Bobby Scott

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, legislative language similar to the proposed amendment has been enacted in Texas and California. After the adoption of those policies, educational opportunities for minorities plummeted to their lowest levels since the 1960s and in some schools those opportunities disappeared altogether. You cannot change the known impact of this amendment by using glorious rhetoric or a misleading title or results of a slanted poll. We know what this amendment will do. Mr. Chairman, the admissions policies have never been totally fair. Those who are children of alumni get preferences, children of large contributors get preferences, those who can afford to pay tuition without a scholarship get preferences, those who can perform well on a culturally biased test get preferences. Mr. Chairman, affirmative action serves as a counterbalance to those disadvantages that minorities suffer. Without affirmative action we will return to the unlevel playing field and turn the clock back to the 1960s. Mr. Chairman, the Supreme Court has limited the use of affirmative action to policies which are narrowly tailored to address the compelling State interest. So as the need for affirmative action drops, so will the practice of affirmative action. This amendment, however, will prohibit the use of affirmative action even in cases where there is a need to remedy proven cases of racial discrimination. Mr. Chairman, you can quote Martin Luther King, you can talk about dreams, but we know what this amendment will do. Minority opportunities will plummet if this amendment is adopted. That is why those of us who celebrate diversity in America are opposing this amendment.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, this started out as a bipartisan bill designed to expand opportunities and I hope it ends up that way if we defeat this divisive amendment. Mr. Chairman, this language either means nothing because Title VI already prohibits discrimination or it is different from Title VI and that will take years of litigation to interpret what it means. There is one interesting legal point in terms of discrimination on religion. We do not know whether that would mean that religious schools could or could not discriminate or prefer those of its religion. But there is one thing that we know, and that is we could not remedy notorious discrimination if this amendment would pass. Whatever it means, it would attack valuable programs designed to address woeful underrepresentation of minorities in certain fields. There are only a handful of minority Ph.D.'s granted in science every year and outreach initiatives to address this woeful underrepresentation aimed at minorities, such as the Ronald E. McNair program to encourage minorities to pursue doctorates in science. Those programs would be in jeopardy. Let us keep opportunity open. I urge Members to defeat this amendment just like we defeated the last amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Madam Speaker, I wish to respond to the comments of the majority leader. The fact that it is designated as not aid to the school eliminates the Federal enforcement, and there are a lot of things that can be done under Federal enforcement that are exempt because of that language. I had an amendment in the Committee on Rules that was denied to allow that language to come out so that we could have full participation and full enforcement of civil rights. That is not in the bill because of that language.

Mr. SCOTT. Madam Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. SCOTT. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to S. 1502, the D.C. voucher bill. Madam Speaker, there are a number of reasons to vote against the bill, and let me just focus on two. First, the bill ignores 97 percent of the students and offers just a jackpot for the privileged few. But there are not enough seats available in private schools in the Washington, D.C., area to accommodate those privileged few who might win the lottery. A recent Washington Post article looked into the number of available seats and found that, ``D.C. students would find the costs high and the openings scarce.'' Furthermore, Madam Speaker, we must remember that the bill, should it pass, would be subject to an immediate court challenge over the use of taxpayer funds to go to private religious schools. Private religious schools make up 80 percent of the private schools in the Washington, D.C., area. So of those seats purported to be available by the proponents of the legislation, at least 80 percent of them may well not be available because of court challenges that would prevent their participation in the voucher program. Madam Speaker, perhaps the most disturbing part of the bill is the provision which guts civil rights protections for the students. Although through legislative trickery the bill declares that the vouchers are not Federal aid to the school, such declaration has no purpose other than to exempt the schools from Federal enforcement of civil rights. Tragically, the bill clearly allows for discrimination against the disabled. So while this legislation is framed as an educational bill to help disadvantaged D.C. students, in reality it is a flagrant assault by the majority on civil rights laws. Madam Speaker, although this bill will provide no assistance to 97 percent of the students in Washington, D.C., a $7 million federally funded education program ought to at least have full Federal civil rights protections for the privileged few it purports to help. The fact that that protection is not contained in the bill is another reason to vote ``no''. Madam Speaker, we need to vote ``no'' and defeat the bill.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank my friend from Michigan for yielding this time to me, and I want to express my thanks to the chairman and ranking members of the full committee and subcommittee for agreeing to include in the manager's amendment an amendment I offered during full committee consideration. This amendment will help improve the accuracy and reliability of student loan data and further reduce the rate of student loan defaults. Many schools have made progress in decreasing the rate of loan defaults. My amendment will encourage more vigorous efforts by schools and the lending community to bring defaulters back into repayment status through a process called loan rehabilitation. The result will be that more schools will be able to participate in the loan program and more students will be able to achieve their dreams by attending college. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank our committee leadership for accommodating this request and working with me to ensure that this amendment was incorporated in H.R. 6 through the manager's amendment.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).

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

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

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of the time to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior), the Minority Whip.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega). (Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).

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

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen). (Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) before I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Skaggs).

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to correct the statement made in the earlier comments. It was indicated it required a two-thirds vote of the membership of the House. That was the bill as it had been introduced. The rule that we passed changed the bill, so it is only two-thirds of those present and voting. So if we want to cut Social Security, it would require a simple majority; if we want to cut education, a simple majority; cut Medicare, a simple majority. But to close the corporate loophole, it would require two-thirds of those present and voting.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the ranking member from the Committee on the Judiciary for yielding me time. Before I begin discussing our concerns about the amendment, I would like to say a few words about my concerns about the priorities of the House. Consideration of this amendment represents an annual tax day press event. Although we fail to do much of substance in the 105th Congress, here we are in front of the cameras debating an impractical tax limitation amendment. I would hope we would begin to debate some of the serious issues before us, like the tobacco settlement, saving Social Security, health care, juvenile justice. But those issues are nowhere to be seen because we have taken polls, and on an annual April 15th situation, we are debating the same constitutional amendment that was defeated last year around April 15th. So let us put it in perspective: We are not legislating; we are just posturing for political advantage. But I would have serious concerns about the constitutional amendment, H.J. Res. 111, the proposed constitutional amendment, with respect to tax limitation. The terms of the amendment are unbelievably vague. The only thing clear about the amendment is the fact that the amendment will cause great confusion. When we had a hearing on the resolution before it was defeated last year, both Democratic and Republican witnesses expressed very serious concerns about H.J. Res. 111. Former Office of Management and Budget Director Jim Miller, tax limitation amendment supporter, went so far as to call some of the language silly and unworkable. The language considered by experts at the hearing requiring a two- thirds majority vote to increase the Internal Revenue was the language we heard last time. We marked up a different bill in the committee than that which was reviewed by the experts, and the language that is now before us on the floor requires a two-thirds majority to change the Internal Revenue laws, resulting in an increase in the Internal Revenue by more than a de minimis amount. Of course, no one seems to have the slightest idea what a change in the Internal Revenue laws to increase the general revenue by more than a de minimis amount, nobody knows exactly what that means, and it is our intention, therefore, apparently to leave this very significant interpretive question to the whims and wishes of the courts, or to some bureaucratic person. The confusion created by the constitutional amendment will create powers in a new bureaucracy. For example, who are we going to anoint with the power to decide the golden question? Will a particular bill constitute an increase in revenue, or will it increase revenue by more than a de minimis amount? We heard testimony that this power would be investigated in a bureaucrat with unprecedented powers to control the legislative power, because once that decision is made, that could require a two-thirds, rather than a simple majority vote. Who becomes the golden decider of that particular question? The American public deserves answers to these questions before, not after, we have made a mess that cannot be cleaned up. What happens if we pass, for example, a controversial corporate tax loophole that we estimated would cost $500 million, but later discover it is costing $500 billion? Although it took only a simple majority to pass the corporate tax loophole, it will take two-thirds in both the House and the Senate to correct it. For this reason, we ought to be calling the resolution the Corporate Loophole Protection Act. Furthermore, there are those who support the legislation saying it will control spending. There is nothing in the legislation to control spending. Spending will continue with a simple majority vote. Unfortunately, paying for the spending will require a two-thirds vote. That is obviously a prescription for disaster. In addition to being vague and biased in its protection of corporate loopholes, this amendment would be unworkable. There are very good reasons why supermajorities are rare in our Constitution, and that is because they have learned from experiences of the failed Continental Congress that excessive supermajority requirements are not practical for an efficient government. We only require supermajorities for things like overriding a Presidential veto, impeachment or proposing constitutional amendments. These are well-defined circumstances, not open to interpretation. But, unfortunately, there will always be numerous views on whether or not a bill increases the revenue by more than a de minimis amount. Incredibly, the supermajority prescribed in this resolution would be a much stronger requirement than the supermajorities required for impeachment, treaty ratification or veto overrides, because it requires a two-thirds vote of the Membership of the House; not just those present and voting. In fact, we have not been able to adhere to our own tax limitation rules. That would give us a fairly good idea of what would happen under this constitutional amendment. In the 104th Congress we had a rule that required a three-fifths vote on bills requiring Federal income tax increases. The story of the tax limitations rules provides us with what would happen, because there was waiver after waiver after waiver, because many major bills included changes in the tax system that increased taxes. The rule was waived for the 1996 budget reconciliation conference report; it was waived for the Medicare preservation bill; it was waived for the Health Coverage and Availability Act. In recent history, no major tax changes, whether signed into law by a Democrat or Republican President, have passed both Houses by two-thirds majority. If we could not function with a three-fifths majority, how could we possibly function with a two-thirds requirement, that can only be waived in cases of war or amending the Constitution? Amending the Constitution is very serious business, and should not be conducted haphazardly. Some very tough questions are not even close to being answered. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to act responsibly and reject this tax day publicity stunt, and vote no on H.J. Res. 111. General Leave

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), and we will have two speakers after that.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I advise the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) that we have two speakers left; and if he has more than that, we would prefer that he go at this point.