Mel Watt

Mr. WATT

Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, in many ways my amendment is quite simple. It simply preserves the authority of the United States Supreme Court to do its job. My amendment, however, is fundamental in its simplicity because it reflects the cornerstone of our constitutional framework, a framework that recognizes three coequal branches of government, each with its own area of responsibility, each serving as a check and balance on the others. For over 200 years, the separation of powers doctrine has worked well, vesting the legislative power with the Congress, the executive power with the President, and the judicial power with the Supreme Court and other inferior Federal courts. At the pinnacle of the judiciary is and has been the one Court mandated by the Constitution, the United States Supreme Court. I have offered this amendment before, and I offer it today because the very idea of Congress unilaterally cutting off all Federal court review of a constitutional issue is both unprecedented and likely unconstitutional, but it is also impractical and imprudent. Despite the substantial body of scholarship that suggests that Congress does not have the authority to strip the Supreme Court of this appellate jurisdiction in the manner proposed by this bill, let's for the sake of argument concede that it does have that authority, and let me address the imprudence of this bill. As legislators exercising the legislative power committed to us by the Constitution, the compelling question is: Why would we want to do what this bill would have us do? What could possibly motivate this Congress to adopt this bill as sound public policy? How does this bill do anything to protect the Pledge of Allegiance? What respect does it show for our venerable institutions? How does it unify us as a Nation? I suggest to you that this bill makes the Pledge far more vulnerable to assorted, distasteful interpretations than the current law that exists at present. I appeal to our common sense. Under the bill as drafted, the likelihood that different opinions on the Pledge will issue from State, territorial and the District of Columbia courts is either ignored or deliberately sheltered from challenge. Rather than protect the Pledge of Allegiance, this bill invites a patchwork of interpretations from all over the country. What if your State is the State that determines that your child can no longer recite the words ``under God'' in the Pledge? Will you move to a neighboring State? Move across the country? Wherever you find a friendly State interpretation? But what if there is no Federal constitutional determination, and State legislatures are left to change the law upon acquiring the appropriate majority. Would you become a nomad? Would you move from State to State in search of the right position for your child? The bill eliminates every single recourse that you have. It establishes a mechanism under which an individual's Federal rights would depend entirely on the happenstance of location. Ultimately coercing children to recite the Pledge without the language ``under God'' may be prohibited in one place but not another. Constitutional protections could be strong in one State and weak or nonexistent in another. My amendment would restore the obligation of the Supreme Court to exercise its role as the final arbiter of the Constitution. Even if the proponents of this measure believe the Federal, district, and circuit courts of appeal should be removed from the process, the role of the U.S. Supreme Court in establishing uniform standards to apply to all Americans wherever they reside should certainly be protected. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. WATT

Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano), the chair of the Hispanic Caucus.

Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, there are a number of people who deserve special thanks and accolades today, but I want to point out three of them who are in our midst. First, I want to commend the efforts of Representative John Lewis, now a Member of Congress, who shed his blood on Bloody Sunday so that the original 1965 Voting Rights Act would be passed. I want to pay special recognition to my good friend and ranking member, John Conyers, who in 1965 was here, in 1970 during the first renewal, in 1975, 1982, and 1992 he was here. And we suspect 25 years from now he will be here for the next renewal of the Voting Rights Act, if in fact it is required. I want to pay an extra special thanks to the chairman of our committee, Representative James Sensenbrenner, who I believe will go down in history as a warrior who supported, defended, extended, and made real our democracy in this country, and he deserves our supreme thanks. I rise today in unwavering support of H.R. 9. The bill is the product of a long-term, thoughtful, and thorough bipartisan deliberation that carefully weighed the competing concerns and considerations that have engulfed debate on the Voting Rights Act since its inception. The act has been extended on four occasions, making it arguably the most carefully reviewed civil rights measure in our Nation's history. H.R. 9 continues that practice of careful review, accompanied by extensive record evidence in support of its provisions. I am proud to have been a part of the bipartisan coalition that crafted this legislation and believe that it strengthens the very foundation of our democracy. H.R. 9 restores the Voting Rights Act to its original intent to secure and protect the rights of minority citizens to participate equally in voting. The bill bars voting changes that have the purpose of discriminating against minority citizens, and it restores the ability of minority communities to elect candidates who share their values and represent their interests as originally intended by Congress. Now, there are those who argue that the Voting Rights Act has outlived its usefulness, that it is outdated, and that it unfairly punishes covered jurisdictions for past sins. Yet I stand here today as living proof of both the effectiveness of and the continuing need for the Voting Rights Act. I stand here on the shoulders, in the aftermath and in the history of George H. White, who rose on the floor of Congress in 1901, January 29, as the last African American in the Congress of the United States after Reconstruction when he said, ``This, Mr. Chairman, is perhaps the Negroes' temporary farewell to American Congress; but let me say, Phoenix-like he will rise up some day and come again.'' And he was right. But it took a long time. You need to understand that that was not delivered in a vacuum. Listen to what happened leading up to that election. In Halifax, the registered Republican vote was 345, and the total registered vote of the township was 539. But when the count was announced, it stood 990 Democrats to 41 Republicans, 492 more Democratic votes counted than were registered in that city. There was discrimination taking place, and I am the witness to it. The Voting Rights Act had been in effect just shy of 30 years in 1992 when I and former colleague Eva Clayton became the first African Americans elected to Congress from the State of North Carolina since George H. White delivered that speech in 1901. Put plainly, nearly three decades elapsed after the passage of the Voting Rights Act before the impact of the Voting Rights Act became real in North Carolina. We should be clear: although the successes of the Voting Rights Act have been substantial, they have not been fast and they have not been furious. Rather, the successes have been gradual and of very recent origin. Now is not the time to jettison the expiring provisions that have been instrumental to the success we applaud today. In a Nation such as ours, we should want and encourage more Americans to vote, not fewer. The Voting Rights Act and the renewal and restoration contained in H.R. 9 facilitate those very goals. By breaking down entrenched barriers to voter equity, this bill invites, inspires, and protects racial and language minority citizens' full and equal participation in the governance of our Nation. We must not fear that participation; we must embrace and celebrate it instead. Upon the introduction of the Voting Rights Act in 1965, President Lyndon Johnson noted that the Voting Rights Act is like no other piece of civil rights legislation because ``every American citizen must have an equal right to vote.'' ``About this,'' he said, ``there can and should be no argument.'' Make no mistake, voting is democracy's most fundamental right. Undermining the right to vote is a fundamental wrong, one that must be eliminated. Mr. Chairman, a Congress with far fewer African Americans, Latinos, and Asians Americans passed the Voting Rights Act of 1965 because the right to vote had been denied for too long. Congress made a moral decision that it was the right thing to do for our democracy. It is time for us to reaffirm that decision by passing H.R. 9 without amendment today in this House. I ask my colleagues to stand up and make a moral statement that democracy lives in the United States of America.

Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to control the time temporarily while my colleague has stepped away.

Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\3/4\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez), who is a member of the Hispanic Caucus and a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds. I say to the gentleman that when we rise in the House, it is my intention to introduce for the Record a copy of the decision that was entered yesterday in the State of Georgia that declared recent actions unconstitutional. Perhaps he will be convinced that this is not the history of the past but today. [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13JY06.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13JY06.002 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13JY06.003 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13JY06.004 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13JY06.005

Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), a member of the Judiciary Committee. (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), a member of the Judiciary.

Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. It is certainly my understanding, as you have indicated, in 1976 in Beer v. United States, the Supreme Court held that, when a voting change is made in which a minority group's ability to elect candidates of choice to office is diminished, section 5 requires the denial of preclearance. That was the retrogression analysis on which the court, the Department of Justice, and minority voters relied for 30 years. Is it the gentleman from Wisconsin's understanding that it is this standard that H.R. 9 seeks to restore to section 5?

Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I join Chairman Sensenbrenner in opposition to the Norwood amendment. The amendment represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the Voting Rights Act and its structural design by arbitrarily selecting the last three election cycles as the starting point for confronting and combating voting discrimination. The amendment unhinges section 5 from its historical connections, disrupts the delicate balance embodied by the act, and makes it likely that the act would be declared unconstitutional. The Voting Rights Act, as amended and extended on four separate occasions, struck a delicate balance that remains relevant today. The act imposes special requirements on specific jurisdictions that have a history and ongoing record of unequal policies. The Norwood amendment misguidedly seeks to establish a remedy where one already exists. Voters may seek redress for recent voting rights infractions under existing provisions of the Voting Rights Act. And where a court finds sufficient justification based on actual evidence, it may impose the identical preclearance requirements that covered jurisdictions must satisfy currently. If the Norwood amendment only duplicated the existing protections of the Voting Rights Act, perhaps the only complaint would be that it is redundant and unnecessary. In 1975, Senator Strom Thurmond offered a similar amendment to change the trigger to the next election, making virtually the same arguments that are being made by Mr. Norwood today. He stated: ``One of the main problems with the Voting Rights Act is that it is, as presently constituted, an ex post facto law which punishes several Southern States for events which occurred in 1964.'' In a remarkable colloquy that ensued between Senator Thurmond and Senator Jesse Helms from my home State, Senator Helms proposed yet another amendment which would have a presumption of discrimination if registration and participation of voting-age citizens exceeds 50 percent in the last election. Like the amendment offered by Mr. Norwood, this amendment should be defeated as we defeated the ones by Mr. Helms and Mr. Thurmond back at that time.

Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I join Chairman Sensenbrenner in opposing the Gohmert amendment to extend the vital protections afforded by the expiring provisions of the Voting Rights Act for merely 9 years. The gains made under the Voting Rights Act mark impressive racial progress for our Nation and should be celebrated. But to acknowledge progress is not to disavow the continued obstacles faced by minority voters for which the Voting Rights Act provides protections. These obstacles are not easily removed. My own election to Congress close to 3 decades after the Voting Rights Act was passed illustrates that 10 years is simply not enough. If we are serious about continuing the progress all seem to praise, we must be equally serious about keeping in place the mechanisms that made that progress possible. Just 3 years ago, ruling on the propriety of race-conscious admissions standards, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor concluded in the affirmative action case, ``It has been 25 years since Justice Powell in Bakke first approved the use of race to further an interest in student body diversity in the context of public higher education.'' Justice O'Connor went on to recognize that in the area of public education 25 years of protections were, sadly, not enough. Despite the measurable progress in that arena, the Court understood the need for continuing protection, but expressed hope that an additional 25 years would be enough to overcome our Nation's unfortunate history of racial hostility and division. Voting protections are just as necessary today as educational help is in the college arena. I ask opposition to this amendment.

Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the opposition of my chairman to this amendment. I am really amazed sometimes how much of an effort we put forth to support democracy around the world and yet won't do the same thing right here at home. One of the things I have on my wall at home is the first ballot after apartheid that was used in South Africa. Our government, the United States Government, encouraged the folks of South Africa to put photographs of the candidates on the ballot so that they would know who they were voting for because they couldn't read. Can you imagine us doing that here in the United States, even though it would facilitate people's ability to vote? Yet here we are trying to confuse this issue with the issue of immigration, illegal immigration, when it has nothing to do with that. The majority of voters protected by section 203 are not even immigrants. Section 203 provides language assistance to cover United States voting-age citizens who are not fluent in English. According to the 2000 census, three-quarters of all voters covered by section 203 are native-born voting-age citizens in the United States. So this notion that this is somehow a part of the anti-immigrant movement is just a fallacy. We need to be doing whatever we can to enable our citizens to vote, and this amendment goes in the face of that. I think we should oppose it and move on with the passage of this bill.

Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to Mr. Westmoreland's amendment. This amendment imposes far more federalism costs on states than does the current structure of the Voting Rights Act that its opponents criticize. In short, the amendment would permit the Department of Justice on an annual basis to snoop through every governance document maintained by a jurisdiction to determine whether it meets the eligibility requirements for bailout. This process will be far more onerous than that presently imposed on jurisdictions. Now jurisdictions are in control of what they provide to the Department, both for preclearance and bail-out purposes. The mechanism established under this amendment also requires DOJ to expend tremendous amounts of time and resources exposing nondiscrimination while leaving discrimination unabated. This amendment turns the Voting Rights Act on its head and makes a complete farce out of our principles of democracy. It should be soundly defeated.

Mr. WATT

Mr. WATT. Mr. Speaker, the rules of the House won't allow me to do what George H. White did in 1901 when he rose to address an agriculture bill for 5 minutes and ended up speaking for an hour and a half, giving his farewell to Congress and saying these words: ``Mr. Speaker, this perhaps may be the temporary farewell of minorities and African Americans from this body, but some day we will rise up and come again.'' Well, it took 92 years from that point in 1901 until 1993 when Eva Clayton and I returned to Congress as African American Members from North Carolina. And thank God the laws won't allow the exclusion of African Americans and other minorities from this democracy any longer because of the Voting Rights Act. We have got to renew it and extend it. We need to do it today in the House.

Mr. WATT

Mr. WATT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as Chair of the Congressional Black Caucas, to pay tribute to a fallen American hero. Joseph Henry Washington passed away on June 13, 2006. He was not well known beyond his Charleston, South Carolina community, but he represents so many unsung African American heroes who courageously defended America in the armed forces at a time when this country was denying their civil rights. Joe Washington was a survivor of Pearl Harbor. His life was an ordinary one, but on December 7, 1941, it became extraordinary. Mr. Washington was the youngest son of Isaac and Elvira Delura McCants Washington. After his father's death, his mother struggled to raise her two young boys by ``taking in washing'' for wealthy Charleston residents. Despite the hardships, no one wanted young Joe to leave home and join the Navy. Yet he was determined to see the world, and his mother gave permission for her son to fulfill his dream. Navy recruiting officers welcomed young Joe. However, he quickly learned that the only place for men of color was as a Mess Attendant for Naval officers. Still he boarded a train for Raleigh, North Carolina and took the oath to dutifully serve his country. On August 9, 1937, Joe Washington reported for Basic Training in Norfolk, Virginia. In just three short months, he was prepared for his first assignment in the Ward Room on the USS Arizona. His initial duties included seeing to the needs of the ship's officers, including LCDR Commander Samuel G. Fuqua, a man Mr. Washington would later credit with saving many lives at Pearl Harbor. While serving on the USS Arizona, he attended the Cook and Stewards School, which was the only upwardly mobile field open to African Americans in the Navy. After completing the course, Mr. Washington was assigned to Steward's Duty and helped plan the meals. His time on the USS Arizona passed uneventfully until the ``day that will live in infamy.'' While on duty in the Ward Room, Joe Washington heard a big explosion and then alarms sounded. His first thought was this was a drill, but when bullets began hitting the decks he knew this was the real thing. Mr. Washington later recalled that a Japanese plane dropped a bomb right down the smoke stack directly into the ammunition room resulting in a terrific explosion. He joined his fellow sailors in securing the ship by closing portholes in their section to keep out the water and bullets. Then he tried to return to his quarters and found the hatches closed and locked by those who had gone before. He made his way to the deck and found most of the crew there dead or badly burned. He went to work helping those he could. A lifeboat came to rescue some of the men. Mr. Washington escaped by wading to shore. He came through the bombing without a scratch, and was one of only two surviving African Americans on the ill-fated Arizona. Joe Washington spent two days at a hanger at Hickam Air Field in Washington. Yet because of his dedication to the Navy and his need to distract himself from the tragedy at Pearl Harbor, Mr. Washington volunteered to go back to work on the USS Oklahoma and the USS California. In November 1946, Mr. Washington was admirably discharged from Navy. Some twelve years later, he returned to Hawaii to appear with then- retired Rear Admiral Fuqua on the popular television show ``This Is Your Life.'' During that visit, he returned to the site of the Arizona's remains and said a silent prayer. In a 1985 interview he recalled, ``I couldn't help thinking that I hope they didn't die in vain.'' Joseph Washington spent the rest of his professional career as a government employee at the Brooklyn Navy Yard in New York. He returned home to Charleston in the 1970s after retirement and became an active and faithful member of Morris Brown AME Church. He never spoke of the events of December 7, 1941 unless he was asked, yet when he did, he would always exclaim, ``It was a miracle that I came through the bombing. I was one of the lucky ones.'' Joe Washington died last Tuesday at the age of 87, and will be buried in Charleston on Saturday. Mr. Washington never married. He leaves to mourn his passing a sister-in-law, and five beloved nieces including Emily E. Clyburn, the wife of our colleague Jim Clyburn. Mr. Speaker, I ask you and my colleagues to join me and members of the Congressional Black Caucus in remembering Joseph Henry Washington by saying that we are the lucky ones. We enjoy many freedoms today because men like him were willing to fight for their country even when they didn't enjoy the full benefit of what it meant to be an American. Because of Joe Washington and so many other unsung heroes, today our country is truly the home of the brave and the land of the free.

Mr. WATT

Mr. WATT. Mr. Speaker, during consideration of the rule this morning, our Republican colleagues suggested something pretty revolutionary, that is, that we do something we do not normally do often around here, and that is read the resolution. They said they encouraged us to review it, and vote based on whether we agree or disagree with the content of the resolution. So I reviewed the resolution. And as our colleagues suggested, I intend to vote against it based on the fact that there are several things in the resolution that I strongly disagree with. First, on page 2 of the resolution, it states as follows: ``Whereas by early 2003, Saddam Hussein and his criminal Ba'athist regime in Iraq constituted a threat to global peace and security.'' I think the only way one could conclude this would be to conclude that there were, in fact, weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. I did not vote for the war resolution because I never believed the President when he asserted that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq in the first place. I did not believe it then. It was subsequently proven not to be the case. And I most certainly cannot support a resolution that asserts it now. Second, the resolution asserts that: ``The terrorists seek to destroy the new unity government because it threatens the terrorist's aspirations for Iraq and the broader Middle East.'' There is probably some truth to that. However, what is probably a lot more true is that the war in Iraq has increased, not decreased, terrorism and the resolve of the terrorists. It has created conditions in Iraq that allow terrorism to thrive. Finally, the Resolution asserts that ``Iraqi forces are, over time, taking over from United States and Coalition forces a growing proportion of independent operations and increasingly lead the fight to secure Iraq.'' If that were true, we would have started bringing our troops home by now. At some point we've got to make Iraq assume responsibility for itself and its own people. I just don't believe they or we have come to grips with that. There obviously are a number of things in the Resolution with which I agree. But we were given no opportunity to amend the Resolution to strip out the things that are untrue and/or offensive or, for that matter, to add to the things with which we agree. My Republican colleagues have, once again, chosen to politicize a matter that should be above partisan politics. I cannot vote for the Resolution in this form and will, therefore, vote ``no.''

Mr. WATT

Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I just want to rise in support of the amendment. A number of us have worked hard for a number of different years to save, reauthorize, and fund the HOPE VI program. The gentleman is right: they have funds in the process, but you can't revitalize communities overnight. They seem to have lost sight of the fact that it takes a long time to rebuild a community that starts off being dilapidated public housing. You have to tear it down, you have to enter into public-private ventures around that community to restore housing, and that takes time. When people criticize the fact that there is money in the pipeline that has not been expended, that simply reaffirms the purpose for which HOPE VI was initiated in the first place, to restore communities, not to just build houses. That takes time. We need this money to continue the process.

Mr. WATT

Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, as the Chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, I am honored to offer the Congressional Black Caucus 2007 fiscal year budget alternative, and I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Chairman, a number of budgets are going to be offered tonight, and I think we are going to see a lot of smoke and mirrors and trickery. But we are honest in the way we approach our budget. We believe a budget is a statement of priorities, and we believe that there are priorities that we must pay for, and we must find the money to pay for them. So let me be straight up front that we intend in our budget to roll back, rescind the tax cuts on individuals' adjusted gross income in excess of $200,000. People will still get the benefits of tax cuts under $200,000, but by doing that over a 5-year period, we will gain $137 billion. We intend to eliminate corporate tax incentives for offshoring jobs. By doing that over a 5-year period, we will gain $50 billion. We intend to close tax loopholes and abusive shelters, and with that we will gain $10 billion. And on and on and on. So we are transparent in where we are getting our money from. We intend to spend that money on priorities that we have identified in the Congressional Black Caucus' agenda to close and eliminate disparities that continue to exist in our country between African Americans and other Americans in this country in education, in health care, in every conceivable way that we can approach this. It is our intention to do that. Let there be no mistake. We are not here to apologize because we think it is a higher priority for our country to eliminate and close these disparities that have existed throughout our history. We think that is more important than giving tax breaks to people who make over $200,000 a year. That is the simple premise of our budget. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, tell us, how much time remains?

Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I take it that the gentleman from Florida just spent 7 minutes telling the American people that for the people who make over $200,000 a year, how much of a tax benefit they are giving them, because all of the things he described adds up to the tax benefit that these people are getting. And I appreciate the gentleman's doing that. Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis). (Mr. DAVIS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green). (Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).