Bobby Scott

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, this is a good amendment. I would hope that it be adopted.

Mr. SCOTT. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time. As many of my colleagues are well aware, I have been actively involved in this issue of juvenile crime on both the Committee on Education and the Workforce and the Committee on the Judiciary. From the outset of this discussion I have said that Congress has a decision to make in combating youth violence, that is, we can play politics or we can reduce juvenile crime. As someone who has spent many hours in this effort along with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood), I am proud to say that the Goodling amendment reflects a fair and effective legislation rather than a desire to play politics by codifying soundbites. This legislation reflects the commitment to reducing crime by funding proven crime prevention programs. I am also proud to say that this legislation is sound policy, because it is the result of a deliberate and intelligent process in which we carefully considered the evidence in search of real solutions to juvenile crime. Unfortunately, with other amendments that we have already adopted, it seems that we are back to playing politics. What began as a bipartisan effort in both the Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on Education and the Workforce has turned into a spectacle. We started with an intelligent, deliberate consideration of the issues and now we have degenerated into a situation where we are slinging soundbites at each other. This is particularly disappointing because we know what works to reduce crime. We can say, however, that in this amendment, we have the opportunity to reduce crime. We know that prevention works. We also know it saves more money than it costs. For example, early childhood education programs like Head Start not only reduce future crime but also save future money by reducing remedial education requirements, welfare dependency and crime. Job Corps programs reduce future crime and also save more money by increasing employment, reducing welfare and reducing crime. Drug rehabilitation programs reduce crime and save almost $7 to $10 for every dollar spent by reducing crime and health care expenses. So we know what works. We know it works and we know it also saves money. This amendment encourages communities to review the research and develop a community crime prevention plan and to fund those prevention plans, plans that will help communities fight crime and those that are cost effective. In addition to the emphasis on prevention, this legislation keeps intact several key principles of juvenile justice. Since 1974, there has been a concerted effort to provide fundamental protections for youth who come into contact with the juvenile justice system. Prior to 1974, it was common practice to lock up youth who had committed status offenses, those are noncriminal acts like running away or curfew violations or being truant, acts which are offenses only because of the defendant's status as a juvenile. These children who had not committed a crime were often in need of services and not punishment. In fact, frequently it was their families who needed services and not the juvenile. Nevertheless, these children were being locked up, often in adult jails. As a result, they were increasingly at risk of assault or committing suicide. The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 provided protections for these children. First, the Act required States to divert status offenders from the juvenile criminal justice system and place them in community-based alternatives. As a result, we have seen the suicide rate plummet. Second, this legislation basically continues the underlying principle that juveniles should not be housed with adults. Third, the Act focuses efforts to reduce, without establishing quotas or numerical standards, the disproportionate number of juvenile members of minority groups who come in contact with the juvenile justice system. This provision is important because it requires that States look at why minority youth are overrepresented in secure facilities or receive tougher sentences or are more likely to be jailed for the same kinds of offenses than majority youth. Efforts to reduce the disproportion might include prevention programs, less reliance on racial profiling in law enforcement, or sensitivity training for juvenile justice personnel to ensure equal treatment. In sum, the Goodling amendment maintains the core protections for children and a preventive and forward-thinking approach to juvenile crime. Finally, I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) for his leadership in the development of a bill which is serious about reducing juvenile crime. I also want to thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) for their contributions. Also, I would like to thank the staff for their hard work, Alex Nock and Cheryl Johnson, Denise Forte, Ly Nguyen, and also Vic Klatt, Sally Lovejoy and Lynn Selmer for their hard work without which this bill would not have been possible. Mr. Chairman, while I would have preferred this amendment to be a separate bill, detached from the partisan spectacle being conducted with the rest of the bill, I would urge my colleagues to support the amendment. This is a vote for prevention and a vote to put research and analysis back in the debate on crime. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the gentleman from Pennsylvania a question as to whether or not it is the legislative intent of the bill for the ``sight and sound'' provision to provide some flexibility but still limit supervised contact between adult and juvenile offenders.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the sponsor of the amendment a question. Several people have asked a question as to whether or not it is the intent of the sponsor and the legislative intent to read the amendment in light of the Supreme Court cases interpreting the establishment of free exercise clauses of the Constitution. The question is whether or not they are trying to overturn those cases or whether this should be read in light of the existing law. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.

Mr. SCOTT. I am the last speaker and we have the right to close, I believe. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. This amendment guts an historic bipartisan legislative act which was signed into law just 2 years ago. When this very issue was considered after months of deliberation, it was rejected by a majority of witnesses at legislative hearings and rejected by Congress. The current policy of providing educational services to suspended and expelled disabled students prevailed as part of that historic bicameral, bipartisan legislation when we reauthorized the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, known as IDEA. And so under current law, a child with a disability who is suspended or expelled from the regular classroom for any reason is still entitled to continued educational services. Now, those services may be provided at home, in an alternative school or even in prison. But, Mr. Chairman, I know of no public policy benefit which can be achieved by sending these children into the street without any educational services even if they are being involved with weapons. I would point out in this amendment, the definition of ``weapon'' is so vague and unworkable and overbroad that it would include a baseball bat, bringing a baseball bat to school. But that being aside, in fact, I see no public benefit of depriving any child of an education, whether they have a disability or not. It is difficult for any student who is expelled to ever catch up and graduate from school. We learned during hearings on youth crime that the link between crime and dropping out of school is very strong. For example, studies report that 82 percent of State and local prisoners are high school dropouts. For children with disability, the correlation is even stronger. Research shows that children with disabilities who are put out of school without educational services are much less likely than other children to ever catch up, much less likely to graduate from high school, less likely to be employed, and substantially more likely to be involved in crime. Some support cessation of services because they think it has a deterrent effect. But those who put any thought into that issue know that threatening a child with a 1-year vacation from school will not serve as a deterrent from misconduct. In fact we have heard from several law enforcement organizations who oppose the policy embodied in this amendment because they recognize that it will not make our communities safer. For example, a national coalition of police chiefs, prosecutors and crime victims wrote us a letter which said, in part, ``giving a gun- toting kid an extended vacation from school and from all responsibility is soft on offenders and dangerous for everyone else. Please don't give those kids who need adult supervision the unsupervised time to rob, become addicted to drugs and get their hands on other guns to threaten students when the school bell rings.'' Mr. Chairman, some have suggested that students with disabilities who are disciplined for involvement in weapons should be treated just like other students involved in weapons. In fact, they can be treated like anybody else with weapons. They can be removed from the classroom. But you must continue their education. The IDEA program is premised on the recognition that children with disabilities need more support than other students in order to maintain an education. There is nothing to suggest that less support is needed when they have disciplinary problems, even if there are serious disciplinary problems. Mr. Chairman, there is no reason to make matters worse by passing the problem on to other agencies. An alternative education is certainly cheaper than jail or prison and the phenomenal success of some States in preventing serious discipline problems from developing in the first place suggests that there are much better approaches to school safety and discipline than expulsions without educational services. Yet despite these successes and overwhelming evidence that interventions can reduce disciplinary problems, it is difficult to understand the rationale behind this amendment because it strips away some of the very provisions in IDEA that most experts would agree are the prudent things to do in order to prevent future disciplinary problems, provisions such as implementing an intervention plan in order to address the behavior that got the student in trouble in the first place. Even more disturbing about this amendment is the fact that it would cease educational services to students even when the behavior is directly related to the child's disability. This amendment would prevent vital educational services to be taken away from profoundly disabled students who did not even know what they were doing was wrong. Now, over the course of several years in which we have extensively debated the discipline provisions in IDEA, no one has ever suggested taking away services from children with disabilities where the behavior was determined to be related to the child's disability. In fact, the original Republican IDEA bills from the 104th and 105th Congress did not propose such an extreme provision. It has never been discussed in any of the hearings that we have had in IDEA. Mr. Chairman, for these reasons, I strongly urge my colleagues to reject this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.

Mr. SCOTT. I do, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2-3/4 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge).

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would like to thank the gentleman for that answer, because if it is to be read in light of the Supreme Court cases, then it is obviously the kind of amendment that is perfectly consistent with the underlying bill. In fact, I think it probably could be funded under some of the provisions of 1150 that we have already adopted. But it is the kind of partnership and kind of education that can help our young people stay out of trouble in the first place. With that answer, Mr. Chairman, I would heartily endorse the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Conyers motion to recommit. It includes the bipartisan H.R. 1501, as was introduced, which responded to judges, advocates, and researchers who told us what we needed from the judiciary point of view, and it includes the Goodling amendment, which we adopted a little earlier today by an overwhelming majority that provides prevention funds, and protects children, and the other programs the gentleman from Michigan mentioned. For the past 2 days we have considered amendments on issues without any hearings, and we have been relegated to codifying sound bites, many of which will actually increase the crime rate. This motion to recommit is a focused attempt to actually reduce crime. These provisions have gone through the regular legislative process and are supported by those who know what they are talking about. Anyone who had an adverse opinion had the opportunity to present that opinion. Let us get serious about reducing crime and adopt the motion to recommit.

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

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller). (Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer) for offering studies. We do not have enough studies. We end up doing a lot of things that we ought not do because we do not know what we are talking about. We think things on the fly, like we have been taking a lot of these amendments. So more study, we cannot be hurt by more studies. The problem with this amendment, however, Mr. Chairman, is the sunset provision, because not only would it sunset some funding, it would sunset some protection for juveniles if we are late in reauthorizing the bill 4 years from now. We are always late in reauthorizing it. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, we ought not have the sunset provision in there. For that reason, I oppose the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, the problem with this amendment is we have not had any hearings. This has profound educational implications; no hearings in the Committee on Education and the Workforce. Profound litigation implications; no hearings in the Committee on the Judiciary. So it sounds good. It might be a good idea; it might not. We do not know because we have not had any hearings. We do not have any concrete evidence of the experience across the country with hundreds of thousands of teachers. How many have been sued? What were the conditions? Who had to pay? We do not know. We have constitutional implications, and whether or not we have the authority to impose this situation on the States, we have not had an opportunity to consider that. There are significant and profound changes in the law in terms of punitive damages, and the burden of proof, joint and several liability. The preponderance of the evidence, the burden of proof that is needed. We have not had the opportunity to propose amendments to clarify which might be good ideas and which may not. We do not know. Mr. Chairman, with all the unanswered questions, I think we would be ill-advised to adopt this amendment. We should vote no and have hearings, and if it is a good idea it will survive the normal legislative process.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo).

Mr. SCOTT. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, the States also have the option of passing whatever law they want. They should not have to act because we tell them to act, they ought to be able to act and do what they want to do. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this amendment provides that a teacher acting within the scope of his or her employment, acting within conformity with local, State, and Federal laws, rules, and regulations would have immunity. But it seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that they would not need immunity because they would not be liable in that situation. To the extent that that provision gives comfort and aid to teachers, it would be appropriate. Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, it does not just provide immunity, it changes the laws on joint and several liability, and provides new standards for punitive damages which are well established in State law. We ought not be trying to change State law. States have the capability of doing their own laws in liability cases, and we should not be changing them. The joint and several liability and punitive damage issues have been before us on other bills. It just seems to me that this is a matter for States to decide. They have been doing this for hundreds of years, and they can continue. For that reason, I think the bill is either unnecessary or goes into areas it should not be going into.

Mr. SCOTT. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of our time to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

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