Bobby Scott

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Chairman, this is unfortunate that we are coming here without any hearings. We do not know how much these things cost, whether they are effective or not. We do know that there have been complaints that the filters filter out some stuff that we might not want filtered, like AIDS education; or even the Society of Friends, the Quakers, or the Heritage Foundations have had their sites blocked by this kind of filter. Many pornographic sites are not blocked because they fail to use the magic words. Mr. Chairman, we have not had any hearings, so we cannot get coherent answers to these questions. But we know that the measure is opposed by the National Education Association, the Education and Library Networks Coalition, the United States Catholic Conference, and the American Library Association, and the International Society for Technology in Education. But if we are going to be serious about crime, we ought to use a deliberate process, enact those measures that will actually work to reduce crime, and stop coming up at the last minute with amendments for which we have had no hearings. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush).

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition although I may be supporting the amendment.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I have two speakers, including myself, to close.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of my time. We do not need to restate all of the examples of hate crimes that have been perpetrated over the last few years, or even few weeks and months. Hate crime prevention programs constitute an allowable use of the money under the Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention Act. We ought not sabotage the hate crime prevention programs by getting into a situation where one has to have anyone's religion that believes that certain groups are not to be respected or to be disrespected, in fact. That is where some of the hate comes from. What these programs do is to try to teach people, as the gentleman from New York mentioned, that people are equal and ought to be respected. If one's religion tells us something different, we still ought to be able to have hate crime prevention programs so that we can reduce the incidence of hate crimes. Mr. Chairman, I would hope that this amendment would be defeated. We have language in there that orders us to be respectful of people's religion, but if we have religions that just hate people, then we ought to be able to go along with hate crime prevention programs anyway.

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 gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood).

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne). (Mr. PAYNE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to the amendment and claim the time in opposition.

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

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

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

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).

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

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, Amendment I of the Constitution says the Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. Obviously, picking one religious symbol establishes that religion. Mr. Chairman, to the extent this measure may be constitutional, if it is constitutional, we do not need it. If it is not constitutional, it does not make any difference whether we pass it or not. We are wasting time. We ought to get back to juvenile crime. We should not be taking up this measure at 12:30 at night. I would hope we would get back to the serious consideration of juvenile crime.

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 gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would ask the gentleman from Indiana if the legislative intent is to overturn the present state of Supreme Court law or to read this amendment in the light of the present state of the Supreme Court law in terms of pervasively sectarian programs.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes. Mr. Chairman, our rich tradition of religious diversity is a cornerstone of American constitutional rights. Rather than trying to honor and promote that tradition of religious diversity by focusing on the Ten Commandments, this amendment seeks to elevate one particular religion over all others. This singling out of one religion is contrary to the American ideal of religious tolerance and is blatantly unconstitutional. By contrast, the Chamber of the Supreme Court, one of the best traditions of our religious diversity, the Ten Commandments, depicts Hammurabi, Moses, Confucius, Augustus, Mohammed and others as those who have given the philosophy and law, and does so in a manner that honors the diversity of our religious experience. The amendment before us today is unconstitutional because it is inconsistent with the first amendment. The case law clearly establishes that placing religious articles such as the Ten Commandments outside the context of other secular symbols, in a government establishment is a violation of the Establishment Clause. In Stone v. Graham, in 1980, the Supreme Court struck down a Kentucky law requiring the posting of the Ten Commandments in public schools. Another case, in 1994, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals found a courtroom display of the Ten Commandments to be unconstitutional. For more than 200 years, we have survived as a government of laws and court interpretations of those laws, and now is not the time on a juvenile justice bill to be debating complex constitutional principles that have nothing to do with juvenile crime. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones).

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