Bobby Scott

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Indiana [Ms. Carson].

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes. Mr. Chairman, the bill, underlying bill, authorizes $500 million a year in spending. This amendment strikes prison construction as allowable use of the money. Mr. Chairman, this is for two reasons. First, $500 million nationally in prison construction cannot have any effect on crime. For example, Virginia is in the process of spending almost $1 billion a year on new prisons over the next 10 years. If all of Virginia shared this money, that is, if we qualified, which we do not, but if all the money were used in prisons, instead of $1 billion a year we would be spending $1.01 billion a year on prisons, obviously not enough to cause a difference in crime that anybody would notice. The second reason, Mr. Chairman, is that if we used up the money on prisons, there would not be anything left over for the other worthwhile uses of the money. Mr. Chairman, we already lock up more people than anywhere else on Earth. Some communities have more young men in jail than in college, and several States already spend more money for prisons than higher education. So States do not need the encouragement to build prisons, they need encouragement to spend money on other initiatives where little money can actually make a difference in public safety. So, Mr. Chairman, I hope this House will adopt the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment made in order by the rule.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Ford], the youngest Member of the U.S. House, to speak on the juvenile justice bill.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I would say that at some of those hearings, we found the need to try some juveniles as adults, but the fact is that without any change in the law, most juveniles tried as adults today are tried as adults for nonviolent offenses. That is, we have gone all the way down the list of offenses, and they are already being tried as adults and they will not be affected by this legislation.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Texas for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, we know how to reduce crime. We know what works. We know what does not work. Studies have shown that Head Start, Job Corps, drug rehabilitation, truancy prevention, those kinds of programs that give young people constructive things to do with their time and adult interaction, those that increase their education and job opportunities, those are the kinds of things that work. Job Corps, Head Start, and others have been shown to save more money than they cost by reducing crime and reducing future welfare expenses. Mr. Chairman, we know what sounds tough and does not work. We know that the sound bite--if you do the adult crime, you do the adult time-- we know that if you treat more juveniles as adults, all of the studies show that the crime rate, the violent crime rate will go up if we codify that sound bite. We know mandatory minimums have no deterrent effect on juveniles, because they do not make those kinds of calculations. They act impulsively. So we know what works, we know what does not work. We also know that when we say we are not tough, we have to recognize that we are already jailing more people in America than anywhere else on Earth. We have some communities that have more young people locked up in jails than they have in college. We know that more money in prisons cannot possibly have, since we lock so many people up already, cannot possibly have an effect on the crime rate. So it makes no sense, waiting for the children to mess up and then lock them up, when it is cheaper to invest in crime prevention programs and prevent them from getting in trouble in the first place. For example, the Rand study shows that parental training, the money put into that program, is three times more cost effective than the three-strikes-and-you-are-out, good, tough-sounding sound bite. So we have today's bill, with the major provisions--treat more 13- year-olds as adults, and more young people treated as adults--proven to increase violence; more exposure to mandatory minimums constantly, with no effect or deterrence; more money for prisons that cannot possibly do any good, since most States are already spending more in prisons than they are in higher education. Those are the kinds of things that do not make any difference at all. So we have a choice. We can pass this good-sounding but ineffective bill, or we can defeat the bill and focus our attention on proven, cost-effective initiatives which will actually reduce the crime rate and make our streets safer. I would hope we would defeat the bill, Mr. Chairman, and focus our attention where it can do some good.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. If the gentleman will yield; if we are spending $1 billion, plus $10 million is $1.01 billion, it will have zero effect on the crime rate. We need to put the money where it will actually make a difference.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I think this special order points out how we are not focused on the problem. We need to focus on the problem of juvenile crime. The bill that we considered earlier today and will be considering again tomorrow misses the point. It spends all of its money after the fact dealing with juveniles, treating more juveniles as adults when we know that that does not work. We know that drug rehabilitation programs cost about 5 percent of sending somebody to jail, reduces recidivism 80 percent, so it is cheaper and more effective. Those are the kinds of effective programs that we should be focused on. I am delighted to participate with the gentleman from Michigan, the gentleman from Massachusetts and the others that were here so we can show that some of us are actually trying to reduce crime. Although it may not be as politically popular, we are focused on the issue. I am delighted to work with the gentleman on this. We need to get away from the soundbites and back on the point. The Families First agenda does that.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding me this time and also for helping with this special order. I think it is a very important issue because we fundamentally have a choice. We can do what works to reduce crime, or we can do what sounds good, makes maybe good politics but does not do anything about the crime rate. Unfortunately, we cannot do both. We know what works. We have seen studies of Head Start, recreation, boys and girls clubs, Big Brothers, Big Sisters, a number of programs that work to reduce crime. These have been proven. They are cost effective. They keep kids out of trouble. They do not get in trouble in the first place, and, of course, that strategy has the added advantage that people do not have to be brutalized because there are no victims when we have prevented the crimes. People have suggested that we are not tough or that we are choosing between punishment or prevention. They ignore the fact that in some communities we already have more of our young people in jail today than in college. Our incarceration rate in America is the largest in any country on Earth. The average internationally of people being locked up is about 100 people per 100,000 population. Canada about 117, Mexico 97, Japan less than 50 per 100,000, the United States is already above 500, almost 600 people per 100,000. I have jurisdictions in my Congressional District that lock up about 1,500 people per 100,000. Fifty in Japan, 117 in Canada, 1,500 city of Richmond. So we cannot suggest that we are not cracking down on crime. The fact is that the little money in this bill for prisons cannot possibly make any difference. This bill has a total national funding of $500 million. Virginia's portion of that on a per capita basis will be around $10 million. Now, we are already in the middle of a prison expansion program where we are going to be spending, when it is all phased in, another billion dollars a year for new prisons. New prisons. Not all prisons, new prisons. With this bill, instead of $1 billion it will be $1.01 billion. Obviously, that cannot possibly make a difference. Or that $10 million can be used in initiatives that will help juveniles by increasing the number of juvenile probation officers, with better supervision or other initiatives that will actually make a significant reduction in recidivism. We should always address our problems and not just come up with solutions that have nothing to do with the problem. We have heard, for example, earlier today that the highest crime rate is for those 17 to 19 years of age. One thing that strikes one right off the bat is that those 18 to 19 are not covered by the bill, they are treated as adults and are not even affected by revision in juvenile laws. For those 17 years of age that commit serious offenses, they are going to be treated as adults. As a matter of fact, we treat so many juveniles as adults right now that more than half of those treated as adults are treated as adults for nonviolent offenses. We have gone all the way down the offenses where most of the children treated as adults are for nonviolent offenses. Our problem is that we do not treat enough juveniles as adults, we treat too many. The third is that we do nothing about those 14 to 16 and disturb their trajectory for those going into crime. If we do nothing to change that trajectory, 3 years from now when they are 17 to 19, we would have done nothing about the crime rate. If we expect the rate to be lower than it is today 3 years from now, we have got to focus on the 14- to 16-year-olds and even younger and prevention must be the focus in our juvenile crime rate. We must also address the facts. The fact is that if we treat more juveniles as adults, the violent crime rate will go up. There are no exceptions in studies of that premise. That if we increase the number of juveniles treated as adults, the violent crime rate amongst juveniles will increase. The Families First alternative will focus where the money can do some good. It will strengthen families and empower children to stay out of trouble. As I said, it is not a question of prevention or punishment. We are already punishing. There are things in this bill, like we know that treating more juveniles as adults will increase violent crime. They have things to publicize records of juveniles. If they are treated as adults, if it is a serious offense, their trials will be public as adults, their records will be public. There is no evidence that that public notoriety will do anything to reduce crime. In fact, we have had evidence that, in fact, some juveniles will create crimes in order to get the notoriety. We want to focus on things that will actually make a difference, and that is why I am supporting the Families First alternative. We already punish children more severely than anywhere else on Earth. If we are going to do anything about reducing crime, we have got to focus the extra money on prevention and not on counterproductive soundbites that do not address the problem. The gentlewoman from California [Ms. Lofgren] mentioned the question of conspiracies and said if you find people on the street committing drug crimes, if all they have on a juvenile is a conspiracy, that means they did not find him doing anything, he was sitting up late at night where they agreed to commit a crime, when he woke up the next morning, he went on to school and did not do anything. But he is part of the conspiracy. When the others go commit the crime, he can be found guilty of conspiracy, subject to mandatory minimums, and the way this bill is crafted, the judge would have no alternative but to sentence him with the mandatory minimums without any consideration to his prior record, to his role in the crime, to the seriousness of the crime, to his amenability to treatment, anything like that. He will be subject to the mandatory minimum, disrupt his education, and we know that he will be much more likely to commit crimes in the future because he comes out without the education. We need to support the Families First alternative because it addresses the problem. I am delighted to participate with the gentleman from Michigan in this special order to promote that alternative.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to help celebrate today's presentation of the Navy Cross to Mr. Robert Jones. Earlier today, the Secretary of the Navy presented this medal, the highest honor the Navy bestows, to Mr. Jones for the heroism he demonstrated while under fire during combat in the Pacific in October 1944. Yes, Mr. Speaker, the heroism of Petty Officer Jones remained unrecognized by his Nation for over 50 years, simply because of the color of his skin. But in a moving ceremony in the Capitol this afternoon, the record was at long last set straight. Secretary Dalton spoke of Mr. Jones' ``uncommon valor and selfless sacrifice.'' He added that Robert Jones ``stood firm, took a stand, and stared death in the face. He is truly a Navy hero.'' I could not agree more. On that fateful day in 1944, a Japanese dive bomber attacked the U.S.S. Intrepid. Petty Officer Jones manned one of the ship's guns and began firing on the incoming plane. Even when it because obvious that the bomber was headed straight for a crash into his gun position, Jones remained at his post, firing his weapon until the plane actually hit. Although Mr. Jones was severely burned, many other sailors aboard his ship can probably be thankful that their lives were spared entirely, thanks only to this one sailor's heroism. Heroism is rarely something that we plan in advance, and many of us probably wonder if we even have the right stuff necessary to become a hero in the first place. Robert Jones indeed had the stuff that heroes are made of. And while some may be saddened that it has us so long to recognize formally his acts of courage, we can nevertheless take complete pride today in seeing the record set straight, and in seeing a patriot and native son of the Commonwealth of Virginia receive the admiration and thanks of a grateful Nation. Today we salute Robert Jones and share in his pride.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to add my voice to those of my colleagues in appreciation of and respect for a quiet hero, Mr. James L. Farmer. During the turbulent 1960's, he rightfully earned his place as one of the ``Big Four'' in the civil rights movement along side the other giants: Whitney Young, Roy Wilkins, and Martin Luther King, Jr. Though famous for founding the Congress for Racial Equality, James Farmer was an unassuming, modest man. For that reason, many Americans-- African-American as well as white--are unaware of the invaluable contributions he made to the civil rights movement, and, even more importantly, to the fulfillment of America's underlying principles and goals for all of its citizens. We call on President Clinton to honor James Farmer by awarding him the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Sadly, few who are familiar with photographs of James Farmer taken in the sixties when he orchestrated the first Freedom Rides would recognize him today. At 77, he is blind, suffers from severe diabetes, and has been forced to undergo several amputations. Even now, he is hospitalized, recovering from the latest operation to remove his left leg above the knee. By where James Farmer's body may be weak, his achievements remain as strong as any man's. He continues his life-long work, teaching a popular civil rights course at Mary Washington College in my State. And the textbook for that class is his autobiography. The achievements of the civil rights movement are in large part the achievements of James Farmer. And the time is right to honor his achievements. Let him just this once feel the applause, receive the accolades, and hear the words of thanks from a grateful nation.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Hall]. (Mr. HALL of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly].

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Delahunt].

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Neal].

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

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I would say that the gentleman has indicated that to increase spending on Superfund would take a two-thirds majority, so we are attacking the environment. Also, if we label something a fee, it is not included. If we call it a tax, it is included. In terms of de minimis, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Barton] has suggested that the one-tenth of 1 percent is de minimis. Our total budget, Mr. Speaker, is $1.6 trillion. One-tenth of 1 percent of $1.6 trillion is $1.6 billion. Jokes have been made about a billion here and a billion there, but I certainly think that most people would think that $1.6 billion is more than de minimis. But of course the courts would have to make that decision, and, as the gentleman from North Carolina has pointed out, a staff memo to the chief sponsor is not what the Supreme Court will consider. Mr. Speaker, the confusion created by this constitutional amendment will create powers in a new bureaucracy, such as the CBO, or cede Congress' taxing power to the court, because someone has to answer the questions that we have not answered. Some faceless bureaucrat punching numbers will have the power to determine how Congress will consider bills. Will the court overturn entitlement reform or cuts in corporate welfare because such initiatives were passed with less than a two- thirds vote? We should not be ceding our powers to courts or unelected economists. Who will be appointed or anointed with the power to decide the golden question: Will a particular bill constitute an increase in the revenue more than a de minimis amount? Last March in the subcommittee, we heard one witness saying that this power should be vested in one person who would have the power to control the legislative powers of Congress. In addition, the complex and subjective nature of economics makes it clear that any interpretation will be disputed, so who becomes the arbitrator of such disputes? Mr. Speaker, the American public deserves answers to these questions before, and not after, we have made a mess that cannot be cleaned up. What happens, for example, if we pass a controversial corporate tax loophole that we estimated would have cost $500 million, only to find later that we made a mistake in our estimate and it will actually cost $5 billion? Although it would have taken a simple majority to pass the subsidy, it would take a two-thirds majority to correct it. For this reason, we should be calling this resolution the loophole protection act. In addition to being vague and biased in its protection of corporate loopholes, this amendment would be unworkable. There is a very good reason why supermajorities are rare in our Constitution. They are rare because the framers of the Constitution learned from their experiences and the failed Continental Congress that excessive supermajority requirements are not practical in an efficient government. Supermajorities are only required for a precious few actions, such as overriding a Presidential veto, impeachment or proposing constitutional amendments to the States. These are well-defined circumstances not open to interpretation. Unfortunately, there will always be numerous interpretations on the question of whether or not a bill will ``increase revenue more than a de minimis amount.'' The fact that we have not been able to adhere to our own tax limitation rules should give us a fairly good idea of how problematic this constitutional amendment will be to the body. In the 104th Congress, we had a rule that required a three-fifths vote on bills involving Federal income tax increases. The story of the tax limitation rule's application in the last Congress was one of waiver after waiver after waiver because many bills included changes in the tax system that could be classified as tax increases. The rule was waived for the 1996 budget reconciliation 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 by a Democratic or Republican president, passed both houses with a two- thirds majority vote. If we could not function with a three-fifths requirement that included a waiver provision, how possibly could anyone think we could function with a two-thirds requirement that could only be waived by war or by amending the Constitution. Mr. Speaker, amending the Constitution is serious business which should not be conducted haphazardly. Some very tough questions have not come even close to being answered; and I, therefore, urge my colleagues to act responsibly and reject this tax day publicity pageantry and vote ``no'' on House Joint Resolution 62.

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

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, this constitutional amendment diverts attention from the fact that today with the deadline for congressional action on the budget, and there was no budget, we have talked about debt; this amendment is a recipe for disaster. We can continue to spend with a simple majority but a two-thirds vote to pay for it. That is a recipe for more debt. Finally, Mr. Speaker, if we passed a loophole for corporations that we thought was going to be $500 million and it was a mistake and was actually a $5 billion loophole, we would have to take a two-thirds majority to close that loophole or, if we cannot get the two-thirds and we are trying to balance the budget, we would have to cut education, Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare to pay for that mistake, because that loophole is protected. Mr. Speaker, we ought to call this the loophole protection act rather than something else. This constitutional amendment is not fair and it should be rejected. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel], ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Gutierrez].

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran].

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers]. (Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs].

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak against the rule for the constitutional amendment of the day. Mr. Speaker, we are here on tax day to consider yet another version of the tax limitation amendment. Unfortunately, the timing of press conferences has taken priority over responsible legislating. At the Committee on Rules, a number of very important amendments were offered but rejected by the Committee on Rules. These amendments would have protected Social Security, they would have maintained our ability to close corporate loopholes, they would have clarified language that both Republican and Democratic hearing witnesses called problematic, and would have addressed the issue of judicial review. Mr. Speaker, it is extremely unfortunate that the only amendment that was accepted was offered by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum], whose self-executing amendment will ensure that a two-thirds majority is not required to reduce capital gains taxes. In response, Mr. Speaker, we should have the opportunity to at least vote on an amendment that will ensure that a two-thirds requirement is not a requirement to close corporate loopholes. We should also have the opportunity to clarify language that witnesses at hearings called silly, impractical and a threat to the Federal Government's budget integrity. We should have the ability to address that concern. Mr. Speaker, because the Committee on Rules once again passed a closed rule, the Members will be deprived of the opportunity to even consider issues which their constituents feel are in their best interests. Mr. Speaker, another problem presented by the rush to hear the bill today is the fact that the language in the proposed constitutional amendment that we will consider today is different from the language that was considered by experts at the subcommittee hearing. This version provides that a two-thirds majority is required for changes in internal revenue laws that increase revenue instead of the previous requirement of a two-thirds majority for legislation that increases the internal revenue. This change is monumental for the very simple fact that no one seems to know what constitutes an internal revenue law. Is a new fee an internal revenue law? If you call the new fee a tax, is it covered? Instead of waiting until we know the ramifications of the amendment, we are rushing to vote today so that some can stand on their pedestals, thump their chests and participate in an April 15 publicity stunt. Changes in this resolution should be made, but instead of making these changes, we are allowing the processes to fall prey to political pageantry. I urge my colleagues to reject the rule.