Bobby Scott

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones) be allowed to manage the time and yield debate time on this side.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to call attention to the outstanding contributions of Dr. S. Dallas Simmons for his many years of leadership as President of Virginia Union University. Dr. Simmons was born in Ahoskie, North Carolina. He earned his bachelor's and master's degrees at North Carolina Central University in business. He earned a Certificate in Administration from the University of Wisconsin, and in recognition of his outstanding work as a teacher and administrator, Dr. Simmons was awarded a fellowship to Duke University, where he earned his doctorate in Administration in Higher Education. Dr. Simmons' career includes: a consultantship with the International Business Machines Corporation (IBM); Director of the computer centers at North Carolina Central University and Norfolk State University; Associate Professor in the School of Business Administration, Vice Chancellor of University Relations at North Carolina Central University, and President of St. Paul's College in Lawrenceville, Virginia. Many other organizations have benefitted from his membership, including the American Association of University Administrators, The College Fund, and the Richmond Forum Club. His honors are too long to list, but Dr. Simmons has been mentioned in Men of Achievement, the Directory of Distinguished Americans, Community Leaders of the World, and Outstanding Man of America. Clearly, Dr. Simmons is a man of distinction. But his faithful dedication to education is perhaps his most important contribution. In addition to his commitment to and passion for increasing educational opportunity for disadvantaged students, Dr. Simmons has led Virginia Union University to outstanding fiscal management and significantly improved infrastructure. For the first time in its 134 year history, for example, Virginia Union University now has a freestanding library thanks to the persistence of Dr. Simmons. Consistent with his background, Dr. Simmons has led the university under the theory that, in order to best serve its students, a university should be administered much like a business. This guiding principle has served Virginia Union well, because it is now more than ever physically, fiscally, and academically strong and stable. Likewise, Dr. Simmons is well known among his colleagues for his vision and also his strong and steady leadership. Mr. Speaker, I commend to you the achievements of the retiring Virginia Union University President S. Dallas Simmons, and ask that these remarks be made a part of the permanent record of this body.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise in support of the bill, H.R. 1034, which I have cosponsored with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley). The legislation, H.R. 1034, declares a portion of the James River and Kanawha Canal in Richmond, Virginia, between the Great Ship Lock on the east and the city limits on the west as nonnavigable waters. The bill gives jurisdiction and authority of the canal to the city of Richmond for the purpose of operating boats along the canal adjacent to downtown Richmond. In the late 19th century the canal was used to transport commerce from other parts of Virginia on the James River and into the canal. The canal was eventually closed, and, as has been said, filled with dirt for many years. In 1973, a federal judge declared parts of the waterway nonnavigable. Nevertheless, due to its former use, to move commerce along the river, the Coast Guard has maintained that the canal has retained its technical classification as a navigable waterway. Now the City of Richmond has redeveloped the area with Canal Walk, a project that will revitalize the area along the James River and Kanawha Canal. The canal, as has been stated, averages 3 feet in depth and has a width of approximately 23 feet when it opens, the city will use canal boats as a major attraction to draw tourists to the restored area of the river. The Canal Walk is expected to generate thousands of visitors who will enjoy numerous attractions and seasonal activities along the James River and Kanawha Canal, and it will play a valuable role in the revitalization of the river front. This legislation makes clear that the City of Richmond may operate the boats on the canal with a number of accepted requirements and standards that will satisfy public safety concerns of Federal, State and local regulators. I would like to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) and the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) for working in cooperation with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley) and myself in such an expeditious and bipartisan manner. H.R. 1034 has gained the unanimous support of the House Committee on Transportation, and I urge its acceptance by the House.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 573, a bill to bestow a Congressional gold medal to Rosa Parks for her contributions to civil rights in the United States of America. Rosa Parks and her contribution to the current American way of life, by today's standard involved a very simple act. However, that simple act, Mr. Speaker, proved to have some very extraordinary consequences. In 1955, Jim Crow segregation was the law of the land. African Americans by law were not allowed to share public accommodations with Whites. We couldn't eat in the same restaurants, couldn't live in the same neighborhoods and we were relegated to sit in the back seats of a public bus. If the white only section of the bus became full, we had to give up our seats when told to do so. Nevertheless, in 1955, on December 1st in Montgomery, Alabama, Mrs. Parks with one very simple act of civil defiance changed that practice and the course of American History. On that day Mrs. Parks refused to give her seat to a White patron when told to do so by a Montgomery Bus driver. In spite of that bus driver's insistence, and knowing the certain consequences of her actions, she chose not to give up her seat. The police took her off the bus, arrested and jailed her. Mrs. Parks was later released on a one hundred-dollar bond. Mr. Speaker, I suspect the city fathers of Montgomery initially never thought twice about that one simple act on that day in December. In response to Mrs. Parks' arrest, the black citizens of Montgomery began a bus boycott that lasted for 381 days. Led by a young local minister named Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., the Montgomery bus boycott helped to unravel the fabric of the South's social, economic and political culture of ``Jim Crow'' segregation. This occasion has personal relevance to me also, Mr. Speaker. More than 40 years ago, during her brief tenure at Hampton University, I met Mrs. Parks. She worked there with my grandmother and I can well remember being struck by how unassuming and graceful she was, particularly in light of her role as a courageous civil rights pioneer. Throughout the history of our nation, simple acts such as refusing to give up a seat on a bus as Rosa Parks did, often touch off a national movement that changes the course of history. This, Mr. Speaker, was one of those occasions and for this simple act, this House has taken the first step towards commemorating this demonstration of courage by Mrs. Parks and celebrating its tremendous impact. I look forward, as many of my colleagues do, to the swift enactment of this resolution so that Mrs. Parks can receive the recognition she deserves from Congress.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to today's constitutional amendment. If this proposal to amend the Constitution is intended to be anything more than an April 15 political gimmick, there is great reason for concern on policy grounds, particularly two. First of all, we have to note what the amendment does because it is a recipe for fiscal disaster. This amendment will allow unlimited new spending based on a simple majority vote. However, to pay for that new spending will require a two-thirds vote. A lot has been said about the vote in 1993. I would point out that our deficit at that time was $260 billion, and that vote has been responsible for reducing the deficit down to where we have a technical surplus right now. So if we want to allow unlimited additional spending on a simple majority vote, we ought to have the ability to pay for it by the same vote, not risk requiring a supermajority. The other thing is, this thing locks in corporate loopholes. We can pass a corporate loophole with a simple majority, but to repeal it takes two-thirds. We would have either a little more than one-third of either the House or the Senate that can protect the corporate loophole. If we passed a corporate loophole thinking it would just make a small amount of difference, but looked up and saw it was costing billions of dollars, we could not close that loophole if just over one-third of either the House or the Senate objected. To offset this corporate largess, we would have to look somewhere else, maybe Social Security and Medicare, which we could cut with a simple majority. But we would need a two-thirds majority to close that loophole. Mr. Speaker, in addition to the policy, this amendment in terms of details is vague and unworkable. We had no hearings this year on the current bill. But when we did have hearings in 1997, both Democratic and Republican witnesses expressed serious concerns about the details of the amendment. Former Office of Management and Budget Director Jim Miller, a tax limitation amendment supporter, even went so far as to call some of the language ``silly.'' For example, the language before us requires a two- thirds majority vote to increase the internal revenue by more than a de minimis amount. No one in our hearing seemed to have a good idea of what constitutes internal revenue or what exactly would be considered a de minimis amount. Who will get to decide whether a bill increases the special revenue by more than a de minimis amount? Some supporters suggested that one-tenth of 1 percent of the total revenues would be de minimis. Out of a trillion-dollar budget, that is $1 billion. Is it a billion? Is it a half a billion? Two billion? Ten billion? When we are talking about tax bills, we are talking about an estimate. Who gets to estimate? What happens if the estimate is wrong? What happens if there is a disagreement over the estimate? How many votes does it take to pass the bill? These are questions that the American public deserve answers to before and not after we have made a mess that cannot be cleaned up. These are questions that could have been addressed responsibly in committee, but there were no committee hearings this year, just today's April 15 vote. This resolution is an insult to our Constitution. It is a recipe for financial disaster, and it protects corporate loopholes and, therefore, should be defeated.

Mr. SCOTT. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise in opposition to the rule and the constitutional amendment it brings to the floor. Madam Speaker, as the gentleman from Massachusetts pointed out, we have had no hearings on the current bill. If we had had hearings, the first thing that would have been exposed is the fact that we can continue raising spending with a simple majority vote, but to pay for that additional spending would require two-thirds in both the House and the Senate. It also points out we could pass a corporate loophole with a simple majority, but to close the corporate loophole would take a two-thirds vote in the House and the Senate. In fact, if we find ourselves in a budget crunch where we needed to cut or find additional revenues, it would take a two-thirds vote to close a corporate loophole but only a simple majority to cut Social Security or Medicare. We did have hearings on this proposal last year and we heard from many witnesses, Democratic and Republican, who found troubles with many provisions. In fact, former Office of Management and Budget director Jim Miller, who supported the amendment, said that some of the provisions were in fact, and I quote, silly. For example, there is a provision that says it does not apply to provisions that raise revenues by a de minimis amount. What is de minimis? Well, one provision said if it is one-tenth of 1 percent of the total revenues, that would be de minimis. But in a trillion dollar budget, one-tenth of 1 percent is a billion dollars. We have heard jokes about a billion here and a billion there, but we do not want courts to decide whether or not that is de minimis and whether two- thirds is required. The ranking member of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt), also had an amendment that suggested that courts should not be able to intervene. They should only make a declaratory judgment as to whether we are in compliance or not, otherwise we will find that the courts are deciding whether the tax laws are valid or whether or not we were in compliance with the law. This amendment was not allowed under the rule. The Committee on Rules did not want to consider improvements to the proposal. So in its present form, the courts will decide whether or not we require a two- thirds vote. This rule allows no amendments, it limits debate, it provides for the consideration of a constitutional amendment for which we held no hearings, and it will mire us in a morass of confusion and litigation over the meanings of its terms. Amending the Constitution is serious business. It should not be conducted haphazardly and it should not be part of an April 15 charade. I, therefore, urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and ``no'' on H. J. Res. 37.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleague from Florida (Mr. McCollum) in support of H.R. 46. This bill would establish a Public Safety Officer Medal of Valor to be awarded periodically to a selected public safety officer for extraordinary valor above and beyond the call of duty. It provides for the Department of Justice to solicit, review, and screen nominations from the law enforcement community for the award. Final decisions on the award would be made by a board appointed by the President and congressional leadership from both parties. I am a cosponsor of the bill, along with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and other members of the Committee on the Judiciary. Mr. Speaker, this bill passed the Committee on the Judiciary by a unanimous vote. It will not only allow members of the law enforcement community to recognize extraordinary heroism within that profession, but will establish a mechanism for calling that extraordinary valor to the attention of the world. I urge Members to vote for the bill.

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

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to acknowledge this month as Women's History Month and to honor the contributions of a distinguished African-American woman, Dr. Yvonne Bond Miller. Dr. Miller is the first black woman to serve in the Virginia House of Delegates and the first black woman to serve in the Virginia Senate. She is the first woman of any race to serve as chair of a Senate committee in the State of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, Women's History Month is a time to recognize and give thanks to those women who dared to brave uncharted waters so that we may all fully participate in our society. As we pay tribute to women for their vast contributions to our nation, I'd like to formally salute Dr. Miller as an educator and as the first African American woman to serve in the Virginia House of Delegates and Virginia Senate. She has been widely recognized for her work on behalf of children and under-represented persons. She understands the ``double bind'' and dual challenges facing women of color living in a society that marginalizes people by both gender and race. Despite those obstacles, she has risen above these circumstances and has made outstanding contributions to her community, always working to uplift persons with similarly disadvantaged status. Yvonne Bond Miller was born in Edenton, North Carolina, the oldest of 13 children. She grew up in my home district of Norfolk and attended Booker T. Washington High School in Norfolk. Dr. Miller earned a Bachelor of Science degree from Virginia State College (now Virginia State University), a Master of Arts Degree from the Teacher's College at Columbia University, and then a Doctorate from the University of Pittsburgh. She is also a recipient of an Honorary Doctor of Laws Degree from Virginia State University. She has had a distinguished career as an educator, teaching first in the Norfolk Public Schools and then at Norfolk State University from 1968 to present, where she is currently a Professor of Education. For seven years, she was the head of the Department of Early Childhood and Elementary Education at Norfolk State University. In addition to teaching, Dr. Miller has had an outstanding career in public service as a legislator. She was first elected to the Virginia House of Delegates in 1983, becoming the first African American woman in that body. Her accomplishments earned her a second term in 1985, and her career in the state legislature continued when she was elected to the Virginia Senate in 1987, becoming the first African American woman in the Virginia Senate as well. Since then, she has served with a meritorious record on several committees, including the Rehabilitation and Social Services Committee, where she is the first woman to chair a Virginia Senate committee. In addition, Dr. Miller has worked steadfastly on behalf of children and the otherwise underserved on Virginia's Youth Commission and Virginia Disability Commission. Throughout her career as a legislator, Dr. Miller has demonstrated a consistent concern for the disadvantaged. She has worked hard in promoting education and early childhood issues, maintaining a living wage, and ensuring access to affordable health care. Dr. Miller's sense of justice, generosity, and dedication to the underprivileged carries over into her personal life as well. Most notably, she has established a scholarship fund at Norfolk State University for women returning to school. Her accolades are too numerous to describe in full, but it is no wonder that she has been honored with the Vivian C. Mason Meritorious Service Award from the Hampton Roads Urban League and the Social Action Award from the Phi Beta Sigma Fraternity. So, as we honor today the contributions of American women to our nation, we must pay a special tribute to Yvonne Bond Miller for prevailing in the face of adversity as an African American woman and for working tirelessly on behalf of children and other marginalized persons so that they too may be able to contribute to their fullest potential. Women's History Month is a time to recognize and give thanks to those women who dared to brave uncharted waters so that we may all fully participate in our own society. Thank You, Mr. Speaker. And thank you, Yvonne Bond Miller.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Clay motion to instruct conferees on H.R. 800, to preserve our commitment to the class size initiative agreed to in last year's budget. No one here disagrees with the need to provide additional funding for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act program. However, we should not take away from other programs, like the class size initiative, in order to fund idea. Our public schools have many critical needs, but we should not rob Peter to pay Paul. The Lott amendment as adopted by the Senate to their version of Ed-Flex allows localities to shift funds from the class size initiative to fund special education. We have seen continual efforts like this to shift funding from other educational accounts to IDEA without changing our bottom line investment in education. Opponents of this educational funding shell game miss the point. The needs of students and schools are such that we cannot afford to back away from our commitment at the Federal level to properly fund public education. Mr. Speaker, all students benefit where there is an appropriate student-to-teacher ratio. Discipline problems are minimized, the students receive the individual attention they need, students with special needs who are mainstreamed are able to participate in a more meaningful way because the teacher is able to give them the additional assistance they need. I urge my colleagues to support the class size initiative and support the Clay motion to instruct. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) introduced for the Record the letter from the Consortium of Citizens with Disabilities. I think it would be instructive to read the letter to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) on their behalf: On behalf of the members of the Educational Task Force of the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities, we write to you today in support of your motion to instruct conferees to strike the Lott amendment to the Ed-Flex bill and to increase funding for the Individuals with Disabilities Act. CCD is gravely concerned that children with disabilities are being used as pawns in a political game. The Clay motion to instruct addresses this concern because it does not pit the interests of children with disabilities against the interests of their classmates. Over the past three years, IDEA funding has grown by 85 percent. Unfortunately, given the increase in students in special education, the federal share accounts for only ten percent of the additional costs associated with educating students with disabilities. In the 1997 amendments to IDEA, Congress recognized the need for additional support for general education. Now States can use twenty percent of new IDEA funds for general education activities. CCD supports this provision because it is designed to assist schools to better meet their obligations to all students. Every child in America benefits from increased education funding. CCD applauds the efforts of the Members of the House of Representatives and the Senate on both sides of the aisle who are committed both to securing additional funding for IDEA and to protecting the rights of children with disabilities to a free, appropriate public education. We urge Members of the House of Representatives to support the Clay motion to instruct on the Ed-Flex bill. Thank you for considering our views.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, historically, when it comes to educating the most difficult and challenging portions of our society, it has always been the Federal Government that has been forced to act because of the States' inability or unwillingness to act. For example, it was the United States Supreme Court in Brown vs. Board of Education which forced States to provide an equal education for African American students. It was Congress, through the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, which required States to afford free and appropriate education to children who are physically and mentally challenged. For low-income children, Title I was fashioned by Congress to focus resources on a population whose needs were not being met. Today it seems that we are prepared to abrogate our responsibility to make sure that those who are in need of educational services continue to receive focused Federal educational assistance. In the name of increased flexibility, the bill before us allows States and school districts to shift targeted Federal educational assistance away from the most educationally and economically disadvantaged students. This amendment, which I am offering today with my colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne), guarantees that we will continue to focus on children most in need of assistance. Mr. Chairman, without this amendment we would allow schools to shift funds designed to improve educational opportunities for those who are economically and educationally disadvantaged in favor of those who are not in as much need. The purpose of Title I is to focus funding on low- income students, because we recognize that they are educationally at risk and because we recognize that the States were not addressing these needs. Funds must be focused on those children who are most at risk. But there is an exception to those who are in schools where the majority of the students are poor. In those schools, Title I funds can be used for school-wide programs, not targeted purposes. Although the funds are thereby diluted, the dilution is offset by the administrative efficiencies in the school-wide programs, rather than having to serve only those children who are technically eligible for services, and not others. This amendment will prevent schools with low poverty rates from diluting the funding to the point where the needy students are not helped at all. Members of Congress should be reminded of why Title I was funded in the first place, because States were ignoring the educational needs of the poor. If we trusted the States to adequately fund the educational needs of the poor, we would not have funded Title I in the first place. Therefore, I offer this amendment to avoid unnecessary dilution of Title I funds, and to maintain our commitment to those educationally at risk. Mr. Chairman, I yield 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 offer an amendment.

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

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, as we discuss the question of impeachment, we ought to start off with why impeachment is in the Constitution. It is in the Constitution to prohibit and protect the country against subversion by virtue of a president committing treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. The rule of law and the Constitution restricts our ability to remove the President to crimes that constitute treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. We had a hearing and had 10 experts respond to the question, does treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors cover all felonies? Most of those experts were invited by the Republican Party, and they, without discussion, said no, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors does not cover all felonies. In fact, in the President Nixon impeachment, we found that treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors did not cover a half-a- million-dollar income tax fraud. That is why most of the scholars that have addressed the question have concluded that these are not impeachable offenses. To add insult to injury, we find that the allegations are not even proven, and it is unlikely that they can be proven. That is why the vote on these articles of impeachment was essentially partisan, and why, on a partisan vote in the Senate, the President will not be removed from office. The best way to end this partisan charade is to fail to appoint managers, to bring this thing to a respectable end, and move on to the people's business. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, impeachment is in the Constitution to protect our Nation from a president who is subverting our constitutional form of government. Our authority to impeach is limited in the Constitution to findings of treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors. We know, from our hearings, that treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors does not cover all felonies. In fact, it does not even cover a half-million-dollar income tax fraud. That is the rule of law. We cannot act unless there is treason, bribery, or similar offenses. And so, that is why historians and constitutional scholars have said that these allegations, even if they were true, do not constitute impeachable offenses; and that is why one historian warned that history will hunt down those who knowingly violate the Constitution when they vote for impeachment. That would be the case even if the allegations were true. But support of the new, low standard for impeachment comes by way of contradictory, double hearsay, and dubious inferences, without a single witness. In Watergate and every other prior impeachment, we heard witnesses. In this case, the accused has not even had an opportunity to cross- examine witnesses. In fact, the accused has never been told the specifics of the charges against him. There is a reason why the specifics are not mentioned and that is because the so-called perjurious statements constitute such immaterial minutiae that the supporters of impeachment resort to titles of offenses such as perjury, without stating what the perjurious statements are. Mr. Speaker, it is an outrage that we would attempt to overturn a national democratic election on these flimsy allegations on the very day that our young men and women are risking their lives to protect our democratic form of government.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to call attention to the record of excellence and outstanding contributions amassed over the past 20 years by Dr. William R. Harvey as the 12th President of Hampton University. Dr. Harvey came to Hampton in 1978 following a record of achievement in the administrations of Tuskegee University, Fisk University and Harvard University. Under his leadership, Hampton University has grown in prominence as well as in physical stature. The student population has more than doubled, increasing from 2,700 to 6,000, and the average student SAT score has increased by 300 points. Forty-five academic programs have been added, including graduate degree programs in Business Administration, Museum Studies, Applied Mathematics and Chemistry, with PhD programs in Physics, Pharmacy, Physical Therapy and Nursing. Eleven buildings have been erected, including the William R. and Norma B. Harvey Library, the L. Douglas Wilder Dormitory, a Convocation Center and a Science and Technology building, and some $35,000,000, has been spent on the renovation of existing buildings. During the same period, Hampton's endowment has grown from $29 million to over $130 million. Dr. Harvey's visionary zeal has not been limited to the campus of Hampton University. He brought about the development of the Hampton Harbor Project, a residential and commercial development which includes 246 apartments and 60,000 square feet of business space for lease. This project contributes funds for student scholarships, provides jobs for area workers and tax revenues to the City of Hampton. His contributions to the broader Hampton Roads community have been significant, as well. He was Chairman of a record-setting $6.6 million Virginia Peninsula United Way Campaign. To expand opportunities for at-risk youth on the Peninsula, he established the Job Education Training (JET) corps to provide academic improvement and job skills training to selected at- risk youth, and Project H.O.P.E. (Hampton Opportunity Program for Enhancement), a special admission, scholarship and support program for students who demonstrate the academic ability, but do not have the full credentials, for admission to Hampton. The business acumen that Dr. Harvey exhibited in his leadership at Hampton was also manifested in the greater business community. He is the owner of the highly successful Pepsi-Cola Bottling Company in Houghton, Michigan, and he serves on the Boards of Directors of First Union National Bank, Newport News Shipbuilding, Inc., and Trigon Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Virginia. He has generously contributed his business skills to the public, serving on national advisory boards under four U.S. Presidents, and currently serves as a member of the Board of the Virginia Museum of Fine Arts. Dr. Harvey was born in Brewton, Alabama. He is a graduate of Talledega College and earned a doctorate in College Administration from Harvard University. He is married to the former Norma Baker of Martinsville, Virginia; they have three children. Mr. Speaker, I commend to you the achievements of Hampton University President William R. Harvey and ask that they be made a part of the permanent record of this body.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I stand in opposition to the bill, S. 191, which is similar to a piece of legislation, H.R. 424, passed by this body earlier this Congress. That version contained penalties for drug offenders which were 6 times greater than the penalty for rape and 7 times greater than the penalty for voluntary manslaughter. Although the Senate version is not as egregious as that, I still cannot in good conscience vote for a measure containing ridiculous mandatory minimums. I oppose this legislation for several reasons, the most important of which is the absolutely outrageous mandatory minimum penalties attached to the bill. Five years for possession of a gun, 7 years for brandishing a gun, and 10 years for discharging the gun. This means if someone is convicted of possessing 5 grams of crack and is found to have possessed a gun at the time, he will receive a mandatory 5-year sentence for the crack and another 5 years for the gun, a total of 10 years. If that individual opens a coat to display a gun tucked in under his belt during the course of a drug sale, he will receive a mandatory 7-year sentence in addition to the 5 years for crack, for a total of 12 years. Let us compare these penalties to the penalties for other crimes. For instance, voluntary manslaughter carries a penalty of 5 years; aggregated assault, less than 2 years; assaulted with intent to murder, less than 3\1/2\ years; rape, under 6 years; kidnapping, approximately 4 years. Does that make sense? Two years for serious assault, 3\1/2\ years for assault with intent to murder, 4 years for kidnapping, 6 years for rape, and 10 years mandatory minimum for possessing a gun in connection with a small-time crack sale where no one is injured. This type of legislation and these ludicrous penalties demonstrate that we have truly run amok when it comes to crime legislation. Mr. Speaker, this is why we have a Sentencing Commission. The Sentencing Commission can take the politics out of sentencing and put some common sense in. So I urge my colleagues to demonstrate some common sense and vote against this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2235. In response to the rising tide of violent crime in and around schools around this Nation, Congress must step up our fight against juvenile crime, particularly those initiatives that come from a prevention perspective. This legislation would amend the Omnibus Crime Bill and Safe Streets Act of 1968, encouraging school-based partnerships between local law enforcement agencies and local school systems. School-based partnerships would be eligible to receive Federal funds to hire school resource officers or SROs. An SRO would be a career law enforcement officer with sworn authority, deployed in community-oriented policing and assigned to the deploying police department or agency to work in collaboration with schools and community-based organizations to address crime and disorder problems, gangs and drug activities affecting or occurring in or around elementary schools or secondary schools, develop or expand crime prevention efforts for students, educate likely school-age victims in crime prevention and safety, develop or expand community justice initiatives, train students in conflict resolution, restorative justice, and crime awareness, assist in the identification of physical changes in the environment that may reduce crime problems, and/or assist in the development of anticrime school policy and procedural changes. This legislation complements an existing school-based partnership research grant program administered by the Community-Oriented Police Services, or the COPS program. The existing program funds demonstration efforts on particular singular solutions to youth crime and violence. The proposed legislation would explicitly allow COPS program resources to be used in general school-based partnership SRO efforts. This statutory language is vital to clearly articulate the importance of fighting juvenile crime, and will be essential in establishing the fight against juvenile crime as a national priority. President Clinton recently announced that the same community policing techniques that are helping make our streets safe again are the best way to help keep our schools safe. This legislation is an important step in making our schools safe for our children. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Maloney), the chief sponsor of the legislation.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak), who is a former police officer, and one who has worked diligently to reduce juvenile crime.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge), a former State superintendent of public instruction in the State of North Carolina.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry), another distinguished cosponsor of the House version of the legislation.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Schumer) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) for bringing this expeditiously to the floor. I also thank the various sponsors and cosponsors that have spoken on this bill.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise in strong support of S. 2193, the Trademark Treaty Implementation Act. The House of Representatives has passed this legislation before, and I am pleased that the Senate has taken it up and now we can finally get it enacted into law. The enactment of this legislation will bring the United States into conformity with the treaty entered into earlier this year, the effect of which will be to greatly ease the registration requirements of domestic and international trademark holders. We should strongly support this bipartisan legislation. It is good for small business, good for American trademark holders and good for international registration. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) for their hard work on this bill and I urge its passage. Mr. Speaker, I have no requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, in closing I would like to say a word about the Head Start portion of the bill. During the committee deliberations, this widely supported program was amended and ended up being reported with votes being split right along party lines. I am delighted to see that the irrelevant, controversial amendments have been removed and that Chairman Goodling and Ranking Member Clay have presented essentially the original noncontroversial version of the bill so that reauthorization of this effective educational program can be done with its traditional bipartisan support. So, on balance, Mr. Speaker, this bill will do much in the long run to expand opportunities for children and low-income individuals; however, the ``charitable choice'' provision is unfortunate and we will have to wait for the courts to decide its constitutional fate. However, on balance, Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support the conference agreement.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay), our ranking member, for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the conference agreement reauthorizing Head Start, Community Services Block Grant, and the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Act. On balance, this bill does many positive things for children and low-income individuals. I am particularly proud of the fact that it contains a provision that I cosponsored with the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) which replicates a successful program I sponsored in Virginia, the Neighborhood Assistance Act, which offers tax credits for donations to approved programs fighting poverty. Unfortunately, the conference agreement also contains a provision I find very troubling, the so-called ``charitable choice'' provision. This provision has serious constitutional and policy shortcomings. Specifically, the ``charitable choice'' program allows religious groups to be funded under the Community Services Block Grant, even though they may be pervasively sectarian. The Community Services Block Grant provision also allows, because it allows pervasively sectarian organizations to be funded, it allows publicly funded employee discrimination. Because Title VII of the Civil Rights Act contains certain provisions exempting religious organizations, it allows faith-based organizations to proselytize to beneficiaries as they receive services. It also allows faith-based organizations to require beneficiaries to participate in religious activities in order to receive services. And it allows beneficiaries to be denied alternative service providers if none are available other than the faith-based organization. With respect to these constitutional issues, Mr. Speaker, I submit a letter from the Department of Justice specifically outlining the constitutional problems with the ``charitable choice'' provision. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Legislative Affairs, Washington, DC, September 24, 1998. Hon. William F. Goodling, Chairman, Committee on Education and the Workforce, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: The Senate and the House each recently passed versions of S. 2206, designated in the Senate as the Community Opportunities, Accountability, and Training and Educational Services Act of 1998 and in the House as the Human Services Reauthorization Act. We are informed that a conference committee will this week attempt to resolve differences between the two versions of the bill. S. 2206 would, inter alia, amend the Community Services Block Grant Act (``CSBGA''), 42 U.S.C. Sec. 9901, et seq. We are writing with respect to a proposed new section 679 of the CSBGA, which would be established by section 201 of the Senate- passed bill and by section 202 of the House-passed bill. We are concerned that the Senate version (that is, S. 2206 as passed by the Senate on July 27, 1998) could be construed to permit government funds to be provided to, and used by, pervasively sectarian organizations, which would violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution. Accordingly, we recommend that the Conference Committee amend the bill to ensure that funds are provided to religious organizations only if they are not pervasively sectarian. The Act would authorize the Secretary of Health and Human Services (``the Secretary'') to establish a program to make federal block grants to states for the purpose of ameliorating the causes of poverty in communities within the states. See, e.g., S. 2206 (as passed by the Senate), Sec. 201 (proposing CSBGA Sec. Sec. 672(1), 675). The states may, in turn, direct the funds to private, nonprofit organizations to assist in the provision of services. See, e.g., id. (proposing CSBGA Sec. Sec. 675C(a)(3)(B), 676A(a)(1)(A)). Proposed CSBGA section 679(a), in both the House and Senate bills, would provide that ``the government shall consider, on the same basis as other nongovernmental organizations, faith- based organizations to provide the assistance under the program, so long as the program is implemented in a manner consistent with the Establishment Clause of the first amendment to the Constitution.'' Section 679(a) further would provide that ``[n]either the Federal Government nor a State or local government receiving funds under this subtitle shall discriminate against an organization that provides assistance under, or applies to provide assistance under, this subtitle, on the basis that the organization has a faith-based character.'' Section 679 apparently would reflect ``Congress' considered judgment that religious organizations can help solve the problems'' to which the proposed statute is addressed Bowen v. Kendrick, 487 U.S. 589, 606-07 (1988). Kendrick and other cases establish that the fact that an institution has religious affiliations does not mean that it may not participate equally in a neutral government financial aid program that benefits both religious and nonreligious entities. Id. at 608-11 (Adolescent Family Life Act grants, available to fairly ``wide spectrum of public and private organizations'' regardless of religious nature, may be awarded to religious institutions), see also, e.g., Roemer v. Board of Public Works, 426 U.S. 736 (1976) (plurality opinion) (upholding grant program for colleges and universities as applied to schools with religious affiliations). Nevertheless, the Establishment Clause does place two significant limitations on this general principle. First, the Establishment Clause requires that federal financial assistance not be used in a way that would advance religious organizations' religious mission. The Court in Kendrick confirmed that, even though religious organizations may participate in government-funded social welfare programs, the government must ensure that government aid is not used to advance ```specifically religious activit[ies] in an otherwise substantially secular setting.''' Kendrick, 487 U.S. at 621 (quoting Hunt v. McNair, 413 U.S. 734 (1973)), See Roemer, 426 U.S. at 755 (plurality opinion). Indeed, in Kendrick, all nine Justices accepted the principle that government funding of religious activities would be impermissible.\1\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ 487 U.S. at 611-12, 615, 621 (Establishment Clause would be violated if public monies were used to fund `` `indoctrination into the beliefs of a particular religious faith' '' or to `` `advance the religious mission' of the religious institution receiving aid.'') (quoting School Dist. of Grand Rapids v. Ball, 473 U.S. 373, 385 (1985)), Id. at 623 (O'Connor, J., concurring) (''[A]ny use of public funds to promote religious doctrines violates the Establishment clause.''), Id. at 624 (Kennedy, J., concurring) (reasoning that the Establishment Clause would be violated if funds ``are in fact being used to further religion''), Id. at 634- 48 (Blackmun, J., dissenting) (opining that government aid may not be used to advance religion, even if aid was intended for secular purposes). Notably, Kendrick involved a statute-- like the proposed bill--in which government resources were granted on a neutral, nondiscriminatory basis, to religious and nonreligious groups alike, for a secular purpose (counseling sexual abstinence). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In conformity with this constitutional requirement, proposed section 679 of the House bill would provide that ``[n]o funds provided to a faith-based organization to provide assistance under any program described in subsection (a) shall be expended for sectarian worship, instruction, or proselytization.'' \2\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\ Proposed Sec. 679(c) in the Senate version has a similar prohibition, but limited to ``funds through a grant or contract.'' In order to avoid difficult Establishment Clause questions, we recommend deletion of the ``through a grant or contract'' limitation. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Second, even where a statute includes (as S. 2206 does) an express condition that the federal aid not be used for sectarian worship, instruction, or proselytization, the government nevertheless may not provide aid directly to ``pervasively sectarian'' institutions, defined as institutions in which `` `religion is so pervasive that a substantial portion of [their] functions are subsumed in the religious mission.' '' Id at 610 (quoting Hunt, 413 U.S. at 743); see also id. at 621 (holding that, apart from the question whether aid was being used for religious purposes, Establishment Clause would be violated if the plaintiffs could show that aid flowed to grantees that could be considered ``pervasively sectarian religious institutions''). As the Court has explained, the reason for the prohibition on direct governmental aid to pervasively sectarian institutions is the unacceptable risk that where--as in a pervasively sectarian organization--secular and religious functions are ``inextricably intertwined,'' government aid, although designated for a secular purpose, in fact will invariably advance the institution's religious mission. Id. at 610. Again, it is immaterial to this part of the Court's analysis that the provision of assistance would serve a legitimate secular purpose. See id. at 602. What is critical is that the assistance also would have the effect of advancing religion because of the pervasively sectarian character of the recipients. And even if it were possible, as a theoretical matter, for a pervasively sectarian organization to use government assistance exclusively for secular functions in such institutions, the degree and kind of governmental monitoring necessary to ensure compliance with the requisite restrictions would itself create Establishment Clause problems. Id. at 616-17. It is unclear which, if any, of the religious organizations that would receive funding under S. 2206 would be ``pervasively sectarian.'' The boundaries of the ``pervasively sectarian'' category are not well-defined, and the Supreme Court has used it almost exclusively in connection with primary and secondary educational institutions. The Court has, however, indicated that numerous considerations are relevant in determining whether an institution is pervasively sectarian. Included among those considerations is whether an organization has explicit corporate ties to a particular religious faith, and bylaws or policies that prohibit any deviation from religious doctrine. Kendrick, 487 U.S. at 620 n. 16. The Court also has treated the existence of religious qualifications for admission and hiring as a relevant factor in determining whether a school is pervasively sectarian. Compare Hunt, 413 U.S. at 743-44 (no religious qualifications for faculty or students) and Roemer, 426 U.S. at 757-58 (plurality opinion) (same), with Committee for Pub. Educ. v. Nyquist, 413 U.S. 756, 767-68 (1973) (religious restrictions on admissions and faculty appointments) and School Dist. of Grand Rapids v. Ball, 473 U.S. 373, 384 n.6 (1985) (preference in attending private school afforded to children belonging to organizational denomination). Although both the House and Senate versions of proposed Sec. 679(a) state that the block grant funds must be disbursed in accordance with the Establishment Clause, certain other provisions in the Senate version of the bill strongly suggest an expectation that state governments would be permitted to provide direct funding to religious organizations that are pervasively sectarian. In particular, the Senate version includes the following three provisions not found in the House version. (i) Proposed Sec. 679([b])(1) \3\ would provide that ``[a] faith-based organization that provides assistance under a program described in subsection (a) shall retain its faith- based character and control over the definition, development, practice, and expression of its faith-based beliefs.''\4\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \3\ The Senate version of the bill designates this as subsection ``(c),'' rather than ``(b),'' but this appears to be a typographical error. \4\ In addition to the constitutional problem discussed in the text, this particular provision would (perhaps inadvertently) raise another Establishment Clause problem, since, read literally, the ``shall retain'' language would appear to require a recipient organization, as a condition of receiving federal funds, to ``retain'' a particular religious character and a certain form of ``control over the definition, development, practice, and expression of its faith-based beliefs.'' As a general matter, the government may not, of course, attempt in this manner to control the religious character and organization of a religious organization. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- (ii) Proposed Sec. 679([b])(2)(A) would provide, with a minor exception, that ``[n]either the Federal Government nor a State or local government shall require a faith-based organization . . . to alter its form of internal governance.'' (iii) Proposed Sec. 679([b])(3) would provide, inter alia, that ``[a] faith-based organization that provides assistance under a program described in subsection (a) may require that employees adhere to the religious tenets and teachings of such organization.'' These provisions, as well as the bill's repeated references to ``faith-based organizations'' and recipient organizations' ``faith-based character,'' strongly imply some intent that pervasively sectarian religious organizations would be eligible to receive direct governmental funding. In order to ensure that S.2206 is not construed to permit funding of pervasively sectarian organizations, and that direct governmental funding is not used to support religious activities, we recommend that the Conference Committee not adopt the three quoted provisions (which do not appear in the version of S. 2206 passed by the House). In offering this recommendation, we do not mean to suggest that the government should be able to, for example, ``control . . . the definition, development, practice, and expression of . . . beliefs'' of a nonpervasively sectarian religious organization that receives CSBGA funds but does not use such funds for sectarian worship, instruction, or proselytization. Nor should we be understood as suggesting that a government may ``require'' such an organization ``to alter its form of internal governance.'' We merely wish to ensure that the federal, state and local governments involved in disbursing CSBGA funds may take into account the structure and operations of a religious organization in determining whether such an organization is or is not pervasively sectarian. Where such an organization is pervasively sectarian--i.e., where the secular and religious functions of the organization are so ``inextricably intertwined,'' Kendrick 487 U.S. at 610, that it would be impossible (at least without impermissible entanglement) to ensure that the organization does not use government funds to advance religion, the organization may not receive and use CSBGA funds. Thank you for your attention to this matter. If we may be of additional assistance, we trust that you will not hesitate to call upon us. The Office of Management and Budget has advised that there is no objection from the standpoint of the Administration's program to the presentation of this report. Sincerely, L. Anthony Sutin, Acting Assistant Attorney General.