Bobby Scott

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes, the balance of the time. Mr. Chairman, I think this discussion has pointed out the need for the amendment that we skipped. The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) had an amendment that would have required parents to be notified of the availability of the Education Department's brochure, ``Religious Expression in Public Schools: A Statement of Principles.'' Had that been taken up, that information would have gone out, and people would know what they can do and what they cannot do. This amendment right now does not require everyone to pay his own legal fees. It requires that those who agree with the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint) can get their attorney fees paid; but if one disagrees with the issue, then one cannot.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. SCOTT. I do, Mr. Chairman.

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

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, if this amendment becomes law, those who complain of violations of their free exercise rights under the Constitution because the public authorities excluded religious observances, they could get their attorney's fees paid, but those who are complaining about excessive injection of religion would not have the same kinds of rights. Mr. Chairman, this amendment has significant constitutional implications. It needs deliberation and should not be an afterthought on a juvenile justice bill. I would hope it would be defeated.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time. Mr. Chairman, first of all, in terms of what amount we are talking about, if it is any amount for sale or even small amounts of something like crack, it could easily constitute a felony. Our community is not better off with students roaming around with nothing to do; no education and no services. These students will not disappear; they are going to be in the community and they are not going to be up to anything constructive. This amendment, if it does anything, will increase the likelihood that our communities will be more dangerous and more crime-ridden. We need to continue educational services for these students and kicking them out on the street will not do anything to reduce the crime rate. If we are going to be serious about crime, we need to defeat this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton).

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

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this is another example of a need for deliberation. If we had had deliberation and had a hearing on this, we would have found that all of the available research shows that a suspension is the last thing that we would want to do. The gentleman from California mentioned the requirement that services be continued for someone that is expelled from school. That is only true for those who are designated as special education students under Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, and of course an amendment to remove that provision is coming up later. In fact, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act that was passed, is present law, provides that in cases of expelling a student nothing in the title shall be construed to prevent a State from allowing the local education agency that has expelled a student from such student's regular classroom from providing educational services in an alternative setting. They are not prohibited from doing it, but there is nothing that requires them to do it. Now, if we had had a hearing, we would have known that threatening a kid with a 1-year suspension or 1-year vacation, a kid that did not want to go to school anyway would not be much of a threat. We would have known that without an alternative education that that person would be much more likely to get in trouble. As a matter of fact, he has got nothing constructive to do, so he is much more likely to be committing crimes because he is on the street, nothing to do, crime and drug use. Mr. Chairman, this amendment offers no counseling on why the child was using drugs, no mental health assistance, just a year on the street. Now we know that there is a strong correlation between crime and graduation and graduation rates. People who do not graduate from our school are much more likely to be committing crimes. With a 1-year suspension we make it much less likely that they will ever get out of school. So, Mr. Chairman, we have a situation where if this amendment passes and allows children to be kicked out of school without any services, we will actually be increasing the crime rate. If we are serious about crime, Mr. Chairman, we will defeat this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this seems like a reasonable bill to add loss of driver's licenses to the myriad of different options available to a judge. However, we have had no hearing on this provision, and so we do not know what it might do. I would also add that we are telling the States to change their laws to accommodate this particular provision. It is another mandatory sentence, and one of the things we heard from judges and advocates and researchers was that the punishment should be individualized to the particular juvenile. This does not individualize the punishment. It gives a one size fits all. There may be some young people for whom the loss of license may not be appropriate, a young person who may need the license to continue employment, for example. There may be other punishments that may be more appropriate for that individual, and for that reason, Mr. Chairman, I think this needs some more work. It should be considered by committee and should be opposed at this time.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time. Mr. Chairman, one of the problems with the mandatory minimums is the gentleman from California mentioned common sense. It takes all common sense out of sentencing. Last year we passed legislation that provided for mandatory sentence for showing someone a firearm in the commission of a drug deal would get them more time than just shooting the person, in just cold-blooded shooting. Those kind of situations where we just come up with the crime of the day and whatever crime we come up with; we have to be serious about crime, and we take it out of perspective is really the problem with the mandatory minimum sentences. That is why we have a Sentencing Commission who can look at the crime and put it in perspective, compare it to similarly serious crimes, and give an appropriate sentence rather than just the crime of the day. I would have hoped that we could have had this in committee. We would have had time to consider it, assess a reasonable sentence in relationship to the crime, considering other similar crimes. But we do not have that opportunity. We are on the floor. We have good vote- getting sounds bites. We have somebody say that we have got to be serious about crime and this is serious and, therefore, a 4-year mandatory minimum is what we have got to go along with. That is not the way we ought to legislate. And I would hope that we would in the future consider these bills in committee and also consider the Sentencing Commission to take the politics out of crime.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, how much time do we have remaining?

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, that is the problem. The street gang statute is replete with constitutional problems and freedom of association proof problems and really irrelevant, because the normal conspiracy theories will give persons more time than they would ordinarily get. To compound that with a 4-year mandatory minimum or a 1-year mandatory minimum just goes into another area. But we do not know what we are doing. It would have been extremely helpful if we could have had a hearing to determine what the implications of this amendment might be, one way or the other. We did not have that opportunity. We are trading sound bites, what sounds good, what makes common sense or may not make common sense. We just do not know. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Gallegly).

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, whether or not the street gang statute has been effective in reducing crime? Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Gallegly).

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, again, we have the use of new mandatory minimums with the crime that we have not been able to review in committee. I would ask the gentleman from California if he could respond to let us know how the street gang statute has been used so far, whether it has been effective in reducing crime?

Mr. SCOTT. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SCOTT. I do, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, is there a provision for skipping an amendment and coming back to it?

Mr. SCOTT. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, this bill, again, did not go through the committee so we do not know the impact. The gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly) has mentioned several heinous crimes and has not indicated what time was given to those people upon conviction. It would be interesting to see what the Sentencing Guidelines would say in those situations. Without a hearing, it is difficult to determine what impact this would have one way or the other and, therefore, Mr. Chairman, again, it shows that we are just out here trading sound bites, who can come up with a name for a bill, who can come up with and state a heinous crime and then raise whatever the penalty it was to something we do not know what it is.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I will not take the full minute. I would just point out that one of the reasons we have a problem is the term in the bill is ``Federal sexual offense.'' The code goes back and forth between what a sexual act is and what sexual contact means. Sexual contact could be patting someone on the rear end. If that is what we are talking about, getting two offenses of that and getting life imprisonment, it is obviously out of control. That is why we need a committee hearing, so we can actually deliberate and get a straight answer to the questions we have been asking. We have been denied that, and here we are, looking at a mandatory life imprisonment potentially on information that we cannot quite understand because it is presented outside of the regular order.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, we cannot get an answer to the question, and that is the problem with trying to do this on the floor and not in committee. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT. What I have asked for is for sentences for which the normal punishment is a year or less. Are there any of those covered?

Mr. SCOTT. Do any of those crimes provide for a penalty by sentencing guidelines of a year or less?