Bobby Scott

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Before I begin discussing my concerns with the specific amendment, I would like to say a few words about my concern with the priorities of the House. Mr. Speaker, I remind my colleagues that we have not yet reached an accord on the budget. Today is the deadline for Congress to have completed action on our budget, and yet we are debating senseless constitutional amendments, intervening in impending cases, and we are passing worthless resolutions. Instead of participating in tax day political pagentry, I would hope that we would begin to address some of the serious issues facing the American public today. Mr. Speaker, I have some very serious concerns about the constitutional amendment of the week, House Joint Resolution 62, the proposed constitutional amendment with respect to tax limitations. My concerns are not objections to my colleagues' attempts to limit new taxes. All Members of this Congress should be constantly asking themselves whether our tax system is fair and appropriate. In fact, our Committee on Ways and Means has the responsibility of addressing these complex issues in great detail. The end of limiting new taxes, however, is not the issue here. Rather, it is the issue of a means which is impractical and counterproductive, and that is what I have concerns about. The terms of the amendment are unbelievably vague. About the only thing clear about this amendment is the fact that this amendment will cause great confusion. Both Democratic and Republican witnesses at the subcommittee hearing expressed very serious concerns about House Joint Resolution 62. 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 and unworkable. The vagueness issue is further exacerbated by a change made to the language seemingly in response to the negative comments made by experts at the hearings. Our subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady] to his credit, has made a valiant effort to correct some of those problems. However, I think the mission was just impossible. The language considered by the experts at the hearing required a two- thirds majority to, quote, increase the Internal Revenue. We marked up a very different language in the committee than that which was reviewed by the experts. The language we considered in the Committee on the Judiciary and are now considering on the floor requires a two-thirds majority to, quote, change Internal Revenue laws if they increase the Internal Revenue by more than a de minimis amount. Of course, no one seems to have a good idea of what constitutes a, quote, Internal Revenue law or what exactly may be considered a de minimis amount. My office has contacted a number of tax lawyers, including some of the witnesses who testified before the Subcommittee on the Constitution. None of them has a clear idea as to what will or will not be considered a, quote, Internal Revenue law. The committee report further fuels the confusion by stating that Internal Revenue laws are laws both within the Internal Revenue Code and outside the Internal Revenue Code. In other words, even the Committee on the Judiciary that reported the bill does not have a clear idea of what will and will not be considered a, quote, Internal Revenue law.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Stark].

Mr. SCOTT. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Barton].

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I will regain my time and yield to the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt] very briefly.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I will continue to yield if the gentleman will explain what he is reading off of.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Klink].

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio].

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 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 rise today on behalf of Congressman Herb Bateman and myself to pay tribute to Dr. Paul F. Holloway on the occasion of his recent retirement from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, or NASA. During a career spanning nearly 37 years. which included over 5 years as the director of NASA's Langley Research Center in Virginia, Mr. Holloway exemplified the leadership, wisdom, and scientific achievement for which NASA has long been proud. Following graduation from the Virginia Polytechnical Institute and State University, Paul began his distinguished career at NASA as an aerospace research engineer. By 1972 he was already the chief of the Space Systems Division, and, only 3 years later, was named the Director for Space. In this position, Mr. Holloway led efforts in advanced space transportation, the space station, large space antenna research, and Langley's atmospheric science programs. As a fitting pinnacle of a dedicated career, Paul was named as the 6th director of the Langley Research Center in 1991. Among Paul's awards and honors are an honorary doctorate from old Dominion University in our home State, membership in the International Academy of Astronautics, the Presidential rank of Meritorious Service, the Senior Executive Service's Distinguished Presidential Rank award-- presented in 1987 and again in 1993--and NASA's Equal Employment Opportunity Medal for ``exemplary leadership, commitment to equity, diversity, and excellence * * *.'' Under Paul Holloway's leadership, the NASA Langley Research Center has continued its 80 years of invaluable service to the Nation's scientific, space, and aeronautic research and development efforts and he has helped it to achieve worldwide recognition. Thanks in large part to Paul's direction, NASA as an ageny--and the Largely Research Center in particular--are now both on a direct course toward the 21st century, ready to expand on the proud achievements and heritage which has been the hallmark of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The Nation owes a debt of gratitude to Paul Holloway and, Mr. Speaker, I am proud to take the opportunity today to recognize his service publicly.

Mr. SCOTT

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

Mr. SCOTT. Could the gentleman indicate what he was reading, Mr. Speaker? We will get the citation on that for the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, I cannot support this bill because it is unconstitutional. In a full committee debate on a similar bill, the proponents have acknowledged that it is in fact unconstitutional under the present Supreme Court decisions. Though abortion has always been a controversial issue, the fact is that since 1973, in the Supreme Court Roe versus Wade, abortion has been legal in this country. It is still the law of the land that a woman's right to an abortion before fetal viability is a fundamental right, but the Government may prohibit postviability abortions absent a substantial threat to the life or health of the mother. We may agree or disagree on the Supreme Court decisions, but that is in fact the law of the land. The Supreme Court has prohibited regulations that place an undue burden on women seeking abortions, and included in this undue burden concept is a prohibition against regulations that jeopardize a woman's health by chilling the physician's exercise of discretion in determining which abortion method may be used. Mr. Speaker, this bill will prohibit the use of one procedure that may be the safest for women in certain circumstances. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the largest organization of women's doctors, says that this legislation has the potential of prohibiting specific medical practices that are critical to the lives and health of American women. Mr. Speaker, such interference in a physician's exercise of discretion jeopardizes the health of women and is as dangerous as it is unconstitutional. Although the health of the mother must remain the primary interest in order to meet constitutional muster, this bill includes no provision which allows an exception from the ban in those cases where other methods pose a serious health risk to the mother. The Partial-birth Abortion Act will not prevent a single abortion. It simply prevents one procedure that in certain circumstances is the most appropriate procedure available. Mr. Speaker, many of my colleagues and I are open to working with the majority on language that would have brought this bill within constitutional limits. For example, many of us support a ban, a total prohibition, on all abortions not protected by Roe versus Wade; that is, all abortions not specifically excepted and prohibited from prohibition under Roe versus Wade. This bill only prohibits one procedure, not the decision to undergo an abortion. Therefore, if this bill passes, some women may be relegated to a more dangerous procedure which may well increase their chances of being killed, maimed, or sterilized, and I hope my colleagues will work to protect the health of the women in America by defeating this bill.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to thank the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton], the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Davis], and the gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman] for their work on the District of Columbia Inspector General Improvement Act. Mr. Speaker, it is noncontroversial. A lot of work has gone into it, and Mr. Speaker, I would hope that the House would pass the bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia [Ms. Norton].

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

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, our Constitution created a government which is premised on checks and balances through a separation of powers among independent branches of government. The legislative branch is empowered to make laws subject to certain limitations such as constitutional prohibitions against bills of attainder, that special legislation, and ex post facto laws, those that are retroactively applied. The function of the legislative branch is to enforce the laws. The judiciary interprets the laws and adjudicates cases and controversies arising under them. In 1803, the Supreme Court said in the landmark Marbury versus Madison, ``One branch is not permitted to encroach on the domain of another.'' H.R. 924 violates the constitutional framework of separation of powers and its undue retroactive interference with a ruling in a pending criminal case. It is an obvious attempt to obtain legislatively a ruling in the Oklahoma bombing case different from the one already entered into by a Federal judge according to the law and according to the facts in the particular case and twice sustained on appellate review. The constitutional prohibitions against the enactment of ex post facto laws and bills of attainder reflect the constitutional concern that the political process might be abused to unduly punish the unpopular or impose by legislation a special penalty against specific persons or classes of persons. As James Madison put it, retroactive legislation of this kind abusively affords special opportunities for the politically popular and powerful to obtain improper legislative benefits. Mr. Speaker, it is, therefore, unseemly for someone in the middle of a trial to seek congressional assistance to affect the outcome of that case. Mr. Speaker, the judge in this case has determined that such sequestration of the impact witnesses was necessary to ensure that their testimony will remain in fact crime impact statements and not trial process impact statements. Whether or not Congress agrees with this ruling, the judge should have the ability to render it according to the law and the facts before him in this particular case. He is in the best position to make such a difficult determination. The judge should be allowed to run his courtroom and conduct these trials without Congress grabbing the gavel from him after a ruling not to our political liking. Intervention by Congress in a pending case is not only a blatant intrusion upon the constitutional principles of separation of powers, it also exposes a criminal trial to problematic publicity because the U.S. Congress has obviously weighed in on one side of a pending case. Due to the enormous pretrial publicity surrounding the Oklahoma bombing case, the trial of the case has already been removed not just from Oklahoma City, but entirely outside the State of Oklahoma. Additional complaints of prejudicial and pretrial publicity are under consideration in connection with alleged breaches of attorney-client confidentiality privileges. And so this highly politicized intervention in the case by Congress will only add to the possible case infirmities and, while addressing the understandable concerns of victims, may jeopardize the Government's case altogether. H.R. 924 requires the court to allow victim impact witnesses to observe court proceedings, including viewing trial exhibits and the defendants and their lawyers over several months. This requirement stays in effect whether or not the judge determines that such viewing will prejudicially taint their testimony. While prejudicially tainted testimony is a problem in any case, it is especially problematic in a Federal death penalty case, and the legislation before us fails to consider the stark differences between the trial of a capital and noncapital case. In noncapital cases, the victims' crime impact statements are made directly to the judge alone during the sentencing phase of the trial. The judge has the experience in properly weighing emotional, inflammatory rhetoric and separating that which is relevant and irrelevant. In capital cases, however, the crime impact statements are made directly to a jury and may well include emotional, inflammatory and irrelevant testimony. Unfortunately, an amendment to limit the application of this bill to noncapital cases was defeated in committee, and therefore all pending and future capital cases will be exposed to new challenges because of the passage of this bill. Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time in recent years that Congress has acted as a super appellate court by intervening in a pending case to impose a politically popular ruling different from the results achieved through court deliberations. In the Morgan-Foretich custody case, Congress served as a super Supreme Court to overturn court decisions Members did not like. Just last week, the House served as an adviser to the Alabama Supreme Court in a pending case involving the Ten Commandments. Furthermore, this is not even the first time that Congress has acted to control a court determination in the Oklahoma bombing case itself. Last year Congress added a special provision to the antiterrorism bill directing that in any trial where a venue is changed by ``more than 350 miles'' the court shall ``order closed circuit televising of the proceedings.'' Mr. Speaker, the Oklahoma bombing case is the only one which fits that description. Mr. Speaker, this legislation violates the fundamental constitutional principle of separation of powers. It also risks further prejudicing the outcome of the pending criminal case which has already been moved out of State due to extensive pretrial publicity, and it fails to differentiate between the potential impact of inflammatory testimony in a capital case and a noncapital case. Finally, it creates the unseemly spectacle of Congress intervening to affect the outcome of a pending capital case. Mr. Speaker, high profile cases are the truest test of the American Constitution. Congress should not act as an interlocutory court of appeals. In such cases, tinkering with the judicial process to affect the outcome of a particular pending case holds the entire process up to ridicule. Mr. Speaker, I therefore ask that our colleagues vote no on this motion.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, our religious freedom is the foundation of our free society. This country was established on the high ideals of allowing everyone to practice the religion of their choice without interference of government. This resolution, unfortunately, represents a retreat from that very principle that has made us a great and tolerant Nation. This case we address today involves a judge whose refusal to obey a court order is being reviewed by an Alabama Supreme Court. This is not a matter on which we have jurisdiction. The rulings to date are completely consistent with the precedents that have been long established by the courts. This case is still pending and we should not interfere with these proceedings. If the hanging of these Ten Commandments is unconstitutional, then it really does not matter what we think. We should abide with the law. If they are constitutional, then let the process go forward. Mr. Speaker, I think one of the important factors is that one's religious beliefs should not be a factor in whether or not one will receive justice in America's courts. This is the issue presented by this amendment. It is not about the Ten Commandments or one's feelings about the Ten Commandments. It is about a courtroom remaining a fair place for all religions. The courtroom loses its neutrality when it endorses a specific religious doctrine. Despite my own beliefs in favor of the Ten Commandments, I do not believe that my personal views should be forced on others seeking the objective forum of a court of law. The first amendment reads in part, therefore, that Congress should make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The posting of the Ten Commandments in the courtroom is an intentional governmental establishment of religion. The courts have already spoken on this issue. In Stone versus Grahm, the Supreme Court struck down a Kentucky law requiring the posting of the Ten Commandments in public schools. At least one Federal court has already decided that the posting of the Ten Commandments in a courtroom is unconstitutional, and there is no precedent to suggest that this resolution could possibly be constitutional. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, anyone thinking that a vote for this resolution represents a show of their own support for the virtues of the Ten Commandments should take pause. This actually demeans Christianity rather than upholds it. Benjamin Franklin once wrote, ``When religion is good, I conceive that it will support itself; and, when it cannot support itself, and God does not take care to support it, so that its professors are obliged to call for the help of the civil power, it is a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one.'' Mr. Speaker, Christians do not need the courts to endorse or legitimize our religion, and asking for support from a court for endorsement is self-defeating. Mr. Speaker, when the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom was passed, Thomas Jefferson wrote to James Madison the following: ``It is comfortable to see the standard of reason at length erected, after so many ages during which the human mind has been held in vassalage by kings, priests, and nobles; and it is honorable for us to have produced the first legislature who has had the courage to declare that the reason of man may be trusted with the formation of his own opinions.'' Mr. Speaker, this resolution comes to us without warning, without hearings, without deliberation. It has come without an explanation of why it is so urgent that, if it is constitutional, the process will work its will. If it is not constitutional, it does not matter what we think. In either case, I do not think we should position ourselves with a judge for whom a court has ruled he is breaking the law and a judge who has proclaimed that we will ignore the very law he is supposed to uphold. Mr. Speaker, we have other things that we should be doing, juvenile justice, education, health care, employment, the budget. We should be attending to those rather than this resolution that comes, as I said, without warning, without hearings, and without deliberation. Mr. Speaker, we should, therefore, defeat this resolution.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee]. (Ms. JACKSON-LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume just to make a very brief comment in closing. We have to look at the context in this particular case, in this particular courtroom. The context, as in the order against the judge, indicated that if he had a display similar to the one in the Supreme Court that had the Ten Commandments in the context of historical perspective where it is not specifically singled out, not endorsed, then it would be okay. The court in this case was given that option and denied it because he said that he wants to make a religious statement. The context is such that one would doubt whether or not they would have a fair trial if they do not believe in that particular religion. I do not think anyone thinks that their legislation may be in jeopardy based on their religious beliefs based on the statement right above your head, Mr. Speaker. They are free to state their beliefs and their position on legislation or the outcome of their legislation is not jeopardized by virtue of those beliefs. I think it is reasonable to assume if you did not believe what the judge did, after he has stated a prayer, as he has, and the one religion singled out for display, I think you could reasonably assume that the outcome of your case may be jeopardized if you do not enjoy that same religion. It is the context in which these Ten Commandments are presented that creates the problem. The court has been ruled out of order. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we should vote against this resolution.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Horn].

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt].

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

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of Congressman Herb Bateman and myself, it is with honor and great pride that I rise today to recognize a group of young men from my district who have distinguished themselves, their school, their community and the Commonwealth of Virginia. The Hampton High School Crabbers Football team had an awesome season this past year and I believe that the Crabbers deserve formal recognition for their accomplishments. They are the 1996 group AAA Virginia State Champions with a remarkable 14-0 record. The Hampton Crabbers have now won a total of 14 State championships and 5 over the last 11 years. And when the Crabbers win, they don't just win. This year, they set a national record by outscoring their opponents 819 to 83. This year's team won their 14th State championship game by final score of 51-0. The Hampton Crabbers also broke the record for most touchdown passes in a season--36--breaking the old record of 30; and most touchdowns scored in a season--40--breaking the old record of 36. The team just didn't make headlines in the Tidewater area. This season the team was ranked No. 2 in the Nation by USA Today; and ranked No. 1 by the Sporting News, The Dick Butkus Football Network, The National Prep Football Poll and the National Sporting News Service and the National High School Athletic Coaches Association. Over the last 26 seasons, the Hampton High Crabbers, led by Coach Mike Smith, have amassed a record of 271 wins, 41 losses and 2 ties. During that period the Crabbers have broken several State and national records. In recognition of this remarkable season, Coach Smith has been named coach of the year by the National Sports News Service and the National High School Athletic Coaches Association.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, we have already spoken about the trivializing of the Constitution. Obviously this process suggests that we are involved in a very trivial situation right now, voting on separate amendments where the only difference is whether sections are 1, 2, 3, capital A, B and C or small A, B and C and taking separate votes on each one. I will incorporate by reference the substantive arguments that have been made heretofore that have resulted in the defeat of amendments by margins of three and four to one or worse. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would point out that the exercise that we have been through would suggest that if an amendment ever passed that did not allow the States to reduce the time, we would be back here year after year after year. We have seen amendments presented where if we did not accept exactly the State language, not only the State language but the State designation of the sections, using a capital ``A'' rather than a small ``a'' or a number 1 rather than an A or a B, that they will be back. So if we want any finality to this, this amendment is absolutely essential. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.