Bobby Scott

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. About $500 a month more for health care than they're paying now. That was the plan.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. There's a provision in the prescriptive drug benefit that passed about a decade ago that prohibits HHS from negotiating drug prices with pharmaceuticals. Now, the VA can negotiate prices; Medicaid can negotiate prices. But somehow, somebody, I don't know who, nobody's taking credit for it, it just kind of ended up in there, prohibits HHS from negotiating drug prices. So when a company says this is what we want, it is illegal for HHS to point out that you're charging everybody less, you charge in Canada less--how about giving us a little savings--that's illegal. Whatever they want, that's what they get.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. If you look at the budget and if you take out Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and defense and if you just look at what's called the nondefense discretionary budget, that's about--I'd say in round figures--$400 billion. If you're trying to get $4 trillion in cuts in 10 years, that's $400 billion a year. You would have to eliminate government. There would be no Embassy security, no FBI agents, no food inspection, no Federal prisons, no Head Start, no education, no FEMA, no transportation. I mean, nothing, nothing.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, on behalf of the Congressional Black Caucus, we would like to discuss the fiscal cliff and our position on the ongoing negotiations. We didn't get here, Madam Speaker, by accident. I was elected in 1992. In the 1993 budget, we addressed fiscal responsibility by passing the Clinton budget. It was very controversial. In fact, it only passed by one vote of the House, and the Vice President had to vote in the Senate to break the tie. That budget put us on a trajectory toward fiscal responsibility. That was interrupted by a controversy in 1995, when the Republicans, using the votes on that budget, picked up a majority in the House and tried to dismantle that budget. President Clinton allowed the government to get shut down rather than dismantle the budget. That budget stayed into effect until 2001. In 2001, Chairman Greenspan was answering questions like: Are we paying off the national debt too quickly, and should we pay off the national debt? The projections were that, by 2008, the entire national debt held by the public would be paid off with no money owed to China, Japan, or Saudi Arabia. We would have paid off all of those debts. All the money would have been back in the trust funds by 2013. That's where we were beginning in 2001, but the Republicans talked people into thinking that you could pass tax cuts without paying for them, massive tax cuts in 2001 and 2003. There were two wars not paid for and a prescription drug benefit not paid for. All of that surplus evaporated, and now we find ourselves deeply in debt. Rather than paying off the debt, we have more than doubled the debt. Now it's obvious we have to do something about it, and the Congressional Black Caucus is willing to do its part within certain parameters. This is the Congressional Black Caucus position on going forward: Excessive partisanship and a lack of willingness to compromise has led us to this moment where tough choices must be made to prevent our Nation from going over the fiscal cliff, but one thing is clear: The path to fiscal sustainability must not be made on the backs of our Nation's most vulnerable communities. As President Obama and congressional leaders continue to negotiate ways to avoid the fiscal cliff, the Congressional Black Caucus will adhere to the following principles in considering its support of any agreement: First, we must protect our social safety net. Social Security should be completely off the negotiating table since it does not contribute to the deficit. Additionally, the Congressional Black Caucus will specifically oppose any plan that changes eligibility for Medicare. Investments in job training, education, health care, transportation, and infrastructure should not be cut to pay for the extension of any of the Bush-era tax cuts. These vital government investments are critical to our Nation's short-term recovery and long-term economic prosperity. The Simpson-Bowles Commission set a goal of $4 trillion in deficit reduction over the next decade. Considering that goal, $1.5 trillion in cuts have already been agreed to through the spending caps in the Budget Control Act of 2011. Non-defense discretionary spending, as a percentage of GDP, is at a 50-year low. Additional savings through reductions in military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan should also be recognized. So we've gone a long way in recognizing the $4 trillion goal. The wealthiest Americans disproportionately benefited from the Bush- era tax cuts and the Federal Government's 2008 bailout of some of the largest firms on Wall Street. Revenue increases and allowing the Bush- era tax cuts to expire for the wealthiest Americans must be part of any agreement. The Congressional Black Caucus supports extending the middle class Bush-era tax cuts, but any extension must be paid for in ways that are consistent with these principles. We should not agree to the extension of any tax cuts without knowing how we will pay for them. We cannot allow an extension of tax cuts now, only to discover that they'll be paid for by cutting Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and other critical social safety net programs later. The Affordable Care Act should not be on the negotiating table. The program does not add to the debt and must be protected and fully implemented as planned. Millions of Americans are already benefiting from health care reform, and millions of Americans stand to gain access to affordable health care insurance in 2014. Emergency unemployment insurance must be extended. Every dollar spent on unemployment insurance generates $1.55 in economic activity. Unemployment benefits are the most effective fiscal policy to stimulate the economy and put people back to work. Our economy is slowly recovering from the deepest recession since the Great Depression, and 2 million workers would be stripped of their emergency unemployment compensation if no action is taken by the end of the year. Earlier this year, the Congressional Black Caucus offered an effective alternative budget that addresses the sequester and fully pays for an extension of Bush-era middle class tax cuts without cutting Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and the social safety net, while also ensuring that we invest in our children, our communities, and our economy. We can get this done if we do this consistent with the Congressional Black Caucus principles. The vulnerable will not be hurt. We're close, but we cannot agree to any kind of scheme that puts us in a situation where we extend tax cuts now and then later find that we're going to pay for them on the backs of the most vulnerable in our community. I now yield such time as she may consume to the gentlelady from Wisconsin, a very active member of the Budget Committee, Ms. Moore.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. You would have to eliminate everything in order to fund a total extension of the tax cuts. Now, obviously, that's not going to happen. Obviously, if you extend the tax cuts without offsetting it with other revenues, you've got to go into Social Security and Medicare. When they talk about reducing the size of government, that's why they can't tell you what they're going to cut, because they can't cut that much. When they say they're going to close the corporate loopholes, they can't name them because the corporate loopholes don't add up to enough. When you start talking about Head Start and the legal aid and all those, you're talking about hundreds of millions of dollars. We're trying to get to trillions.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. So it is one of the most effective things. If you put $1 into unemployment compensation, economic activity is about $1.55. If you give a $1 tax cut on dividends, the economic activity is about 15 cents because the people getting that benefit will just spend what they ordinarily spend. They may pay off a credit card, they may save some money, but they're not going to spend the money. You want the money in the hands of people who will actually spend it if you want the economy stimulated.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, just in closing, the gentlelady pointed out that bad things happen if we go over the cliff. Bad things are going to happen if we get serious about deficit reduction. The only way you can deal with deficit reduction is to raise somebody's taxes or to cut somebody's spending. It's going to be unpleasant. Until you recognize that arithmetic reality, we're not going to make any progress. You're not going to be popular doing deficit reductions, but we have choices to make. We can do this without cutting Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid, the social safety net, or investments in our future. We have a list of ways of doing it, with specifics. Now, we're willing to compromise, of course, but you can't compromise by reducing the size of government with unspecified cuts. Until you specify them, you can't have a discussion. You can't have unspecified revenues that don't involve rate increases when we don't know what you're talking about. We can't compromise on that because there is no proposal to compromise. We need specifics. We cannot allow people to try to get past a scheme where you extend the tax cuts at a huge price and then come back next year and try to pay for them and notice that you're so broke you have to cut Social Security and Medicare. If that's your plan, let's get it all up front: we're going to cut Social Security and Medicare in order to provide for some tax cuts. I think most people would say, no, leave Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid alone. If you've got some money left over from tax cuts, fine, but we do not want Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid to be cut in order to provide for tax cuts. When you start talking about, well, increase the age or reduce the COLA, those are just ways of reducing benefits. So we need to make that threshold statement that we're not going to allow Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid to be used to pay for any of these tax cuts, and we will not allow a scheme to take place where we all agree on some tax cuts first, and then find out that because of the size of the tax cuts we have to cut Social Security and Medicare. Let's figure this all out at once. It can be done. There are some tough choices that have to be made, and the Congressional Black Caucus has shown how those choices can be made, with specifics, in their various documents. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to have this moment to discuss the Congressional Black Caucus position on the fiscal cliff, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. It is generally the practice that we would extend emergency unemployment compensation for longer than normal, which is every time the rate gets high and when it's an emergency, so it's not offset. That is the usual situation. The problem with this recession is that a disproportionately high portion of the unemployed or long-term unemployed--the people who have been unemployed for a long time--are experiencing even insult to injury because a lot of employers are discriminating against people who do not have jobs. If you apply and don't have a job, they will not consider your application. If you have a job, then they will consider you. So, if you've been without a job for a long time and are still trying to get a job, it's even harder for you to get a job. Now, those people have traditionally worked. They're hardworking Americans who want a job, are looking for a job. Unfortunately, the economy is such that you've got three or four people looking for every job that's out there. So, whatever happens, a lot of people are going to be left out. And meanwhile, the question is: What happens? If you provide unemployment compensation for them, one of the things that happens is they spend that money into the economy as soon as they get it.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. When you're talking about the budget, there are two sides of the ledger. If you spend more, you should tax more. If you have less in taxes, you have to have less in spending. That's how you balance the budget. One of the problems we've had for the last few years is people think you can have a tax cut and don't have to cut anything. In the discussion of how much tax extension you can afford, that discussion is almost unrelated to the spending cuts. If you want to extend more tax cuts, then you have to cut more spending. People talk about it like they're unrelated. They say you can cut it off at $500,000, rather than $250,000. If you extend more tax cuts, you have to cut almost 10 percent across the board in non-defense discretionary spending to make up for the lost revenue. At some point, people should conform their statements to fundamental principles of arithmetic. This is what we've gotten away from. This is what the Congressional Black Caucus budget does. It names how you can come up with the revenue. It names specifically revenue: the Buffett rule, the surcharge on millionaires, investment income like regular income, and naming specific corporate loopholes that can be closed. We show how you can easily come up with the amount of money that's left in the $4 trillion after the trillion and a half in cuts and after the war savings and after the expiration of the upper income Bush-era tax cuts. We can fill the gap. If you don't want to do it that way, then name the spending cuts. This is where the trouble is. We've heard all this about reducing the size of government with unspecified cuts. That sounds good, until you start specifying. The last time Republicans had a budget that reduced the size of the government, they cut almost $300 million out of Embassy security. That's what they mean by reducing the size of government. Usually what they mean is Social Security and Medicare, but whatever they mean, name it. We don't want to be in a position in which we've extended tax cuts and then come back next year and say, Oh, now we're broke, and we've got to cut Social Security and Medicare. If that's what you're going to do with a tax cut, then let's consider that as we decide if we want that tax cut or not. I think most people would say, if your goal is cutting Social Security and Medicare, we don't need a tax cut that bad. As a matter of fact, that's how the scheme works. The only way you can cut Social Security and Medicare is to get people to go for the tax cuts now and then come back and say you're so broke and we need so much money that the only place you can get it is from Social Security and Medicare. So let's get this up front. Let's do it all at once. We know what tax cuts are going to be extended, and we know how they're going to pay for them. We're not going to get tricked later on by people coming up saying that we've got to cut Social Security and Medicare because we extended the tax cuts. This is one of the problems we get into. They will not name the programs that are going to get cut. When they talk about corporate loopholes, they don't say what they are.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. People talk about increasing the age of Social Security or the cost-of-living increase. The first question is whether or not you're going to cut Social Security. And then if you decide to cut Social Security, there are different ways of doing it, some more painful than others. But the first question is: Are you cutting Social Security? And part of that question is why. If none of the tax cuts get extended, at this point you've got too much money. You've got more money than you need on the table. So the only reason you're even discussing a cut in Social Security is because you want to extend the tax cuts. Now, I think most people when they're faced with the choice, do you want Social Security to be a piggy bank, every time we're running short in the budget you're going to cut a little Social Security or Medicare or Medicaid, are you going to make that a little piggy bank every time you have a budget problem, and if you're going to extend tax cuts, are you going to pay for them out of Social Security, I think most people would want us to leave Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid alone. Leave it alone. And if you've got enough money for the tax cuts, fine. But do not extend tax cuts and think you're going to pay for it and people are going to like you paying for it out of Social Security and Medicare. And that's really the choice we have, because the entire discussion about Medicare is only necessitated by the fact that people are trying to extend these tax cuts. And if you extend the tax cuts, then you have to pay for it. And we're talking arithmetic. If you extend trillions of dollars in tax cuts, the only place you can reasonably get it, Social Security and Medicare, unless you're going to raise some other taxes to offset it. The Congressional Black Caucus has taken the position that we don't want any tax cuts that are paid for if you have to cut Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, the social safety net, or investments in our future like education and research and infrastructure. We don't need tax cuts that badly. We need those investments more than we need tax cuts. So when you start talking about the different ways of cutting Social Security, we need to make sure that it's in the context, that we're talking about cutting Social Security in order to preserve the tax cuts.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume just to thank the gentlelady from the Virgin Islands, Dr. Christensen, and the leadership of the Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) and the gentleman from Michigan, the ranking member, Mr. Conyers, for bringing this bill to the floor. And with that, Mr. Speaker, I ask Members to support the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6116, as amended. I support this legislation for several reasons. To begin with, this bill simply implements the recommendation of the third circuit judicial council to allow decisions of the Virgin Islands Supreme Court to be reviewed directly by the United States Supreme Court. The Virgin Islands Supreme Court is the equivalent of a U.S. State supreme court. It is authorized to review all final orders, judgments, and specified interlocutory orders of the Virgin Islands superior courts. Appeals from the Virgin Islands Supreme Court are made by petitions of certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at this time. The Revised Organic Act specifically grants the third circuit appellate jurisdiction for the first 15 years of the Virgin Islands Supreme Court's existence. In addition, the act requires the third circuit judicial council to submit reports to two congressional committees every 5 years assessing whether the Virgin Islands Supreme Court ``has developed sufficient institutional traditions to justify direct review by the Supreme Court of the United States from all of its final decisions.'' In April of this year, the third circuit judicial council submitted the first of these 5-year reports. In it, the council concluded that the Virgin Islands Supreme Court had met the standard necessary to justify direct review of its decisions by the United States Supreme Court. Accordingly, the council recommended that Congress enact legislation to allow for such direct review. H.R. 6116 effectuates the third circuit's recommendations by deleting from the Revised Organic Act both the provisions granting appellate jurisdiction to the third circuit and the reporting requirement. I also support changes reflected in the version of the bill we are considering today because they reflect input both from the U.S. Supreme Court and an academic expert. Specifically, the amended version of the bill requires both the bill's long title and header to section 1 so that they refer to direct review rather than direct appeals. This change more accurately reflects the discretionary nature of the U.S. Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction over most cases whereby it selects cases for consideration through granting petitions for writs of certiorari. Additionally, the amended version of H.R. 6116 adds a provision to chapter 81 of title 28 of the United States Code to further clarify the scope of the U.S. Supreme Court's discretionary appellate jurisdiction with respect to decisions of the Virgin Islands Supreme Court. Finally, H.R. 6116 is consistent with precedence. For example, in 2004, Congress enacted similar legislation to provide for direct review by the U.S. Supreme Court of decisions of the Guam Supreme Court. I congratulate the gentlelady from the Virgin Islands, Dr. Christensen, for her leadership in this measure. I also thank the Judiciary Committee chairman, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), for his assistance in bringing this legislation to the floor. I urge my colleagues to support the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time. Does the gentleman have additional speakers?

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I would like to yield such time as she may consume to the gentlelady from the Virgin Islands, Dr. Christensen.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5934, the Stop Tobacco Smuggling in the Territories Act of 2012. When enacted, H.R. 5934 will amend the Contraband Cigarette Trafficking Act by including American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and Guam in existing legislation which makes it illegal to knowingly ship, transport, receive, possess, sell, distribute, or purchase 10,000 or more contraband cigarettes that do not have a State or territorial stamp. Under the Contraband Cigarette Trafficking Act, violators face criminal penalties and fines. Currently, there are no such sanctions in effect for violations that occur in the territories, thus prohibiting the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives from investigating cigarette smuggling and Trafficking Act violations. H.R. 5934 will fix this. Mr. Speaker, each year hundreds of millions of cigarettes are diverted from legal trade channels into the underworld. Cigarette counterfeiting is growing steadily. Cigarettes are believed to be the most illegally trafficked product in the world. Cigarette smuggling results in significant economic impact in terms of depriving governments of excise tax revenue and depriving legitimate businesses from income due to unfair competition. Smuggling of genuine cigarettes steals as much as an estimated $40- to $50 billion from governments in tax revenue, with trafficking in counterfeit cigarettes stealing even billions more. In May 2011, a report from the Territorial Audit Office on collection of cigarette tax by the American Samoa Government found that cigarettes are likely being smuggled into American Samoa and that, as a result, their government is losing a significant amount of cigarette excise tax revenue. A subsequent study estimated that as many as close to 6 million cigarettes had been smuggled into the territory in 2010, resulting in an estimated loss of revenue to the American Samoa Government of over $700,000. In addition to the economic impact, there are public health and public safety concerns. Smuggling delivers cigarettes that are cheaper to buy. Because cheaper cigarettes lure youth and other new customers, they boost sales and consumption, making it harder for smokers to quit. It's also been reported that some import imitation cigarettes have been found to contain toxins. As a result, illegal trade adds steadily to healthcare costs, worker productivity losses, and the growing death toll from tobacco use, already almost over 5 million lives per year, projected to rise to 8 million by 2030. From a public health standpoint, it is well documented that, as with other contraband, proceeds from cigarette trafficking support organized crime and even terrorist networks. For these reasons, I support the bill. I encourage my colleagues to support the bill as well. If the gentleman has no other speakers, I'd like to yield to the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega) for such time as he may consume.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to thank the gentleman from American Samoa, the leadership of the Judiciary Committee, and my friend from North Carolina (Mr. Coble) for bringing this measure to the floor. I urge my colleagues to support the bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I yield myself such time as I may consume. First, Mr. Speaker, I would like to associate myself with the kind remarks about the gentlelady from California. She has had an excellent career in Congress, and has elected not to return. We will certainly miss her and her advocacy for those most in need. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the pending legislation. H.R. 6371, the Streamlining Claims Processing for Federal Contractor Employees Act, will transfer certain responsibilities for overseeing and administering the Davis-Bacon Act from the Government Accountability Office to the Department of Labor. Mr. Speaker, I agree with the gentleman from Michigan that this is a sensible and technical fix since the Department of Labor is responsible for many aspects of enforcing prevailing wage law. This change will allow for greater efficiency in the Davis-Bacon prevailing wage protections and will help ensure that workers receive unpaid wages as quickly as possible. The gentleman from Michigan has pointed out that we should always promote streamlined and efficient government. That's why I'm particularly disappointed that this bill does not also transfer GAO's debarment authority under the Davis-Bacon Act. Moving that additional function would place more enforcement functions under one roof. Mr. Speaker, I support Davis-Bacon because it provides protections to contractors and subcontractors working on federally funded contracts. The most obvious protection is that it requires all contractors and subcontractors to pay the prevailing wage, denying unfair competition to those contractors who underpay their employees. Davis-Bacon protections prevent government spending from driving down living standards. Improved productivity on projects with prevailing wage application offsets higher wages. Furthermore, better-skilled workers attracted by the higher wages are likely to complete the jobs more efficiently and with higher-quality work. Studies have shown that construction workers in prevailing wage States produce 13 to 15 percent more value added from their work compared to workers in States without prevailing wage laws. Now I recognized that everyone does not agree with the underlying principles of the Davis-Bacon Act. However, regardless of one's position on the underlying law, we can all agree that the law ought to be administered as efficiently as possible. That's why I rise in support of H.R. 6371, and thank the gentleman from Michigan for introducing the bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate a legacy of faith in Virginia's Third Congressional District. This year, First Baptist Church Denbigh in Newport News is celebrating its 150th anniversary, and I would like to take a moment to reflect on the history of this esteemed institution and its contributions to the greater Hampton Roads community. The story of First Baptist Church Denbigh begins in July 1862 as the Civil War raged. A Recognizing Council was called to meet at the old Denbigh Baptist Church. They chose Rev. Peter Banks to lead the congregation. Rev. T. G. Wright became the second pastor, serving from 1863 to 1869. During his administration, the white community returned to claim their church building. Rev. Wright and congregation moved to the current location, building a small house of worship. During the tenure of Rev. T. G. Nettles (1870-1881), a larger house was built to accommodate increased membership and the church was renamed to ``First Baptist Church of Warwick County.'' Other ministers were Reverends Watt Talton (1882-1883), J. B. Whiting (1883-1887), Robert H. Nazareth (1887-1912), T. C. Williams (1912-13), A. A. Hudgins (1913-26), Isaac Daniel (1926-32), J. D. Atkins (1933-40), and Joseph H. Brown (1941-48), all of whom added to the church in both physical form and spiritual leadership. During this period, the church was renamed ``First Baptist Church Denbigh.'' For the next ten years, the church received sermons from Reverends B F. Burton and I. L. Buie along with other leaders. Later ministers were Reverends Samuel Fladger (1959-63), T. T. Brown (1963-67), and Albert L. Hill (1968-73), who initiated a bond sale to build a new air conditioned facility, with an indoor baptismal pool, which held its first services in 1972. Rev. Herbert A. Hill, Jr. began his pastorate in 1974 and gave the church the strength to endure though a tragic fire in 1986 which destroyed the church edifice. For a time, services were held in schools and other places in the community. In 1987, Rev. Hill's tenure as pastor ended and associate pastors provided guidance to the flock. In 1987, Edward Talton, a deacon for more than 40 years, was called into the ministry. Rev. Talton preached only two sermons from the pulpit before his death, but his life was a sermon in itself. In 1988, Rev. Haywood Barnes was voted to serve as interim pastor. Since 1988, Rev. Ivan T. Harris has led services, assuming the full-time pastorate in October 1991. Through Pastor Harris' efforts, the church's 25 year mortgage was burned on October 9, 1994--after only 6\1/2\ years. Over the years, the First Baptist community has continued to flourish. Successful fundraising has afforded the church handicap- accessible transportation, a new Church Bell, an Education Center, Child Development Center, Family Life Center, and modern technologies. In addition to Sunday prayers, the church offers Summer Bible School, The Bible Institute, and GED, Homebound and Short Term Suspension programs. It provides over 30 ministries and is home to several choirs. The Church leads charitable causes including the The Hunt Food Locker, Food Mobile, Summer Feeding Program, an Outreach Center for women's transitional housing, a Clothes Closet, and the adoption of a low- income neighborhood. Perhaps the most notable activity of the church is their African Village Adoption Project, initiated in 2005. Members have selected a native from Benin, Africa for adoption. The Church as a whole has provided a water well, microbanking program, motorcycles, books, a Christian School, and medical and worship facilities. As First Baptist Church Denbigh gathers to celebrate this historic milestone, the church can truly remember its past, celebrate its present, and focus on its future. I would like to congratulate Pastor Harris and all of the 2,500 members of First Baptist Church Denbigh on the occasion of their 150th Anniversary. I wish them many more years of dedicated service to the community.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate An Achievable Dream and the Rotary Club of the Virginia Peninsula, a longtime sponsor of the event, on the occasion of the 20th Annual Achievable Dream Tennis Ball. An Achievable Dream, with the generous help of the Rotary Club of the Virginia Peninsula and other sponsors, offers an extraordinary education program in my home district which provides tremendous promise to young at-risk students. The motto of An Achievable Dream is ``Teaching Kids Winning Ways.'' The Achievable Dream program is structured to give young people the skills needed to succeed in life. Those skills are taught at An Achievable Dream on the tennis court, in the classroom, on field trips, and in sharing experiences with successful and caring adults in the community. Often, young people don't think too much about the future, and don't realize that choices made today may limit those in the future. The staff, supporters and sponsors at An Achievable Dream have worked to ensure that their students have every opportunity to be successful in the future, setting and achieving a goal of graduating 100% of students on time in the past, and hope to send all graduating seniors off to college. As a public-private partnership with Newport News Public Schools, the City of Newport News, the Newport News Sheriff's Department, the U.S. Army, the Rotary Club, Riverside Health System, and the College of William and Mary, An Achievable Dream has received national recognition as one of the most effective urban school programs in the country and has provided a model for integrating support from the business community to support quality educational opportunities for at-risk students. The Achievable Dream Tennis Ball seeks to highlight the community's dedication to these students and to An Achievable Dream. I am pleased that I have been involved with An Achievable Dream as a supporter since its beginnings. As An Achievable Dream and our community gathers to celebrate the 20th Anniversary of the An Achievable Dream Tennis Ball, the community can look forward to the continued success of An Achievable Dream and the programs that have been put in place at these schools. I would like to congratulate the staff, supporters and sponsors at An Achievable Dream on this monumental occasion, and hope to see continued success from An Achievable Dream in the future.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. H.R. 6368 requires the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security, no later than 180 days after the enactment of this law, to jointly provide a report to Congress on those Departments' abilities to track, investigate, and quantify cross-border violence along our country's southwest border and to provide recommendations to Congress on how to accurately track, investigate, and quantify cross- border violence. This seems like a good idea, and I note that the bill provides that we will receive budget recommendations along with the report, as some have suggested, so that we can reduce the size of government with unspecified cuts, but then we are often surprised to see what those cuts are. Tracking, investigating, and responding appropriately to cross-border violence will require personnel and equipment, which obviously will require increases, not cuts, in the budget. I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Canseco) for his work on the bill. I look forward to the report, and I recommend the bill's passage. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

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

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1775, the Stolen Valor Act. It has long been a tradition in the United States to recognize those in our armed services who stand out among their peers for service to our Nation by awarding them special military medals and declarations. Recipients of these special honors have often been wounded in the line of duty or have made the ultimate sacrifice. Military medals and declarations constitute a tribute, as well as tangible manifestation of our Nation's deep and abiding recognition and appreciation to our servicemembers. There are, however, those who falsely claim to be recipients of these special honors. Such malicious actions denigrate the integrity of those honors to those who have legitimately received them. In response, a law was enacted with the laudable purpose of ensuring the integrity of military honors by punishing those who make such false representations. Unfortunately, the scope of the law was recently found by the Supreme Court to be unconstitutional as an abridgement of the First Amendment's right to free speech because the First Amendment even protects despicable speech. Justice Kennedy, however, writing for the court set out certain guidelines that Congress could follow in remedying the statute's constitutional flaw. He wrote: Where false claims are made to effect a fraud or secure moneys or other valuable considerations, say offers of employment, it is well- established that the government may restrict speech without affronting the First Amendment. So, as reported by the Judiciary Committee, this bill adheres to this suggested construct by amending the current law to prohibit individuals from fraudulently representing themselves as recipients of these honors in order to obtain money, property, or other tangible benefits. This will actually cover most of the incidences of false claims. As a result, this measure will, in full compliance with the Constitution, ensure that no one will financially benefit or receive other tangible rewards from falsely representing that they have been awarded these honors and this will cover all of the despicable cases of false claims that the Constitution will allow. H.R. 1775 will protect the honor and integrity of our Nation's military medals and decorations as well as respect the rights accorded to Americans under the First Amendment. Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6185, the Local Courthouse Safety Act. This measure will provide critical assistance to State and local governments to provide courthouse security. To begin with, many State and local courthouses face serious security challenges. Serious violence often occurs in these facilities, but many courthouses across the Nation still lack basic security protections such as metal detectors. H.R. 6185 responds to this critical problem by giving sheriffs, as well as State and local courthouses, access to training, equipment, and other resources to help them improve security. H.R. 6185 accomplishes these goals by making use of existing resources. This legislation requires the General Services Administration to make available to State and local courts--at no cost, except for shipping, handling, and maintenance--surplus security equipment that is used to detect weapons, such as metal detectors, wands, and baggage screening devices. To qualify to receive such security equipment, a State or local courthouse must have less security equipment than necessary to meet the security needs of that courthouse. Because these devices are surplus and not otherwise being utilized by any Federal agencies, it is a wise use of taxpayer money to allow this equipment to be put into service at the State and local level. Another important aspect of the bill is that it expands the scope of the grants awarded by the State Justice Institute to include the improvement of the safety and security of State and local courts. As a result, H.R. 6185 strengthens the Institute's current authority to award grants to support education, training, and technical assistance projects to improve the administration of justice in the State courts. This measure addresses, in a meaningful way, the serious security challenges that State and local courthouses face. Not surprisingly, H.R. 6185 enjoys a broad range of support, including the National Sheriffs' Association, the National Association for Court Management, the Conference of Chief Justices, the Conference of State Court Administrators, American Judges Association, the National Court Reporters Association, and the Center for Judicial and Executive Security. I commend my colleague, the gentlelady from Florida (Mrs. Adams) for her work in developing the bill, and I urge my colleagues to support the legislation. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I oppose this rule because it does not allow consideration of amendments to the FISA bill that would strengthen the underlying bill by providing for greater accountability to the public of an otherwise wholly secretive process. Operations of the government must be held accountable to the people. The problem with holding operations under the existing FISA law is that most of the activities under it are conducted in secrecy. The fact that I or other Members of Congress have access to classified information regarding those secret activities is not sufficient for public accountability. Even if I were satisfied by my access to classified information, that only reasonable and constitutionally justified actions are being taken by officials in secret, I would still feel the need to give greater assurances to the public other than simply, trust me, I'm satisfied, so should you. Curiously, if I'm not satisfied, there's nothing I could say because it's classified information. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was passed in 1978 to curb abuses in collection and use of intelligence information, foreign and domestic. Under the original provisions of FISA, procedures for collection of foreign intelligence required the government to show not only that there was probable cause to believe that the target of the intelligence surveillance is an agent of a foreign power, but also that foreign intelligence-gathering is the primary purpose of the collection. Under the USA PATRIOT Act of 2002 and beyond, the government now only needs to show the probable cause of the target is an agent of the Federal government, and that the foreign intelligence-gathering is merely a significant purpose of that collection. When foreign intelligence collection is not the primary purpose for the collection of information, we are left to wonder what the primary purpose of that action might be. The FISA Act of 2008 went a step further, authorizing the collection of massive amounts of information about foreign persons reasonably believed to be outside of the United States without a warrant. With such massive amounts of information being collected, invariably information involving U.S. persons in the United States whose information may not be the target is also being collected. The FAA of 2008 requires the executive branch to design targeting procedures which limit the scope of the collection before the government acts and minimization procedures which limit the use of information before the government collects it, and the FISA court reviews these procedures for legal sufficiency. However, with nearly all of this oversight being conducted in secret, the public has no choice but to take the government at its word. We can do better. My amendment would simply require the executive branch to provide at least some documentation that it uses this authority narrowly, responsibly, and exclusively for foreign intelligence-gathering purposes, while protecting the material that would be classified. So we should reject this rule in favor of one that allows amendments to strengthen public accountability over the surveillance of Americans.