Mel Watt

Mr. WATT of North Carolina

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas) yielding to me. Mr. Chairman, I was going to suggest to the gentleman that he skip the first part of the argument, too, because this amendment does not do anything about the priorities. I was wondering whether he was debating another amendment possibly.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

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

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

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, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).

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

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis). (Mrs. DAVIS of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Would the chairman advise us of the amount of time remaining?

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, in the 13 or so blocks from my residence to my office this morning I promised myself that I was going to be calm and unemotional in this debate, despite the fact that I think the process in the committee was a charade and I think this is going to be a charade. At the end of the day this bill will not be amended because it is about making a political statement that our Republican leadership can get the bill that they passed last time and it can be signed. This bill is an unfortunate convergence of expediency and politics. Nobody is likely to like what I say on either side of this issue because what I perceive has happened is that the people who wanted this bill knew that politically they could not get it unless they exempted the poorest people in the country from the provisions of this bill. And for those of us who start with the position that there is abuse in the bankruptcy system and have witnessed that abuse, we know that the abuse not only exists among high-income people but the abuse exists among low-income people also. But basically the same people who a couple of years ago were telling us that we need to make poor people responsible for their actions in the welfare reform context now say, for political expediency, we will accept a means test in the bankruptcy laws that basically sets up two classes of citizens for bankruptcy in this country, and that, Mr. Chairman, will be the legacy of this bill. I know there are people who have kind of walked away from the debate because they said, well, this does not impact my constituency any more because my constituency is poor and poor people are exempted from this bill. However, it is irrational to set up a pauper's bankruptcy court system and a higher-income court system in this country for bankruptcies, and that will be the worst legacy, I believe, that this bill will carry forward as we go on. Now, once that unholy coalition got formed and the expediency and politics got together and the agreement was cut, then the people who wanted this bill from the beginning started to pile on additional provisions, because there really was not an effective coalition out there fighting the bill. So now we end up with all kinds of provisions in this bill that are special interest provisions that really have no rational basis. There was no demonstration of abuse by small businesses of the bankruptcy code. It was about individual abuse. Yet we have a whole body of provisions in this bill now making it more difficult for small businesses to reorganize under the bankruptcy laws. And I tell my colleagues that the impact of that ultimately will be that person after person after person will lose their jobs because small businesses will not be able to reorganize and continue in business to continue the jobs for those people. So I do not know. It is difficult for me to even grab ahold of one or two or three provisions. The whole concept of this bill, the whole theory that divides poor people and rich people and says we are going to set up separate systems of bankruptcy for us, one, a pauper's court, in effect, and another a richer people's court, in effect, is just alien to anything I can come to grips with and is bad public policy. I understand why it was expedient, I understand the politics of it, but it is sorry public policy. And that will be the most devastating legacy of this bill.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time, and let me correct at the outset her statement. This has been a joint effort from the very beginning; and I want to thank my colleague, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes), from the adjoining congressional district, for placing the marker that brings this resolution to the floor today and for working with us to get the resolution in a form where both of us thought that it was worthwhile and a good idea. I also want to thank the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble) in particular. Because while Dale Earnhardt was born in the district which the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes) represents, and lived in my congressional district, he had his primary place of business in the congressional district of the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble). So this has really been a joint effort of the three of us. But that is also an understatement, because all of our colleagues, from North Carolina in particular, have a special feeling about what this is all about; and we want to thank all of the representatives from North Carolina for joining as cosponsors of the resolution, and I want to thank all of my colleagues who have come to the floor and/or have called to express support for the resolution. I want to start, however, with another facet, because several people have also called me and said why is this important enough to come to the floor of the House. I want to address that issue, because I am not sure that people really understand why this is so important. It is obviously important, and we extend our sincere condolences to Dale Earnhardt's mother, Martha, to his wife and to his brothers and their children. This is important to them. Our hearts go out to them because they have lost a member of their family. My colleagues would never have believed the other people around this family who, once they heard about the accident, lined up at the place of business, went to the Charlotte Motor Speedway and were just there building impromptu memorials to this hero. So in a special sort of way Dale Earnhardt has an extended family that is unbelievable. If my colleagues look at the contents of the resolution, they can see that he lived in Mooresville, North Carolina, which is in my congressional district; but his racing and related businesses contributed much to the employment, business development, and prestige of Mecklenburg, Cabarrus, Iredell, Rowan, Davidson, and Lincoln Counties in North Carolina. Think about this sport, which has become such an exciting sport for so many people all across America. There is not another single event that brings the number of people to our area of the State as the World 600 race, with 160,000 to 180,000 people coming to observe this sport and that race; coming into the neighborhood, coming into these counties that surround the Charlotte Motor Speedway and making a major financial contribution to our geographic area. A lot of people have thought of racing as having a singular kind of appeal to one group of people. But let me tell my colleagues that I attended my first race more than 20 years ago and I found out what attending a race of this kind is like. I have sat in the stands with the fans, where everybody around me has become a part of my family for that afternoon while participating in that event. I have sat in the box, where there is an air of excitement there that is just unbelievable, in addition to the business that it brings to the community. But we need to go beyond even that. Because for those people who think that this sport is raw and for the unsophisticated, I have also visited the shops of some of these race drivers where these cars are prepared. There I found the most exquisite, advanced technology and the tightest specifications that NASCAR imposes on these automobiles in those shops. So while the perception may be out there that this sport is for the good old guys, let me dissuade my colleagues of that notion. This is fast becoming America's sport, much like basketball, much like football. It has taken its place alongside of these, and this is an important event. Of all of that background, now, let me take this one individual and elevate him, because along with Richard Petty, Dale Earnhardt was kind of the superstar of this sport. Much like Michael Jordan and Wilt Chamberlain became the superstars of basketball or there are recognizable names in football, Dale Earnhardt became the hero and recognizable name in this sport. And so we honor him particularly for that reason. But then there is another component to it. I picked up a newspaper, The New York Times, over the weekend, and on the sports page there was this touching article about how Dale Earnhardt had touched the life of Rodney Rogers, who is a professional basketball player with the Phoenix Suns when Rodney Rogers was attending Wake Forest University in North Carolina. Dale Earnhardt reached out to him and they became friends. So there is a special feeling between sports that this hero has generated. That feeling, that persona, that individual, that father, that brother, that son, has permeated this whole sport. The loss of this individual is a tremendous loss to our area. From everything I am hearing from my colleagues now, they also recognize that it is a tremendous loss to America. We honor Dale Earnhardt. We extend our condolences to his family and to the racing family through this resolution. Farewell, Dale Earnhardt.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following resolution of the North Carolina Association of Black Lawyers regarding the nomination of John D. Ashcroft as Attorney General of the United States. North Carolina Association of Black Lawyers Announces Opposition to the Nomination of John D. Ashcroft as Attorney General of United States The North Carolina Association of Black Lawyers, founded in 1971 and representing over 800 African American Lawyers in North Carolina is dedicated to the pursuit of equal justice for all people. In defense of rights of African Americans and all persons believing in the pursuit of equal justice, we announce our active opposition to the confirmation of John A. Ashcroft for Attorney General of the United States. Our opposition is based upon Mr. Ashcroft's demonstrated hostility to ensuring equal justice and access to justice for all Americans. The Attorney General is responsible for vigorous enforcement of our nation's civil rights laws--pursuing those laws in a fair, vigorous and consistent manner. Ashcroft has opposed appropriately tailored race-conscious measures designed to remedy present and past discrimination. He even opposes programs that are constitutionally permissible under current Supreme Court precedent. He repeatedly sponsored legislation to end affirmative action programs in employment, contracting and public programs. He sponsored legislation to end the Department of Transportation's Disadvantaged Minority and Women Business Program. He also sponsored legislation to make provisions similar to California's Proposition 209--which banned affirmative action--a part of federal law. He opposed Bill Lann Lee because Mr. Lee expressed support for constitutionally permissible affirmative action programs--applying an ideological litmus test to this nomination as he has with judicial nominations. Ashcroft's efforts helped to prevent a vote before the full United States Senate. As Attorney General and then as Governor, Ashcroft vigorously opposed efforts to desegregate St. Louis' public schools. His opposition was so great that the court almost ordered the State in contempt citing ``continual delay and failure to comply'' with a court order to submit a voluntary desegregation plan. Governor Ashcroft vetoed legislation that would have allowed private non-profit, civic, religious and political groups to register voters in the City of St. Louis, he later vetoed a bill that would have allowed such registration in all of Missouri. During testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Ashcroft said that he believed in and supported the President's ideas, which he termed ``affirmative access''-- already at work in California, Texas and Florida. He calls these programs The Attorney General is the gatekeeper to the federal judiciary- playing a key role in whom the President selects for the federal bench. Ashcroft has repeatedly blocked the consideration of qualified nominees. His record shows that, as a Senator, he has repeatedly used tactics to block and delay votes on qualified women and minorities nominated to the federal courts. Senator Ashcroft's decisive role in sabotaging the nomination of a well qualified African American, Judge Ronnie White, to the federal bench points to his disregard for judicial independence and his willingness to use ideological litmus tests in the judicial selection process. Ashcroft spearheaded the party-line vote to defeat Judge Ronnie White's confirmation to a federal district court judgeship. He did this by misrepresenting Judge White's record, labeling him pro-criminal because of his death penalty record even though White voted to uphold the death penalty over 70% of the time. The Attorney General should have the temperament, objectivity and commitment to fairness necessary to carry the awesome responsibilities of Attorney General. Ashcroft's fervent and long-term commitment to his extremist political beliefs call into question his ability to suppress those political beliefs and enforce the constitutional principles with which he so profoundly disagrees. This extremist ideology also raises questions about his objectivity. As a member of the Senate he made racially insensitive comments to Southern Partisan magazine that were divisive. Ashcroft applauded the magazine for its ``heritage of doing that, of defending Southern patriots like [Robert E.] Lee, [Stonewall] Jackson, and [Jefferson] Davis.'' Southern Partisan has printed articles stating that African Americans, Hispanics, Asians, and other immigrants have ``no temperament for democracy, never had, [and] never will'' and that these groups have dissipated the nation's ``genetic race pool.'' He further demonstrated his racial insensitivity when, as a United States Senator from a state with over 500,000 African Americans, he gave the commencement address and received an honorary degree from Bob Jones University, a school known for its racist policies and anti-Catholic bigotry. Although Ashcroft has claimed that he did not know about the policies of the University, he has refused to return the degree. The credibility of his denial is called into question when as governor he declined to appoint a professor to a state judgeship who had made supportive comments of the University in a law review article. We are communicating our opposition to Senators Helms and Edwards as well as members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. We urge our membership to oppose vigorously this nomination. We join the multitude of organizations opposing this nomination.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) the next chair of the Congressional Black Caucus.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus for reserving the time for those Members who were not able to come to the floor on Friday of last week when we suddenly found out about the death of our good friend and colleague, Julian Dixon. Mr. Speaker, I would now yield to my colleague, the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton).

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

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

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I want to express my thanks to the number of colleagues who have participated in this special order in tribute to our good friend and departed colleague, Julian Dixon. A number of Members on Friday, immediately following the announcement of Julian Dixon's death, had the opportunity to come to the floor and express themselves and that has continued today. I am aware, however, Mr. Speaker, that a number of our colleagues have not been able to make it back today. Let me just wrap up, Mr. Speaker, by saying a few words. First of all, obviously on behalf of the Congressional Black Caucus and the many other Members of this body, we want to extend our sincere condolences to the family of our friend, Julian Dixon; his wife, Bettye; his son, Cary; to his staff; to his constituents, not only those in his congressional district but those in the District of Columbia and throughout the Nation whom he served so well for the years that he was in this body and in politics. Many of us, when we come to this body, seek out and observe people and try to emulate them and identify with them. We call them our role models. Those of us who do that, and I am one of those, all considered Julian Dixon a role model. Even those of us whose styles may have been more vocal and sometimes more shrill aspired to be like Julian Dixon because he could influence others, not so much by shrillness or public speaking but just because of his wisdom and knowledge of issues and his quiet, calm way of dealing with issues. We admired that about Julian. He was a gentleman in the truest sense of the word. He respected others, regardless of how they chose to express themselves. He quite often, after I would come to the floor and make statements, he would come and say you really made a good speech. He fortunately never came and said I made a bad speech, but probably when he thought I was making a bad speech or overdoing it he just maintained his quiet, cool, calm demeanor and did not say anything. I admired this man immensely, and I think we all admired him immensely for that gentle approach, that gentlemanly approach to issues. As many of my colleagues have said today, it would take a special person with a special kind of relationship to other colleagues in this body to chair the Ethics Committee, and to chair the Ethics Committee during a time when the Speaker of the House was being investigated and to steer this body through that process and still have the respect and admiration of all of his colleagues. I think that probably summarizes and personifies the kind of person that Julian Dixon was, and that all of us perceived him as being; a balanced, thoughtful, gentlemanly person. He is going to be missed by this body, by his district, by America, and I personally will miss him immensely. Mr. Speaker, I just want to again express our sincere condolences to family, friends, staff, constituents.

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

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the dean of the Congressional Black Caucus.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to yield to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) the person in this body who probably had among the closest relations with our dear friend and colleague, Julian Dixon, because of his service on the Subcommittee on the District of Columbia and their close association.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks in memory of our friend, Julian Dixon, who is the subject of this special order.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, for the last several years, since the passage of the Balanced Budget Act, all health care providers who provide medical services under Medicare have been suffering, and we have been making efforts to try to address that problem. Unfortunately, the bill that is being brought to the floor today will give 47 percent of the benefits of the bill to HMOs who provide only 15 to 16 percent of the health care coverage for Medicare recipients. In the process, it shortchanges the other health care providers, such as hospitals, home health agencies, nursing homes, hospices and, more importantly, beneficiaries under Medicare. Additionally, this bill would break faith with the commitments that we made during the census that we would keep all information from the census private. We made a commitment. We went out and told people that their information would be private. Now the same people who said that the information would not be revealed are here offering a bill to reveal the information. What a reversal of roles here. We should oppose this bill, sustain the President's veto, and get a real bill for the American people.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina

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