Mel Watt

Mr. WATT of North Carolina

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. That is correct.

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

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I was planning to wait for a while to get into this debate, but the question has come up how do we know whether there is going to be litigation, how do we know there is going to be fees, because there are statutory provisions in our laws that say that Equal Access to Justice Act provides for that. We cannot sidestep that issue simply by saying we do not know whether there is going to be any litigation, and we do not know whether there is going to be any award of attorney's fees. In response to the majority whip, let me make it clear that my purpose is not in cutting off litigation against the Federal Government. My purpose is the same one that everybody else here has avowedly said they believe in which is getting to a balanced budget, and if we have pay-as-you-go rules and if we continuously bring bills to the floor which violate those pay-as-you-go rules and continue to mount additional responsibilities and burdens on the Government, then we are going to either get further and further away from a balanced budget or we are going to find some other ingenious way such as taking away school lunches or some other program to fund the balancing of the budget. I talked about the budget implications of this. It is clear to me that my Republican colleagues have no interest in complying with the pay-as-you-go rules, nor in balancing the budget, and so that is an issue that I am putting behind me. I want to go back to the amendment itself.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Ewing] and the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer] for laying the factual backdrop for this debate on this amendment. I believe the result of the earlier debate on the amendment that was just voted on will substantially shorten the period that will be necessary for people to understand this amendment. Mr. Chairman, in that earlier debate, it was very obvious that there are two kinds of court litigations that can take place dealing with rules and regulations that have been promulgated by a Federal agency. One has to do with the substance of the regulation itself, in which case that litigation can take place in whatever timeframe it needs to take place, and can deal with whether a regulation is a good regulation or a bad regulation, or has some substantive impact on the small business. The second kind of litigation would be the kind of litigation that is contemplated under this bill, and that is, in effect, a procedural kind of litigation. Under title I of the bill, and you have got to listen and review the words carefully, the agency is required to certify that any rule that it promulgates would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities or that they have prepared a final regulatory flexibility analysis pursuant to section 604 of the law. If the agency so certifies, or if they do not prepare this final regulatory flexibility analysis, then a small business is given the right to go into court and ask the court to force them to do one of those two things. This has nothing to do with the substance of the regulation. What it has to do with is whether the agency has certified that the rule that they have promulgated would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, or whether the agency has prepared a final regulatory flexibility analysis. The effect of my amendment would be to make that determination on the procedural issue, whether the agency has complied with those two requirements, a question that would be determined in the U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia. This is not--I repeat, this is not, please listen, Members--this is not on the substance of regulations. This is on the procedural question of whether the agency has made a certification that is contemplated under this bill. Why do I offer this amendment? If we do not have this amendment, what we could conceivably have is litigation throughout the United States, in the District courts of North Carolina, California, New York, Idaho, Hawaii, Puerto Rico. All over our Nation we could have this single question being litigated by different businesspeople. One court in North Carolina might say, ``Oh, yes, the agency has complied with this procedural requirement.''

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I would submit to you that where we are going with this is that you are making it impossible for agencies to promulgate any rules by extending this period of time that can have any degree of finality to them, and the objective that we are trying to get to is to get to a point where if a rule is promulgated, it can be determined what impact it has on a small business quickly. If the rule has an adverse impact on the small business, the small business ought to raise it quickly, and the Government ought to try to correct it quickly. If we stretch this process out for an entire year and allow businesses to wait 364\1/2\ days before they raise the issue, then we will never be able to get to any final rules that make sense or even in the context of the bill that you are talking about. So I think this expansion of the 180 days to 365 days, as opposed to contracting it to a shorter period of time, really points out to me the clear purpose that the underlying bill has, which is to do away with any kind of regulations and feeds this assumption that I started off making in the general debate that the assumption seems to be by the other side that every rule that a Federal agency makes is bad. I would remind my colleagues that every rule that a Federal Government agency makes is pursuant to a bill that the Congress of the United States has passed.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I thank the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Reed] for yielding time to me. I want to start by congratulating the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Reed] for taking what was a terrible bill and working with the other side to improve it into what is now a bad bill, and I would be the first to concede that it is an improved bill, but it is still bad. Let me express a series of concerns that I have about this bill. First of all, yesterday we passed a bill which requires a cost-benefit assessment of any new regulations that the Federal Government puts in place. So I am wondering what is the purpose of this new process that we are putting here, first of all? Second, this bill goes several steps beyond that by giving small businesses an implied veto over rules and regulations and standing in court to contest such regulations if the small business is adversely affected, whatever that means. Third, this bill gives the Small Business Administration Chief Counsel for Advocacy, that is probably somebody the American people have never heard of, the obligation to review and comment and get involved in litigation with respect to rules and regulations. It takes nobody out of the process. Understand, now, we have the department, the agency of government, we have the CBO, we have the Justice Department, now we have the SBA involved in the process. We keep adding on to the bureaucracy, and nobody is taken out of the process. Now, let me talk to you about the problems that I have with the bill. No. 1, it assumes that all rules that are promulgated by government are bad. You start with that assumption. Take this retaurant example that the previous speaker talked about. When I go into a restaurant and I look up and I see an A grade rating, my friends, that gives me a great deal of comfort as a member of the public. Under this rule, if we require some A grade rating, B grade rating, whatever it is, although I think that is done at the State level, if under this bill we did it at the Federal level, we would then adversely affect some restaurants. They would then end up in litigation in the courts, tying up the court system. No. 2, this bill gives small businesses unprecedented standing. The people in this country have had standing in the court. Now are are giving small businesses some kind of standing out here where they can come in, create more litigation, and I submit to the American people that that sends a terrible message that business now has some standing that even ordinary people cannot even get to. This is another step away from empowerment of the people and creates another bureaucracy which is, in effect, welfare for businesses, do away with welfare for the people, give welfare to the businesses. Third, this bill creates an entirely new level of bureaucracy in the process. Fourth, this bill will result in protracted and extended and unprecdented litigation. At the same time we are moving toward tort reform which takes away rights from the people to have access to the courts, we are moving in this direction all of a sudden to give more access to the courts, more standing to businesses. Fifth, this bill will not allow us to get to who is actually having influence in the process. We offered an amendment, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] did, in the committee which would have required agencies to tell who is commenting on these regulations, who is actually getting involved, who is exerting influence on the regulators to draw these regulations. You would think that my colleagues, if they are concerned about protracted regulation, would have been anxious to know who is involved in the process, but no such luck. Let me just say that the final concern I have about this bill is that nobody knows what it is going to cost. We passed a bill yesterday to deal with regulations that was estimated to cost $250 million. Who has any idea what this monstrosity is going to cost the American people? And here we are, my colleagues, saying we are trying to cut back on government, and we are cutting back on government by increasing, not reducing, bureaucracy and costs.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Reclaiming my time, because we spent a lot of time talking about the budgetary impact of this. That is really not what is on the floor at this point. I got dragged into this budget debate kind of from the back side. Let me go back to the underlying amendment and debate the underlying amendment which is to extend the time from 180 days to 1 year for this litigation to take place which I would submit to the House relates in part to the litigation issue and the cost issue, because the longer people have to file lawsuits, the more likely they are likely to file lawsuits, and the more costly it can be. But that is not the point I want to make. The point I want to make is that I thought the purpose of this bill was to get our agencies to make more humane regulations and rules and to be more sensitive about what they are doing.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I wanted to go back to the issue of the cost of what we are doing here, and I understand the gentleman, as the majority whip, is familiar with the pay-as-you-go rules and the budgetary rules under which we operate here. There is a provision, language, on page 21 of the analysis of the CBO which says, ``Enactment of title I,'' and we are talking about title I now, not title II, ``of H.R. 926 could result in additional lawsuits against the Federal Government requesting judicial review of Federal agency compliance with the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. To the extent the additional lawsuits were successful and the plaintiffs were awarded attorneys' fees, enactment of H.R. 926 could result in additional direct spending because these fees are paid from the claims, judgment, and relief acts account.'' Now, the question I want to pose to you, I heard the gentleman say that we get into the cost considerations of this bill under title II. It seems to me that that puts us into the cost considerations, and the pay-as-you-go rules, as I understand them, not under title II, but under title I. Has that issue been addressed? Was there a waiver of the rules to bring that issue, this bill, to the floor in light of that provision? [Mr. DeLay] has again expired. (At the request of Mr. Watt of North Carolina and by unanimous consent, Mr. DeLay was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I mean, this is not disingenuous.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. If the gentleman will yield, I offered this amendment in the Committee on the Judiciary and, as I recall, everybody on our side voted in favor of this amendment in the committee.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I want to be brief and make four very quick points and then yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island. First of all, I would hope that one of the objectives that we are trying to achieve by this legislation is to save the taxpayers money. It seems to me that it makes sense for us not to be doing major studies, paperwork, and so forth anytime any minor rule is promulgated. It ought to be restricted to major rules and rules which have major impact, and I would think that the $100 million figures has a lot more sense in that regard than his $50 million figure does which is in the bill. Second, I do not think anybody could argue that President Reagan or President Bush or President Ford were wild-eyed liberal people. The $100 million figure was sufficient for them, and I always thought of them as being rather conservative myself, and I do not know why we are trying to cut back on the conservative-liberal scale, so to speak. It is like the gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer] said, we are trying to swing the pendulum all the way to the opposite end and in a way we are overreacting here. The third point I would make quickly is that since President Reagan and President Ford were there, the cost of living has gone up substantially. So that what would have been a $100 million figure in their administration actually should now probably be $130 million or $150 million, quite conceivably. It would have gone up, certainly not gone down. Then finally as the chairman of the committee has indicated, this is an arbitrary figure. There is nothing scientific about this. What we ought to be striving toward is a figure that makes the most sense and the criteria in determining whether it makes the most sense, one of those criteria at least, the primary criteria ought to be were we saving the taxpayers money? I yield to my colleague, the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Reed].

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I just want to make it clear that I would submit to the gentleman that working out a deal on this with the chairman of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services or even with the bank regulators themselves does not get the people who are adversely affected by this. They are the poor people who did not have a representative in that room.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. The court in California might issue a different ruling that says, ``Oh, no, the agency has not complied.'' We might have 50 different, 100 different, 1,000 different pieces of litigation going on on these different locations, use its resources to defend litigation all over the country on the same single issue, and the court system will not even have a way to determine whether they are entering inconsistent determinations. On the question of the procedure itself, not on the substance of whether it is a good or bad regulation, that issue ought to be litigated in one particular court. It will do away with the proliferation of litigation. It will provide for a consistent determination on this one issue by one court, and then the agency can either move on, go back and revise or do what it is supposed to do under this bill, and there will not be this proliferation of litigation. I think this amendment makes patently good sense. I will not browbeat this issue to death. But I would ask my colleagues to agree.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I would just say, it will not be only the agency's attorneys that will be all over the country. The Justice Department will get involved in this under section 102. The SBA's counsel will be involved in it, is entitled to be involved in it. We could be creating a substantial nightmare all across the country on a single simple procedural issue. I hope they will agree.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, again, I will not belabor this. It is quite obvious that my colleagues here have no interest in improving this bill. They are just marching right straight down the line, and I will make the point in this amendment that what we are trying to do is exempt Federal banking agencies from the provisions of this bill. They exempt them for monetary policy issues. I submit to my colleagues that there are issues that banking regulators, Federal banking agencies deal with that are equally as important to small businesses as monetary policy issues. There are issues that have to do with assuring that banks are investing and lending without discrimination. There are issues having to do with the Community Reinvestment Act. There are a number, a range of issues that have an equal footing, and I submit that these issues should be exempted from the effect of this bill on the same basis that the monetary policy issues are exempted.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.

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

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. If I denigrated the hard work of the gentlemen, minority or majority on this bill, I had no intention of doing that. But you cannot stop in the middle of the process and say we have got a product that is perfect in the legislative process, and quit trying to work on it and put your blindfolds on and keep marching down the road without improving the bill.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I voted against NAFTA and might therefore be expected to be upset about the United States being in this predicament and about the administration bailing out Mexico. I am upset. I do think the administration ought to give Congress the facts about this bailout, but I think this resolution goes too far. There is a delicate balance between the branches of Government. The executive branch is required to give us facts but the precedents do not give us the right to demand opinions. This resolution does that in several respects. While it is important for us to get the facts, it is also important for someone to stand up for our Constitution and to remind us that the separation of powers is an important part of our form of government. As usual, I will stand for our Constitution, even though I agree with the spirit of this resolution. This resolution simply goes too far.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 7 didn't come out of a committee on which I sit. So I'm sure my colleagues are happy that I have not been especially active in debating or trying to amend this bill. Before I exit stage right following my high level of involvement on the series of crime bills, however, I want to talk about this bill and about the outrageous inconsistency of my Republican colleagues. First, last week my Republican colleagues told the Congress and the courts to get out of the way of police and let the police kick in the doors of American citizens, search and seize their homes and papers whenever police officers thought that reasonable. They said the 4th amendment and the rules the Supreme Court took years to spell out micromanaged the police. Today, under H.R. 7, my Republican colleagues want us to micromanage the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and even the Commander in Chief, the President of the United States. Second, for weeks my Republican colleagues have told us here on this House floor and have told the American people that the top national priority we have is getting rid of the national deficit. Yet this bill (H.R. 7) sets the stage for revitalization of the outdated cold war, star wars program at a cost of $40 billion or more. Well, I've concluded that there are two things my Republican colleagues are consistent about: First, they don't believe in the principle that debate and deliberation are important parts of democracy. That's evident from the rule under which H.R. 7 is being considered which deprives the Members, and more importantly the American people, of the kind of debate and deliberation such important matters as the safety and security of our Nation deserve. Second, they'll do anything to undermine, not uphold, the Constitution of the United States. Last week it was the 4th amendment and habeas corpus. Today, it's an attack on the principle that the President is the Commander in Chief of our military forces. I thought it was the Soviet Union which had a central committee. This is the United States of America. My Constitution doesn't provide for a central committee or for any kind of commission to govern our military. Mine says in article II, section 2 that ``The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States * * *''. I can't help but believe that we're doing our Nation and our Constitution a major disservice today by the passage of this bill. I can't help but believe that this is a political decision, that there is no way this bill would be passed if we had a Republican President today. But, again, my Republican colleagues don't worry about consistency. For them, politics is far more important than public policy and politics is far more important than consistency. National defense should never be a partisan issue. This is a truly sad day for America.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate Black History Month by honoring Dr. Charlotte Hawkins Brown, an African-American North Carolina native who had a vision in the early 1900s: to ensure that all black youth receive the type of education that would fully prepare them for their futures. Lottie Hawkins was born in 1883 in Henderson, North Carolina. When she was young, the Hawkins family moved to Massachusetts, where she studied at Cambridge High School and Salem State Normal School. Before graduating from high school, young Lottie changed her name to Charlotte Eugenia Hawkins. At age 18, Miss Hawkins accepted a teaching position from the American Missionary Association to return to her home state to teach at Bethany Institute near Greensboro at a time when North Carolina had the second highest illiteracy rate in the country. Unfortunately, the school closed after Miss Hawkins' first year there. The school closing only made Miss Hawkins even more determined to start her own school. She felt there was a lack of educational opportunities for young blacks in the South. There were approximately 2,400 elementary schools across the country responsible for educating young black children, but many of these schools, she felt, were far from adequate. Miss Hawkins left for Massachusetts to raise money to finance her dream. She personally met with supporters and even sang for donations at seaside resorts. In 1902, she returned to North Carolina where 15 acres of land and an old log blacksmith's shop were donated to her by a local minister. She used the money raised in Massachusetts to convert the shop into a school, thus making her dream a reality. The schools' beginnings were extremely humble. Fifteen girls and two teachers including Miss Hawkins slept in cramped quarters in the loft. The rest of the building was occupied by classrooms, a living room and a kitchen. Nevertheless, in November 1902, classes began at the Alice Freeman Palmer Memorial Institute. The school was named for Miss Hawkins' benefactor and friend who was also the second female president of Wellesley College in Massachusetts. After its opening, the school was faced with ever-present financial battles. Although tuition was $5.00 a month, many of the students at Palmer found it difficult to manage. The school was involved in letter-writing campaigns and the students themselves worked the land to help keep expenses purchase 250 acres of land. However, money still remained scarce. As a result, Palmer relied heavily on the donations from sympathetic, white northerns and some southerners to survive. In 1911 at the age of 29, Miss Hawkins married Edward Brown. The marriage later broke up over Edward's unhappiness with living in Sedalia. Still Mrs. Brown continued to move forward. Under her direction, the school grew to more than 350 acres of land. Donations and community and student involvement enabled the construction of several frame buildings. The growing needs and changes of the community forced Palmer's curriculum to go from an agriculture and manual training-based curriculum to one that expanded to include more classes in liberal arts, languages, sciences, and dramatics. Elementary education was eliminated and a junior-college level teaching course was added. Palmer evolved into ``an elite institution that prepared African American youth for college.'' Tuition rose to $800 per year by the late 1950s and 90 percent of the graduates went on to pursue further education. More and more students began enrolling from around the country. The school survived three fires and economic hardship. Even with the unfortunate mishaps, the school was able to exult about its 1,000 strong, proud black student graduates. Dr. Brown went on to receive several honorary degrees herself. She often spoke to multiracial groups of women advocating equality, wrote novels, and was given the nickname ``The Mayor of Sedalia'' by her community. On January 11, 1961, Dr. Charlotte Hawkins died. Her legacy which was her school, continued until 1971. Bennett College, a historically black women's college in Greensboro bought the campus. Today, the Charlotte Hawkins Brown Memorial sits on 40 acres of land in Sedalia, North Carolina, east of Greensboro. The state legislature allocated $400,000 to purchase the land and partially restore the campus. It is the first historic site honoring an African-American and a woman.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I pay tribute to my distinguished colleague, Representative Eva M. Clayton, the first black Congresswoman ever elected from North Carolina (representing the First Congressional District). I am especially pleased to recognize Congresswoman Clayton, because I was privileged to join her in the 103d Congress, as one of two African- American Representatives elected from North Carolina since 1901, 94 years ago. In recognition of Black History Month and in honor of this special Representative, I am pleased to submit a paper entitled ``The Election of Eva M. Clayton as the First Black Congresswoman from North Carolina,'' written by Philip A. Grant, Jr., professor of history at Pace University in New York, which documents this historic event. Mr. Speaker, this paper is being made a part of the Record at this point in the Record, as follows: On October 4, 1991 Congressman Walter B. Jones of North Carolina formally announced that he would not be a candidate for re-election to a fifteenth term. Jones, a seventy-eight year old Democrat, had initially entered the House of Representatives in 1966, after winning a special election to fill a vacancy in North Carolina's First Congressional District. Since 1981, Jones had occupied the post of Chairman of the House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries. The First Congressional District had been created by the North Carolina Legislature on June 16, 1961, at which time the ``Tarheel State'' lost one of its existing twelve districts. Based on well-documented population patterns, the boundaries of the First District were slightly altered after the Censuses of 1970 and 1980. Located in close proximity to the Atlantic Ocean, the First District was primarily rural in character and solidly Democratic in terms of party registration. Throughout the nineteen seventies and nineteen eighties Congressman Jones seldom encountered political difficulty in his numerous House campaigns. Because of Jones' enormous personal popularity and the indisputable fact that the veteran incumbent was in the process of accumulating valuable seniority, formidable Democratic primary challenges simply did not materialize. When Jones announced his decision to retire, it was anticipated that several candidates would opt to seek the Democratic and Republican congressional nominations. While the Republican Party has grown steadily in eastern North Carolina since the late nineteen sixties, no G.O.P. candidate from 1970 to 1990 has polled more than 35.2% of the popular vote in the First District. Consequently, the victor in the 1992 Democratic primary would definitely be favored to win the general election. Since Blacks accounted for roughly thirty-six percent of the citizens of the First District, it was a virtual certainty that at least one Black would enter the race to succeed Jones. Indeed a number of Blacks were serving either as county commissioners or state legislators within the First District. It was expected that a Black with proven electoral appeal might emerge as a serious contender for the First District seat. Inasmuch as North Carolina would gain a House seat because of its sustained population growth over the previous decade, the Legislature would have the task of redrawing the boundaries of the state's congressional districts. When the Legislature failed to produce an acceptable plan, a panel of three federal judges resolved the question. According to the court ruling of February 6, 1992, the Black population of the new First District was estimated at 57.3%. The First District consisted of twenty-eight counties extending from the Virginia line to approximately ten miles of the South Carolina border. While twenty-one of these twenty-eight counties were rural in complexion, the district also included a number of eastern North Carolina's urban centers. Among the cities located within the confines of the district were Wilmington, Fayetteville, New Bern, Greenville, Wilson, Rocky Mount, and Henderson. Competing against one another in the May 5 Democratic primary were seven candidates, four Blacks and three whites. Generally regarded as the foremost Democratic candidates were Eva M. Clayton, a Black, and Walter B. Jones, Jr., a white. Clayton was a Warren County Commissioner, while Jones, the son of the retiring incumbent, was a member of the North Carolina House of Representatives. North Carolina law provided that a minimum of forty percent of the popular vote was required to win a party primary, whenever more than two rival candidates were involved. Since Jones obviously benefitted from name recognition, he was striving to reach the forty percent threshold. On primary night Jones assumed a modest lead over Clayton, but fell short of the necessary forty percent. The official returns were: Jones, 33,634 (38.7%); Clayton, 27,477 (31.6%); Others, 25,855 (30.7%). The failure of any candidate to prevail in the Democratic primary made a run-off contest mandatory. Clayton strongly urged Black Democrats to participate in the run-off, believing that a huge Black turnout would certainly enhance her prospects. In the June 2 run-off primary it appeared that Blacks were voting in record numbers. The preliminary returns indicated that Clayton would defeat Jones by at least five thousands votes. The final returns were: Clayton, 43,210 (54.8%); Jones, 35,729 (45.2%). While Jones gained an additional 2,095 votes over his showing in the first primary, Clayton's total increased by an astounding 15,757. It was a foregone conclusion that Clayton would win the general election. The highly respected Congressional Quarterly in late October listed North Carolina's First Congressional District in the ``Safe Democratic'' column. Congressional Quarterly noted that eight-seven percent of the citizens of the First District were affiliated with the Democratic Party. On November 5, 1992 Clayton overwhelmed her Republican opponent, Ted Tyler, The official tabulation was follows: Clayton, 116,078 (68.1%); Tyler, 54,457 (31.9%). Clayton thus became the first Black woman ever elected to Congress from North Carolina and only the second Black congresswoman ever elected to represent a district in a southern state. Clayton was one of the one hundred and ten freshmen elected to the House on November 5, 1992. The North Carolina congresswoman would be one of the thirty-nine Blacks in the House, fourteen of whom were also elected for the first time in 1992. In January 1993 Clayton was assigned to the Committee on Agriculture and attained the distinction of being elected President of the Freshman Class.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I just simply want to point out to the gentleman that even members of the committee have also been denied the right to offer amendments, and that during the course of debate on the rule itself we pointed out the insanity of including in the debate time the time for votes, which has consumed about 2 to 3 hours of the debate time that the other side has told the American people we have, and that the same kind of process is being built into the next rule for the bill that is coming forward tomorrow. Mr. Chairman, it makes no sense on this bill, it makes no sense on any other bill, and I am hopeful that the majority will come to its senses and quit describing these rules as open rules, when in fact there are at least 20 or 25 Members around who still desire to offer worthy amendments and engage in debate.