Mel Watt

Mr. WATT of North Carolina

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, sometimes we complicate things so much here and we lose perspective, that when we are talking about a budget, it is about setting priorities. It is just like our budgets at home. What we spend our money on reflects our values and our priorities. As we proceed with these negotiations that are going on, I hope we will keep that in mind and reject the priorities that were set out in the budget reconciliation bill that the House and Senate passed and the President vetoed. Those priorities are mean-spirited: more expensive, less accessible, and lower quality health care; less commitment to education; higher taxes for working people; less nutrition; less immunization, less protection, and more poverty for children; less safe drinking water, more air pollution, more exposure to toxic waste; higher State and local taxes; less taxes for the rich at the expense of the poor. We ought to reject those priorities and set some better priorities for our country.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I really am glad that this is not a serious vote that we are about to take. My colleagues ought to be clear on that. Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats, I guess, expect this bill to go anywhere. It was on the suspension calendar on November 14 or November 15. They did not expect it to go anywhere then. The reason for that is that everybody knows that this is an absolutely utterly irresponsible piece of legislation. The Secretary of Treasury yesterday appeared before a hearing, and I asked him pointblank, Mr. Secretary, what would have happened if this bill had passed on the suspension calendar on November 14 when it was originally voted on? Would the U.S. Government be in default today? And he told me in no uncertain terms, told all the Republicans and the Democrats, if this bill had passed on November 14 when we first voted on it, the U.S. Government would be in default today and if it passes and becomes law today, the U.S. Government will be in default tomorrow. So this is not about Social Security, it is not about budget, it is not about the President, it is not about our children. This is about the responsibility of our Nation for a debt. We talk about personal responsibility. This is public responsibility we are talking about. We are talking about our children, we want to set an example for them to pay their debts. That is what we want to set an example for. And this bill simply sets a terrible, terrible example for our children.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I hope I do not have to object, and I yield to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] to explain to us what is going on here.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, continuing my reservation of objection, I yield to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer].

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, it actually expands the bill that we passed?

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, continuing my reservation of objection, it seems to me that we deserve to know what we are voting on.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I will not object. I want to make sure I understand what the Senate amendment does. I yield to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum].

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding time to me. I rise in reluctant opposition to this bill, not because I feel that what I say is going to influence anybody to vote against the bill. When this DNA bank was set up several years ago, as I recall, I was one of two Members who voted against setting it up in the first place, and I doubt that there is any shift in the public sentiment on that issue since that time. I thought it would be helpful to use a little bit of time today to at least educate my colleagues about this issue and the potential for abuse related to DNA. Every day there is a new breakthrough in DNA identification technology. But DNA technology can be a classic double- edged sword. It can cut either way, so to speak. I think my colleagues need to understand that and understand why I insisted in committee on offering an amendment to inhibit the use of DNA information that we are collecting to establish profiles for criminal conduct or any other kind of conduct. On the one hand, DNA can be used to identify people with the genetic predisposition for certain diseases, which can facilitate treatment. It can be used to prove the innocence of falsely accused persons and help set them free. Of course, the pending habeas corpus reforms which are coming out of the Committee on the Judiciary make such a release unlikely because even if under the habeas corpus reforms, even if you had DNA that conclusively, DNA results that conclusively found somebody not to have been the victim or not to have been the perpetrator of a crime, you still could not use that DNA for the purpose of getting the person out of jail. I do not think we are so intent on using DNA for positive purposes necessarily as much as we are intent on using it for negative purposes. If DNA technology is allowed to develop without certain safeguards put in place, it could have very, very negative consequences. That is what I have raised the prospect of by offering this amendment in committee and having the committee adopt it. I want to express my appreciation to the subcommittee chair for including the provision in the bill which makes it clear that the DNA information that the U.S. Government is collecting on our citizens cannot be used to set up criminal profiles that try to predict the propensity of a U.S. citizen to engage in criminal conduct. I think that would be a dangerous, dangerous level of activity by the U.S. Government. But the reason I have some reservations about this, this bill, is that this DNA bank really is creating a bank of people's blood. If someone gets convicted of a crime, and they go to prison, their DNA is going into this DNA bank. Whether their blood is needed for proof of their guilt or innocence in the case for which they are being tried or not is irrelevant, and I think we have gone beyond the pale of invasion of individual rights when we start taking people's blood unrelated to the case that they are being prosecuted for, and I think in some cases we are abusing our individual rights of our citizens in this country. The second concern that I have is that we really have not developed in this country a clear way of using DNA. There is a lot of debate, ongoing debate, in the public about how reliable DNA is, how probative it can be in criminal cases, how much of a determining factor it should be. I guess the classic case of that was in the O.J. Simpson case where people started to understand more and more the whole concept of DNA testimony in criminal cases. Mr. Speaker, we have a long, long way to go in developing an understanding of the effective and reliable use of DNA as evidence in medicine, in criminal cases, the whole range of cases, and the thing that concerns me is that by spending $40 million we are getting ourselves way out in front of this issue before we have any reliable information about how this DNA information ought to be used. The final point I want to make, and then I will sit down because I do not want to prolong this debate and I know that the outcome of this vote is already programmed, is that $40 million is a lot of money, and if I have the set priorities about how I were going to use $40 million, the establishment and the expansion of a Federal DNA bank and the granting of funds to States and local governments to further expand their DNA capacities, I would tell my colleagues would be way, way down on my list of priorities, and so in a sense I am concerned about the priorities we are setting by setting aside $40 million over this 4- or 5-year period to do this when we have such other critical needs in our country. With that I will just leave this alone because again I know the outcome of the debate and the outcome of this vote. It would not be on the Suspension Calendar if a substantial number of people did not think this was noncontroversial, but I think we should understand that there is a level of controversy about the reliability of DNA testimony, the potential abuse of individual rights when we start taking the blood of people who, even though they have been convicted of some crime, even though their blood is not needed in that particular case, and we should always be concerned, when we are talking about spending the taxpayers' dollars, about the priorities we are setting for the Federal Government in the spending of those dollars.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I want to talk for a minute or two about this block grant approach because my colleagues should know that running between the States of North Carolina and South Carolina is a wonderful lake, and the last time we had a block grant program, the legal block grant program that was implemented under the Nixon administration, one of the law enforcement officials in South Carolina went out and bought a nice yacht and put it on this lake to use for what he said was crime fighting purposes. I think that was the impetus that led to doing away with the last round of block grant programs. Now, my colleagues are back with these block grant programs, and they say it is the thing of the future and we are going to control them going into the future. But there is nothing in this bill that is going to stop people from buying yachts and tanks and all of these airplanes, like they did under the last block grant program. The second point I want to make is my colleagues are going to tell us that they are returning all of this discretion back to the local governments so they can buy these yachts, but I will tell my colleagues that this bill does not return discretion to the local government. What it does is reward States that have incarcerated the most people over the last 3 years. There is a provision here that says, and I quote it, verbatim, We are going to give grants to States only that have increased the percentage of persons convicted of violent crimes over the last 3 years; those who have increased the average prison time over the last 3 years. Well, we are operating, according to a recent newspaper article, the biggest expansion industry in the world is the United States prison system already, and now we are trying to reward people for putting more people in jail rather than coming into line with other civilized countries in the world.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the invitation from my colleague to talk about the budget, because that is exactly what I came here to talk about. Last Friday I was down in Durham, NC, in my congressional district, talking to poor people about the reconciliation bill and the budget that has been proposed by my Republican colleagues. They could not believe what I was telling them: $270 billion in cuts in Medicare, $180 billion in cuts in Medicaid, making our health and our future at risk. They could not believe that our Republican colleagues were talking about cutting reading programs for the most vulnerable kids in America. They could not believe that they were talking about taking kids, 1 to 2 million more kids, and putting them in poverty, all for the purpose of giving a tax break to the richest people in America. Get real. This is real dollars we are talking about, and the future of our country we are talking about.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. The point is that there were funny things going on in that time, and there are funny things going on now; all designed to assure that the minority community does not have representation in this body. White I do not want to dwell on the historical context, I do think it is important to get it into a historical context so that people understand that this is not something that we come to complain about just because it is happening in 1990. This has been going on for well over a hundred years, and for us, it has been going on in this country ever since we came to these shores.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I think there is a real substantial question about what they will be reviewing. They set up a series of criteria in the original Shaw versus Reno decision. Many of those criteria were not upon even mentioned when the Supreme Court decided the Georgia case. They seemed to change the criteria. So, the North Carolina case has been tried under criteria that we do not know whether are applicable criteria any more or not. I am hoping that they will evaluate the case on the criteria that they set up in the North Carolina case. But even if they do not, if they evaluate it on the criteria that they set in the Georgia case, that race cannot be the predominant factor, I still am confident that even on that standard, the districts can and should be upheld both in North Carolina and in Texas.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. If the gentlewoman would yield just for 1 more minute, because I am going to have to leave and I do want to put this in a slightly different context also, in addition to the historical context, because the Supreme Court has suggested that all of the sudden we should wave a magic wand and will that the Nation and its voters be color-blind and this problem will be solved. Often, in talking about this and getting people to understand how ridiculous that notion is, I make reference to what has recently transpired in South Africa where they had a very small white minority controlling that country for years and years and years. Then they had a miraculous historic transition to a real Democratic government. The question I ask is, ``Do you think that the United States of America would have been satisfied if the black majority in South Africa had come forward with a proposed democracy that said we are going to be color-blind; we are not going to take race into account at all; we are not going to assure the white minority in South Africa representation in this new Democratic government?'' Do you think that the United States of America would have stood still for that kind of thinking? My answer, obviously, is no, because it would have been ridiculous to think that all of those years of history could have just been wiped out and we could have created a color-blind society, a color-blind democracy in South Africa. It could not happen. If the white minority in South Africa was going to have any chance of having a fair shot at representation and having its views reflected in that democracy, the only way it was going to happen was to set up a system that allowed them to have representation. Yet, if we take that scenario and we reverse the roles, our Supreme Court essentially is suggesting that exactly what we would have rejected in South Africa is what we should be doing in our democracy here in the United States. It is outrageous. It makes no sense in terms of fairness. It makes no sense in terms of the political and historical realities of the situation. So, I applaud the gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson and the gentlewoman from Georgia, Ms. McKinney and the gentlewoman from Florida, Ms. Brown. I applaud all of these gentlewomen for doing this this evening, and bringing this issue back into focus. Especially, since on Tuesday of this coming week, the Supreme Court is, again, hearing oral arguments in the North Carolina case and in the Texas case. Our Nation and our people need to be focused on this issue and why it is important to have every segment of our society represented if we are to have an effective democracy in this country.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. That was the next point I wanted to make. It was not until the gentlewoman from North Carolina Eva Clayton, my colleague, and I were elected in 1992, 91 years later, that an African- American was elected to Congress from the State of North Carolina. So, the point I am making, and I will yield back to you all to carry this on, is this is not a new phenomenon. We have been fighting this battle since years and years and years ago, and we fought it in the face of literacy tests, where people were required to read and interpret documents before they were allowed to vote; grandfather clauses, which prohibited people from voting unless their grandfathers had voted, keeping freed slaves from casting ballots; poll taxes which kept poor people, blacks and whites alike, from voting; lynchings, which were flourishing throughout the South, and now in that historical context, the Supreme Court would ask us to be color-blind as a Nation and go back to a situation where we are absent minority representation in Congress.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. The gentlewoman says this hurricane started in North Carolina in 1993 or 1992. It really started in the South more than 100 years ago. And I think we really need to keep that in perspective. So, if I could, let me talk a little bit about the historical context that we are dealing with. Between 1870 and 1897, after the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments had freed the slaves and granted them citizenship and the right to vote, Southern States actually elected 22 black men to Congress. And this is not a sexist thing. It just happened that all of them were men at that time. Some had been slaves; other had been born free. All of them, ironically, during that period from 1870 to 1897, were members of the Republican Party, which was the party at that time that most black people associated themselves with. In 1870, a black minister was tapped to fill Confederate President Jefferson Davis' unexpired Senate term. Hiram Revels of Mississippi became the first American of African descent to serve in the Senate. That same year, Joseph Rainey was sworn into office in the House of Representatives; Jefferson Long of Georgia was sworn into the House 1 month later. Rainey went on to serve five terms, often speaking in favor of civil rights legislation, outlawing racial discrimination in juries, schools, public accommodations and transportation. Many of the early African-American Congressmen introduced bills calling for education and land ownership for blacks and removal of what was called cotton taxes. Most of those bills died in committee because their sponsors often lacked the support of their white colleagues. That might sound familiar to some of us in this day and time. During the chaotic Reconstruction years, defeated white politicians disputed the elections of blacks to Congress 21 times. So, this is not a new [[Page H 13799]] phenomenon that we are dealing with. Congressmen whose elections were challenged often were not sworn in until a House committee had reviewed the evidence and found in their favor. Several black lawmakers were not seated for many months. Some were not sworn in until a short time before the end of their terms. Two duly elected Congressmen who were elected, black Congresspeople, never, ever got to serve. Finally, a story that I can relate to, by the time we got to the late 1800's, there was only one black African-American left in the Congress of the United States. He was a gentleman from North Carolina. His name was George H. White, and he was the last former slave to serve in Congress. He took the oath of office in March 1897, and after an election in 1898, in which the evidence indicated that even in precincts where there were only 200 or 300 people registered, in some cases 700 or 800 people voted and he was voted out of office. He took to the floor of the House of Representatives in 1901 and made a historic speech in which he professed to be speaking on behalf of the outraged, heartbroken, bruised and bleeding, but God-fearing people. He went on to predict that some day, some day, black representatives would rise up and come again to this House of Representatives. That was in 1901. His prophesy did not become a reality that we would have another black Representative in Congress until 28 years later. Mr. Speaker, 28 years later.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and I thank and applaud the gentlewoman from Georgia and the gentlewoman from Florida for organizing this special order this evening so that we can highlight the issue of voting and the issue of democracy in this country, really. I came in when my colleagues were all paying tribute to our colleague, the gentlewoman from Colorado, Pat Schroeder, who has indicated that she is not planning to run again after serving out this term, and I want to join with them first in paying a special tribute to her and join in expressing the sentiments that others have expressed, that she will be missed very much by those of us who have admired her and followed her lead on many issues. Second, I want to say that tomorrow, in Durham, NC, there is an opening of a traveling exhibition which is called ``The long road up the hill. African-Americans in Congress.'' I was on the phone before I came over here talking to a newspaper reporter in Raleigh-Durham about that exhibit, and I pulled out the press release that had been issued about that exhibit. It catalogs the history of African-Americans in the Congress of the United States, and I thought it might be helpful to take a minute or two, if the gentlewoman would allow me, to put this in a historical context.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time, and I came back to speak because I was here a few minutes ago and made a reference to this bill being a killer bill and got a rash of phone calls from the American people saying that they objected to my use of the word killer. I want the American people and my colleagues to understand that this is a killer bill. The truth cannot be avoided. This bill will kill elderly people by depriving them of medical care. It will kill young people by forcing them into poverty and denying them food. It will kill the priorities of our country, which I understand to be compassion. It will kill student loans. This is an outrage and we ought to reject it for that very reason.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, the Republicans say that this bill is the culmination of a revolution. I agree. But let me tell you what I know about a revolution. A revolution kills, and this bill kills old people and those on Medicare. It kills poor people and the middle class. It kills young people. It kills sick people. It kills students, and it kills the priorities of this Nation. That is what this revolution does. The second thing I know about a revolution is that you never have a debate about it, and this rule gives us no opportunity to debate it; 2 hours and we are out of here. We have spent more time yesterday talking about who would take us to lunch than we are talking about this revolution today. This is an abomination, and we ought to be ashamed of ourselves.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina

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

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I would like to make clear to the gentleman from Pennsylvania that the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gene Green, has taken back his time. So is the gentleman willing to respond to me on his time, because I need to have this question answered if I am going to be able to support the bill.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me, and I appreciate the importance of the debate which has taken place on the Medicare provisions of this bill and the implications that this bill has for Medicare. Madam Speaker, I rise to make a couple of points and then ask a question about a separate section of this bill which will determine whether I am able to vote for the bill and determine whether we mobilize people to, in fact, vote against the bill. There is a provision in the bill which would repeal the provisions of section 207 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. It is under this first section of subtitle B of this bill, section 1021, and it appears to me that the effect of that provision is to do away with the requirement that statistical information regarding jurisdictions, both local and State, which are covered by the Voting Rights Act, are, in fact, complying with the Voting Rights Act. In other words, you have certain States that have been required to be covered by the Voting Rights Act because of a history of having discriminated against certain voters in that particular State or that particular jurisdiction, and this particular reporting requirement that is being repealed requires the Census Bureau to obtain and report statistical information about voting patterns and registration patterns in those particular congressional districts, States, local jurisdictions, which are covered by the Voting Rights Act. Madam Speaker, in the absence of this reporting provision, I would like to direct a question to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger], if I might, since he is the chief spokesperson in favor of this bill. In the absence of these reporting provisions, in the year 2000, when we are required to have the Census Bureau gather information on which redistricting will be done, how will we have the information available to us to determine whether it is important or necessary to continue to address this history of racial discrimination in registration and voting patterns in many of our southern States, and how will we determine whether it is necessary to continue to have majority-minority voting districts created under law? Madam Speaker, I do not know how we would be able to do that without the statistical information. Perhaps the gentleman from Pennsylvania could enlighten me, because I am deeply troubled that we would be repealing the statute under which this kind of statistical information is gathered that serves a very, very, very important public purpose, and, in fact, is probably one of the most topical issues that we are dealing with and that the U.S. Supreme Court is dealing with.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I would inquire of the gentleman, who does the other report? Is it the Census Bureau that does it?