Mel Watt

Mr. WATT of North Carolina

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. 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 such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner). (Mr. FILNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

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

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, there are 5 important reasons why this bill is a bad idea. The bill's proposed verification system just simply will not work. The bill would expose individuals' Social Security numbers to public inspection, an idea that we have long opposed. This bill is politically motivated. The bill undermines the Voting Rights Act and the National Voter Registration Act, the so-called motor voter act, and this bill has never ever been considered and voted upon by any committee of this House or any subcommittee of this House. Those are 5 good reasons that this bill should be defeated. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Kennelly), the next Governor of Connecticut.

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

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

Mr. WATT of North Carolina

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority whip.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. General Leave

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I will be brief so as not to prolong this debate because I do not think there is anybody who opposes this bill. The bill serves a useful purpose of extending and clarifying an important State Department and INS authority that expired on September 30, 1997. This authority was necessary to allow longtime reeducation camp victims who have been persecuted in Vietnam for their pro-U.S. associations to bring their unmarried children with them to the United States if these children have reached the age of 21 during their incarceration or the long wait for an exit visa from the Communist authorities. A number of these former prisoners of conscience have refused to leave Vietnam unless they can bring their children. These families are trapped in Vietnam until this provision is reauthorized. The extension of this authority has been endorsed by the Clinton administration, Senators McCain, Abraham, and Kennedy, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], the gentleman from California [Mr. Berman], and many others. As I say, there is no real objection to this bill. I do want to raise one point, however, that I think can go unnoticed in the waning moments of a congressional session. This is a matter of immigration policy, and because this bill was just introduced, just dropped within the last minutes, the bill never has had a chance to go through the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims of the Committee on the Judiciary, and so we continue to make somewhat haphazardly immigration policy in this country, and we yesterday on an appropriations bill made exceptions for Nicaraguans, Guatemalans, Salvadorans, other people from Communist countries, to be treated as refugees. Under this bill, we make exceptions for some Vietnamese who obviously are very deserving, and the thing that is troubling is that we keep making these exceptions, all of which we support, but we keep leaving out the Haitians, which a number of people rose on the floor yesterday, especially Representatives from Florida, to try to see why we keep leaving out the Haitians, who really ought to be given an exception similar to the exceptions that we have given, we are giving, under this bill, that we gave under an appropriations bill to the Salvadorans, Guatemalans, and others yesterday. Why do we keep leaving out the Haitians? And that question cries out for a response even though they are not people who oppose this particular bill. The question still is out there, why can we not find a bill and support for the Haitian people who came to this country under parole of Republican and Democratic Presidents, were given a status, and yet we are not dealing with them, we are ignoring them in the process of passing these bills? So having expressed the procedural concern that we are haphazardly and kind of case-by-case making immigration policy without this bill having gone through the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims or the Committee on the Judiciary, and having expressed a concern that nobody seems to be paying attention to the plight of the Haitians even though there is a bill which could just as easily be picked up and moved on the floor as this bill is being moved, I encourage my colleagues nonetheless to support this bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Lofgren].

Mr. WATT of North Carolina

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. There cannot be a unanimous consent that is agreed to if he is asking unanimous consent on the floor.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I am afraid I did not understand what the gentleman was doing in the midst of the debate on this bill. Would the gentleman restate what he is doing?

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I just want to say, people keep saying that. Understand, the Mexican border, the entry system is already in place. So this notion that we are delaying and it is just applying to equally is just not true.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I just find it very amazing that all of these representations are being said about what disruption is going to happen on the Canadian border as if the same disruptions do not happen on the southeastern border and the southern border. There is absolutely no distinction between the northern border and the southern border. The same arguments that apply on the northern border apply on the southern border. All these people are talking about, well, 50 years ago I used to play on the Canadian border. Fifty years ago we all used to keep our doors unlocked at night. But nobody does that now. We have turned up the pressure on the southern border and people are going around, coming in the northern border as if it is a sieve. It was the Republicans who kept telling us last year that we had to secure our borders. Now they are back making exception after exception after exception. Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2920. As the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims, I have had the opportunity this year to learn a great deal about America's borders and the importance of securing the borders against illegal immigration, narcotic, and alien smugglers, and potential terrorists. Because of this, I have supported efforts by the chairman of our subcommittee to increase security along the southwest border of the United States. Because of the success along the southwest border, pressure has increased along the northern border. I recognize that there is a long tradition of openness between the United States and Canada along the northern border, but times are changing, and I believe our policies must adjust to reflect these changes. There have been numerous incidents of alien smugglers bringing in hundreds of illegal immigrants across the border between Ontario and upstate New York. One of the terrorists on trial for participating in the conspiracy to blow up the Lincoln Tunnel in New York entered the United States from Canada. The Canadian border must be as secure as the southern border. Otherwise, we might as well put a neon light over the Canadian border inviting immigrants to come across it with impunity. Section 110 provides that by October 1, 1998, the Attorney General will develop an automated entry and exit control system that will collect a record of departure of every alien departing the United States and match the records of departure with the records of aliens arriving in the United States. This would enable the Attorney General to identify folks who are overstaying their visas or staying in the country illegally. In fairness, the language of this bill is neutral on its face and makes no direct reference to Canada. Make no mistake about it, however; this bill is about treating Canada and the northern border differently from Mexico and the southern border. There are already stringent entry control systems in place along the southwest border. Because the INS has a record of every entry from Mexico, it is able to determine when someone entered the United States and whether they overstayed or violated the terms of that entry. This is not the case along the Canadian border. Crossing into the United States from Canada is not unlike driving through a toll booth. Passengers answer some routine questions, and if they are citizens or legal permanent residents of either Canada or the United States, they are flagged through. Once in the United States, Canadians are virtually indistinguishable from other Americans. Perhaps that is why Canada ranks fourth as the source country for illegal immigrants in the United States. There are at least 120,000 Canadians working illegally in the United States, and none of these people entered the country illegally. Nearly half of all the illegal immigrants in the United States overstaying the terms of their valid tourist or student visa came in through the Canadian border. Overstaying or violating the terms of valid visas is the illegal immigration method of choice for Canadian, Europeans, and others who know that the INS will never find them. Section 110 of the illegal immigration reform bill was specifically designed to give the INS the tools to combat this problem. If my colleagues are truly committed to combating illegal immigration in all its forms, if my colleagues want an immigration policy that does not distinguish between white Canadians and colored Mexicans, then we must enforce the laws on an equal basis and do it in a racially color-blind way. I think this bill does not support that proposition, and I rise in opposition to the bill.

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 reserve the right to object.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise in reluctant opposition to this bill. I say ``reluctant'' because it is always difficult to be on the opposite side of an issue from my friend, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel], and also because, as a general proposition, I am a supporter of CBI parity. Unfortunately, this bill does not get us where we need to be, and it comes on the suspension calendar, where nobody can make any amendments or offer any amendments to improve the bill and address some of the issues which need to be addressed. Second, it has a particularly adverse effect on the workers in my State of North Carolina. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Crane] indicated that we have been at full employment for some time now. Tell that to the workers in North Carolina. H.R. 2644 will reduce or eliminate tariffs and quotas on watches, food ware, tuna, and apparel. These industries enjoy some modest tariff and quota protection because they are vulnerable to cheap imports. Supporters of this bill imply that giving away the jobs in these industries, especially in the garment industry, is an acceptable sacrifice. But let me tell my colleagues a little about these people who work in this industry in North Carolina. These workers in these factories are hard-working people. They are considered unskilled workers, but only because their highly developed sewing skills do not have much application outside the garment industry. They have spent years perfecting their craft. This bill will pull the rug from under them. My colleagues will hear that garment jobs are low-paying jobs and we should sacrifice them, but an experienced seamstress in North Carolina makes about $10 an hour. Those are jobs that, if they cannot do these jobs, they are going somewhere else offshore and these people will be forced onto welfare. We should not have to make that sacrifice. We should defeat this bill.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. I rise in opposition to this bill, and I wish to talk for a minute or two about what this bill is not about, because there is a lot of misinformation out there. This is not about whether people will be compensated for the taking of their property. People always have been, will continue to be compensated for a taking of property, and that is a right under the Federal Constitution. But this is not about whether the Federal courts only can decide that. State courts have and do and should continue to decide Federal constitutional issues based on who has jurisdiction over those issues and where the lawsuit is filed. For the Republicans to say to us that somehow we should direct the Federal courts to do this seems to me completely inconsistent with everything that they have said that they stand for. First of all, they have told us that they believe in the devolution of power back to the State and local level. This bill is absolutely counter to that proposition. Second of all, they have told us that they believe in disputes being resolved at the level of conflict closest to the people. This is absolutely contrary to that proposition. Third, they say they want these things resolved quickly. Well, we have a backlog in the Federal courts unlike any State in this Union, because the Senate will not let the Federal judges be appointed, and so we are getting further and further and further behind. So to put these cases in Federal Court is going to prolong the process, not shorten the process. This is a bad idea. State courts can and should resolve these disputes. Federal courts can and should resolve these disputes. The current law allows that to happen right now and we ought to leave it alone.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina

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

Mr. WATT

Mr. WATT. Mr. Speaker, I object.