Bobby Scott

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, without this motion to recommit, the matter will be denied the assistance from a trusted friend or relative. The bill in its present form, without the motion to recommit, does not require parental consent because a minor could go alone. I would ask that we vote yes on the motion to recommit.

Mr. SCOTT. Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to the amount of time remaining?

Mr. SCOTT. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey). (Mrs. LOWEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute and 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

Mr. SCOTT. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen).

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman).

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 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. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Martinez) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, as one of the strong supporters of IDEA, I am pleased to support this resolution. I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), the gentleman from California (Mr. Riggs), the gentleman from California (Mr. Martinez), the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay), the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) and the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass) for working on this resolution. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act represents this country's commitment to ensure that all children, including children with disabilities, are entitled to a free and appropriate public education. I support IDEA and I support more funding for this program. This resolution, unfortunately, does not include two provisions that I think need to be addressed. Although I support the resolution and will vote for it, I wish that it could have addressed two issues. The most important principle missing in the resolution is that we should not take away from other educational programs in order to fully fund IDEA. The needs of our public schools remain high and we should not rob Peter to pay Paul. In the past, we have seen efforts to shift funding from other educational accounts to IDEA without changing the bottom line. The second principle missing from the resolution is that we should urge the localities once the $4.1 billion appropriation mark is triggered to spend their 20 percent of relief on education. Under current law, localities may use 20 percent of any increase in IDEA funding above the trigger to offset their current effort on special education. However, this relief can be used for roads, jails, tax relief and so forth. There is no guarantee that any of the local offset would be used to recycle the money to other educational programs. Even more of a concern is that transferring funds from other Federal education programs to increase funding for IDEA could actually result in a net reduction in total spending for elementary and secondary education. If we pursue a strategy of reducing the funding of other education programs to fully fund IDEA, we will risk a 20 percent net reduction in our investment in elementary and secondary education programs at the expense of children, both disabled and nondisabled, that these programs serve. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the bipartisan resolution and hope that we can continue a bipartisan effort to fully fund IDEA without jeopardizing our investment in other educational programs.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I would acknowledge that the present version is not as bad as what we considered in committee, but we did not reach an agreement.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield one minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Scarborough).

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, to the extent that debtors are denied a new contract, other creditors are less likely to be paid. It is normal to renegotiate contracts in bankruptcy. In fact, in our Saturday paper, a race track in my district was in financial trouble, and the article pointed out that, if they filed bankruptcy, they would be able to renegotiate contracts that have put it into financial distress. But whatever the merits of this argument, they ought to apply to everyone. There is nothing so unique about this particular special interest group that they should be given the advantage of section 212, a provision stuck into the bill without a hearing. For the merits of the argument in support of this section to make any sense, it ought to apply to everyone; otherwise, it just looks like a special favor for one particular special interest group, and that is why it ought it be struck. Mr. Chairman, I hope we can support this amendment.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would eliminate section 212 of the bill, which singles out the recording artists for detrimental treatment to the exclusive benefit of recording companies in regard to personal service contracts. Although section 212 in this bill is an improvement over its original version, it still provides an exclusive benefit to recording companies and still singles out recording artists for harsher treatment than other debtors filing for bankruptcy protection. This is without any showing that recording companies are entitled to this exclusive benefit in bankruptcy or that artists are abusing bankruptcy laws in any way that cannot be addressed through other provisions of bankruptcy laws that apply to everybody else. Furthermore, whereas approximately 1 percent of all American adults filed for bankruptcy in 1997, according to Billboard Magazine, not even one-tenth of 1 percent of recording artists file for bankruptcy annually. There have been no hearings on section 212. In fact, it was not even considered in subcommittee markup. This special interest provision only appeared in a 177 page substitute which was first presented at full committee consideration of the bill. Section 212 provides a new legal standard which will penalize recording artists for using provisions of the bankruptcy code available without such penalty to all other debtors similarly situated. Section 2812 does not apply to actors, does not apply to athletes, doctors, lawyers, professors, authors or anyone else who signed a personal service contract. No justification has been offered to explain why recording artists in bankruptcy should be forced into continued servitude under what may be totally unfair and unduly burdensome contracts, especially since the contract itself may have contributed to the bankruptcy in the first place. I urge support for this amendment, which eliminates an unnecessary, unfair, undesirable and, in some cases, unconscionable provision.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in opposition of H.J.Res. 19. Some of our colleagues would have us believe that the only way we can have campaign finance reform is to amend the Bill of Rights and overturn the Supreme Court's decision in Buckley v. Valeo. The First Amendment in the Constitution guarantees that Congress shall make no laws abridging the freedom of speech or of the press. The Buckley v. Valeo decision provides that, although certain limitations on contributions are permissible, that limiting political expenditures is an unconstitutional denial of free speech in violation of the First Amendment. The proposed amendment, however, will allow Congress and the State legislatures to prohibit certain speech and actions by candidates, their donors, political action committees, issue advocacy groups, and the press. Mr. Chairman, I believe that we are better off trusting the American people to discern the value of information they receive than we are in having Congress or the States regulate the information they receive. There are several problems with this proposed amendment. First, the contemplated amendment proposes an unprecedented exception to our free speech right and would represent the first time the Bill of Rights has been amended. At the very place in the Constitution where we have protected the free speech rights of Americans for over 200 years, we should not add a prohibition on political speech. Second, Mr. Chairman, because the proposed amendment uses vague terminology to define what Congress can do to regulate a political speech and elections, it will be left to future Congresses to implement legislation to decide what is reasonable and what is effective advocacy. As we have seen with other constitutional amendments on this floor, a transient majority will frequently vote against the Bill of Rights. A majority of this House, as a matter of fact, has already voted twice this Congress to amend the Bill of Rights. We should not allow a simple majority to define who gets to say what during a campaign. The third point, Mr. Chairman, the proposed amendment would also make regulation of the press possible for the first time. Heretofore, the first amendment has denied legislatures the power to regulate the press in any way or prohibit media endorsements of candidates. Since the expense of producing and communicating an editorial comment could be included as an expenditure of funds to influence the outcome of an election as described in the proposed amendment, it will subject the press to regulation as we have never done before. This outcome will be intolerable to the American people. Even if there were an exception for newspaper editorials, who would get to decide when a publication is a newspaper? Finally, Mr. Chairman, the proposed amendment would grant Congress and the State legislatures the authority to define express and issue advocacy. The ability to make the distinction between these two forms of speech will leave only candidates, political action committees, and the media free to comment about candidate records during elections, and it would deny freedom of speech to individuals and groups who might want to comment on issues that may have political ramifications. We have many reforms that can be considered without overturning the Supreme Court decisions or amending the Constitution. We can consider other reforms such as public financing of elections, improved disclosure requirements, providing discount vouchers for media coverage, reinstating tax credits for small contributions, and on and on. There is a lot that we can do without putting our right to free speech in jeopardy. Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote against this attack on our Bill of Rights.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).

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

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit simply restates the first amendment to the Constitution which, as we know, says: Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Any further amendments to our Constitution in the guise of protecting religious liberty are unnecessary. Mr. Speaker, under current law, students can pray and read the Bible privately; they can say grace at lunch and distribute religious materials to their friends and join voluntary religious clubs. The United States Department of Education has issued guidelines on religious expression that have been mailed to 15,000 public school districts in the Nation making it clear that schools are not religious- free zones. In those few instance where a student's religious speech has been unfairly denied, the law already has sufficient remedy. Education is the key to correcting the mistakes of teachers and educators, not an attack on the Bill of Rights.

Mr. SCOTT. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Vento). (Mr. VENTO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)