Bobby Scott

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment, but I also wanted to point out that at the end of the last debate the chairman of the committee suggested that there needs to be a criminal intent for the evasion of the parental consent laws, but we do not need intent for that. If, in fact, you have circumvented the parental consent laws, then there is a violation. You do not even have to know you violated them if, in fact, you did; and I think the chairman would acknowledge that.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the bill makes it a Federal crime to transport a minor across State lines with the intent that the minor obtain an abortion if the parental-involvement laws of the State were circumvented. Now, transport is not defined in the bill. But it obviously includes taxicabs, buses, ambulance drivers and others that may transport a minor across State lines to get an abortion or return from an abortion under the bill. And it makes them criminals for the simple task of doing their job, transporting someone between two places. Now, the bill also makes conspiracy and accessory after the fact criminal violations, so a nurse or receptionist or sorority sister who calls the cab could also be prosecuted for the Federal crime. That is why, Mr. Chairman, I have introduced the amendment, which says that the prohibitions of this section do not apply with respect to the conduct of taxicab drivers, bus drivers, nurses, medical providers or others in the business of professional transport. Now, even if a prosecutor uses commonsense prosecutorial discretion and does not prosecute a cab driver or a sorority sister in this situation, there are other problems with the bill, because a technical violation of the bill, such as one committed by the taxicab driver, automatically exposes that taxicab driver or the sorority sister who calls the cab, did not even go on the trip, to civil liability. That means that the parents can sue them for what they did. The civil liability provisions of the bill create a blanket Federal cause of action for a parent that suffers ``legal harm,'' compounding the massive intimidation effects of the bill. Based on the language of the bill, the cab driver, receptionist, sorority sister could be held civilly liable for helping to provide safe and legal transportation assistance to the minor. Moreover, based on the agency principles, not only is the cab driver exposed to civil liability, but the entire cab company is similarly exposed. Now, you may say that the cab driver probably did not know. But what happens when the passenger gets into the cab and says, take me to the abortion clinic which happens to be across State lines. And during the trip, he hears the minor discuss with a friend where she is going and why. It becomes clear what the deal is. Now, in prior discussions with the amendment, it has been suggested that the bill will immunize someone who may be a taxicab driver and also a sexual predator. Let us not insult each other. If someone is a sexual predator, and the prosecutor evidence of that, this will be the last code section that they will be looking at because these are misdemeanors. The code is full of felonies for sexual predators. And so if the parent finds out that the minor went across State lines by taxicab and gets mad, and the child has to explain what happened, how they got to the clinic, and what was said in the cab, obviously, the parent can sue the cab driver. Now, an overwhelming portion of minors already discuss the situation with their parents. This will not reduce teen pregnancy. This will not increase the number of children that discuss the situation with their parents. This will make no exceptions for dysfunctional families. It will just make criminals out of friends and relatives and allow the parents to sue them. I just do not think, Mr. Chairman, that the taxicab drivers ought to get caught up in that controversy and that is why I hope the amendment is adopted. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my team.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I just want to follow up on this briefly because we talked about fiscal responsibility and irresponsibility. And we have seen this chart. In 1993 we passed budgets that were very controversial. But they had the effect of eliminating the deficit and sending it up into surplus. And these were controversial, and those votes were used against the Democrats. Right after these votes were cast, when we eliminated the trend line going down into further and further deficit and started going up, we had PAYGO in effect, where if you had a tax cut, you had to pay for the tax cut. If you had a spending increase, you had to pay for it with either more taxes or less spending somewhere else. You just could not spend without paying for it. You could not cut taxes without paying for it. And we ended up in a surplus at the end of 2000. We let PAYGO expire so you could pass massive tax cuts and increase spending all you wanted without paying for it. And that kind of fiscal irresponsibility puts us down here to $427 billion in the hole. Now, it is going to get worse before it gets better. The President suggests in the rhetoric that he is going to cut the deficit in half in 5 years, which is actually somewhat modest. That means he is only going to clean up half the mess he caused. He is not even going to clean up just half. He is going to promise to clean up half. But this green line down here shows if you actually include what we know must be included, there is no way you are going to even come close. It is just going to get worse and worse. This blue line is an interesting line because this is the budget projection. All the surpluses of 300 billion-plus was the projection made in 2002, which is an interesting year, because it is after 2001. After 9/11 we still thought we could have surpluses, but we continued to cut taxes, we continued to increase spending without any limit. Now, we have heard about the priorities that we are going to be missing. We have heard about education. We have heard about health care. We have heard about all of the things we cannot do. One of the things we cannot do, I live in Newport News, Virginia. We build aircraft carriers. Because of the budget crunch, they are talking about reducing the number of aircraft carriers. We have a NASA research facility near my district, aeronautics research. We are scrambling to try to find a couple $100 million so that NASA Langley can have a few million dollars to continue the research that we are doing. We are having trouble finding that money. We hope we can find it. But just last week, we passed another tax cut. When fully phased in, it would be another $70 billion a year. Without paying for it. Just passed it. One priority we have, all of us here, Social Security. If you look at all of the tax cuts, you know, where are we going to find the money for Social Security to keep the plan we have got now, all of the tax cuts under this administration passed, and if we make them permanent, $14 trillion. Social Security only has a 3.7 to $4 trillion shortfall. If you add on Medicare, you could have solved both of those, or you can have tax cuts. And to add insult to injury, make the tax cuts permanent. That is over $11 trillion in present value cost. Social Security, 3.7. Make the tax cuts permanent for the top 1 percent, those making more than $350,000 a year. That is almost enough in itself to solve the Social Security problem that we have. Matter of priorities. Are we going to give tax cuts to the top 1 percent, or are we going to save Social Security for everybody? Well, we are going to be voting on that. We have already passed estate tax repeal. We have got others. I believe that we ought to save Social Security first. If you are going to have an $11 trillion tax cut plan on the table, well, let us just take the first 4 trillion and solve Social Security. Then maybe we can only cut taxes $7 trillion. But we would have saved Social Security. Let us save Social Security first. We have got a good plan. All of the benefits being promised we cannot pay right now. We are 4 trillion short. It is actually better than the President's plan because his plan goes broke quicker and cuts benefits in the process. So that ought to be a nonstarter. But we have priorities and because of our fiscal irresponsibility, we cannot meet those priorities. If we go back to the fiscal responsibility we had from 1993 to 2000, you had to pay for your new initiatives. You could not just pass a tax cut, and where a President would veto bills that were fiscally irresponsible, even if he had to shut down the government. In 1995 we shut down the government rather than President Clinton signing those bills that would have put us back in the ditch where we were. Now, that is the kind of leadership we need now. We do not have it. And if the gentleman looks at the chart right beside him, where you pass these tax cuts that look a little modest for the next couple of years, but when you reveal the full 10-year and the next 10-year cost, you know they are fiscally irresponsible. We cannot afford them, and that is why Social Security is in jeopardy today.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. The gentleman mentioned 9/11. It seems to me that it is fair to have been surprised in September of 2001 or maybe later that you suffered 9/11. Does the gentleman find it surprising that people still appear to be surprised that 9/11 happened here, 4 years later, that we are budgeting as if it did not happen? And surprise, after you pass the budget, oh, we forgot about 9/11?

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. And if you cut mandatory spending and the education budget, the only thing you have for school lunches and student loans, that is the only thing you can cut under that program.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Did they direct the Education and Workforce Committee to cut mandatory spending?

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. When the budget left the House, what did it do to things likes Medicaid?

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I would ask if the entire take of the individual income tax, is that not about $800 billion?

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. And we have an average of $900 billion overspending from what was projected every year for the 10-year period?

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Does the gentleman have a chart that shows what the surpluses were supposed to be and what the annual deficits look like?

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, let me speak briefly about the distortion in the description of my amendment in the committee report. First, the suggestion, as the gentleman from New York has indicated, the suggestion that we had an opportunity to respond to the majority report is just not accurate. Perhaps we need to change the rules in light of this distortion, but the dissenting views explain our opposition to the bill, and we do not see the majority report prior to the submission of the dissenting views. Therefore, we had no way of knowing that such distortions would be part of the committee report. Mr. Speaker, the underlying bill makes it illegal to transport a minor across State lines for the purpose of getting an abortion. Let me read my amendment. ``The prohibitions of this section do not apply with respect to conduct by taxicab drivers, bus drivers, nurses, medical providers, or others in the business of professional transport.'' It was described in the report as saying: ``Mr. Scott offered an amendment that would have exempted sexual predators from prosecution if they are taxicab drivers, bus drivers, or others in the business of professional transport.'' Let me just say that if a person is known to be a sexual predator, the last thing a prosecutor would have done would be to say, aha, we have him for transporting a minor across State lines as a taxicab driver, and we can get him for a misdemeanor; when, obviously, if they can show that he is a sexual predator, they have many felonies they could prosecute him for. But my view on the description and the distortion of this amendment is that it says more about the character of the persons responsible for describing the amendment that way, or for those trying to defend the distortion, than it does about the amendment. I would point out that the Committee on Rules changed the description from the distortion in the committee report and described it as follows: ``Amendment immunizes taxicab drivers, bus drivers, and others in the business of professional transport; doctors and nurses and others, medical providers or their staff, from the transportation provision of the bill.'' A description of what the amendment says, a clarification of the distortion, but again, Mr. Speaker, it just says more about the character of the people who wrote that distortion than it does about the amendment. I would hope that we would adopt an amendment to the rules that would require the Committee on Rules to eliminate that distortion so that the public will be accurately informed as to what is in the bill and the amendments.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I would like to respond very quickly. If medical expenses wipe you out and you cannot pay them, under this bill you cannot get into chapter 7 if you can pay $166 a month on your bills, however much they are. There could be hundreds of thousands of dollars that you could never pay.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, while some who file bankruptcy have been financially irresponsible, the overwhelming majority of those who file do so as a result of divorce, major illness, or job loss. Half of those who go into bankruptcy do so because of illness, and most of them had health insurance but still could not pay their bills. If the purpose of the legislation is to try to deal with those who abuse credit, we ought to be able to distinguish them from the hard- working Americans who unfortunately become ill, those who have an unforeseen loss of a job, or whose spouses desert them after a business failure. Mr. Speaker, in addition to those who get sick or lose their job, this bill will also hurt small business entrepreneurs. They go into business and consider a risk-benefit ratio that includes the possibility of making a lot of money, but also includes the possibility of losing everything and ending up in bankruptcy. With the passage of this legislation, those entrepreneurs and their families will risk not only losing everything but also being denied a fresh start if the business goes under. They will be stripped down to essentials like food and rent for 5 years, and that is average rent for the area, not what they may have been living in. Finally, we ought to consider the impact on society of increasing the number of people who conclude that they have nothing to lose. It is ironic that the last time we debated bankruptcy reform on the floor of the House, a farmer had driven his tractor into the pond near the Washington Monument, tying up traffic for a long time. He was quoted as saying, ``I am broke. I am busted. I have the rest of my life to stay here.'' People who feel they have nothing to lose can become dangerous to society. Denying bankruptcy protection to people who need a fresh start will only increase the number of people in our community who feel they have nothing to lose. This legislation does not differentiate between those who abuse the system and those who deserve a fresh start. This rule does not allow amendments to fix the bill; and, therefore, the rule should be defeated.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, what the gentleman suggested was, if someone has overwhelming medical bills, hundreds of thousands in medical bills, that they can file under Chapter 7. That is not true. If they have a job and they have $100 a month left over after essential expenses, they are going to have to go under a wage earner plan for the next 5 years. Every dime they have got after food and rent will go to all of their bills. They cannot file under Chapter 7.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, along with my colleague, Representative Eric Cantor, I rise with great pride to call attention to a group of young students who have distinguished themselves, their school, their community, and the Commonwealth of Virginia. The Virginia Union University Panthers men's basketball team had a remarkable season and we believe the Panthers deserve formal recognition for their accomplishments. On March 26, 2005, the Virginia Union University Panthers won the NCAA Division II Men's Basketball National Championship. The Panthers completed their 2005 season with an impressive 30-4 record. To quote from Virginia Union's hometown newspaper, the Richmond Times-Dispatch, ``Those [Virginia Union's] starters, none over 6-6 or heavier than 223 pounds, carried the Panthers all year past bigger, stronger opponents. . . . It is perhaps the most belabored sports cliche, but when the Panthers looked at each other, they saw a whole greater than the sum of its parts.'' En route to their championship victory in Grand Forks, North Dakota, the Panthers won their second straight CIAA Championship on Saturday, March 5, 2005. Their remarkable season carries on the tradition of championship basketball at Virginia Union, which now has 15 CIAA Championships and three National Championships. Founded in 1865, Virginia Union University is an Historically Black University dedicated to providing educational equity to African- Americans. Virginia Union welcomes diversity among its faculty and staff as well as its student body. In its founding days, Virginia Union's academic missions and social visions were ahead of their time. Now, more than a century later, Virginia Union University is still an innovating and inspiring place for college students and scholar athletes. My colleague Eric Cantor and I would like to extend our enthusiastic congratulations to the Virginia Union University players and their families, Coach Robbins and the rest of his coaching staff, Virginia Union alumni, and the entire Virginia Union community for their remarkable accomplishment.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, along with my colleague, Representative Jo Ann Davis, I rise with great pride to call attention to a group of young students who have distinguished themselves, their school, their community, and the Commonwealth of Virginia. The Woodside High School Wolverines boy's basketball team had a remarkable season and we believe the Wolverines deserve formal recognition for their accomplishments. On March 12, 2005, Woodside won its second consecutive Group AAA Boy's Basketball State Championship at the Virginia Commonwealth University Siegel Center in Richmond. The Wolverines completed the 2005 season with a truly impressive record of 30-2. Established in 1996, Woodside High School is a magnet school specializing in the performing arts. Students must meet rigorous academic requirements, take responsibility for academic progress, behavior and attendance, and they are expected to participate in school and community activities. The Woodside drive for excellence has now been extended into the field of athletics. With their 2004 and 2005 championship seasons, Woodside has established a new tradition of championship basketball in Newport News. This year the Wolverines were Peninsula District Season and Tournament Champions, and the Eastern Region Champion. Two-time Coach of the Year, John Richardson, has compiled a 59-5 record over the last two years. The Virginia High School Coaches Association also awarded Player of the Year honors to Woodside senior guard, Calvin Baker. My colleague Jo Ann Davis and I would like to extend our enthusiastic congratulations to the Woodside High School players and their families, Coach Richardson and the rest of his coaching staff, Woodside High alumni, and the entire Woodside High community for their remarkable accomplishment.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with great pride to call attention to a group of young students from Surry County, Virginia, who have distinguished themselves, their school, their community, and the Commonwealth of Virginia. The Surry High School Cougars boys' basketball team had a remarkable season and I believe the Cougars deserve formal recognition for their accomplishments. On March 12, 2005, the Cougars won their first Group A Boys' Basketball State Championship at the Virginia Commonwealth University Siegel Center in Richmond. Surry completed its 2005 season with a truly impressive record of 26-4. The Cougars have dedicated this year's championship run to their Head Coach, Joe Ellis. Mr. Ellis was diagnosed with colon and stomach cancer twenty months ago. Despite his diagnosis and subsequent chemotherapy treatments, Mr. Ellis has continued to coach the Cougars, missing only one game during their championship season. His dedication and commitment to the team have given his players a model of how to face adversity both on the basketball court and in life. Along with the State Championship, the Cougars won this year's Tri- Rivers District Tournament and the Region A Tournament. Coach Ellis was awarded Coach of the Year by the Virginia High School Coaches Association. Junior center Edward Barham was also honored as Player of the Year. I want to extend my enthusiastic congratulations for a job well done to Coach Ellis and the Surry High School Cougars--the 2005 Group A Virginia High School League Boys' Basketball State Champions.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, a lot has been said about the details of this case. I just want to say a word about the process, because we should honor and respect the rule of law, and laws should be applied equally to all. This is a special bill, special treatment to just one case. This bill does not grant a Federal right of review to cases like this. This bill applies just to this one case. The majority in Congress apparently has already decided the proper outcome of the case, a decision different from the next of kin and State court judges who have heard evidence from both sides. Present law has a process to ascertain whether or not a patient is in a persistent vegetative state, and it should not matter what politicians think. There is a process. But this case will be given special treatment because Members of Congress have made a different diagnosis. Present law also places the decisions in the hands of the next of kin, the husband. But Congress apparently does not agree with the next of kin; and this bill, therefore, gives special legal standing to other relatives. This is not the only recent example of special treatment. A few years ago, a child custody case in the Washington, D.C. area was decided by special legislative language in a transportation appropriations bill. The Committee on Education and the Workforce considering a case on appeal between the Department of Labor and a bank retroactively changed the law to fix the result on behalf of the bank. The House passed legislation to fix a result in firearms liability legislation so that the National Rifle Association got to try the issue in the legislative branch after they had made contributions to legislators who will decide the result, rather than being relegated to the impartial judge and jury where ordinary citizens have to try their cases. Mr. Speaker, we should honor the rule of law and apply that law in all cases. There are cases like this all over the country, but this bill applies only to this case because the relatives were able to get the attention of the United States Congress. If Congress wants to establish a Federal right of review in cases like this, a new rule of law, so be it; but that law should apply to all whether or not they have a Member of Congress to introduce a special bill. Let us honor and respect the rule of law to be applied equally to all and reject this legislation.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. The Congressional Black Caucus is offering an alternative budget proposal that differs from both the President's budget and the House majority's budget by putting America and Americans first. Its focus is to reduce disparities that exist in America's communities by investing in the priorities and challenges that Americans face today. It also provides significant support for our troops in Iraq. At the same time, the CBC budget alternative accomplishes these goals in a manner that is much more fiscally responsible than the Republican budget, so much so, as this chart shows, the budget deficit each year is much less, a total of a $167 billion deficit reduction over 5 years, so much so that it saves just in interest cost alone $27.5 billion over 5 years. The Congressional Black Caucus alternative builds for America's future and addresses the domestic challenges our country faces. The bulk of the CBC budget has been applied to a comprehensive approach to education and training. With the intention of closing achievement and opportunity gaps in education, the CBC budget dramatically increases funding for education and training programs by $23.9 billion over the proposed Republican budget next year alone. The CBC budget supports public education by fully funding No Child Left Behind, provides critical funding for Head Start, TRIO, IDEA, and elementary and secondary school counseling. To address the education needs of our military families, the CBC budget allocates more funding for Impact Aid. Millions of at-risk students are hoping to succeed in high school and enroll in college, and to make that dream a reality the CBC alternative allocates funding for the GEAR-UP program, raises the maximum amount for Pell Grants, increases funding for historically black colleges and universities and Hispanic-serving institutions. In addition, the CBC budget funds for the Perkins student loan program, as well as job training, adult education, and vocational education programs that are critical in today's global economy. In order to close the existing economic disparities in the United States and to help entrepreneurs realize the American dream, the CBC alternative funds job creation programs under the Small Business Administration. It supports community development programs, including community development block grants, child nutrition programs, and health programs such as Community Health Centers. The budget also addresses disparities in housing, and believes that everyone in the United States is entitled to a safe and comfortable home. It supports HOPE VI, section 8 housing programs, housing for the disabled and elderly, and low income energy assistance. The budget also provides funding for Amtrak and public transportation. The CBC recognizes that advancements in technology and science are necessary to maintain America's competitiveness in today's global economy. The budget supports funding for research and development, particularly in aeronautics and NASA, and increases funding for the National Science Foundation, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and the Department of Energy, as well as measures for space shuttle safety. The Congressional Black Caucus budget alternative also recognizes the importance of adding to the safety of our communities by funding initiatives such as juvenile crime prevention programs and prisoner reentry programs. The funding for these important domestic needs comes from rolling back tax cuts for an individual's adjusted gross income that is over $200,000, and eliminating several abusive tax loopholes, including corporate incentives to move jobs overseas. Moreover, the Congressional Black Caucus budget does not adopt the new tax cuts included in the Republican budget. The CBC revenues are used for the domestic and deficit reduction portions of the alternative budget. The CBC budget is also committed to making America more secure. The funding for urgent homeland security needs, veterans programs and benefits, and additional support for defense and our troops in Iraq comes from a $7.8 billion reduction in ballistic missile defense, leaving $1 billion in the program for continued research. It is a priority of the CBC to provide American soldiers with the equipment necessary to return home from Iraq in a safe, quick and successful manner. To that end, a portion of these funds have been reallocated to protect our troops in Iraq by providing them with body armor, vehicle armor, and other personal support equipment, as well as for the construction and maintenance of our Navy vessels, which will preserve jobs. The CBC understands that providing homeland security requires appropriate funding to meet the many pressing needs in homeland security; and, therefore, we have substantial funding for port security grants and rail security grants as well as funding for first responders, Federal air marshals and border patrol agents. The remainder of these funds are used to restore cuts in veterans' programs and benefits. The CBC understands that today's soldiers are tomorrow's veterans who deserve our respect and sacrifices, not just in word but in deed and in budget. Thus, the alternative budget makes critical increases in veterans' programs and benefits, a substantial portion of which is health care. It also supports funding for long-term care initiatives, medical and prosthetic research, and mental health care, among others. We believe that the sum of these initiatives will make us more secure as a Nation. The CBC is committed to reducing disparities in all of America's communities. At the same time, our budget recognizes that we cannot place the burden on our children and grandchildren. A top priority of the CBC is to address the exploding deficit problem, and that is why our budget reduces the deficit by $167 billion and saves $27 billion in interest payments compared to the House majority's budget. Members of the CBC have worked tirelessly to create a budget that is fiscally responsible, supports our troops and recognizes the need of American individuals and American communities around the country. We believe this is a sound budget that will reduce disparities in America's communities and promote and protect the best that America and Americans have to offer.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from North Carolina for yielding me this time. I want to make a couple of comments as we wrap up. One is the massive tax increase. What we did was started with the base budget, the Republican budget. On income we changed the revenue by rolling back the tax cuts to the level they were at in 2001 for income over 200,000. If someone makes more than $200,000, they get all the income tax cuts up to the 200,000, but no tax cuts after 200,000. Again, we spend $167 billion less deficit than the Republican budget, creating $27 billion less in interest payments. Now, we have heard all of this about massive cuts in defense. Let us be very clear. All of the numbers on defense are exactly the same numbers as the Republican budget, with one exception. We fund missile defense at $1 billion rather than $8.8 billion. If you look at defense, homeland security, and veterans, that total is the same because we use that money to fund defense, homeland security and veterans. Now, on defense, I hope the gentleman from Florida is working with the Virginia delegation in maintaining a 12-aircraft carrier fleet. This budget, the Congressional Black Caucus budget, has a billion dollars more in shipbuilding than the underlying budget. We have $75 million more in shipbuilding than the underlying budget. We have $75 million more in body armor. We have in homeland security, $500 million for port security; $100 million for rail security, veterans benefits. Those charts did not show what the present level of services would cost. It also did not show the fact that the Republican budget has co- pays and deductibles that our budget does not have. We say we have $4 billion more for veterans, over $1 billion more for shipbuilding, over $2 billion more for homeland security. So if you look at that as a group, we are more secure with the Congressional Black Caucus budget than the Republican budget. I would hope that we would adopt the budget. It saves money and makes us more secure. I include for the Record the fiscal year 2006 CBC alternative budget breakdown: Fiscal Year 2006 CBC Alternative Budget Breakdown Working off the Chairman's Mark, As Amended, all calculations are for changes above/below proposed Fiscal Year 2006 levels. On behalf of the Congressional Black Caucus, this Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute seeks to offer to Congress and the American people an alternative budget that is fiscally responsible and aimed at reducing disparities in our communities. The CBC alternative budget raises revenue by reducing the tax cuts from 2001 and 2003 for an individual's adjusted gross income that exceeds $200,000 and not adopting the new Republican tax cuts, eliminating corporate tax incentives for off-shoring jobs, closing tax loopholes, abusive shelters, and methods of tax avoidance, and eliminating the repeal of the limitation on itemized deductions (Pease) and the phase-out of personal exemptions (PEP) scheduled to take place between 2006 and 2010. These funds total an estimated $36.3 billion in FY 2006. The CBC budget uses nearly $4 billion of these additional revenues for deficit reduction. The remaining funds are used to restore cuts and fund increases in specific budget function areas. These include full funding for No Child Left Behind and providing funds for school construction and increases for other education and job training programs. The CBC alternative budget allocates additional funding for job creation programs under SBA, community and regional development programs including community development block grants, and law enforcement initiatives such as juvenile justice and prisoner reentry programs. It provides funding for child nutrition programs, community health centers, NASA research and development, Amtrak, Hope VI and Section 8 housing programs, and housing for the disabled and the elderly. In addition, the CBC alternative budget reduces funding for the Ballistic Missile Defense program by $7.8 billion. The CBC alternative budget reallocates all of this money for additional support for the troops in Iraq and other defense items necessary to maintain our military strength and jobs, homeland security needs, and veterans programs and benefits. I. Revenue Raisers and Defense Reallocation [in billions] ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I submit the following information regarding H.R. 27 for the Record. March 2, 2005. The Real Democratic Record on Charitable Choice, Dear Colleague: I wanted to be sure you had a copy of the Real Democratic Record on Charitable Choice. I hope this is helpful as we debate H.R. 27, containing a vast expansion of Charitable Choice to federally-funded job training programs for the first time since 1965. the 2004 democratic platform ``We honor the central place of faith in the lives of our people. Like our Founders, we believe that our nation, our communities, and our lives are made vastly stronger and richer by faith and the countless acts of justice and mercy it inspires. We will strengthen the role of faith-based organizations in meeting challenges like homelessness, youth violence, and other social problems. At the same time, we will honor First Amendment protections and not allow public funds to be used to proselytize or discriminate. Throughout history, communities of faith have brought comfort to the afflicted and shaped great movements for justice. We know they will continue to do so, and we will always protect all Americans' freedom to worship.'' The Clinton Administration Record on Charitable Choice 1996--The Clinton Administration submitted amendments as part of its technical corrections package to Congress regarding concerns over the constitutionality of Charitable Choice provisions contained in welfare reform. They filed the following comments with the amendment: ``[P]rovisions of sec. 104 and its legislative history could be read to be inconsistent with the constitutional limits. . . . We recommend amending sec. 104 to clarify that it does not compel or allow States to provide TANF benefits through pervasively sectarian organizations, either directly or through vouchers redeemable with these organizations.'' Congress did not act on those amendments. 1998--The Clinton Administration issued a signing statement placing limitations on the Charitable Choice provisions contained in the Community Services Block Grant: ``The Department of Justice advises, however, that the provision that allows religiously affiliated organizations to be providers under CSBG would be unconstitutional if and to the extent it were construed to permit governmental funding of ``pervasively sectarian'' organizations, as that term has been defined by the courts. Accordingly, I construe the Act as forbidding the funding of pervasively sectarian organizations and as permitting Federal, State, and local governments involved in disbursing CSBG funds to take into account the structure and operations of a religious organization in determining whether such an organization is pervasively sectarian.'' 2000--The Clinton Administration issued a signing statement placing limitations on the Charitable Choice provisions contained in the reauthorization of the Substance Abuse Mental Health Services Act (SAMHSA): ``The Department of Justice advises, however, that this provision would be unconstitutional to the extent that it were construed to permit governmental funding of organizations that do not or cannot separate their religious activities from their substance abuse treatment and prevention activities that are supported by SAMHSA aid. Accordingly, I construe the Act as forbidding the funding of such organizations and as permitting Federal, State, and local governments involved in disbursing SAMHSA funds to take into account the structure and operations of a religious organization in determining whether such an organization is constitutionally and statutorily eligible to receive funding.'' Very truly yours, Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott, Member of Congress.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva).