that I know that are connected to me, Johnson C. Smith must have suffered a severe impact from these events, because Leon Smith was the parent of 2 young people who are now students at Johnson C. Smith University, again, in my congressional district. Leon Smith was many things to many people in his New York community. Generous, affable, and a hero. A New York firefighter who was killed when the World Trade Center collapsed after a terrorist attack on September 11, Leon Smith was a community anchor in the Brooklyn Heights community his daughter, Yolanda, said Tuesday at Johnson Smith University where she is a freshman with her twin sister, Tiffany. ``He had a sense of humor, and I did not realize how much he affected everybody in the community that he worked in,'' his daughter said. ``It is like I go down there and everybody knows him as a gentle giant. He was 6-feet-4, had a heart of a Teddy bear, a little baby. He was the most sensitive guy you would ever meet. He was handsome and strong and he is my hero. While people were running out of the World Trade Center, he was running in trying to save people.'' One of Leon Smith's goals was to see that his daughters graduated from Johnson C. Smith University, and they will, with the help of a scholarship fund established for children of victims of the terrorist attacks in New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania. The United Negro College Fund is providing full scholarships to its 39 member schools for students who lost parents in the attacks. The Smith sisters and Vernessa Richard, another Johnson C. Smith senior, were the first to receive scholarships, something Yolanda Smith said her dad, who did not get to finish college, would have really approved of. ``I could just see him smiling and saying, `you go, girl' or something of that nature, and just being really proud like when he found out we were going to school. He was just so proud. He worked so hard for both my sister and I, and our sister back home in New York, to continue his dream and have us finish college.'' Another degree of separation. Well, it is even closer than that almost for me. My son lives in Brooklyn, New York, taught 4-year-olds in the Brooklyn public schools, New York public schools, and played basketball with Kenny Caldwell. Kenny Caldwell. We know how most people have to bend down to scratch their knee. Kenny Caldwell did not have to do that, because his hands were the size of baseball mitts and arms that went on forever. ``He was a little slim Jimmy,'' said his mother Elsie Caldwell from her hometown in Philadelphia, ``with big hands and a big, big heart. I called him my little chocolate drop.'' Mr. Caldwell, Kenny, 30 when he was killed, liked being a technology salesman for Alliance Consulting Group on the 102nd floor of 1 World Trade Center, but what he loved was figuring out ways to get people together. ``I used to call him the CEO, chief entertainment officer,'' said his older brother, Leon Caldwell. He even invented an annual event, the International Kicknic Contest, held every August in Prospect Park in Brooklyn for an ever-expanding circle of friends and family to play kickball and catch up. ``My neighbors used to tease me about him while he was growing up,'' his mother said. ``They would say, 'Other kids collect stray cats and dogs, but your Kenny collects stray people.''' He was a good friend and basketball companion of my son, who lives in Brooklyn, New York. Within that 6 degrees of separation, we find people who were killed in this tragic event, and it reminds us more and more, as I yield back to my good friend and colleague, the gentlewoman from North Carolina, that what we give out comes back, and we should be giving out good all the time. These heroes did that, and for that, we are proud to honor them this evening. I thank my colleague for joining in this special order tribute.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject matter of this special order.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden).

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss).

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson).

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I believe my half of the special order time has expired, so I yield back so that the Chair can recognize the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) to control the balance of the time.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, continuing in the bipartisan manner in which we are conducting this, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood).

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge).

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, several weeks ago my colleague, the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick), who represents the Congressional District in North Carolina which adjoins my Congressional District, and I got together and decided to try to make an effort to commemorate some of the lives of some of the people who were lost in the events of September 11. This was out of a sense of our own grief and loss, and the feeling that we should try to do something to honor the memory of these heroes. We have been trying to do 1-minute speeches on several occasions, but that did not work out too well. So we reserved this time this evening to do a more extended special order in memory of some of the heroes who died in the events of September 11. I am delighted to share this idea and effort with my colleague, the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick), and I will now yield to her for her opening statement, and then we will go into it.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. (Mr. WATT of North Carolina asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, today, as I rise in support of the Defense Appropriations bill, I want to draw my colleagues' attention to the strong cooperation and support the United States has received from the Republic of Kazakhstan. Kazakhstan is a former Soviet state celebrating their 10th anniversary of independence from the Soviet Union on December 16 of this year. Today's Defense Appropriations bill provides $403,000,000 to assist the republics of the former Soviet Union in the elemination and the safe and secure transportation and storage of nuclear, chemical and other weapons. Unfortunately, this level of funding is totally insufficient and is, in fact, much less than the President requested for this important purpose. It also helps fund programs to prevent the proliferation of weapons, weapons components and weapon-related technology and expertise. This money would aid Kazakhstan, which borders Russia and is located near Afghanistan. Kazakhstan is a strategic friend and business partner of the United States. On September 15, 2001, following the September 11 attacks on the United States, President Nursultan Nazarbayev of Kazakhstan said: In these tragic days for America, the people of Kazakhstan are grieving together with the American people about the death of thousands of innocent people. I am closely following the situation as it unfolds. We stand on the position that the terrorists must be punished, as well as those harboring the terrorists. The United States and its Security Council have condemned the barbarian act of terrorism and called upon the world community to take resolute actions. Therefore, Kazakhstan is ready to support the measures undertaken by the United States to fight against terrorism, with all the means available. Kazakhstan has always been standing against terrorism and is ready to participate in creation of a real international coalition of countries to fight against the international terrorism. We proceed from the assumption that retaliation should not only be effective, but also should be just. This requires that the state should act with great deal of responsibility. And we rely upon the wisdom of the American leadership. We were pleased to learn that the United States wants to know for sure who has perpetrated these barbaric acts and helped the terrorists before taking actions. Today I sent a letter to U.S. President George Bush. I expressed Kazakhstan's support for the U.S. actions aimed at fighting against the international terrorism, the global evil that has developed metastases across the entire world. We hope the American people will be able to quickly cope with the heaviest psychological blow and remain committed to their great historical values. Amendment Offered by Mr. George Miller of California

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, in North Carolina our State legislature is still in legislative session in the longest legislative session in the history of North Carolina. It started the year with a budget deficit of over $300 million and a constitutional requirement of a balanced budget. After September 11, and after the State legislature had found a way to balance the budget, September 11 hit and they had to face another set of projections that threw the budget out of balance again. They are still there trying to solve this problem. Now we are told that the poor people, the unemployed people of North Carolina, are going to be taxed an additional $54 million out of their unemployment benefits for the purposes of New York. The people of North Carolina do not mind supporting the people of New York. People who have income would readily do that. I talk to them all the time, but it is patently unfair to ask unemployed people to give $54 million from North Carolina, unemployed people in North Carolina, when we have suffered the same impact from the same set of events. U.S. Air has a hub in Charlotte. It flies out of Reagan National to Charlotte. It laid off thousands of people after September 11. Those people need the unemployment benefits just like New York needs these funds. We should adopt the Miller amendment.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Dr. Laura Duhan Kaplan, Associate Professor of Philosophy at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, which is located in my congressional district. On November 13, Dr. Kaplan was named one of four U.S. professors of the year by the Council for Advancement and Support of Education and the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Dr. Kaplan was honored for her creative and nontraditional methods of teaching philosophy, which have made her classes a favorite of UNC-Charlotte students and earned praise from her colleagues. Dr. Kaplan's award is an honor for her and the entire UNC-Charlotte community. UNC-Charlotte becomes the first university in the Nation to have three U.S. Professors of the Year serving on its faculty. I offer my congratulations to Dr. Kaplan and to the University of North Carolina at Charlotte on this high honor.