Bobby Scott

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. The suggestion was that we would just pick one tax, the income tax, and only those that paid, there are other taxes that a lot of people do not pay; a lot of people do not pay estate taxes. What portion of the people have estates when they die over $1 million?

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Now, do they pay a sales tax?

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Now, we had the previous speaker before our Special Order suggest that it was wrong to give income tax relief for those who do not pay income tax. There are some that have lower income that do not pay income taxes, but I was wondering if they paid a payroll tax.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. First of all, I think we ought to suggest that if we are this far in the red already, we ought to be talking about something other than additional tax cuts. We use the adage around here that if we find ourselves in a hole, the first thing we ought to do is stop digging. This chart is actually somewhat out of date, because on the more recent numbers there is more red ink down here than this chart shows. The present situation is actually worse. But as the gentleman has suggested, they concocted a plan that they call $350 billion because they would pass a tax cut, but then in a couple of years they would what is called sunset it; that is, stop the tax cut and revert back to present law. Everyone expects that when you get to that point in time, that instead of a sunset we will have a sunrise, and continue the tax cut into the future. If we assume, as everyone does, that the tax cuts will be eventually made permanent, it is not just $350 billion but approximately $1 trillion, three times bigger, particularly if we add on the interest and other fixes that have to be made when we have those kinds of tax cuts.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. The reason we are not creating many jobs is that by the time we have run up all the deficit and we are worse off than we started, it is because the tax cut was not targeted to those who will actually spend it. It was not targeted and the spending was not done in such a way that it would actually stimulate the economy. It would just help those in the upper-income brackets. There were a number of other alternative ways of stimulating the economy. The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) indicated if we continue the unemployment benefits, those people what are used to a paycheck, no longer having a paycheck, will spend that money before the check clears. As soon as they get the check, they will deposit it and the money will be spent. They have overdue bills and they have things they have to buy. It is the only income they have. They will spend that money. If we give a few thousand to a millionaire, if they wanted a television they would have bought a television. If they wanted a car, they would have bought a car already. They are much less likely to spend the money and help stimulate the economy. One study was done on the dividend tax decrease; that for every dollar we lose in tax revenue, the economy is stimulated by 7 cents. Every dollar we put into unemployment compensation, the economy is stimulated $1.73. So if our goal is to stimulate the economy so everyone can benefit, there are other things we can do other than reduce the taxes on dividends, capital gains, and for those in the upper income.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Minus 2\1/2\ million so far and dropping. We ought not refer to September 11, because this chart going back to the Truman administration includes the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the beginning and end of both of those wars, the Cold War, hostages in Iran, the first Persian Gulf war. All through that period of time, coming and going, through everything that has happened in the economy, jobs were created. Not after we passed this trillion-dollar tax cut. I just want to point out, again, who benefited, because obviously people did not get jobs as a result. This is by income. We will see $10,000, $10,000 to $20,000, $20,000 to $30,000, and $30,000 to $40,000. We begin to see a little benefit here at $75,000 to $100,000, but those who are making over $1 million are off the chart. Now, we should not be surprised that we did not create jobs. This is a study by the Joint Committee on Taxation, with a Republican majority, on how many jobs would be created if we passed this plan. We will see that there is a short-term spike in jobs, but right after that, at best we will end up where we started. Most of the models show we will end up with fewer jobs had we done nothing at all.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Over 10 million jobs created each 4-year term.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. So if we focus all of our tax relief on that, it would not surprise anybody that it would not be broadly based. It would just be aimed at the 1 or 2 percent. So it does not make much sense to complain that if we are trying to give tax relief to everyone, particularly when we are also trying to stimulate the economy, that we would give tax relief, however we can, to everyone, particularly those that might actually spend the money and help stimulate the economy.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I was just going to ask the ranking member, since we have run out of the surplus and Social Security, Medicare and other surplus, as you pass a tax cut, how is it funded if it is not under the PAYGO rules?

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. As we have said, this chart tells the story. When people ask, what is the Democratic plan to get us out of the mess, the green is the Democratic plan. We ought to remember history on how that green was created, because as the gentleman has indicated, not a single Republican, 218 to 216 in the House, not a single Republican in the House, 50-50 in the Senate, not a single Republican in the Senate voted for the plan that started digging us out of this great deficit. When the Republicans used those votes that created the green ink, they used those against us in the campaign and took over both the House and Senate. Now they want to take credit for some of the green. But remember, after the 1994 election, 1995, they passed these trillion- dollar tax cuts and President Clinton vetoed those tax cuts. In fact, they threatened to shut down the government, and he vetoed them again. In fact they shut down the government, and he vetoed them again. We had gotten the budget deficit down from 290 down to less than 10 before they finally agreed to a budget that the President could sign. That is right up in here somewhere. All of this was without any Republican votes, so they finally jumped on the bandwagon right at the last minute. When President Bush came in, the Republican Congress passed the trillion-dollar tax cut and President Bush signed those tax cuts. Here is what we have as a direct result. Now, who got the tax cuts? This is by 20th percentile. The lowest 20 percentile got that little bit, here is the middle 20 percent, and here is the upper 20 percent. Right at about 50 percent is what the upper 1 percent of the income got out of that tax cut. So we ruin the budget by giving tax cuts to the rich, and we are told that would create jobs. Here is the job chart that has been referenced. The first chart is what was created during the Truman administration. Each administration, all the way through. Then they had 2\1/2\ million jobs lost.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, the last speaker just read part of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists' statement. He said that they could identify no circumstances under which the procedure identified above could be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman. Then he stopped. The rest of it is, ``However, it may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of the woman, and only the doctor, in consultation with the patient, based on the woman's particular circumstances, can make that decision.'' We just want the whole statement in the Record.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, even if this bill were constitutional, it would not stop any abortions, just a procedure. The abortion would still take place using an alternative procedure. I am not going to inflame the debate by describing those alternative procedures; but this bill in its present form, without this amendment, is clearly unconstitutional. This amendment would make it constitutional. The Supreme Court said in Stenberg v. Carhart that the ban on partial birth abortions was unconstitutional because the law lacked any exception for the preservation of the health of the; mother, and reading out of the case, it says subsequent to viability the State, in promoting the interests of the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, proscribe an abortion and in italics it says except where it is necessary in appropriate medical judgment for preservation of the life or health of the mother. This is what this amendment says. That was in italics. Later down it says the governing standard requires an exception, and it says, where it is necessary in appropriate medical judgment for preservation of the life or health of the mother. That is the language of this amendment. It also says, our cases have repeatedly invalidated statutes, and the process of regulating the methods of abortion imposed significant health risks. Finally, it says, but where the substantial medical authority supports the proposition that banning a particular abortion procedure could endanger women's health case law requires the statute to include a health exception when the procedure is, and listen up, necessary in appropriate medical judgment for the preservation of life or health of the mother. That is what the Supreme Court said in June 2000. Five judges found that opinion. All five are still on the Court. They used the same language in this amendment in plain print, in italics and in quotes. They were serious about this legislation. We ought to read the case and apply the law and adopt the motion to recommit.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, this bill is unconstitutional. The bill before us will not prohibit any abortions. Its supporters claim it prohibits a procedure, but the abortion will still take place involving another procedure, and I will not inflame the debate by describing in detail the alternative procedures that may be used. But I will point out that Nebraska had a law banning the same procedure. Nearly 3 years ago the United States Supreme Court held in Stenberg v. Carhart that that law was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court said five times in its majority opinion and other times in concurring opinions that in order to make a partial-birth abortion ban constitutional, the law must contain a health exception to allow the procedure, quote, ``where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.'' That is what five Supreme Court justices said was necessary to make the bill constitutional. All five are still on the Supreme Court. In that case, the Court said: The question before us is whether Nebraska's statute making criminal the performance of a partial-birth abortion violates the Federal Constitution as interpreted in Planned Parenthood v. Casey and Roe v. Wade. We conclude that it does for at least two independent reasons. They said the first reason was that the law lacked an exception for the preservation of the health of the mother. The Stenberg court reminded us what a long line of cases has held, that, and they say, ``subsequent to viability, the State may, if it chooses, regulate and even proscribe abortion,'' and they put this in italics, ``except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.'' It goes on to say, in quotes, in case we did not understand the italics, that the governing standard requires an exception, quote, ``where it is necessary in the appropriate medical judgment for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.'' The Court continues talking about the health exception by saying and mentions another quote: Justice Thomas said that ``The cases just cited limit this principle to situations where the pregnancy itself creates a threat to health.'' He is wrong. The cases cited, reaffirmed in Casey, recognize that a State cannot subject women's health to significant health risks both in that context and also where State regulations force women to use riskier methods of abortion. Our cases have repeatedly invalidated statutes that in the process of regulating the methods of abortion imposed significant health risks. They make it clear that the risk to a woman's health is the same whether it happens to arise from regulating a particular method of abortion or from barring abortions entirely. Finally, the Court says: Nebraska has not convinced us that a health exception is, quote, ``never medically necessary to preserve the health of women.'' Rather, a statute that altogether forbids the partial-birth abortion creates a significant health risk. The statute subsequently must contain a health exception. And if we did not get it, the Court reiterates again: ``By no means must a State grant physicians unfettered discretion in their selection of methods. But where substantial medical authority supports the proposition that banning a particular method could endanger women's health, Casey requires the statute to include a health exception when the procedure is, quote, 'necessary in appropriate medical judgment for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.' Requiring such an exception in this case is no departure from Casey, but simply a straightforward application of its holding.'' Mr. Speaker, whatever our views are on the underlying issue of abortion, we ought to read the decision and apply the law. The Supreme Court in one opinion said at least five times that a health exception must be included for the statute to be constitutional. Furthermore, they put the exact phrase to be used, ``necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother'' in italics and quotations. The majority proposes that we consider a bill without this unqualified health exception. The Court made it clear that such a health exception is required and, therefore, this rule that requires us to consider a bill without that exception ought not pass. Mr. Speaker, I ask the House to defeat the rule so that we can have a bill considered with a health exception that might possibly be constitutional. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a Statement of Policy from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists which says that this procedure may be necessary in some circumstances. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Statement of Policy on Abortion The following statement in the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists' (ACOG) general policy related to abortion, with specific reference to the procedure referred to as ``intact dilatation and extraction'' (intact D & X). 1. The abortion debate in this country is marked by serious moral pluralism. Different positions in the debate represent different but important values. The diversity of beliefs should be respected. 2. ACOG recognizes that the issue of support of or opposition to abortion is a matter of profound moral conviction to its members. ACOG, therefore, respects the need and responsibility of its members to determine their individual positions based on personal values or beliefs. 3. Termination of pregnancy before viability is a medical matter between the patient and physician, subject to the physician's clinical judgment, the patient's informed consent and the availability of appropriate facilities. 4. The need for abortions, other than those indicated by serious fetal anomalies or conditions which threaten maternal welfare, represents failures in the social environment and the educational system. The most effective way to reduce the number of abortions is to prevent unwanted and unintended pregnancies. This can be accomplished by open and honest education, beginning in the home, religious institutions and the primary schools. This education should stress the biology of reproduction and the responsibilities involved by boys, girls, men and women in creating life and the desirability of delaying pregnancies until circumstances are appropriate and pregnancies are planned. In addition, everyone should be made aware of the dangers of sexually transmitted diseases and the means of protecting each other from their transmission. To accomplish these aims, support of the community and the school system is essential. The medical curriculum should be expanded to include a focus on the components of reproductive biology which pertain to conception control. Physicians should be encouraged to apply these principles in their own practices and to support them at the community level. Society also has a responsibility to support research leading to improved methods of contraception for men and women. 5. Informed consent is an expression of respect for the patient as a person; it particularly respects a patient's moral right to bodily integrity, to self-determination regarding sexuality and reproductive capacities, and to the support of the patient's freedom within caring relationships. A pregnant women should be fully informed in a balanced manner about all options, including raising the child herself, placing the child for adoption, and abortion. The information conveyed should be appropriate to the duration of the pregnancy. The professional should make every effort to avoid introducing personal bias. 6. ACOG supports access to care for all individuals, irrespective of financial status, and supports the availability of all reproductive options. ACOG opposes unnecessary regulations that limit or delay access to care. 7. If abortion is to be performed, it should be performed safely and as early as possible. 8. ACOG opposes the harassment of abortion providers and patients. 9. ACOG strongly supports those activities which prevent unintended pregnancy. The College continues to affirm the legal right of a woman to obtain an abortion prior to fetal viability. ACOG is opposed to abortion of the healthy fetus that has attained viability in a healthy woman. Viability is the capacity of the fetus to survive outside the mother's uterus. Whether or not this capacity exists is a medical determination, may vary with each pregnancy and is a matter for the judgment of the responsible attending physician. Intact Dilatation and Extraction The debate regarding legislation to prohibit a method of abortion, such as the legislation banning ``partial birth abortion,'' and ``brain sucking abortions,'' has prompted questions regarding these procedures. It is difficult to respond to these questions because the descriptions are vague and do not delineate a specific procedure recognized in the medical literature. Moreover, the definitions could be interpreted to include elements of many recognized abortion and operative obstetric techniques. ACOG believes the intent of such legislative proposals is to prohibit a procedure referred to as ``intact dilatation and extraction'' (Intact D & X). This procedure has been described as containing all of the following four elements: 1. deliberate dilatation of the cervix, usually over a sequence of days; 2. instrumental conversion of the fetus to a footling breech; 3. breech extraction of the body excepting the head; and 4. partial evacuation of the intracranial contents of a living fetus to effect vaginal delivery of a dead but otherwise intact fetus. Because these elements are part of established obstetric techniques, it must be emphasized that unless all four elements are present in sequence, the procedure is not an intact D & X. Abortion intends to terminate a pregnancy while preserving the life and health of the mother. When abortion is performed after 18 weeks, intact D & X is one method of terminating a pregnancy. The physician, in consultation with the patient, must choose the most appropriate method based upon the patient's individual circumstances. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), only 5.3% of abortions performed in the United States in 1993, the most recent data available, were performed after the 16th week of pregnancy. A preliminary figure published by the CDC for 1994 is 5.6%. The CDC does not collect data on the specific method of abortion, so it is unknown how many of these were performed using intact D & X. Other data show that second trimester transvaginal instrumental abortion is a safe procedure. Terminating a pregnancy is performed in some circumstances to save the life or preserve the health of the mother. Intact D & X is one of the methods available in some of these situations. A select panel convened by ACOG could identify no circumstances under which this procedure, as defined above, would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman. An intact D & X, however, may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman, and only the doctor, in consultation with the patient, based upon the woman's particular circumstances can make this decision. The potential exists that legislation prohibiting specific medical practices, such as intact D & X, may outlaw techniques that are critical to the lives and health of American women. The intervention of legislative bodies into medical decision making is inappropriate, ill advised, and dangerous. Approval by the Executive Board. General policy: January 1993. Reaffirmed and revised July 1997. Intact D & X statement: January 1997. Combined: and reaffirmed September 2000.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I would like to place this debate in context because every time we cut veterans benefits, we pull out this resolution. Just a few weeks ago, we voted to cut veterans benefits by $28 billion. And so far those cuts have been restored, but many in this House, a majority, in fact, of this House, will have to explain those votes. Challenging the patriotism of those of us who voted ``no'' on those cuts will not cover up the fact that those votes were actually cast. Mr. Speaker, we should acknowledge that the whole purpose of the underlying constitutional amendment is to stifle political expression that we find offensive. While I agree that we should respect the flag, I do not think it is appropriate to use the criminal code to enforce our views on those who disagree with us. The Supreme Court has considered restrictions on the Bill of Rights that are permissible by the government. For example, under the first amendment with respect to speech, time, place and manner may generally be regulated while content cannot. There are, of course, exceptions. Speech that creates an imminent threat of violence or threatens safety or patently offensive expression that has no redeeming social value, those may be restricted. But generally you cannot restrict content. The distinction is that you can restrict time, place and manner but not content. And so you can restrict the particulars of a march or demonstration, what time it is held, where it is held; 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 marches by the Republican Party but not by the Democratic Party. Some have referred to the underlying resolution as the anti-flag burning amendment and they speak about the necessity of this amendment to keep people from burning flags. But, really, the only place we ever see flags burned is in compliance with the Federal code at flag ceremonies, disposing of a worn-out flag. If you ask any Boy Scout or any member of the American Legion, how do you dispose of a worn-out flag, they will tell you that you burn the flag at a respectful ceremony. This proposed constitutional amendment is all about expression and all about prohibiting expression in violation of the spirit of the first amendment. By using the word ``desecration,'' we are giving government officials the power to decide that one can burn a flag if you are saying something nice or respectful, but you are a criminal if you burn the flag while saying something offensive or insulting. This is an absurd distinction and is in direct contravention with the whole purpose of the first amendment. Mr. Speaker, in addition to the violation of the spirit of the Bill of Rights, this legislation has practical problems. For example, what is a flag? Can you desecrate a picture of a flag? Can a flag with the wrong number of stripes or stars be desecrated? 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. Mr. Speaker, what happens if you desecrate your own flag in private? Are you subject to criminal prosecution if someone finds out? And finally, Mr. Speaker, I feel compelled to comment on the ridiculous suggestions that stealing and destroying someone's personal property is protected if that property happens to be a flag. That is wrong. It is theft and destruction of personal property. What this legislation is aimed at is criminalizing political speech. And so we should not politicize criminal speech we disagree with just because we have the votes. I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that we would defeat the resolution.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt). His amendment is an attempt to clarify how the underlying legislation will affect the first amendment as well as the rest of the Constitution. It changes the proposed constitutional amendment to read, ``Not inconsistent with the first article of amendment to this Constitution, Congress shall have the power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.'' So under the Watt amendment, a person could not be prosecuted just for the expression of opinion, or whether or not the sheriff is offended by that opinion; and, in other words, you should not pass a law that provides for the criminal prosecution for someone who burns a worn-out flag while criticizing the administration at an anti-war rally if that same legislation allows someone to burn a worn- out flag if they say something nice about the administration while at a flag retirement ceremony sponsored by war supporters. The fact is that many consider peace rallies as vulgar and would like to throw the participants in jail. The fact is in many communities, the Bill of Rights is the only thing between those protesters and the jailhouse. We should acknowledge that the ultimate purpose of the proposed amendment is to stifle political expression we find offensive. And while I agree that we should all respect the flag, I do not think it is appropriate to use the criminal code to enforce our views on those who disagree with us or to stifle political expression for those who happen to offend us. The Watt amendment would make the proposed amendment consistent with the ideals of the Bill of Rights. It says that Congress could pass a law prohibiting the physical desecration of the flag so long as it is consistent with the first amendment. And so the underlying amendment is either consistent with the rest of the Constitution or it trumps the rest of the Constitution. Either the underlying amendment will override the first amendment or it will not. At least we ought to be honest and answer the question. The Watt amendment says the underlying amendment will not override the first amendment and that any legislation passed under it has to be consistent with the first amendment. On the other hand, if the Watt amendment is defeated, then that action suggests that legislation passed under the constitutional amendment may not be consistent with the first amendment. And if it overrides the first amendment on speech, what else does it override? Does it override the first amendment in terms of religion? If you were to pass a statute establishing a national prayer for the protection of the flag, that would be inconsistent with the establishment clause. But does this constitutional amendment override the establishment clause? What about the equal protection clause? Can you pass a law that says some people can burn the flag but other people cannot, in violation of the equal protection clause? Will this legislation trump that? Or will the rest of the Constitution remain as it is? My view is that this amendment is superfluous, that the rest of the Constitution is there. The chairman suggests that it codifies present law and, if so, if it does codify present law, this amendment as it is, you ought to say so. You ought to say whether or not it is consistent with the free speech provision of the first amendment, you can pass the law, or whether or not it is consistent with the rest of the Constitution, you can pass the law. It does not say so. So I think we are stuck with the present law. The Watt amendment forces us to address the question. Now, remember, as the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) has pointed out, the underlying amendment does not prohibit anything, it just says that Congress may pass a law regarding the desecration of the flag. The real question is what standard are we going to use to judge what constitutes desecration and whether or not it has to be consistent with the speech provisions of the first amendment and the rest of the Constitution or not. This is what the Watt amendment is aimed at determining. Mr. Speaker, I do not think we ought to repeal the Bill of Rights, and therefore, I urge my colleagues to support the Watt amendment.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland), the sponsor of the legislation.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 180, introduced by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland), along with our colleagues, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green), and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Holden). H. Res. 180 is a bipartisan resolution designed to honor correctional officers and employees by acknowledging and supporting the goals and ideals of National Correctional Officers and Employees Week. The resolution directly honors correctional workers at all levels, local, State and Federal, including psychologists, chaplains, teachers, and kitchen staff. Correctional officers and employees play a vital role in protecting and promoting public safety. They work in our county jails, in our State prisons and Federal penitentiaries. They have a tough job to do in a tough environment. And with the emphasis that Congress and State legislators have placed on eliminating incentive programs for inmates, such as parole, good conduct credits and funding for college courses, that job has been made only tougher. Recently, by reducing inmate jobs in the Federal prison industries program, even more pressure will be put on correctional officers to maintain a safe and productive environment for prisons. So it is fitting, Mr. Speaker, that we pause at this time to recognize and commend our correctional workers and employees for the very important job they do. To them we say thank you. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Ohio and the gentleman from Wisconsin for sponsoring this resolution, and I urge Members to support it. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

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

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in support of S. 330, the Veterans' Memorial Preservation and Recognition Act of 2003, and recommend its passage to my colleagues. This bipartisan legislation is designed to add increased protection to veterans memorials and enhance the recognition of veterans cemeteries. This bill is particularly timely shortly before Memorial Day and at a time when our military troops risked their lives on our behalf in Iraq. Specifically, the legislation establishes criminal penalties for willfully injuring or destroying or attempting to injure or destroy any structure, plaque, statue, or other monument on public property commemorating the service of any person in the United States Armed Forces. The bill further requires the veterans cemeteries to be treated as sites permitting supplemental guide signs on Federal-aid highways. The bill was introduced by the Senator from Colorado, Mr. Campbell, on February 6, 2003, and passed the Senate by unanimous consent on March 27, 2003. I urge Members to support the bill.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for leading the effort to commemorate Asian Pacific American Heritage month. During this month-long commemoration, Americans of Asian Pacific heritage celebrate achievements and major contributions for almost 12 million American citizens of Asian and Pacific heritage. Whether we are seeking of arts, education, government, business, athletics, medicine, law, or the military, Asian Pacific Americans have not only contributed but excelled. Several congressional organizations reflect this unique relationship between Congress and Asian Pacific Americans. I recently joined my distinguished colleagues, Representative Issa, Representative Filner and Representative Rohrabacher, in founding Friends of the Philippines. The bipartisan membership comprises Members who are working to promote better relations with our longstanding ally, the Philippines. I am also a member of the India Caucus, which similarly works to promote a better relationship with India. The bicameral and bipartisan Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus was created by Congressman Norman Mineta, who is now Secretary of Transportation, and Congresswoman Patsy Mink in 1994. Both have served as Chair of the caucus. In the 108th Congress, this Congress, Congressman David Wu serves as Chair and Congressman Honda serves as vice Chair of that caucus. 115 Members of Congress have joined the caucus and work together on policies and legislation that are of concern to Asian Pacific Americans. The caucus is working hard not only to educate other Members about the history and contributions of Asian Pacific Islanders but also to protect and advance the constitutional rights of all Americans. My connection with the celebration begins with my maternal grandfather who was born in the Philippines. Around 1900 he immigrated to the United States aboard a naval vessel at an early age. He landed in Raleigh, North Carolina, and was adopted by a family in Raleigh. He became a pharmacist but unfortunately died before I was born. The historic significance of this month involves two events that occurred in May which determined why this month was chosen to celebrate a week, and now a month, for Asian Pacific American heritage contributions. The first occurred on May 7, 1843, when the first Japanese immigrants arrived in the United States. The second occurred on May 10, 1869, known as Golden Spike Day, when the first transcontinental railroad in the United States was completed with significant contributions from Chinese immigrants. Before Asian Pacific American Heritage Month was signed into law in 1992, it began as a week-long observance of Asian Pacific Americans' contributions to this country. In 1977, Congressman Horton introduced H.J. Res. 540, legislation to authorize the President to proclaim annually the first 10 days in May as Asian Pacific American Heritage Week. Congressman Mineta led the efforts to enact H.J. Res. 1007, which in 1979 began as an annual celebration of Asian Pacific American Heritage Week. In 1989, legislation was introduced to convert the week into a month, and in 1992 legislation was enacted to make the annual month an annual commemoration. Mr. Speaker, I join the gentleman from California tonight as we urge all Americans to learn the history of Asian Pacific Americans and to celebrate their contributions to the culture and heritage of our Nation. I want to thank the gentleman from California for leading the effort to make sure that this was properly commemorated.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, and I am honored today to praise the NAACP Legal Defense Fund for inaugurating the Red, White, Blue and Brown Campaign to commemorate next year's 50th anniversary of the landmark decision Brown v. Board of Education and to help ensure that the spirit of Brown is fully understood and realized. The decision is special to me because when the case was decided I was an elementary school student in a segregated public school. My father was a member of the local school board and was on the short end of many four-to-one votes as the decision was being implemented. I served in the Virginia legislature with several members who had actually voted for and against so-called ``massive resistance.'' Massive resistance was Virginia's sad reaction to the Brown decision. Virginia took advantage of the language in the Brown decision which referred to the right to education with the phrase ``Such an opportunity where the State has undertaken to provide it is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms.'' Under massive resistance, Virginia decided not to provide any public education at all rather than to integrate. As a result, schools in Prince Edward County were closed from 1959 to 1964. In Prince Edward County, 117 African American students chose to strike rather than attend all black Moton High, which was badly in need of repair. Moton had no gymnasium, cafeteria, infirmary, or teacher restrooms. The overflow of students was housed in an old school bus and three buildings covered with tar paper. Local parents had repeatedly sought improvements from the local school board without success. Students initially wanted a new school building with indoor plumbing to replace the old school. Strike leader, Barbara Johns, enlisted the assistance of NAACP attorneys. The lawsuit, Davis v. County School Board of Prince Edward County, was filed in 1951 on behalf of the students by the Virginia NAACP attorneys Oliver Hill and Spottswood Robinson. The United States District Court ordered equal facilities to be provided for black students but denied the plaintiffs the admission to the white schools during the equalization program. Attorneys for the NAACP filed an appeal, which ultimately became consolidated with other cases, including Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka. Because of the deplorable conditions in virtually every black segregated school, many suggest that segregated schools are illegal because they are always inferior and that that was the decision in Brown. In fact, the lesson of Brown is that segregation in and of itself denies equal educational opportunities. The court wrote in the Brown decision: ``We come then to the question presented: Does segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race, even though the physical facilities and other `tangible' factors may be equal, deprive the children of the minority group of equal education opportunities? We believe that it does.'' A philosopher once noted that those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. So I am delighted the NAACP Legal Defense Fund is instituting this initiative to remind people what Brown was all about and that the fight for equal educational opportunity did not end with Brown. The lesson of Brown still applies today. Let us look at the issues we are debating as we speak: minority enrollment in State universities, not only affirmative action at the University of Michigan but also issues involving the vestiges of dual higher education systems in most Southern States; vouchers, the very scheme used in Virginia to fund segregated academies while public schools were closed; disparate funding of education, inner city schools spend significantly less per student than suburban schools; Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, whether a free and appropriate public education can be denied to individuals with disabilities; resegregation of schools, forty percent of black students in 2000 attended schools which were over 90 percent black; High stakes testing, we know that poor students, non-English speaking students, students with disabilities, as well as many minority students receive an education of lesser quality than their counterparts. The use of high stakes testing in educational decisions only exacerbates these inequalities, especially since many of those tests have been found to be racially biased. Even the President's own faith based initiative, which for the first time since 1965 allows sponsors of federally funded programs to discriminate in hiring based on religion and, de facto, race, since 11 o'clock on Sunday is still the most segregated hour of the week. So I am delighted that the NAACP Legal Defense Fund is instituting this initiative to remind people that the fight for equal education did not end with Brown. The NAACP Legal Defense Fund was there with the filing of Brown and remains vigilant and on the case today with this commemoration of the spirit of Brown to once again fight to have all children properly educated. While the legal defense fund may be best known for its work in Brown v. Board of Education, its historic involvement began in 1935, when the legal defense fund lawyers Charles Houston and Thurgood Marshall won the legal battle to admit a student to the University of Maryland. Education has been the cornerstone of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund's push for social justice. The legal defense fund knows the truth of the language in the Brown decision, which states: ``It is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education.'' So I am pleased that the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, under the distinguished leadership of Elaine Jones, is continuing its long tradition of legal action in the education area. America is better because of that tradition.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. You cannot get to balance through spending cuts. As I indicated, the entire defense budget is about $400 billion. We are 500 billion and counting, slightly offset because we are spending $150 billion on Medicare and Social Security surplus that is coming in. But this is out of budget. The onbudget part of the budget, what is coming in and going out outside of Social Security and Medicare is $500 billion. The entire defense budget. Everything we spend outside of Social Security, Medicare, and defense and pensions, everything is about $800 billion. Everything. Foreign aid, FBI, prisons, NASA, everything, education, roads, everything. It is about 800. If you cut the government in half, you could not balance it as bad as it has gotten.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from North Carolina for his distinguished leadership on this budget issue. It is a very difficult issue and the gentleman has provided excellent leadership, and we thank him for that service. The gentleman is right, I like to use charts, because we have heard a lot of descriptions, we have heard a lot of adjectives and projections. Let us just look at the numbers. This chart shows the numbers over the past few years of what the deficit has been, starting with Presidents Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, great deficits under Presidents Reagan and the first Bush. And we have heard comments about the 1993 vote when President Clinton came in, without a Republican vote in the entire House or Senate, very close votes, 218 to 216 in the House, 50-50 with Vice president Gore breaking the tie in the Senate. And, as a direct result of that, along with economic growth, every year was better than the one before until we went into a surplus. Social Security and the lockbox, Medicare in a lockbox and a $100 billion surplus after that. The Republicans will say that after 2 years of the Clinton administration, they took over. That is true, and they offered the same kind of tax cuts that President Bush has signed, but President Clinton vetoed that bill. They threatened to close down the government. He vetoed it again. They closed down the government. He vetoed the bill again, and continued vetoing their irresponsible tax cuts year after year as the budget situation got better and better each year. Under his leadership, he had enough Democrats in the House and the Senate to sustain those vetoes and control the budget situation year after year, each year being better than the last. When President Bush came in, he signed those irresponsible tax cuts and we see what happens. Actually, this chart, as bad as it looks, needs to be updated. We have not gotten the more recent numbers; it may in fact be off the chart. People ask, well, if things are this bad, where is the Democratic plan? Well, the Democratic plan is in green. That is our plan; this is their plan. Now, how did we get in this mess? We got in this mess with tax cuts and we have asked, well, who got the tax cuts? And you have heard the adjectives. Let us look at the graph. The bottom 20 percent, the next 20 percent, the middle 20 percent, the fourth 20 percent, and the top 20 percent, blue is the 2001 tax cut, green is the proposed 2003 tax cut. The same pattern. Now, there is a line that is hard to see right at about the 50 percent mark. The top 1 percent get 50 percent of the tax cut that we enacted in 2001. So we have a budget mess. We got there with tax cuts to the wealthy, and we were told that the reason we needed to do that, the reason we needed to mess up the budget to give tax cuts to the wealthy was to create jobs. Let us look at the jobs per administration, the second Truman administration, the Eisenhower administration, first and second, Kennedy, Johnson, Johnson, all of the administrations over the years, the job creation record, George W. Bush, President Bush, the worst job creation record since the Truman administration, a loss of over 2.5 million jobs. Now, we are told that, well, what do you expect after September 11? Let us point out that this chart includes the Korean War. It includes the Vietnam War. It includes the whole Cold War, the first Persian Gulf War, hostages taken in Iran, it includes all of that, and still the worst in over 50 years. So how bad does it have to get before we acknowledge that it did not work? What did we get? We got debt. If we left the budget alone, we would have paid off the national debt by 2008. The projection in May of 2001, right after this administration came in, virtually no debt held by the public. Instead, in 2008 we are going to have almost $5 trillion in debt. With debt, we get interest on the national debt. Let us look at the interest. The interest on the national debt, because the debt was going to zero, was going to zero, interest on the national debt. Instead, this red line is the interest on the national debt that we have to pay. And the difference as we go, the billions of dollars in additional debt by 2010, $1.6 trillion wasted in additional interest on the national debt that we would not have had to pay. Now, let us put these numbers in perspective. The green is the interest on the national debt that we were going to pay going down to zero. Red is the interest on the national debt that we are going to pay. Blue is the defense budget. To show how much interest on the national debt we are going to end up paying and put it in perspective, instead of zero we are going to be spending almost as much interest on the national debt as we are spending on national defense. Now, let us make it personal. Take the interest on the national debt, divided by the population, multiplied by 4, what is a family of four's portion of the national debt? Right now it is about $4,500 every year, interest on the national debt going to zero. By 2013, because we have messed up the budget, interest on the national debt, a family of four's portion of interest on the national debt, $8,500 and growing. That means the first $8,500, you get nothing, except pay for what has already been spent. Now, the next chart shows how challenging a situation we have gotten ourselves into because this is the Social Security chart. Right now, we are not even balancing the budget, spending the Social Security surplus. We are not balancing the budget. But in 2017, because the baby boomers are retiring, we are having a deficit, almost $1 trillion, running up to about $1 trillion over the next 30 years. If we cannot balance the budget with a Social Security surplus and we are spending the surplus, what are we going to be doing out here when we have a $300 billion deficit, divided by 300 million people in America, $1,000 a piece, will be $300 billion, that is $1,000 for every man, woman, and child, for Social Security deficit, you end up with the interest on the national debt deficit. How bad does it have to get? There is one more thing I want to mention. That is, I told my colleagues about the chart where 1 percent gets half of the tax cut. Instead of the tax cut for the upper 1 percent, if we had allocated that into a trust fund for Social Security, we could pay Social Security for the next 75 years without any diminution in benefits. Seventy-five years for the tax cut that the top 1 percent got. Mr. Speaker, we cannot afford another tax cut. We need to go back to the green, the Democratic plan. What we are doing, what we have done to the budget is obscene. What we are doing to the budget is just unconscionable.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, because of our sorry history of bigotry in this Nation, for decades it has been illegal to discriminate in employment and make decisions, job decisions based on race or religion. The only exception is churches and religious organizations can discriminate with their own money, but not with Federal money. So let us be clear. If this rule passes, we will vaporize civil rights protections that have been in effect for decades. It is not going to make it easier for Federal organizations to get contracts; they still need to apply, compete, and are subject to audit. But any program that can get funded under this bill can get funded anyway; just do not discriminate in employment. And under those rules, Catholic organizations, Jewish, Lutheran, Baptist organizations get hundreds of millions of dollars today. And, Mr. Speaker, if we allow religious discrimination, we will be allowing racial discrimination, because many organizations are 100 percent African American or 100 percent white. Now, Mr. Speaker, employment discrimination is ugly. You can put lipstick on a pig, but you cannot pass it off as a beauty queen. And you cannot dress up discrimination with poll-tested semantics and euphemisms and pass it off as anything other than ugly discrimination. Let us defeat this rule and allow an amendment to maintain basic traditional civil rights protections.