Bobby Scott

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey for having this special order. I rise to add my voice to the multitude of voices singing the praises of Ron Brown. With all that has been said about him in the last 12 days, some may feel that all that needs to be said has already been said; but as we frequently say, all that need to say it have not already said it. The fact is that we have all been affected by Ron Brown's life in general and in unique ways, and feel the need to ensure that the record of his life and his good works reflects some of those unique contributions. For example, Mr. Speaker, the Newport News shipyard in the Third Congressional District of Virginia, which I represent, was a beneficiary of his good works. Even before the collapse of the cold war, the shipyard knew it needed to diversify its business portfolio beyond just military shipbuilding, so it began to revive its commercial shipbuilding program. Ron Brown stood ready when called upon to help the Newport News Shipyard, just as he had helped so many other businesses before. For the Newport News Shipyard, he took Pat Phillips, the former president of the shipyard, to the Middle East to meet with business and government leaders in Israel, Egypt, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates to market the frigate ship program, and they were very successful. Bill Fricks, the current president of the shipyard, stated upon the news of Ron's death that, and I quote: Ron Brown was a great advocate of our yard and voiced his support for Newport News Shipyard and other Tenneco subsidiaries during numerous trade missions overseas. Not only an advocate of stronger international ties, Brown was also a friend of Newport News Shipyard. He will truly be missed. Mr. Speaker, there have been a lot of words used to describe Ron Brown and his life: trailblazer, bridgebuilder, fence mender, power broker, coalition builder, energizer, visionary, humanitarian, public servant, crusader, lawyer, businessman, politician, husband, father, friend; all extraordinaire. And to this descriptive list I have to add shipbuilder and a friend of the Third Congressional District of Virginia. We are all grateful for his life and his contributions and for the lives and contributions of those who were with him on that fateful trade mission. Mr. Speaker, Ron Brown will truly be missed.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this late-night attack on the Constitution. We all know that this initiative will not become law. It is nothing more than a public relations ploy which panders to voters on April 15. Perhaps some will think that the American people on April 15 will forget that the big fat tax cut for the wealthy that was part of the Republican budget was funded by cutting Medicare, education, and environmental protection programs. Mr. Speaker, much has been said tonight about fiscal responsibility. Mr. Speaker, this amendment does nothing to reduce spending. In fact, it continues to allow spending money by majority vote whereas paying the bills will require a two-thirds vote. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out what will happen to the deficit if this amendment is adopted. Earlier this evening, we heard a list of taxes which would not have been adopted if this amendment had been in effect, but all of the prior spending would have still been adopted. Shamefully, Mr. Speaker, this amendment will also have the effect of requiring a two-thirds vote to eliminate special interest tax breaks and cutting corporate welfare. Mr. Speaker, we need to get serious about facing our budget problems. This amendment will do nothing to curb spending. It will make it more difficult to pay the bills we run up, and at the same time it will shamefully protect corporate welfare and current special interest loopholes. We should defeat this resolution.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, the original bill had broad bipartisan support that guaranteed that those who lose their job for any reason can still get health insurance coverage. This bill is loaded up with so many special interest provisions that for the consumer, the poor and the sick, it does more harm than good. The medical savings accounts will allow a few health people to take money out of the Medicare Program, leaving behind a group that are, on average, sicker and, therefore, will have higher health care costs. The malpractice changes are all slanted to help the wrongdoer at the expense of the victim. They only preempt State laws to the extent that they hurt the victim. Incredibly, the bill provides if the victim is hurt worse under State law, then the State law prevails. Mr. Speaker, we should reject the special-interest wrongdoer protections and instead pass the original bipartisan consumer protection health care bill.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. You mentioned the time between 3 and 6, between the time they leave school. It is also the time, 6 is the time the parents finally come home from work.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I would like to first thank Mrs. Clayton for organizing this special order in support of the goals of the national campaign to reduce teen pregnancy. Representative Clayton's efforts to highlight this issue of teen pregnancy prevention are certainly timely as Congress continues to debate welfare reform and children and youth issues. Mr. Speaker, last month I sponsored a public policy forum on health care issues confronting adolescents in the 1990's. That forum was sponsored with the Advocates of Youth, a national organization committed to public outreach and education on adolescent health issues. The four panelists that were involved in that forum covered issues ranging from the increase in HIV/AIDS in the youth population to the current battles surrounding family life education in school districts. Everyone who attended that policy forum agreed that today's youth face greater challenges than ever before. The challenges presented by teen pregnancy can seem insurmountable in light of the correlation between adolescent childbearing and education and economic attainment. According to research compiled by the Advocates for Youth, the chance of graduation from high school increases by 30 percent for teenagers who postpone childbearing, and among dropouts, teen mothers are less likely to return to school than others. The organization goes on to report that early childbearing has an impact on the economic status of teens by not only affecting job opportunities and marital options and family structure, but particularly because of the effect it has on education. In fact, across all ethnic groups, delaying childbirth by just 1 year leads to significant improvement in subsequent economic vitality. Not only does teen pregnancy affect the teen, but it also affects the entire community. Teen pregnancy prevention has been a priority in my State of Virginia because we have long recognized the devastating effects that early childbearing has on teens and their children and also on the community. Representative Jackson-Lee and Representative Meek both indicated that teenage pregnancy caused expenses in their States. The statement is true in Virginia. One study found that one-half of all of our AFDC case loads, one-half of the people receiving AFDC, began their families with a teen pregnancy. You not only have AFDC, you also have the related expenses like Medicaid and other social services, so we see that it is a very expensive proposition for the community. As a result, in response to this we have developed several programs to educate adolescents on the issue of teen pregnancy prevention. These programs function at the local level and place their emphasis on mentoring, parental involvement, postponing sexual activity, and the promotion of abstinence. In addition, Virginia has a mandatory family life education curriculum in its elementary and secondary schools. We have found that these programs have been very instrumental in reducing teen pregnancy, particularly the programs that focus on education, increasing opportunity for our young people, giving them something constructive to do with their time, and giving them adult guidance. As Representative Jackson-Lee indicated, those who feel that they have a future are not the ones getting pregnant. We have found that these programs have been instrumental in reducing teen pregnancy and, thus, we have provided Virginia's youth with an opportunity to grow into adulthood without the burdens of early childbearing. These programs share the goals of the National Campaign on Teen Pregnancy, and I enthusiastically support both efforts. Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not mention that there are programs in place right now that have been integral in reducing teen pregnancy by offering teens the opportunity for success. These programs involve job training, summer jobs and other activities, other activities to help them stay in school. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the Summer Jobs Youth Program, job training, Head Start and other dropout prevention initiatives are now at risk because of the misguided priorities in some of our budget initiatives. The recently passed omnibus appropriations bill targeted the Summer Jobs Youth Program for elimination, and drastically reduced Head Start youth training and school-to-work activities. If our goal is to eliminate the obstacles that young people face and instead provide them with opportunity, these programs must be fully funded. Again, I would like to thank Representative Clayton for inviting me to participate in this special order, and I look forward to working with the national campaign on the important issue of teenage pregnancy prevention.

Mr. SCOTT. Studies have shown that during that time, a significant number of pregnancies occur. We also found that those who think they have a future are less likely to get pregnant. Therefore, college scholarships and other activities designed to make sure those opportunities are available must be fully funded, and cutting back in that area will increase teen pregnancies.

Mr. SCOTT. It is a time they are unsupervised.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, because the program in the bill is revenue neutral, and the amendment will hurt farmers and not benefit consumers.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to a great American, a great humanitarian, a great representative of the people, a great friend--Kweisi Mfume, whose letter of resignation from this body was read earlier tonight. The event of the 104th Congress brought with it many changes. Many of these changes do not bode well for African- Americans, other minorities, the elderly, the poor, students, and working class Americans. Knowing this, I cannot be totally saddened by the departure of my distinguished colleague from this body, because I know that this leaving Congress is truly for the greater good of all these groups and the American community at large. Representative Kweisi Mfume's leadership is needed elsewhere at this time, and I look forward to supporting his efforts in his new role as President and CEO of the NAACP. The NAACP is gaining the experience and leadership of a man who recognizes the importance of coalition building--he has shown his ability to move coalitions towards their goals without sacrificing principle. The NAACP is gaining the knowledge of a man who recognizes the importance of economic development and empowerment, and one who has used his legislative experience to advance the causes of small and minority-owned businesses and to encourage banks to invest in economic development opportunities within inner city communities. The NAACP is gaining the expertise of the former chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, who during his tenure, elevated the Black Caucus to a position of national prominence. Kweisi Mfume now takes on a new challenge--to rebuild the NAACP and elevate its prominence. With this is mind, I cannot be saddened by is departure--there is too much to look forward to.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton].

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Pennsylvania has outlined the need for the bill. Taxes ought to be as fair and equitable as possible, and the fact is that it is virtually impossible in many circumstances to calculate these taxes because people will move from State to State, they will change jobs, and if you move even within the same corporation from one State to another State, and then retire, if the States in which you worked tried to figure out which portion of that pension check was attributable to which State you worked in which you worked there, it would be virtually impossible. In fact, the only people that are caught up with this tax right now are basically State employees where the State government is writing the check and sending it to another State and they have the money and they are withholding the money. It is very haphazard in its application and it is therefore unfair. I therefore agree with the general purposes of the bill, but I do have one or two reservations. There are two significant differences between the bill that passed the House last Congress and the bill that is before us today. Last Congress' bill exempted only the first $30,000 of pension income since it was designated to help the modest-income individuals while allowing States to continue to tax their higher-income retirees. That is one point. The other is that the bill was also limited to what are called qualified pension plans while the bill before us today is not. That is primarily where the problem lies, and some of us have reservations about the bill although we will not oppose it today. Nonqualified plans, Mr. Speaker, are not recognized as pensions under Federal law and are not subject to any rules, regulations, guidelines or limitation in this use. They are typically used by a small number of highly compensated executives to defer taxes on large sums of compensation. At the subcommittee hearing, for example, the director of benefits and planning at a large corporation stated that all 76,000 of their employees were in qualified plans while only 400, about one-half of 1 percent, were in nonqualified plans. A professor at the University of Georgia law school pointed out virtually all Americans are eligible for or, in fact, participated in some kind of qualified plan. The potential for tax avoidance by highly compensated individuals who funnel amounts into nonqualified plans in the last years before retirement are simply too great of a risk. These individuals would be sufficiently sheltered by Federal legislation that exempts a normally qualified plan, whatever that happens to be. Mr. Speaker, the amendment offered in the subcommittee by the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Reed] attempted to draw a distinction between the taxation and qualified or nonqualified plans. That amendment passed. The manager's substitute refines that amendment so that those who are in most nonqualified plans can be properly considered. Mr. Speaker, I believe that we have to monitor this provision of the bill closely to insure that it is not abused. However, I will not oppose the legislation and hope that it may be revised in the Senate. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Thurman].

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, this evening, I join my colleagues in commemorating the 125th anniversary of the swearing-in of an outstanding legislator, leader and African-American hero--Congressman Joseph Hayne Rainey of South Carolina. Participating in this commemoration is a special privilege for me because direct descendants of Congressman Joseph Rainey are constituents of mine in the Third District of Virginia. Congressman Rainey was the first African-American ever elected to the House of Representatives, who actually served in this body. He was elected during the Reconstruction period, in a special election to fill the unexpired term created by the resignation of an incumbent. Congressman Rainey was born to slave parents in Georgetown, SC, on June 21, 1832. His father purchased his family's freedom and taught Congressman Rainey the barber's trade. Rainey lived for a time in Philadelphia and it was there that he met and married his wife, Susan. During the Civil War, Rainey was drafted and served passengers on a Confederate blockade runner. In 1862, he and his wife escaped on a blockade runner to Bermuda, where slavery had been abolished in 1834. In 1866, Congressman Rainey returned with his wife to Georgetown, SC, where he became active in the political life of his community. He joined the South Carolina Republican Party and became a representative to the 1868 South Carolina Constitutional Convention. He was elected to a 4-year term in the State senate. Two months later, he was nominated by his party and elected to the 41st Congress. After serving the partial term in the 41st Congress, he won reelection without opposition in 1872. Congressman Rainey was an active and vocal proponent for social and economic justice during his tenure in office. He spoke on behalf of the civil rights bill sponsored by Senator Charles Sumner that outlawed racial discrimination in schools, transportation and public accommodations. In addition, he fought to expand educational opportunities by insisting that Federal aid to education be provided to all citizens and not exclude individuals by either race or region. In the congressional debate on the issue of education, Congressman Rainey stated: I would not have it known that this ignorance is widespread; it is not confined to any one State. This mental midnight, we might justly say, is a national calamity, and not necessarily sectional. We should, therefore, avail power to avert its direful effects. The great remedy, in my judgment, is free schools, established and aided by the government throughout the land. Another historical moment during Rainey's congressional service occurred in 1874, when he became the first African-American to preside over a House session. Throughout his tenure in the House, opponents of Congressman Rainey challenged his elections. He faced virulent opposition by whites because he represented the interests of both his African-American and white constituents. Eventually, such opposition took its toll and Rainey was defeated in 1878. Congressman Rainey's service in Congress was noteworthy not only for its historic significance, but for the excellent role model he set, as well, for those of us since privileged to serve in this body. We all owe him a debt of gratitude for his life and the legacy of service he left us.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins], ranking member of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight. (Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Doggett].

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, we are supporting the printed bill that is before us. Would we not have the ability to close? We are defending the reported bill.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, we are the committee of jurisdiction. Do we have the right to close?

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the resolution, and in particular the provision involving death row appeals. Mr. Speaker, the provisions in this bill are different from the provisions in the House-passed bill, and these provisions have been sprung on us in the last 24 hours. Mr. Speaker, the provisions of this will do nothing to reduce crime. Death row inmates are not the ones out there robbing, raping and murdering in the streets. There is not even anecdotal evidence these inmates are the cause of crime in our community. Mr. Speaker, we have not addressed the problem of innocent people being put to death. It was reported in the New York Times this Sunday that a man who had been on death row for 11 years in Illinois was released after being acquitted when a subsequent trial disclosed that a police officer had lied in the first trial. What have we done about the police officer lying? Yesterday we had a hearing on a bill that would limit the civil liability of the police officer who lied, and today we consider legislation that will put the defendant to death quicker so it will be less likely we ever could have found out the truth. Mr. Speaker, if we are going to do something about crime, we need to do something different than what we have done so far this year, such as cut funding for attorneys and death row appeals, which will create more complications and more appeals. We have cut funding for crime prevention and cops on the beat; cut funding for summer jobs, putting more youth out on the streets; cut funding for college scholarships and Head Start. All of that will increase crime. If we really wanted to do something about crime, we would increase the money for Head Start, summer jobs, college scholarships, crime prevention and cops on the beat, and not insert these useless sound bites in essential legislation. Mr. Speaker, we should focus on the financial crisis before us and not sneak provisions such as this through a debt ceiling resolution.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we previously heard about the deficit. We can remind everyone that most of the national debt was run up during the Reagan and Bush administrations. Congress actually cut most of their budgets. Mr. Speaker, this is not the House-passed regulatory reform bill. It has not been negotiated by the Senate. The Senate has never passed the regulatory reform bill, and some Senate Republicans will object to its inclusion in the debt bill. This is a 122-page amendment which was written last night without consultation with the Senate or House Democrats. It overrides existing laws to protect public health, safety, and environment. It will lead to regulatory gridlock and a litigation explosion and will cripple the cleanup efforts at our military bases. We have had a bad process, it is a bad amendment. Please vote no on this amendment. Mr. Walker. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, we have had an interesting debate, and obviously it is very difficult to debate the substance for the other side because all they want to do is talk about process. But that is fine. As my colleagues know, that is the way in which the process goes forward I guess. But the bottom line is that what we ought to be talking about is how we balance the budget and get the burden of regulations off the back of the American people. Mr. Speaker, the most important thing this Congress can do is to balance the budget so we can stop having to keep heaping even more Federal debt on our children. To accomplish this paramount goal, we have to cut unnecessary spending and costs. This goes for the competitiveness of the private sector as well, which is what this amendment addresses. Mr. Speaker, in an era of tough budget realities which the bill before us brings home to roost, policy-makers need to make choices and set priorities--to concentrate scarce dollars where they will do the most good, and analyze alternatives to achieve the goal of public safety at the lowest possible cost. At this critical point in our effort to change the way Washington works, we believe that we have a unique opportunity to move this consensus reform right now. After 10 years of lip service by the Democrat congresses before this to the whole question of U.S. competitiveness, but no action except for even more Federal spending in the form of industrial policy subsidies, we now have the chance to do something really big. We now have a chance to speak to the 450 to 800 billion dollars' worth of regulations imposed upon the economy every year. President Clinton says he has to raise the debt ceiling. Well, at the same time we can give him the opportunity to remove the need for so much wasteful Federal corporate welfare spending which combats the unnecessary costs of unjustified regulations. This landmark competitiveness initiative, will be worth more than about 100 Advanced Technology programs or other Government spending programs. What we can begin to do is deal with the issue of regulation. Here is that chance. Here is an opportunity to use a consensus approach to begin to wipe out the regulations that so far undermine the economy by asking the Members of this body to do as they have done before, support regulatory reform. Vote for the Walker-Bliley amendment. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan [Ms. Rivers].

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers], ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary. (Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.).

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