Bobby Scott

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to note that these are the kinds of questions which cause me to hope we would defeat the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would point out that the comments of the gentleman from North Carolina and the chairman of the committee have outlined the fact that this has been worked out with all of the parties involved, and we have no objection. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this expands the wiretap authority, but it limits the expansion to cases of terrorism. I would say to the gentleman from California and to the chairman, if the rest of the bill had been limited to terrorism, we would not have to be sitting up here arguing half the night. I agree with the gentleman, we want to be tough on terrorism, but we don't want to open up the entire criminal code to these very expansive powers. So in this case, I think it is an appropriate expansion of the wiretap because it is limited to terrorism, and I thank the gentleman for the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, we have very many disparities in the criminal justice system, particularly the juvenile justice system. But many of these programs have been terminated to fund tax cuts, primarily for those with incomes over $200,000. One of those programs is the Reintegration of Youthful Offenders program sponsored by the Department of Labor. It helps young people get jobs, and we know that those with jobs are much less likely to commit crimes in the future. We could fund this program by eliminating the earmark of $10 million for random nonsuspicion-based drug testing. Studies show that that drug testing does not reduce drug use, and that is why that kind of drug testing is opposed by the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Public Health Association, and the National Education Association. I would hope that as we go forward, adjustments in the budget to re- fund the Reintegration of Youthful Offender program and un-fund the earmark for $10 million for the random nonsuspicion-based drug testing could be made. This amendment would be supported by the American Correctional Association, the Association for Addictive Professionals, and the National Association of Social Workers.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I think it is important to put this debate in context because it occurs to me that every time we consider this resolution, we end up cutting veterans health care. So let us just see what we are doing this year on the health care budget for veterans. The Republican budget cuts veterans health care programs by more than $13.5 billion over the next 5 years compared to what would be needed just to keep up with inflation. The President even proposed a $15 billion cut and copays for a significant number of our veterans. When the sponsor challenges us to ask wounded veterans in VA hospitals what they want us to do, I suspect that they would not be asking us to cut veterans health care at the same time we debate this resolution. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, just before we went on Memorial Day break and gave speeches just a few weeks ago, colleagues voted down a measure that would have offered TRICARE health coverage to National Guard members and Reservists. Reserve components make up 50 percent of our forces in Iraq and studies show that 20 percent have no health insurance. For younger Reservists it is as high as 40 percent have no health insurance coverage. How can we ask these young men and women to serve on the front line and not even provide for them the basic necessity of health care? And so, Mr. Speaker, 25 million American veterans deserve respect and dignity and they deserve more than the debate on this constitutional amendment. We should be providing health care for our veterans, not this resolution. Mr. Speaker, everyone here respects the flag. The question before us is not whether we respect the flag, but whether or not we ought to use the criminal code to prevent those who disagree with us to express their views. The Supreme Court has frequently considered restrictions on speech that are permissible by our government. For example, under the first amendment with respect to speech, speech may be regulated by time, place and manner, but not regulated by content. There are, of course, exceptions. Speech may be restricted if it creates an imminent threat of violence or threatens safety or expresses a patently offensive message that has no redeeming social value, but we cannot restrict by content otherwise. The distinction: you can restrict by time, place and manner but not content. So you can restrict the particulars of a march or a demonstration by what time it is held or where it is held or how loud the demonstration can be, but you cannot restrict what people are marching or demonstrating about. You cannot ban a particular march or demonstration just because you disagree with the message unless you decide to ban all marches. You cannot allow one political party to have a demonstration, but not the other. You cannot have a pro-war demonstration and then try to restrict an anti-war demonstration. Speech protected by the Constitution we have to recognize will always be unpopular. Popular speech does not need protection. It is only that speech that provokes the local sheriff into wanting to arrest you for what you said that needs protection. Of course, speech protected by the first amendment will always be unpopular. Some have referred to the underlying resolution as the anti-flag burning amendment, and they speak about the necessity of keeping people from burning flags. In reality, the only place you ever see a flag burned is in compliance with the Federal code at flag ceremonies disposing of a worn-out flag. Ask any Boy Scout or American Legion member how to dispose of a worn-out flag and they will tell you that the procedure is to burn the flag at a respectful ceremony. In fact, the only time I have seen a flag burned is at one of these ceremonies. So the proposed constitutional amendment is all about expression and all about prohibiting expression in violation of the first amendment principles. In fact, the amendment does not even use the term ``burning.'' It uses the term ``flag desecration.'' And by using the word ``desecration,'' we are giving government officials the power to decide that one can burn the flag if they are saying something nice and respectful, but they are a criminal if they burn this flag while they are saying something offensive or insulting. This is an absurd distinction and is a direct contravention of the whole purpose of the first amendment, especially when the real impact of the legislation will be to have political protesters arrested because they disagree and express that disagreement of government policy. Mr. Speaker, in addition to the violation of the spirit of the Bill of Rights, this amendment has practical problems. For example, what is a flag? Can one desecrate a picture of a flag? Can one desecrate a flag with the wrong number of stripes? Mr. Speaker, during the Vietnam War, laws were passed prohibiting draft cards from being burned, and protesters with great flourish would say that they were burning their draft cards and offend everybody, but then nobody would know whether it was a draft card or just a piece of paper. And what happens if one desecrates their own flag in private? Are they subject to criminal prosecution if somebody finds out? Mr. Speaker, I feel compelled to comment on suggestions that stealing and destroying somebody's personal property is protected if that property happens to be a flag. That is wrong. It is still theft and personal property. The other examples, there are other criminal codes that people can be prosecuted on. What this legislation is aimed at is criminalizing political speech, and we should not criminalize political speech just because we disagree with it, just because we have the votes. So, Mr. Speaker, I hope that we would defeat this resolution, and I urge my colleagues to oppose the resolution.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, let me just begin by saying our flag does not need protection from an occasional protester, we call them miscreants I think, who cannot see how ridiculous it is to try to protest by destroying the symbol of his right to protest. If he cannot see how ridiculous that is, obviously we do not need much protection from him. Contrary to what has been suggested on the floor, the underlying amendment does not regulate conduct. Without the Watt amendment, it clearly regulates message. Now, as the gentleman from North Carolina, sponsor of the amendment, points out, the underlying amendment does not repeal the first amendment. Even if we adopt this constitutional amendment, the first amendment will still be there, and so the amendment is, in fact, redundant, but it makes it clear and reminds people that it is still there. What he seeks to clarify is whether or not it is indeed the message that is being criminalized rather than the conduct, whether or not those who support government policy, for example, and burn a flag without offending anybody, apparently they will be okay. But if you are a war protester who burns a flag, you can be arrested, and if you are a veteran, so disgusted with veterans health care, and burn the flag in protest, are we making him a criminal? Or if you are a member of a fringe political organization who burns his own flag on his own property, in private, can they be arrested if somebody finds out? The question is whether or not we are criminalizing the message or the conduct. So the Watt amendment makes it clear that we are still protecting freedom of speech. The message, that will be clear, that we if we do not support the Watt amendment we just ought to acknowledge it is indeed the message, not conduct, which is the target of the underlying amendment.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. But the Presidential leadership would not allow an irresponsible budget to become law?

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Now, if you did not acknowledge that there is a problem, how likely is it that you will take the very difficult, make the very difficult decisions that we had to make in 1993?

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. So in other words, they have not only failed to acknowledge a problem, they are actually, with their policies, making the problem worse?

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. And if the gentleman will continue to yield, as a result of that fiscal responsibility and the tough votes that we cast, we were able to eliminate the deficit and go into surplus, a $236 billion surplus. What we are looking at now is it does not get any better. After we have gotten back into the ditch, it does not get any better. Could the gentleman explain what this blue line up here is?

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I just want to point out some of the things that he did not mention in his presentation, and using this same chart. Could he explain what PAYGO means?

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. And, Mr. Speaker, just a few years later, look at where we are. The President, down in the ditch where we are now, has promised to reduce the deficit 50 percent. First of all, how modest a goal is that from someone who inherited a $5 trillion surplus to say that he is going to clean up half the mess that he has caused? Is that a realistic goal? Is that a fair goal to be judged by?

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, in other words, what the gentleman is saying is that he started with a surplus; he is now in a deficit, only promises to eliminate half the deficit; and he probably will not even be able to do that.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for his leadership. Just one final question. We have complained about how bad a situation we have gotten into, how much work we did to eliminate the deficit, running into surplus. Does the gentleman from South Carolina have a plan to get us back on track?

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, if we run up deficits, we have to pay interest on the national debt. And we had a $5 trillion surplus projected. Now we have over $3 trillion in deficits. The interest that we are going to pay goes up. By 2010, according to this chart, where the interest we were going to pay was going down and the interest we have got to pay is going up, by 2010 the increase in interest is over $230 billion, and that is $230 billion that we are going to have to pay for interest on the national debt going down the drain that we are not going to be able to spend on public broadcasting; NASA Langley Research, in my area, aeronautics research. We are closing bases. We are only going to save a few billion dollars in base closings, certainly not $230 billion that we are going to have to spend in interest payments. We are closing bases, and the highest estimate I have seen over the course of time is about $40 billion that we may save. $230 billion and growing interest on the national debt. We are cutting back on ship building. We do not have the ship building budget that we ought to have. Cops on the beat being cut. Education programs, Pell grants. Ask somebody who is going to college how much tuition went up: 5, 10, 15 percent. Pell grants are going up 1 percent under this budget. And it is getting worse before it gets better because, as we look at the interest on the national debt that we are going to be paying going on and the cost of these tax cuts exploding, the gentleman indicated that we only had a 5-year budget, and when we look at the cost of the tax cuts after 5 years, we can see why they did not want to reveal a 10-year budget. But this shows the exploding cost of the tax cuts going out to 2015. What it does not show is the Social Security trust fund changing from a surplus, going into a deficit in 2018. That is when we have to be best prepared financially to be able to withstand the difference in the $100 billion surplus we are getting out of Social Security going into a growing deficit. And we are going into that change in our worst possible fiscal situation. Finally, when we put all these tax cut proposals into perspective, we see that the cost of making the tax cuts permanent, about $12 billion is a lot more than the Social Security shortfall. In fact, the tax cuts for the top 1 percent is almost enough to cover the entire Social Security shortfall. So we cannot separate the tax cut policy from the spending priorities that we are going to have to address. When we talk about public broadcasting, education, ship building, base closings, aeronautics research in my area, cops on the beat, education, this budget includes requirements to cut school lunches and student loans because we are funding tax cuts for the wealthy. There is even one tax cut that is going into effect in the next couple of years, the PEP and Pease, Personal Exemption Phase-out, and the Pease tax, which the President wants to repeal, that is about $10 billion a year when the President finally gets his way to repeal those provisions. $10 billion a year and 97 percent of that money goes to those making $200,000 or more. Almost half of it goes to about the top one-fifth of 1 percent. Those making $1 million or more, about half of the benefit of that goes to that group, and we are cutting taxes approximately $10 billion a year when it is fully phased in and at the same time cutting school lunches and student loans. How moral a decision is that to make? So I would thank the gentleman for his answers. And also we have a chart up here saying what the promises were as we went along, as we went into skyrocketing deficits. We were first told that we could do tax cuts without budget deficits and then the next year our budget will run a little deficit, but it will be short term, then our current deficit is not large; and now he is promising maybe to clean up half of it. When we run up that kind of debt, and the gentleman has a chart right at his feet, who owns the debt and what is the pattern there? Could the gentleman explain that chart?

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. When the Congress passed budgets that included massive tax cuts, what happened to those budgets?

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. But did President Clinton, when he looked at those irresponsible budgets, not have to veto those budgets, showing Presidential leadership?

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. In 1994, there was a change in leadership in Congress. What happened in 1995?

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Well, I would just ask the gentleman, we have outlined what some would think would be quite a crisis. If you look at this chart, something happened in 2001: we passed all of those tax cuts. I would just ask the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) if this administration or the majority in Congress has ever expressed any acknowledgment that there is a problem.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I stand in support of House Resolution 207, which recognizes the 100th anniversary of FarmHouse Fraternity, Incorporated. The organization was first founded by seven students from the College of Agriculture at the University of Missouri, Columbia. Currently, FarmHouse Fraternity has 24,000 members; and it continues to increase its membership on college campuses throughout the United States and Canada, notwithstanding the fact that today there are fewer farm families and fewer young men with the traditional agricultural background. Farming issues today are much more complex than a century ago. In addition to concerns about the impact of drought and disease on crop production, farmers today must concern themselves with agricultural trade policies, competition from major foreign producers and exporters and agroterrorism. While farming issues may have changed, the fraternity's objectives have remained constant. Today, just as in 1905, the fraternity still aims to promote good fellowship, encourage studiousness, and build character and integrity amongst its members. I congratulate each of the members of FarmHouse Fraternity on their 100th anniversary and wish them continued success in the future. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time. Miss McMORRIS. Madam Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Hulshof).