Bobby Scott

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I ask the gentleman if it is his expectation to have a recorded vote on his IDEA amendment?

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to address a colloquy with my colleague, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel], ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means. It is my understanding that the number of empowerment zones will be expanded through the passage of this legislation. As we know, HUD has found 2 empowerment zones and 11 enterprise communities, including Norfolk, VA in my district, to be the most successful in meeting the performance milestones. Those milestones include initiating and implementing job training programs, recruiting unemployed individuals into both job training and education programs, increasing the number of new businesses in the region, and creating new jobs. In order to reward communities for these efforts, should these successful enterprise communities be given priority consideration for designation as empowerment zones?

Mr. SCOTT. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that comment, and look forward to Norfolk being given that consideration, because it has done such a good job through Norfolk Works and other programs such as that.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, as many of my colleagues are aware, I have been actively involved in this issue of juvenile crime, both as a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce and on the House Committee on the Judiciary. From the outset of this discussion, I have said that Congress has a decision to make in fighting youth violence, and that is we can either play politics or we can reduce juvenile crime. H.R. 1818, I am happy to say, reflects a bipartisan desire not to play politics by codifying sound bites, instead it reflects a bipartisan commitment to reducing crime by funding proven crime prevention programs. Mr. Speaker, we know that prevention programs work. We know that they often save more money than they cost. Head Start, for example, saves money by reducing the need for remedial education, welfare; in crime, Job Corps saves money by increasing employment and reducing crime; drug rehabilitation programs have been shown to save $7 to $10 for every dollar put in the program by reducing crime in health care expenses. So we know of prevention programs that work to reduce crime and save money. This bill encourages communities to review the available research, to develop a crime prevention plan and to fund these prevention programs, programs that will help communities in their fight against crime and programs that are cost effective. Communities across the country are already doing this and they are seeing results. In addition to the emphasis on prevention, H.R. 1818 keeps intact several important principles of juvenile justice. Since 1974, there have been concerted efforts to provide fundamental protections for youth who come into contact with the juvenile justice system. Many may not know that prior to 1974 it was common practice to lock up youth who commit what are called status offenses, noncriminal acts such as running away or being truant. These children, who had not committed crimes and were often in need of social services and not punishment, they were being locked up, often in adult jails. As a result, kids were increasingly at risk of assault or committing suicide. The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act was enacted in 1974 to provide protection for children in these circumstances. The act required States to divert status offenders from the juvenile criminal system and place them in community-based alternatives where they would receive the appropriate interventions and appropriate services. Due to the enactment of this law, the number of children committing suicide in detention has decreased dramatically. I applaud the cosponsors of the bill for this fundamental protection. This decision did not come easily. But in May of this year, the House Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth and Families heard unanimous, passionate, and eloquent testimony on this very issue from a bipartisan panel of witnesses. They implored us not to turn the clock back on these children and to maintain the current law, that no status offenders should be locked up. H.R. 1818 maintains this protection and continues the underlying principle that no juveniles should be locked up with adults. These principles are the heart and soul of the act of 1974, and H.R. 1818 makes sure that there is no change. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] for his bipartisan leadership and also the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Clay], and my other colleagues, the gentleman from California [Mr. Martinez], the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Greenwood], the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller], and the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Payne] for their contributions and for the contribution of our staffs. I urge all of my colleagues to vote for this bill. This is a vote for prevention and a vote to take politics out of the debate on juvenile crime.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to draw the attention of my colleagues to the 30th anniversary of the Hampton Jazz Festival, which takes place from June 26th through June 29th. In what has now become known as the ``Festival of Legends,'' the Hampton Jazz Festival is clearly one of the greatest gatherings of musicians in the Nation. This year once again, when over 10,000 jazz fans come together each night in the Hampton Coliseum, they will be treated to some of the finest, most enduring examples of this most American of music forms. I only scratch the surface when I list a few of the luminaries who will be appearing on stage this week: George Benson, Peabo Bryson, Patti LaBelle, Gladys Knight, Robert Cray, and the incomparable B.B. King. Although a few of our perennial favorites can no longer appear--greats like Count Basie, Earl ``Fatha'' Hines, Dizzy Gillespie, and Duke Ellington--I am thrilled at the new artists who continue to keep the Hampton Jazz Festival fresh, innovative, and absolutely entertaining. It was 30 years ago when the Hampton Jazz Festival was born on the campus of Hampton University, in part as the result of the hard work of a student committee headed by John Scott. A few years later the city of Hampton got involved, offering its new coliseum as the home of the annual event. This unique partnership has helped make our festival such a success. Today, John Scott is the local organizer and George Wein the producer of what has evolved into one of America's greatest jazz get- togethers. I, like the thousands of fans who will throng to the Hampton Jazz Festival later this week, look forward to another great festival of legends and commend the city of Hampton, the festival organizers, and the great artists who will share their talent to help make this 4- day event music to our ears.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the issue of affirmative action. It is my understanding that a bill is being introduced today which will prevent the Federal Government from taking affirmative steps to remedy the still widespread discrimination that we have in employment, contracting, and education. Today, discrimination is still rampant. A recent study conducted by the Fair Housing Council found that minorities are discriminated against 40 percent of the times that they seek to rent an apartment. Repealing affirmative action will, therefore, have the practical effect of resegregating America. The repeal of affirmative action programs in both Texas and California gives us a peek at what happens when we eliminate affirmative action. So we must ask the opponents of affirmative action if they achieve their goals when minority admissions to law schools in Texas and California dropped precipitously in spite of evidence that shows that minorities, when given the opportunity, will perform as well as their majority counterparts. So, Mr. Speaker, I ask, how far do we have to turn the clocks back to appease those that are disgruntled, because discrimination is being remedied?

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I wish to recommend the following article to my colleagues authored by Rabbi Israel Zoberman entitled ``Rabbinic Cabinet visits Jewish community in Tunisia'' which appeared in the March 14, 1997, edition of the Southeastern Virginia Jewish News. I commend Rabbi Zoberman for his efforts to promote peace in the Middle East. [From the Southeastern Virginia Jewish News, Mar. 14, 1997] Rabbinic Cabinet Visits Jewish Community in Tunisia (By Rabbi Israel Zoberman) Toward the end of January 1997, I traveled to Tunisia as a member of the National Rabbinic Cabinet of the United Jewish Appeal in a historic mission, the first of its kind to represent all the religious movements of American Jewry. The 14 rabbis and three spouses visited the Tunisian Jewish community that is at least 2,000 years old. The Middle East peace process made it possible to visit this remarkable, moderate Arab state that never fought with Israel. Tunisian President Ben Ali has been an active and proud participant in the on-going grand venture to transform a region that has known the burden of costly wars and much suffering, yet is the cradle of human civilization and the birthplace of the three great monotheistic religions. The Muslim country of Tunisia, which was freed from French rule in 1956, is located in North Africa in the southern Mediterranean with Libya and Algeria as neighbors. In a population close to nine million people, there are about 1,900 Jews, almost equally divided between the capital Tunis in the north and the island of Jerba in the south. The once flourishing Jewish community, which is still quite traditional, numbered over 100,000 members before the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948. We witnessed first-hand the dedicated labor of faithful love of the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee (known as JDC and the ``Joint''), led by Evelyn Peters, in maintaining human dignity for the old and young, ever ready to act on the highest principles and values of the Jewish legacy. As a young child who was born in Kazakhstan in 1945, my own family of Polish holocaust survivors benefited from the JDC's humanitarian services when we were in the Displaced Persons Camp of Wetzlar at Frankfurt, Germany, in the American zone of occupation, from 1947 to 1949, prior to moving to Israel. We were warmly received by Chief Rabbi Haim Mador, the lay leaders and members of the Jewish community as well as by the officials of the Tunisian Foreign Ministry who were our kind hosts at a kosher dinner with which they broke the Ramadan fast! We also had an unforgettable reception in Tunis at the official residence of the American Ambassador, Mary Ann Casey. She and her staff were most gracious welcoming us and responding to our questions and insights. They truly made us feel at home away from home. Our nation ought to be proud of the high quality diplomatic team we have in that sensitive and volatile part of the world! Joined by the affable Gideon Behar in the absence of Shalom Cohen, head of Israel's Economic Interest Section, we learned of Israel's budding diplomatic presence which, to its discomfort and concern, is still housed at a hotel, and of its earnest desire to have a greater impact on building friendly and mutually productive relations with Tunisia. Our Rabbinic delegation continued to Israel via Rome in the improved climate of renewed hope for the peace process following the signing of the Hebron agreement between Prime Minister Netanyahu and Chairman Arafat. However, the tragic accident of the collision between two helicopters resulting in the death of 73 IDF soldiers on the way to their positions in Lebanon's security zone, united the entire small people in mourning, bringing out its unique sense of family. At the same time, it triggered an essential debate, though a heated one, on relations with Lebanon and Syria, particularly the pivotal role of the latter, being the real power broker in keeping alive (and deadly) the Hezbollah attacks on Israeli forces who are ultimately guarding the Israeli northern border and beyond. The impressive presence of the aircraft carrier Theodore Roosevelt in Haifa Bay was a moving statement of the powerful bond between the United States, the world's last superpower, and its brave and reliable ally, the Jewish State. I was reminded of my privilege a few years back to speak in commemoration of the Holocaust aboard that Norfolk-based great symbol of American resolve and capability. We met with Tunisian Jews in Israel and witnessed their accomplishments and sacrifices. In the southern town of Ofakim, we were in a synagogue modeled after the one left in Jerba. In the nearby Moshav Gilat our host was Aharon Uzon, a former Minister of Agriculture, whose soldier son Shelomo was killed in action and the settlement's synagogue bears his name. Our enchanting guide, Dr. Esther Schely-Newman of the Hebrew university, grew up there and received her doctorate from the University of Chicago. We were delightfully exposed to the JDC's collaborative creative work in Israel reaching out to children of disadvantaged and problematic families as well as rejoicing with teenagers from the former Soviet Union who displayed through Hebrew song an admirable peace and spirit of absorption into the ancestral homeland which by their own heroic efforts they now proudly claim as their own.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, getting back to the point, we find ourselves considering yet another constitutional amendment on the floor. Mr. Speaker, the Constitution of the United States is not a major societal problem in America, and yet we find ourselves for the fourth time this session voting on a constitutional amendment. There are others, a slew of others still pending. This amendment, if ratified, will for the first time in over 200 years reduce our first amendment rights to free speech and expression. The first amendment has made this country the envy of the world. It has protected us from religious and political upheavals that have led to the demise of numerous other federal governments. It has been a great success, not a failure. The first amendment is our friend and not our enemy. We should, therefore, resist the political temptation to abridge this freedom for short-term political gain. At the hearing we had on House Joint Resolution 54, we heard testimony that the flag is a symbol of national unity, patriotism, and freedom. I agree. But in a direct affront to the liberty interests on which this country was founded, the resolution is seeking to prohibit a form of political expression. Just as we are free to express our love for the flag in a free country, those with contrary opinions should also be free to express their feelings. Freedom is not a popularity contest. If this were the case, we would never need a Bill of Rights. Popular speech does not need protection. Instead, our rights only come into play when there is a need to protect the unpopular speech or religion from the tyranny of the majority. In fact, if this amendment is adopted, the only practical effect of the enactment of criminal statutes against flag desecration will be the jailing of political protesters. The idea of jailing political dissidents is obviously inconsistent with our tradition of freedom. I would ask that the Members consider this consequence before they start chipping away at the first amendment. Let us not be confused. We are not, in this amendment, trying to prohibit flag burning. The truth is that burning a flag is considered the only proper way to dispose of a worn-out flag, and therefore flags are routinely burned by members of the American Legion in patriotic flag retirement ceremonies. This amendment, however, has nothing to do with the act of burning or causing any type of physical harm to the flag. This is not the concern of the supporters of the amendment, and that is why the term ``desecration'' is used in the amendment rather than ``burn,'' ``tear,'' or ``destroy.'' Instead, they are seeking to prohibit the use of the flag in situations where they disagree with the content of the expression. In other words, one can burn a flag if one is saying something nice about the flag, but one would be prohibited from burning the flag if they are saying or thinking something that government officials consider offensive. This is absurd because the Government has no business deciding which political speech is permissible or impermissible. If we were just talking about conduct, we would be able to, we have to look at the effect of this amendment. We can prohibit forms of expression like we can prohibit parades, but we cannot prohibit one kind of parade by Democrats and not the same kind of parade by Republicans. If one can, if we are talking about flag burning, we cannot talk about burning the flag when there are good patriotic expressions but prohibit burning the flag when we do not agree with the expressions being made. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, we are not addressing situations where someone steals a flag and burns it. Stealing and destroying someone else's property is already against the law. So we have already been down the road of patriotic but coercive legislation. I remind my colleagues of the World War II era Supreme Court cases dealing with the statutes compelling school children to pledge allegiance to the flag. We got so wrapped up in our drive to compel patriotism that we lost sight of the high ideals for which the flag stands, because despite our disgust for seeing Nazis force their people to hail Hitler, we in this country were passing laws that forced school children to salute and say a pledge to a flag even if such acts violated their religious beliefs. Fortunately for the American people, the Supreme Court put an end to this coercion in the landmark case West Virginia State Board of Education versus Barnette. Justice Jackson wrote on behalf of the majority in the Barnette decision when he wrote, If there is any fixed star in our Constitution, it is that no official, high, or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. Unfortunately, it does not seem that we have learned from the eloquence and clarity of Justice Jackson's opinion in Barnette, and instead we are here today poised and anxious to prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics and nationalism, even though we have no business governing a free society in this manner. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, our prescription is unknown. The text of the resolution reads: ``The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.'' Even after the hearing, we still have no idea of what desecration will entail or what shall constitute a flag. Any criminal statute enacted under this amendment will therefore be inherently vague and unworkable. In fact, at the hearing at least one witness supporting the constitutional amendment agreed that the use of the flag in advertising could be considered desecration, and in fact some jurisdictions have criminal statutes on the books prohibiting use of the flag in advertising. Mr. Speaker, furthermore, we have a question of what is a flag? Is a flag tie a flag? Do we have a national interest in that tie? Is that a national asset? Based on the flag code, wearing a flag tie could be a criminal offense. Considering that both an American Legion representative and a Member of Congress were wearing flag ties on the day of the hearing, I would hope that we would take a closer look at what could be the unintended consequences of this amendment. But of course we all know that the practical effect of the criminal statutes would be that they would only be enforced against political protesters, and that is why the amendment restricts speech and is not protecting the flag. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I urge the House to be guided by the words of Justice Brennan when he wrote, We do not consecrate the flag by punishing its desecration, for in so doing we dilute the freedom that this cherished emblem represents. Therefore, let us not betray the freedom our flag represents. I urge the House to stand up for the high ideals the flag represents by opposing House Joint Resolution 54.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from California for his hard work in developing this substitute. I rise in support of the Brown investment substitute because it moves us to a balanced budget in a believable and reasonable way and because it protects our veterans, secures our future by investing in our children, our families and our economy. Mr. Chairman, under the committee, in the committee budget resolution, the deficit goes up the first 3 years to pay for tax cuts. That is right. Under the committee bill, the deficit 3 years from now will be worse than it is today. The Brown investment substitute, however, eliminates the deficit and balances the budget in a logical, believable and gradual way. It invests in our children, strengthens our families, protects our veterans, stimulates and strengthens our economy and improves our future. Mr. Chairman, I urge the Members of the House to vote for the Brown investment substitute.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from Mississippi and the gentlewoman from California for their hard work in developing this budget. I rise tonight to echo my colleagues' support for the Congressional Black Caucus alternative budget, and to speak briefly on the judiciary elements of that budget. The CBC alternative balances the budget, reduces crime, and invests in our future economic and social well- being, and it does so by better utilizing our scarce resources. For example, Mr. Chairman, we believe that the $711 million allocated for the building of new prisons and jails in the committee budget could be put to better use by stressing the treatment and prevention programs. The CBC budget increases our investment in more local community prevention programs, such as mentoring, parental training, truancy prevention, gang intervention, and comprehensive educational services for at-risk youth, so fewer of our children will become involved in the juvenile justice system in the first place, and fewer crimes, fewer victims, and a decrease in taxpayer money spent on prisons will be the direct result. The CBC budget also includes an increase in the budget for the Legal Services Corporation, which will allow equal access to justice for all Americans, not just those who can independently afford it. The CBC alternative also addresses understaffing at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which requires increased Federal funding to eliminate its backlog in order to make employment opportunities accessible to countless more American men and women who lose those opportunities because of illegal discrimination. By passing the CBC alternative, we can look forward to the day when this Nation meets and surpasses the goals of full opportunities for all of its citizens to participate in the American dream. Again, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Mississippi and the gentlewoman from California for their hard work.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to call my colleagues' attention to the remarkable work of An Achievable Dream, a true success story in my district. It was 5 years ago when Walter Segaloff founded the An Achievable Dream Academy for academically at-risk students, many of whom have demonstrated that they are ready and willing to learn, if just given the proper environment. Sadly, their home environment is too often not conducive to learning. That's where An Achievable Dream, or AAD, steps in. By instilling a love of learning and enabling each child to develop a personal, achievable dream leading to academic and subsequent professional success, AAD puts its arm around the shoulder of these kids who may otherwise be headed for academic and social failure as a result of poverty, family problems, or low self-esteem. Many of these children have been stigmatized, seeing only what they can't achieve. But Walter Segaloff and the others who direct AAD have shown them a different path, one toward personal success and price. AAD's achievements are based on the combined efforts of dedicated individuals, who provide the vision and hard work, and local corporations and businesses, who have provided much-needed and appreciated monetary support. It is this community interest and assistance which helps set AAD apart, making it a role model for the rest of this Nation as we search for ways to improve education. Reader's Digest magazine recently awarded AAD with their American Heroes in Education Award, a fitting tribute to a great program. This is only the most recent award garnered by AAD: The program has also been honored by a joint award sponsored by Business Week magazine and the McGraw-Hill Educational Publishing Group, in cooperation with the American Association of School Administrators, for educational innovation. I would like to add my words of appreciation and thanks today to An Achievable Dream and the dramatic contributions the program has made to the Newport News community in Virginia, and to the Nation as a whole.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to join my colleagues in strong support of H.R. 5, the amendments to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, and I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs], the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Clay], and the gentleman from California [Mr. Martinez], ranking Members, and the leadership of the Senate for their leadership in crafting this truly remarkable bill. This legislation is extraordinary, not only because of its bipartisan bicameral and administration support, but also because it improves educational opportunities for children with disabilities. With the enactment of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, twenty-two years ago, Congress recognized that 3.5 million of the children with disabilities in the United States were not receiving appropriate educational services and more than a million children were excluded from school altogether. Today Congress not only reaffirms our commitment to education generally, but we are also reaffirming our commitment to ensuring that children with disabilities receive a free and appropriate education. While some may argue that the price is too high, we know that our failure to provide appropriate education to any child will cost us even more in the long run and we know that children with disabilities who do not complete their education are less likely to be employed, more likely to rely on public assistance, and substantially more likely to be involved in crime than those others who complete high school. While the same can be said for the outcomes of children without disabilities, research demonstrates that these correlations are even stronger for children with disabilities. Today we are here to support H.R. 5, because it significantly moves us towards fulfilling the promise we set 22 years ago, to provide a free and appropriate public education for all children with disabilities. So, Mr. Speaker, I would encourage all of my colleagues to support this remarkable legislation.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Chairman, I want to read portions of a letter from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. They indicate in their letter, as Congress is well aware, juvenile offenses are increasing and the current means of addressing these offenders is inadequate for public safety purposes. However, it is also consistently demonstrated by treatment clinicians and research academics that juvenile offenders, if given the proper treatment and supervision, are the most amenable to long-term rehabilitation efforts. NCMEC has always supported the efforts of the treatment community to identify and contain these individuals at an early age, in an effort to assist these young offenders to turn their lives around and become positive, participating members of society. This legislation fails to recognize that not all offenders are the same. A violent 17-year-old serial rapist is a different character from a confused, perhaps abused 10-year-old involved in weekly therapy sessions. I might point out, Mr. Chairman, that 17-year-old serial rapists are already treated as adults in every State, and they would be covered by Megan's Law. This proposal would no doubt interfere with the treatment of these young and most amenable offenders. The more violent repetitive offenders must be addressed, but not at the cost of the less dangerous youths. Mr. Chairman, they go on to say that this proposed legislation would make no distinction between violent, repetitive youthful offenders and first-time, confused, treatable offenders, and raises constitutional considerations. They also say that it would make school situations more difficult for victims of abuse. Since most juvenile offenders offend against members of their own nuclear or extended family, the schoolhouse spotlight would further implicate the victims as questions are raised and accusations are made. Furthermore, many families would not report offenses committed by children they knew or were part of their family if it meant automatic notification of the entire student body. For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I think we should oppose this amendment.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, as the gentlewoman from Texas has indicated, we would have liked other amendments, but these amendments are clearly technical and clarifying, and I would ask the House to support this manager's amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman I yield myself the balance of the time.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, as a Member of the committee I will ask for the time in opposition, although I am not in opposition.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of the time to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Buyer].

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado [Ms. DeGette].

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would point out that those who are serious offenders are routinely treated as adults in every State. If it is a juvenile conviction, Mr. Chairman, we have no idea what they may have been convicted for, even a 10-year-old kissing a classmate. Those are the kinds of things that would get wrapped up in it. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT. I yield to the gentlewoman from Washington.

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

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of the time to the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Kennedy], the second youngest Member of the House.