Mel Watt

Mr. WATT of North Carolina

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his intervention. Mr. Speaker, in closing, first of all, I want to respond to the comments of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) that he made in his opening statement, that the effect of this proposed substitute would be to punt this proposed issue back to the United States Supreme Court. It is interesting that the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary would say that, because, by passing the underlying proposal, we do not do away with the first amendment to the Constitution. The Supreme Court is going to have to reconcile this proposed constitutional amendment with the first amendment as it stands now; and so the notion that we are somehow, by not putting the language that we have proposed in the constitutional amendment, are going to save ourselves from the United States Supreme Court interpreting the first amendment is just not the case. At some point this issue is going back to the Supreme Court, whether it goes back under my substitute or whether it goes back under the proposed constitutional amendment. We can say to ourselves we have resolved this issue, but if in fact it is speech to burn a flag in the course of a demonstration or protest expressing one's self, if it was protected by the first amendment before this proposed constitutional amendment, then that act is still going to be protected by the first amendment unless the effect of this is to repeal the first amendment. So it is not as if we are doing away with the first amendment. In any event, this all must be resolved. I do not think there is any credibility in that analysis. This issue is going back to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court will reconcile whatever amendment we make. I am just trying to make it clear that in my order of priorities I want the first amendment to the Constitution, which has been on the books for all these years that our country has been around, to still be the preeminent amendment to the Constitution. I do not want something that this Congress has done in the heat of some political moment to supersede that. Second, I want to close by just saying how much I have come to welcome this debate. When we first started doing this 5 or 6 years ago, I actually resented having to do this every year. Now I actually think that it is a good debate for our country. Mr. Speaker, 5 or 6 years ago when I first started debating this, I used to think, as the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) now thinks, that everybody on the opposite side of this issue was unAmerican because they did not believe in the first amendment. Mr. Speaker, folks used to come in the Chamber and they would shout at me that I was unAmerican because I did not support what they wanted; and I would shout at them that they were unAmerican because they did not believe in what I believed in. I think about 2 or 3 years into the debate, it became apparent to me that everybody on all sides of this issue is a patriot. And I think we finally got to that resolution last year or the year before last when we had a very, very dignified debate that allowed everybody to express their opinions on this proposed constitutional amendment, on the proposed substitute, and everybody went away understanding more fully what free speech and expression is all about and why we value our country as we do regardless of where we stand on this issue. There is dignity in this debate. It is not a partisan debate. It is not a racial debate. It is not a philosophical debate. This is all about what you think this country stands for and what you think the first amendment stands for. I applaud my colleagues for engaging in this dignified debate. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time for this tribute and for organizing this tribute. I think the thing that I probably most underestimated when I came to Congress 9 years or so ago was the extent to which Congress is a family of people. It has the same kinds of personalities that all families do. Some of them are socially inclined and some of them are distant and some of them are friendly and some of them not so friendly. To some extent, to a great extent, we each individually have the opportunity to make our choice about how we become a member of this family. We have had a lot of vexing over those 9 years that I have been here about the erosion of the family aspects of this institution, and we have retreats periodically to deal with that. The family aspect of this, I think, for me was more personified by Joe Moakley than almost anybody else I know in this institution. He was a Member's Member, as a function of his position on the Committee on Rules, I am sure in part, but probably more as a function of his personality and who he was and how he chose to be a part of this family. He was always, always readily willing to share a joke of some kind every single time you had a conversation with him, and you never heard, at least I never heard, the same joke more than once. Maybe he could remember what jokes he had told to what people. I just think that this tribute and Joe Moakley's life is a testament to this family nature of our institution. I thank Joe, I thank his staff on the Committee on Rules, and his personal staff for personifying that family attitude. I am just delighted that I had 9 years to be a part of this part of Joe Moakley's family.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price), my friend and colleague, for yielding to me and for joining in this tribute to Julius Chambers. I am proud to join with the gentleman in paying tribute to Julius Chambers who, while we were out during our most recent break from Congress, retired from the chancellorship at North Carolina Central University in Durham, North Carolina, on June 1. North Carolina Central, of course, was in my congressional district for the first 6 years of my service in the Congress; and then, because my district lines were redrawn, North Carolina Central went out of my congressional district and into the district of the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price). At that time, Julius Chambers was the chancellor of North Carolina Central. My relationships with Julius Chambers go back to well before he became chancellor of North Carolina Central University in Durham. More than 35 years ago, when I was about to enter undergraduate school in 1963, I had the pleasure of meeting Julius Chambers when he was about to open his law firm in Charlotte, North Carolina. Nobody knew at that time, of course, what impact Julius Chambers would have on North Carolina. Nobody knew that he would become a renowned civil rights lawyer and be involved in so many landmark civil rights cases, such as school desegregation, employment discrimination, and criminal cases with substantial civil rights implications. But Julius Chambers was there about to start a law firm, and I was about to start undergraduate school; and he was already encouraging me, even before I started undergraduate school, to consider going to law school and returning to my native city, Charlotte, to practice law. This was 7 years before I even got a law degree, and 4 years before I got an undergraduate degree, and even then, Julius Chambers was having an impact on my life. I stayed in contact with him for the next 4 years, for the next 3 years after that 4 years while I was in law school, and got an offer to return to the law firm that he had started in 1970, and did, in fact, go back to Charlotte to practice with Julius Chambers in that law firm, the first integrated law firm in North Carolina, one of the first integrated law firms in the South at that time. He was solely responsible for talking me into returning to North Carolina. He was solely responsible for talking other professionals, young black professionals in particular, into setting up medical practices, accounting practices, law practices of various kinds in Charlotte, North Carolina, and coming and having an amazing impact on our area of North Carolina. I happened to be with him when he had a conversation with Harvey Gant in which he talked him into coming to Charlotte, North Carolina. He was from South Carolina and was not really thinking about coming to North Carolina, but came at Julius' insistence and with his persuasion to North Carolina, and, of course, has had substantial impact on the politics of North Carolina from being the first African American mayor of the city of Charlotte to running in 1990 against Jesse Helms for the United States Senate, a substantial impact on the politics of North Carolina. So I want to pay special tribute to Julius Chambers today for all of the impact he has had on North Carolina Central University, but more importantly to me, for the impact that he has had on my life, because I know I would not be standing here as a Member of the Congress of the United States, but for the influence that he had on my life. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to join in this tribute. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Julius Chambers, who retired on June 1st as Chancellor of North Carolina Central University in Durham, North Carolina, which was in my congressional district from 1993 until 1998 and is now represented by David Price. Thirty years ago, I was privileged to get to know Julius Chambers as a friend and learn from him as a lawyer when he hired me to join his law practice, which was the first integrated law firm in North Carolina. In its first decade, his law firm did more to influence evolving civil rights law than any other private practice in the United States. After serving as Director-Counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, he became Chancellor of North Carolina Central University in 1993. His vision has helped transform the school into a major research institution. Julius Chambers has one of the most brilliant legal minds and is one of the most effective civil rights leaders of our time. I am personally and professionally indebted to Julius Chambers in so many ways and wish him my very best in all future endeavors.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. If the gentleman will yield for a second, I will clarify that, because I fully agree with him. Everything I have heard about that incident suggests that his opponent quieted his supporters and invited Rich Preyer to the podium with him and accepted the congratulations.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Greensboro, North Carolina (Mr. Coble), from the adjoining district for yielding to me. Of course they say most of the districts in North Carolina adjoin mine in one way or another, so I have got a lot of adjoining Congress people. This is the first time I have heard the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble) yield to me so much time as I may consume so I think that is a dangerous precedent. But I will try not to make him regret that.

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

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I am going to leave plenty of time. I have been thinking about a way to personalize this. I never served with Representative Rich Preyer. I met him for the first time in 1992 when I was running for Congress for the first time. Rich and his wife Emily had heard about my candidacy. I, of course, had heard about Rich Preyer for years and years and years; and that was the beginning of a strong personal relationship that I started to develop with Rich Preyer and with Emily Preyer. I was thinking on the way over here, though, when I was a little boy, my mother used to treat us when we got sick with a big dose of castor oil if we had a stomach virus, but if we were congested, and quite often we were because we lived in kind of an airy house, she would always whip out the Vicks VapoRub and rub it on our chest and heat a heating pad and the smell of Vicks VapoRub would come up. Over time it would release whatever congestion you had. Now, you probably wonder, well, what in the world does that have to do with Rich Preyer? Rich Preyer's grandfather was the person who patented Vicks VapoRub. He turned it into quite a success story financially for his family. So Rich was really born into a family of privilege as a result of his parents' and foreparents' business dealings and as a result of this innovative patent that people in my age range probably knew as well as anything else for its medicinal impact. Rich never really worked in that business, but in a sense Rich took over that releasing of congestion and took it to a broader public plane. Because when I first heard about Rich Preyer, he was out there on the cutting edge, paving the way, opening the way, so to speak, for many people like myself, minorities in particular, who viewed Rich Preyer as a real progressive, human, dignified person who was willing to fight for principles that he believed in. In that sense, he was a rare public official who took risk and stood up for his beliefs. He was ahead of his time and did not sacrifice his principles for political gain. As a State judge in 1957, Rich Preyer upheld a ruling that enabled five black children to attend the previously all-white Gillespie Park School in Greensboro. This was 1957 in North Carolina. This was the first integrated school in the City of Greensboro. It was 3 years before the historic Greensboro sit-ins at the Woolworth lunch counters that we have heard so much about and read so much about in our history. So Rich Preyer was ahead of his time. In 1961, Rich Preyer received a lifetime appointment to the Federal bench from his Harvard Law School classmate, a man of privilege again. His classmate happened to be President John F. Kennedy. So he could have had a lifetime appointment on the Federal bench. He was there. It is a lifetime appointment. But 2 years later, he gave up that position to run for governor of North Carolina. He hoped that he would follow in the footsteps of the term-limited governor Terry Sanford, who was known as the most progressive governor in the South. For those Members who hear about North Carolina and wonder why it has this kind of progressive image that is more progressive than some of our other southern States, Governor Terry Sanford and people like Rich Preyer were building that image. Even though this was almost 10 years after Brown v. Board of Education, the State of North Carolina, like all other southern States, was still basically segregated. Although Governor Sanford had started steps toward integration efforts, according to Preyer's former press aide, the Ku Klux Klan burned 50 crosses across the State of North Carolina in protest of Rich Preyer's candidacy for governor of the State of North Carolina. You talk about a man who was ahead of his time, you have not seen anything until you met Rich Preyer. He led the Democratic primary, but he did not get 50 percent of the vote and the law required at that time in North Carolina that you have 50 percent plus 1 to avoid a runoff. So he ended up in a runoff with a more conservative opponent, and the conservative opponent won the election. A lot of people say that he won the election because Rich Preyer refused to distance himself from the principles that he thought were important. They called him an integrationist and a lover of black people. Rich's response was, ``I love all people. That is what I have been taught as part of my religious beliefs.'' And he never made any overtures toward the segregationists who were supporting the candidacy of his opponent. Rich Preyer was ahead of his time. Rich lost that governor's race and then ran for Congress in 1968, and he was elected to Congress. Many considered him too liberal and out of step with his district. He opposed the Vietnam War and was one of only two Members of Congress from North Carolina to vote for legislation to end the war. This was a guy ahead of his time. Rich's voting record finally caught up with him again, because he was not going to compromise his principles. It caught up with him in 1980, when he lost in the Reagan landslide by about 3,500 votes. Let me tell you what a class guy this Rich Preyer was. He saw it, the election results are coming in, he could have picked up the phone, called his adversary, his opponent and said, ``I concede defeat.'' Rich Preyer said, ``No, I'm going over and I'm going to shake this man's hand.'' He went all the way across town, into his opponent's headquarters, got heckled by his opponent's supporters, and insisted on shaking his opponent's hand to congratulate him. In 1980, after he had lost that race, former Congressman Steve Neal said of Rich Preyer, ``There is not a man or woman among us who commands greater respect for intelligence, honesty, integrity and courage of conviction.'' I think that is a fitting tribute to him and a shining tribute to him. I want to end by just expressing my condolences to the Preyer family and thanking the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble) and the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price) again for coordinating this special order. Rich Preyer and Emily Preyer were dear, dear people, both ahead of their times in many, many ways that inured to my personal benefit and to this country's benefit.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this debate is always interesting at this time of the year. Every year, for the last 6 years, around April 15, this same or some version of this proposed constitutional amendment has come to the floor of the House, not as a serious legislative initiative, because I think it has always been acknowledged that there is not sufficient support for such a constitutional amendment. Instead, it comes to the floor as a political vehicle to dramatize and have a discussion about whether taxes are too high or whether the expenditures are out of control. We have a political discussion in the context of a proposed constitutional amendment. I want to submit to my colleagues, however, that this is not a discussion about whether taxes are too high or not. If you ask probably 10 out of 10 people on the street whether taxes are too high, all 10 of them will tell you taxes are too high. It is not a discussion about whether we spend too much money. I am sure there are people who will have varying opinions about whether the Federal Government spends too much money. My experience has been that they typically vary based on whether the money is being spent for the benefit of the individual who is taking a position or whether it is being spent for the benefit of somebody else. If money is being spent for your benefit, then most likely you are going to support that expenditure, and if it is not being spent for something that you believe is beneficial to yourself or to the country, then you are going to oppose that. So this is not a debate about whether we spend too much either. I think it is a debate about democratic rule and democracy and majority rule, because there are only two instances in our Constitution where a supermajority such as this is required. That is to declare war, which we seldom use because the Presidents have decided that you do not even need a supermajority to do that and that is not a good idea, so there has been this constant struggle between the executive branch and the legislative branch even in that area. And the other is to amend the Constitution, which brings me to this point. I think our Founding Fathers recognized that there needs to be something special to require a two-thirds majority, because the idea of majority rule was almost synonymous with the concept of democracy and they did not want to do anything that was contrary to that principle. Now, my colleagues who continue to profess to me that they are conservatives seem to have forgotten that there is something conservative about the concept of majority rule. They seem to have forgotten that there is something conservative about maintaining the integrity of our Constitution. In 1994, when my Republican colleagues took over the majority in the House in the 104th Congress, we had a total of 118 proposed constitutional amendments. In the next term of Congress under their control, we had a total of 86 proposed constitutional amendments. In the last term of Congress, we had a total of 52 proposed constitutional amendments. Now, these are the people who came in here telling me that they believed in some conservative philosophy. These are the people who are now telling me that somehow or another they have a better idea about this than the historical founders have had. I am a little confused by this. There is something else going on here. I think this is about democracy. I think this is about democracy, and I think it is about my ability to represent the constituents who have sent me here on an equal footing with everybody else in this body. It is not about winning and losing a vote. It is about every individual in this country having the right to have an equal voice in the government. That is why we redistrict and do a census and based on that census redistrict the whole country every 10 years, to go out of our way to provide every American an equal voice in our government. And when we set up a system in our Constitution that on one subject, such as taxes or spending or whatever else interrupts that balance, requires some supermajority, then basically what we are saying is we are devaluing the representation of some Members of this body, and we are overvaluing the representation of other people. Now, I am not going to argue with the notion of whether taxes are too high, but I do not think that is what this debate is about. If you go out on the street and you ask 10 people whether they believe that a basic tenet of democracy is majority rule, I bet you 10 out of 10 of them will tell you they believe in majority rule and they believe in the democracy that we have put in place. That is what this debate is about, my colleagues. That is what this debate is about, whether I am going to give you more power in the government to make this decision or whether I am going to have an equal place on behalf of the constituents who sent me here to cast a vote that has equal value to yours. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner).

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner).

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, we have no further requests for time and one final speaker. So if the gentleman from Wisconsin is ready to close, then I will proceed.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. WATT of North Carolina

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Hugh McColl, who is retiring today as chairman and CEO of Bank of America, which is headquartered in my congressional district in Charlotte, North Carolina. Under the leadership of Hugh McColl, Bank of America has grown into the Nation's third largest bank and McColl has helped make Charlotte the second largest banking center in the country, after New York. In less than 20 years, McColl built the former North Carolina National Bank from a company with $12 billion in assets and 7,600 employees to a national bank with $642 billion in assets and 140,000 employees. He has been a community leader in Charlotte, volunteering his time and resources to make it a better place to live. Last year, Bank of America received the National United Way Spirit of America Award for the community service commitment shown by their employees. I wish all the best to Hugh McColl as he begins the next chapter of his life. I count him as a real ally, mentor, and friend.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Madam Chairman, I do not often come to the floor to speak on budget matters. I tend to leave these debates to the so-called budget experts. But I cannot sit idly by and let what we have worked so hard to accomplish be rolled back and destroyed for political benefit by the so-called experts, who seem to have lost touch with old-fashioned common sense. Some people have referred to me in my political career as a liberal, but there is one very conservative thing my mama taught me when I was growing up: We simply do not spend money that we do not have. Now, my so-called conservative colleagues seem to be violating my mama's commonsense, conservative rule. When I was elected in 1992, the annual budget deficit was approaching $200 billion per year, and was projected to grow at over $500 billion per year. If the projections had turned out to be correct, the budget deficit for the last 10 years would have been somewhere between $2 trillion and $5 trillion. Those projections proved to be woefully incorrect. Instead, the Congressional Budget Office now projects that we will have a budget surplus of over $5 trillion over the next 10 years. What is my point? Am I trying to prove that President Clinton and this Congress did a great job or worked some magic to create the surplus? No. My point is that budget surplus and projections can be in error, and they almost always are. Consider these facts: In January of 2000, the CBO projected that the budget surplus would be $2.4 trillion less than they projected that it would be 1 year later, in January of 2001. They were 75 percent off in their projections. That is staggering, even compared to the miscalculations they made during the 10 years that I have been in Congress. The CBO itself says that there is a 1 in 20 chance that the Federal budget will be back in deficit in less than 5 years, even without a tax cut. If we take out the Social Security surplus, CBO says there is a 1 in 5 chance that we will be back in deficit spending. That is with no tax cut, no prescription drug benefit, no hurricanes, no tornadoes, no farm emergencies, and even if we keep the same spending levels, adjusting only for inflation. So what is up with my so-called conservative colleagues? They obviously did not grow up listening to my mama's conservative philosophy, but I think I am going to stick with my mama's philosophy: We should not spend what we do not have. I think that is still a good philosophy for our households, and it is also a good philosophy for our country. We should stick to it and vote against this budget resolution.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, in North Carolina at this time of year, March Madness is bursting out all over. Three of the five first-team All-American players are from North Carolina teams. Duke, the University of North Carolina, Wake Forest, the University of North Carolina at Greensboro, and the University of North Carolina at Charlotte from my congressional district were all in the field of 64, although only one survives. But perhaps the most exciting March Madness story in North Carolina this year is at Johnson C. Smith University, the alma mater of my colleague Eva Clayton. Founded in 1867, JUS is one of four historically black colleges and universities located in my congressional district and has a student body of approximately 1,500 students. JUS finished this year's basketball season with a 27-4 record, won the CIAA basketball tournament, won the South Atlantic Regional Division II championship, and tonight will be playing in the Division II Elite 8 in California. Now, that is a real March Madness dream story. I congratulate President Dorothy Yancey, Coach Steve Joyner and his basketball team and the entire Johnson C. Smith University family on producing this March Madness dream story and on continuing to educate our young people in this country.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina

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

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding. I appreciate him taking seriously the comments that I am making. I would just point out to him two things. Yes, this bill will make the system more efficient, but from 22 years of the practice of law, I will tell the gentleman that every single case is a unique case for the parties in that case. So when we say that this applies only to a small number of cases, the gentleman is absolutely right. I do not argue that. But for that individual plaintiff who is coming into court, we ought to make the courts as conveniently available to that one individual as we can. The gentleman says that this person can show up in the Federal court, make a motion to move it back, but here he is sitting there with 16 other plaintiffs who say, Please do not move this case. All I am saying is, that person ought to be allowed to go and litigate their case in a forum that is convenient to them, not have their case and the placement of it decided on the basis of some majority rule theory. I understand efficiency of the court. I understand why the Judicial Conference would favor this. But in the interest of individual plaintiffs, I think it is important to have another exception in this bill, and it would be used so infrequently that it would not be an imposition. It could be done very easily in the context of this bill.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, certainly I will not consume the remaining time that we have on this side, but I appreciate the opportunity to speak and I appreciate the gentleman yielding time to me. I was one of several people in the committee who actually voted against reporting this bill favorably to the floor; and while I am not personally planning to ask for a vote on the floor if somebody else does not ask for it, if a vote is requested, I intend to vote against the bill again. I think what has been said up to this point is correct. This bill is better in a number of respects than it was when it was originally introduced, and I want to applaud the chairman of the full committee and others who have worked to improve the bill. I do believe, however, that the bill continues to have one blind spot in it, and the blind spot could have been addressed if the bill had received subcommittee attention or more thorough attention in the full committee; and I am hopeful that this blind spot will be addressed if this bill moves forward in the process, because I think it is a serious blind spot. The blind spot really approaches this issue from a different end of the spectrum than the bill itself does, because the bill really talks about kind of a majority rule in big cases where the majority of the plaintiffs in a case can really control where the case is tried. The problem with that is that cases by their very nature are individual cases, and so this bill leaves us with this kind of situation: we have an individual plaintiff who has been injured by a defendant who has a residence in the State in which the accident occurred. There is no diversity of jurisdiction between that plaintiff and that defendant. Yet, if it were a big accident and there were 25 people injured in the accident, they can take that case and it becomes a Federal issue under this bill, whereas if it were a small case, it would continue to be the case of the individual plaintiff and the plaintiff would have the right to litigate that case either in his own State court or in the jurisdiction that the plaintiff chooses to litigate the case in. Now, for urban communities, this may not have significant implications, but there are some States in which the closest Federal district court is hundreds of miles away. While this bill does a good job of taking into account the convenience of the court and the expediency of cases on a gross basis, our courts were not made for the gross basis; our courts were made for individual litigants and for the convenience of individual litigants. In this rare circumstance where we have one plaintiff who is part of a bigger group, a defendant, who is resident in the same State as that one defendant, that plaintiff ought to be able to litigate that case in his home community, even though everybody else is moving to a Federal court, because the underlying proposition of our courts is that the courts are for the convenience of litigants, not for the convenience of judges or even for judicial efficiency. When judicial efficiency comes into conflict with the interests of an individual plaintiff or the individual parties in a case, the rights of the individual parties in that case should prevail. So this is a small thing; it is not a Federal issue. This bill is better than it started off with. I am not at odds with anybody on this. But I am hopeful that the people in control of this bill, between now and the time that it passes into law, can figure out a way, and it would be simple to do, I think, by changing one or two words in this bill, figure out a way to allow an individual plaintiff in the situation that I have described to continue to be able to litigate his case in the State courts in the community in which they live, and not have to travel miles away and become part of a big class action lawsuit that the plaintiff may not want to be associated with in the first place. So I am hopeful that the spirit in which I am offering this, and I am not trying to be adverse to anybody, will be heard, and that somebody will try to correct this blind spot in the bill before this bill becomes law.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and in opposition to this proposal to undo a set of regulations that I believe will be beneficial not only to American workers but to small businesses. Some 25 years ago, before I came to this body, I did a lot of workers' compensation work in the practice of law on behalf of employees, and we were light-years behind at that time, because I remember in North Carolina litigating the first case that established carpal tunnel syndrome as an occupational disease under the North Carolina Workers' Compensation law. What was required on one side, on my side, the employee's side, was a group of experts that connected these injuries to conditions in the workplace, and on the employer side, a group of experts that denied that there was any connection between the workplace setting and these kinds of diseases. So what we would have is hours and hours and thousands of dollars of expert opinion time on both sides of this issue. We got through that, and we set up a standard in North Carolina, and we have gotten through that. And after 5 years of study now, we have set up a standard at the national level, and what I am going to submit to my colleagues is that while this undoing of regulations might be beneficial to big businesses who have experts on their payroll accessible to them at all points, small businesses are going to have to go back to a situation where they have to go out and hire experts to come in and defend these cases, and employees are going to be put to the burden, financial and otherwise, of hiring experts. It is going to be a swearing contest again in the absence of these regulations. While I think what my colleagues on the Republican side are trying to do will, in fact, benefit and advantage big business, that is what they are all about, I do not think this is going to be beneficial at all to small businesses. Mr. Speaker, I think it is going to have a tremendously negative impact on employees because there will be no standards, and we will be turning the clock back and going back to a time when even in the face of compelling and overwhelming scientific evidence each individual case will have to be litigated separately with an absence of standards.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), a member of the committee. (Ms. WATERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, I am not going to belabor this. I do not have time to belabor it any further. There are a number of us who believe that the bankruptcy system has been abused, but we also know that it is abused by people who are above the means test in this bill and people who are below the means test in this bill. So why would you impose an arbitrary means test rather than going directly for the abusers of the system? And if it is not about setting up an arbitrary system, then why would you not make an exception for those who really can show by whatever burden of proof you want to impose that they got into financial straits that result in bankruptcy by no fault of their own because that is what bankruptcy was always about, and that is what it should continue to be about. We have tried to, in this amendment, soften the provisions. That has not occurred. The charade is over. We can now go forward.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, would the Chair advise us of the time remaining on both sides.