Mel Watt

Mr. WATT of North Carolina

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 2495, the Higher Education for the 21st Century Act.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, let me just submit to my colleagues that what would be pernicious is not the provisions of this amendment. What would be pernicious is if our country put somebody to death, and then found that what they were being put to death for was untrue. And that has been happening more and more recently with the advent of new technological advances, such as the advances in DNA research. We are able now to go back 20 or 30 years and find out that people have in fact been put to death by our country, by our system of criminal justice, for a crime that they did not commit. That is what is pernicious. This amendment has nothing to do with the burden of proof. The burden of proof is whether you are guilty or innocent. In our system of justice, that burden of proof is, in a criminal case, beyond a reasonable doubt. This amendment goes to what is considered after there has been a determination of guilt or innocence beyond a reasonable doubt. It goes to what you consider in determining whether there is a death penalty assessed, whether you put somebody to death. So this is not about the burden of proof on guilt or innocence; this is about what you consider in deciding whether someone should be put to death by our criminal justice system. Simply put, the amendment says if there is one iota of doubt, if there is any doubt about it, the jury which is considering whether to put a person to death or not ought to be able to take that into account. That is all it says. I submit that is a very reasonable proposition. The notion that we are doing something un-American by trying to remove any doubt before we use the official forces of the government to put a citizen to death is surprising to me. I think this amendment is imminently reasonable. I encourage my colleagues to support it. It is not pernicious, it is just plain good sense.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would just reiterate to my colleagues that this is not a controversial bill. It serves a very worthy purpose, and the fact that I have talked about some things that the bill could cover and should cover should not overshadow the good aspects of the bill. I hope that the House will have the courage to address some of those issues, but that is not a negative about this bill. This bill should be supported. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill. It is not a controversial bill. H.R. 429 would grant special immigrant status to retired civilian NATO employees who served in the headquarters of the Protocol on the Status of International Military in Norfolk, Virginia. Special immigrants and their families are entitled to permanent resident status in the United States now. H.R. 429 would immediately impact 60 families and only approximately 132 individuals. We certainly have no quarrel with NATO civilian employees who have lived in the United States for extended periods of time exercising this privilege, or extending this right to them or this privilege to them. However, we do believe there should be some degree of reciprocity for Americans who are working for NATO abroad who would like to retire with their families in Belgium or Germany, for example, if they should elect to do that, and that has not been addressed in any way. That is not a knock against the bill; the bill is fine. It would have been nice if we could have put something in there or if the other countries could address that issue to demonstrate some degree of reciprocity. The final point I would like to make though is that while we believe that the NATO personnel and their families who remain in the United States after retirement certainly should be extended this prerogative, many of the requirements are equally applicable to some other circumstances, and I would like to spend a minute or two just laying those out for my colleagues, because we need to address some of these issues and make sure that our immigration policy continues to be consistent and the rationale for our immigration policy continues to be consistent. Supporters of H.R. 429 have asserted that NATO personnel should be allowed to remain permanently in the United States for four reasons. Number one, they say their children came to the United States at elementary school age and have never experienced a lifestyle in their country of origin. That is correct. Number two, they say their children possess educational qualifications and experiences that are unique to the United States and that are unlikely to be fully recognized if they return to their native countries. That is also correct. Number three, they say that current law requires children of NATO employees to return to their native country upon graduating from high school or college, thereby breaking up families. That, too, is correct, and a good argument in support of this bill. Finally, they say that NATO employees should be able to retire into the communities that have become their home after years of service to NATO in the United States. That, too, is correct. All four of those arguments are good arguments in support of this bill. But they are also good arguments for addressing the issues that relate to Haitians who have been in this country under the same or similar circumstances and to which the same arguments would be equally applicable. So I hope as we pass this piece of legislation, we take time to understand the rationale for passing this legislation, and apply that same rationale to other people for whom these four arguments would be applicable, such as the Haitians, the Hmongs, and some other folks who have come to this country at our invitation and with our blessing and have exactly the same arguments in favor of extending citizenship to them on a permanent basis. Mr. Speaker, I yield five minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Pickett), the sponsor of this bill.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, did the gentleman from New York use his entire minute?

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to make sure that we were reserving the time for our side. We have many speakers.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton). (Mrs. CLAYTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra).

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez). (Ms. VELAZQUEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California is talking about something that may exist in the future. Unfortunately, this process has to verify voters now. As soon as it is put in place. And the INS and Social Security have both said unequivocally they do not have the capacity to do this. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Forbes). (Mr. FORBES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez). (Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), the former secretary of state of the State of Ohio.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis). (Mr. DAVIS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings). (Mr. CUMMINGS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez).

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute 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. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, would the Chair advise us of the time remaining?

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Torres).

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. The question is what problem are we trying to solve by this bill? I submit to Members that the problem we are trying to solve by this bill is one that the Republicans are trying to create. They are seeing an unregistered voter behind every tree and they are seeing them vote for Democrats. That is what this bill is all about. They have spent over a million dollars on a wild goose chase and now they bring a bill to the American people which they know will fail to cover their tracks and make it look good. This bill will not work. The Social Security Administration and the INS have already told us that they do not have the records. Who will be sent there to check their citizenship? People who look like they are not American citizens: Hispanics, blacks, people who are minorities. This bill is un-American. They will then be given 30 days to take an appeal, but that 30 days will expire after the next election. So what happens when I walk into the polling place and try to cast my vote? I will be told, oh no, you cannot vote because you do not look American. The Republicans are seeing diversity behind every tree. Stand up and understand that this country is about diversity and honoring diversity, not destroying it. That is what this bill will do. That is what it is intended to do. No committee has marked up this bill. It comes to the floor today in the wake of the Sanchez dismissal as cover for my Republican colleagues. That is the sole reason it is here. This bill is un-American. It should be voted down and we should be ashamed for bringing it to the floor. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a letter dated February 11, 1998, from the Congressional Budget Office regarding this bill: Congressional Budget Office, U.S. Congress, Washington, DC, February 11, 1998. Hon. Melvin L. Watt, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman: On February 10, you requested CBO's analysis of H.R. 1428, the Voter Eligibility Verification Act. H.R. 1428 was introduced last June, but it has not been reported by a Committee, and CBO has not completed a formal estimate of its budgetary implications. The bill, as introduced, would direct the Social Security Administration (SSA) and the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) to respond to inquiries from state and local election officials about the citizenship of prospective voters. It is difficult to estimate the likely costs of the bill, because neither SSA nor INS now maintains the information that would be necessary to provide definitive confirmation of citizenship for the vast majority of the voting-age population. SSA issues Social Security numbers (SSNs) to native-born citizens, naturalized citizens, and aliens legally admitted for permanent residence; the citizenship information in SSA's files may not be up-to-date or (if the SSN was issued before 1981) based on documentary evidence. The INS has information about naturalized citizens but not about native-born citizens; even those data contain gaps, are not entirely automated, and rely on the alien registration number rather than the SSN. Because the limitations of these data would soon become apparent to state and local officials, the number of inquiries is likely to be small, as would the cost of responding to them. Filling the gaps in the agencies' data would require the creation of new data bases, clearly an expensive undertaking, but one that would be barred by the bill. I hope that this information is helpful to you. If you have further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me, or have your staff contact Kathy Ruffing of my staff at 226- 2820. Sincerely, June E. O'Neill, Director.