Mel Watt

Mr. WATT of North Carolina

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, as we approach the budget debate next week, I think it is important for the American people to put this in perspective. We have cut taxes now $600 to $700 billion over the next 10 years to benefit the wealthy peoples. Now we have got to come up with some cuts in the budget to offset that lost revenue, $600 to $700 billion, to offset cuts in taxes for rich people. Well, we started by trying to do that on the backs of poor people, and we realized that there was not enough money in poor people's programs to do that. So now, next week, we are turning our attention to our senior citizens, and we will try to finish this job under the Republican plan by balancing the budget on the backs of our senior citizens, poor people, senior citizens, balance the budget on their backs, my colleagues say. Unfair to our most vulnerable populations.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I am instructed by the leadership that these committees have been consulted, and it is proper for them to meet tomorrow. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, today the House is scheduled to pass the crown jewel of the Republican's serve-the-rich contract scam. The American public needs to understand how the Republican serve- the-rich scam game is played. Start with the number, $11,266. That happens to be the average amount people who make over $200,000 a year will save in taxes each year under the Republican's tax plan. That also happens to be the approximate cost of leasing a brand new foreign-made Mercedes Benz automobile. It also happens to be the amount it would cost to serve 6,294 school lunches to poor school kids who otherwise go hungry. So you make the choice: a brand new foreign-made Mercedes Benz for the rich, or 6,294 school lunches for the U.S. poor. And we wonder why our children are hungry? We wonder why our dollar is valueless? Get real, Congress. Let us not play the Republican serve-the-rich scam game.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, this morning's paper reported that the Republicans have reached a deal on the tax cut package. Well, the public had better beware, because this tax cut package has two major problems. No. 1, they have told us all of this time that the most important thing in life is cutting the deficit. But what are we doing? Instead of using this money to cut the deficit, we are cutting taxes instead. No. 2, we are doing it on the backs of poor people. The poor person, the $20,000 to $30,000 per year person, the $30,000 to $50,000 per year person, will get little benefit from this tax cut. The person earning over $200,000 a year in income will get $11,266 in tax cuts. Nothing for the American people who need it. This is trickle down economics again. We ought to reject it out of hand.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. No, I will not yield.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I will not yield. Would you yield to me when I have the time? You use your time and we will have a colloquy about Plessy versus Ferguson not Plessy versus Robinson, as you are talking about. If you want to have a colloquy with me, you get the time and I will be happy to debate with the gentleman.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. If the gentleman will yield, I knew we would be talking about slavery before we were through.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I thank my colleague from Michigan for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, at the end of the day, I think the American public will understand that we have been engaged in a giant charade throughout the course of today. Everybody in this body knows that this term limit proposal, any version of it, is going down to defeat. Every version of it is going down to defeat. So why are we here? We are here because there was a reference to term limits in the Contract With America. So in debating this term limit issue, I think it is necessary to talk a little bit about some myths about this Contract With America and expose some myths about this whole idea of term limits. First of all, there is this myth out there that the Contract With America is conservative. Well, let me tell you, my friends, since when is reversing 200 years of history and democracy a conservative philosophy? Since when is a constant attack on the Constitution of the United States a conservative philosophy? That is what we have been engaged in this entire term as we have addressed these issues in the Contract With America. In dealing with the line-item veto, we have had under attack article 1, section 1 of the Constitution. The Effective Death Penalty Act, article 1, section 9 of the Constitution. National Defense Revitalization Act, the Defense Reauthorization Review Commission being set up, an attack on article 2, section 2 of the Constitution. Exclusionary Rule Reform Act, an attack on the fourth amendment to the Constitution. The takings legislation, the fifth amendment to the Constitution under attack. And here we are again calling ourselves conservatives as we constantly seek to undermine the most conservative document, the contract, the ultimate Contract With America, the Constitution of the United States. Since when is limiting the voters' choice in who they can elect to the Congress of the United States a conservative philosophy? It is not conservative, my friends, this whole term limit debate. It is undemocratic and I submit to you, it is un-American. It is radical. Since when is this cavalier notion that these group of people in this body are smarter than the Founding Fathers of our country a conservative philosophy? But my friends here would have us believe that we are engaged in some kind of conservative undertaking by supporting their effort, their Contract With America, by supporting term limits in this case. There is a second myth I want to go after about this Contract With America. That is the myth that there is or that it is based on some consistent philosophical principles. You tell me how it is consistent to tell the American people you believe in States rights when you preempt State law on legal standards which have been the exclusive province of the States for years and years? Tell the States how much time they must give to a criminal under their own laws and tell them you believe in States rights. Block-grant one day and preempt State laws the next day and tell them you believe in States rights, and, my friends, the Hilleary amendment, this amendment that we are here talking about today, wants to tell the American people that you believe in States rights and you believe in Federal rights. Inconsistency. You want to have your cake and eat it too. Mr. Chairman, this amendment does not know whether it believes in States rights on the one hand, we are going to give the States the right to do what they want, or whether you want to federalize the standards. So this whole philosophy that the Contract With America is based on some consistent philosophical principle that you believe in States rights is just a charade. It is a charade. And, my friends, there is a third myth about this Contract With America. And that is that it has been well thought out and that it is good for the American people. In fact, it is shortsighted, it is mean- spirited and I will submit that at the end of the day today Members will see that even the Republicans will not support this plank in the Contract With America. They say it will yield a common people's Congress. It will yield a rich people's Congress. Let us dispense with the charade and vote this piece of trash down. announcement by the chairman

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I just want to make sure that we understand the height of hypocrisy. The height of hypocrisy is when anybody black gets up to talk on this floor, we end up talking about slavery on the other side. That is the height of hypocrisy.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, getting an education is part of the American dream. For generations, the Federal Government has helped average, everyday, working-class, and middle-class Americans secure this American dream through financial aid programs for college. Well, this key component of the American dream is on the chopping block also. Let us be absolutely clear: This is not welfare we are talking about; we are talking about Federal financial aid that goes to working-class and middle-class kids. We are talking about programs that average, everyday working, and middle-class Americans help to finance through their tax dollars. We are even talking about work study, that is, work for money to pay for education. But make no mistake about it, we are talking about programs that the wealthy string pullers who control the Republican Party do not care one iota about. They can pay for their kids' education. Can you?

Mr. WATT of North Carolina

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I just simply want to find out where in this bill those jobs are. It is not in this bill. You can protest all you want. There is nothing in this bill that provides any jobs. If you can tell me where that is, I would be happy to hear it.

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

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Missouri for yielding time to me. I am not a member of a committee which has had under consideration this welfare reform bill so, when I got the bill finally on Friday of last week and it was finalized, I went rushing through that bill, looked and spent an awful lot of time reviewing the provisions of that bill. And two things jumped out at me. No. 1, I had heard my Republican colleagues talk about how they were going to get people off the public dole and make sure they went to work. And I looked and I looked and I looked, and I did not find anything in this bill that would provide jobs for people who want to work at the end of their welfare stay or any time during their welfare stay. So that is the first bogus promise that I found. No. 2, I went looking and I found that this bill punishes children for the conduct of their parents. If your parent is poor, the children get punished. If the parent has a child out of wedlock, the child gets punished. No Federal benefits for children or mothers under age 18, if they are unwed. If the parent is on welfare, has another child, the child gets punished. No benefits for that child because he or she was born to a mother who was on welfare. If the parent will not work, the child gets punished. After 2 years, whether they can find work or want work or will work, if they do not have a job, the child will be punished and the child will be off of welfare. If the parent cannot find a job, who, the child gets punished. Cut off the parent and the innocent child. This is a mean, mean, mean bill. We should be nurturing, encouraging, supporting our children, not punishing them for their parents' shortcomings. We should be providing jobs for those who want to work, not calling a cutoff after 2 years welfare reform. Mr. Chairman, this bill is a hoax. It does not provide any jobs. After we heard so much about jobs to get people off the public dole, no jobs. And it is mean spirited and mean to children. They did not do anything to deserve this. Why would we punish children in the name of welfare reform?

Mr. WATT of North Carolina

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, the rich are getting richer, and the poor are getting poorer. Over the last 15 years the top 5 percent, the richest people in our country, have seen their income and assets grow tremendously. The bottom 20 percent, the poorest people, have seen their incomes drop. The middle has been frozen in the same place for that entire period of time. What does that have to do with welfare reform which we are discussing today? The Republicans' block grant approach freezes welfare at the 1994 level for the next 5 years. At the same time, they propose a $190 billion tax their philosophy is take from the poor and give it to the rich. That is what they are proposing to do. We should reject this welfare reform proposal and reject this reverse Robin Hood approach that the Republicans are advocating.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, Reserving the right to object, I am advised by the leadership that they have approved these committees meeting during legislative business, and so I withdraw my reservation of the right to object.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, the Republicans have a Contract With America. Unfortunately, they do not seem to care whether it violates this contract with America, the Constitution of the United States. This contract with America, the Constitution, took another hit last week. They called it tort reform but what they did was federalize all the legal standards, and that, my friends, is contrary to the commerce clause and the 10th amendment to the Constitution. Let's strike out another provision in the Constitution, punch it out again, punch it out again, my Republican colleagues. Your Constitution is going down the drain. Punch it out again.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, Judge James B. McMillan, a North Carolina stalwart, died Saturday, March 4. Judge McMillan lived just outside my district, but he had a tremendous impact on children in my district. I rise today in tribute to this great man. Judge James McMillan will always be remembered for his courageous, and right, court decision which ordered the desegregation of Charlotte- Mecklenburg Schools. This ruling forced a reluctant school system to move into the future. He did this despite the repeated threats to his life and his family, and the subsequent FBI protection that the McMillan family had to live with for years. Judge McMillan should be remembered for his courage and for the impact he had on Charlotte-Mecklenburg and North Carolina. Today, the Charlotte-Mecklenburg schools are still among the Nation's most integrated schools. Charlotte, as a result, is viewed as a shining symbol of the South. Because of Judge McMillan, North Carolina's children in 1970 received what they so rarely got: justice. Today's children receive the benefit of his wisdom, and live with more hope and opportunity. We mourn the passing of Judge James B. McMillan.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes. Mr. Chairman, let me put this in perspective for my colleagues, because this started out to be a part of a three-amendment package. Unfortunately, two of the three amendments the Committee on Rules did not see fit to make in order. So I want to talk a minute about the other two amendments and put this in context. No. 1, this bill clearly preempts State law insofar as substantive law is concerned on products liability and in the area of punitive damages. But the bill actually goes beyond that to preempt State law, procedural law, by not only telling the States what standard of proof will be required, but also what the burden of proof will be in their courts. The bill then, after it has preempted both procedural and substantive State law, says you cannot have access to the Federal courts under any circumstances to do any of this, so in effect it mandates the State courts not only the substance of what they shall apply as law, but the procedure by which they must apply the substantive law. In North Carolina, in punitive damages cases, the burden of proof is beyond a preponderance of the evidence. That is the standard you must meet to win a case in North Carolina and in most State courts. This bill takes the standard and raises it to a standard of clear and convincing evidence, and by doing so not only preempts the substantive law of the State, but also preempts the procedural law of the State. For my colleagues who have any respect for States' rights, it is one thing to say we will tell you what law to apply. It is an entirely different thing to say to the States we will tell you how to apply that law and how much of the evidence will be required to win a case and how you should try the case. My colleagues, what I am trying to do by striking this clear and convincing evidence standard which is in this bill is to protect the integrity of our law in North Carolina insofar as we can do so to make sure that we at least begin to maintain the integrity of our procedural laws in North Carolina, even if my colleagues will not respect the substantive law in North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment made in order under the rule.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton].

Mr. WATT of North Carolina

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, pursuing my point of order, the amendment on which I made the inquiry this morning did not strike any language from the bill. It was Mr. Schumer's amendment----

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Any time that anyone makes a position that is contrary to the committee's position which in this case is the bill, and the amendment is contrary to the bill, I was told earlier today that whoever is defending the committee's position would be entitled to close.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Does the Chair have some psychic connection with the parliamentarian since nobody here has seen him consult?

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. A parliamentary inquiry Mr. Chairman.