Bobby Scott

Mr. SCOTT

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

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would allow tribal governments to opt out of the coverage of the bill and the administration of their systems of justice in the manner that we allowed them to opt out of the application of the Three Strikes and You're Out law that we passed several years ago to avoid the unintended racial and disproportionately negative impact. Since the bill only applies in Federal jurisdictions, the vast majority of the cases affected would involve Native Americans. This means the bill will affect Native Americans in a disproportionately negative manner when compared to similar offenders in the same State as the Native American reservation. Based merely on the location of the offense, whether you are on the reservation or right outside of the reservation, you could have vastly different sentences, as vastly different as probation in one case and life imprisonment for exactly the same offense and offenders. There is no evidence that this particular problem, sex crimes against children, is predominantly a Native American problem, so why are we singling them out for the draconian treatment? Because this bill only applies in Federal jurisdiction, it will have no effect on the vast majority of cases that have been mentioned today. The only good thing about it is, it will only affect a few cases, but unfortunately, an overwhelming proportion of those cases will be cases affecting Native Americans. I would hope that the House would adopt the amendment.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) so she can respond to the comments that were just made.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in opposition of H.R. 2146. It is a perfect example of what the Judicial Conference of the United States Courts describes as the type of legislation that ``severely distorts and damages the Federal sentencing system and undermines the sentencing guideline regimen established by Congress to promote fairness and proportionality in our sentencing system.'' Under the bill, Mr. Chairman, the mandatory minimum penalty for second offense of consensual touching by an 18-year-old of his 14-year- old girlfriend is life imprisonment without parole, the same penalty for a sexual offense against a child which results in the child's death. Mr. Chairman, 2243(a) violations which are included in the bill involve consensual acts between a 13- to 15-year-old minor and someone who is at least 18 years of age, more than 4 years older than the minor. ``Sexual act'' is broadly defined to include even consensual touching. And since attempts are punished in the same manner under the law as the completed act, even a second attempted touching mandates life without parole. An older sexual predator may well deserve life without parole for even attempted consensual touching, but no rational sentencing scheme would treat an 18-year-old attempting to touch a 14-year-old girlfriend in the same manner. Proponents of the bill suggest that a second consensual offense between teens could not occur because by the time the first case is over, the offender, who has served his sentence, would no longer be a teen. This does not take into account the fact that the likely judgment for such a first offense would be probation. All it takes for these kinds of cases to end up in court is a determined parent and equally determined teens, and, bam, life without parole for what children refer to as ``petting.'' The current penalty maximum for a second offense under 2243(a) is 15 years. We do not have to mandate life in prison to get all of the cases for which life would be deserved. To get the cases for which 15 years is not harsh enough, we can increase the maximum penalty. So, Mr. Chairman, at the appropriate time, I will offer an amendment to raise the maximum possible sentence for violations of 2243(a) to life imprisonment, and leave it to the Sentencing Commission and the courts to distinguish which cases deserve harsher punishment than 15 years, rather than taking the draconian approach in this bill and mandating life without parole for all cases, regardless of circumstances. One thing should be clear, Mr. Chairman, the bill only applies where there is Federal jurisdiction. Therefore, none of the cases, virtually none of the cases that will be referred to by the supporters of the bill will be affected by the bill because those are State cases. The Federal jurisdiction would be those on Native American reservations, national parks and U.S. maritime jurisdiction. Only a few cases fall under that jurisdiction, the requirement of Federal jurisdiction; at least the information we have gotten from the Sentencing Commission is that it might affect 60 cases. But virtually all of those cases will be for Native Americans on reservations. It is unfair that Native Americans will be subjected to such a grossly disproportionate impact from the draconian legislation just because they live on a reservation. The bill will create the anomaly of two like offenders committing the same offense in the same State with one getting probation and the other getting life without parole because he lives on a reservation. That is why, Mr. Chairman, I will offer another amendment that will allow tribal governments to opt out of the provision of the bill in the same manner as we did for the ``Three Strikes and You're Out'' bill a few years ago. There is no evidence that there is any particular problem with sex crimes against children on reservations or any other Federal jurisdiction, and there is nothing to suggest that to whatever extent there is a problem it is not being appropriately dealt with under Federal jurisdiction now. Interestingly enough, Mr. Chairman, prior marriage is a bar to prosecution under 2243(a). All over this Nation, States recognize the rights of parents to give consent to a minor, often as young as 13, where the spouse could be as old as 40 or older. In all likelihood, before the marriage, they will have been committing offenses which could result in life without parole under the bill. If there is any debate within the family about the appropriateness of the marriage, life without parole creates an interesting new idea about the shotgun wedding. The problem with this bill, Mr. Chairman, is the problem of mandatory sentences in general. They eliminate reason and discretion in order to promote the politics of tough on crime. There is no study or data or other reasoned basis for this bill. The entire reason is its title, the baseball phrase ``two strikes and you're out.'' If ``two strikes and you're out'' is not even good baseball policy, why would we arbitrarily conclude it is good crime policy? Another major concern is that it would have the chilling effect on victims coming forward to report sex crimes if the victim knows the result will be that the perpetrator will have to serve life without parole. For example, a teen victim may be reluctant to turn in an older sibling or other family member if they know that the offender will have to face life without parole. In addition, H.R. 2146 would lead to a victim being killed to lessen the risk of being caught. The law professor and criminologist who testified before the Subcommittee on Crime on an earlier version of this bill stated that facing life without parole, a sex offender would have little further to lose by eliminating the victim, who is often an important witness against the offender. Now, considering the penalty for second-offense murder is less than second-offense petting, we can see why this is a concern. So, Mr. Chairman, I oppose the bill in its present form, but believe we can fix the worst problems in it, and I, along with other colleagues, will offer amendments designed to do so. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume just to point out that the cases that have been mentioned probably do not even come under the bill. First of all, if the average is 201 before apprehension, the bill will have no effect because it will not be a second offense. Second, you have to charge at least one of them as being on Federal property after the prior conviction. And, third, it does include misbehaving teenagers. The bill needs to be reworked. It can get those we are trying to get, but it is overinclusive and many people who do not deserve life without parole will be brought up under it. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would remove the mandatory life sentence for a violation of section 2243(a) as a second sex offense against a minor. Instead, this amendment would increase the maximum possible term for a second offense to a term up to life imprisonment. Under the bill, consensual sexual touching of a 14-year- old by an 18-year-old boyfriend or girlfriend with a prior offense would mandate life without parole, while murder, even second offense murder, does not. While we can all imagine cases in which a life sentence would be appropriate for a second offense against a child, we do not have to mandate life sentences for cases which clearly do not warrant such treatment in order to get at those that do. We can simply extend the maximum possible sentence to life imprisonment and leave it to the sentencing commission and the courts to determine which ones warrant that treatment. Not only would we have the unintended racial impact in that it would affect primarily Native Americans but it would also have a chilling effect on victims in some cases that would otherwise be prosecuted. This is especially true in families where the victim might want to see an older sibling or other relative dealt with for a repeat offense but not seen to cause the relative spending the life imprisonment which would be required under the bill. If we believe the purpose of the bill is to send a message to repeat sex offenders, it would send the wrong message. At a hearing before the Subcommittee on Crime, a law professor and criminologist testified that a repeat offender who knows that if caught he will be sentenced to life imprisonment on a mandated basis, that person may be more disposed to kill his victim to eliminate the primary witness. This is particularly true because the punishment for second offense murder would be less than second offense petting. Under this amendment, life without parole would be available for those who are appropriately sentenced to life but not mandated for misbehaving teenagers. Again, I would point out that the whole bill is only in cases that have Federal jurisdiction; so even with the amendment, we may have the anomaly of persons committing a crime within the State and if they are in Federal jurisdiction, they get life without parole. If they are without Federal jurisdiction, they could get probation. I would hope that the House would adopt the amendment.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin indicated that the prosecutor would have the discretion of lowering the charge, but by virtue of the charge, the judge would have no discretion if the prosecutor decides life without parole. So you have given, essentially, the sentencing power to the prosecutor, not to the judge. Under the term ``sexual act,'' which is covered under this, it includes consensual, intentional touching of a person who has not attained the age of 16, that is, a 15-year-old person, with the intent to gratify. That is petting teenagers 4 years younger. If that is a first offense, the likelihood, quite frankly, is they will get probation. If they do it again, if they are teenagers determined to be together, you are talking about life without parole if the prosecutor charges under this section. If it is an appropriate case, you can get life. But it just seems to me that life without parole for this situation, which could include family members, is totally inappropriate; and I would hope we would adopt the amendment which would allow life, but not mandate life, so the judge would have some discretion in sentencing people under this bill. If you have 500 people, the stories they have told, the judge will know what to do.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) for yielding me time. Madam Speaker, I rise today in honor of our former congressional colleague and former Virginian, Tom Bliley, for his many years of public service to Virginia and to the Nation. I am, therefore, proud to join my other Virginia colleagues in cosponsoring this bill to name a post office in Richmond, Virginia, in his honor. Tom Bliley dedicated over 32 years of public service, and 20 of those years have been as a Member of Congress representing the Seventh Congressional District of Virginia culminating in his chairmanship of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. Before coming to Congress he served on city council and as mayor of Richmond, Virginia. In addition, Tom is the former president of Joseph Bliley Funeral Homes, where he gained an appreciation of the problems facing the small businessman. During his lengthy career he gained respect of Members from both sides of the aisle and from his constituents in the Seventh District. Tom and I both represented parts of Richmond, Virginia, for 8 years, and I was fortunate to be able to work with him on many issues important to the capital of the Commonwealth and, indeed, the Nation. He was instrumental in ensuring the resources of the James River were efficiently utilized for commerce and recreation. The floodwall mentioned by my colleague from Virginia was part of that effort. He and I worked together to see that the James River and Kanawha Canal riverfront project became a reality. This project restored a portion of the historic canal through the city of Richmond, which is a main hub for revitalization of the historic riverfront. He even sponsored legislation to ensure that the Army Corps of Engineers maintained the James River as a navigable waterway so the commercial and trade enterprises would not be compromised. I am particularly grateful for his work on the Richmond National Battlefield Park legislation which included recognition of the Battle of New Market Heights as a premier landmark in African American military history. With his many accomplishments Tom worked across party lines and with his Virginia delegation colleagues to best represent the issues in interest to the Seventh Congressional District. It is a fitting tribute to his career of public service to honor him with the naming of this post office in Richmond, Virginia. Madam Speaker, I therefore urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this bill is designed to facilitate the fight against terrorism and working with our allies in that fight, and it is, frankly, not helpful in that process to have situations where our allies will not cooperate with us because of the death penalty. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this bill is designed to implement a treaty. In order to be limited to that purpose, the bill goes well beyond what needs to be done, and, in fact, contains provisions that may be counterproductive. I therefore urge my colleagues to oppose the legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume 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. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3275 which would implement the international convention for the suppression of terrorist bombings, and the international convention for the suppression of the financing of terrorism. I am not opposed to the bill because of the treaties, but because of the extraneous items that are in the treaties. These treaties have been pending for some time, and I applaud the President for his present resolve in having the treaties ratified. There are many extraneous provisions in the bills that are not necessary, however, to ratify either of the treaties. The treaties require that we have such laws on the books which would do such things like criminalize terrorist bombings and the financing of terrorist activities. A few weeks ago, we passed legislation which was represented by the administration as a comprehensive anti-terrorism bill designed to cover the full gamut terrorist threats in this country, as well as the support of terrorist activities. Upon that representation, we provided unprecedented extensions of wiretap, RICO asset forfeitures, and additional punishments were enacted into law. Now we are told that additional laws have to be passed. One of the provisions that requires us to have a law prohibiting bombing of foreign embassies in the United States cannot possibly be necessary. It is obviously against the law in the United States to bomb any building, much less a foreign embassy. A lot of these statutes are not needed. The provisions before us do not constitute the treaties. The treaties are embodied in other documents. There are provisions, for example, that are actually counterproductive. This bill includes certain death penalties. The death penalty actually works against us because many of our allies will not extradite their criminals to the United States because we have the death penalty. There are other provisions that are not necessary. We were told by the administration that the death penalty provisions were, in fact, not needed to implement the treaties, and yet here they are in the bill. Given this situation, Mr. Speaker, and other provisions in the bill that are not necessary to implement the treaties, I would hope that we would defeat the bill and reconsider the bill just providing the provisions that are necessary to implement the treaty. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT

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

Mr. SCOTT

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

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time, and I wish to thank my colleague, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Schrock), for introducing this resolution. Since September 11, the United States has seen many in uniform who have displayed the courage that would allow them to face life- threatening danger and the sacrifice which would risk their own personal safety and comfort in order to protect our personal freedoms, defend our civil liberties, and guard our constitutional rights. Mr. Speaker, courage and personal sacrifice are the two attributes that keep the attacks of September 11 from having happened in vain. It is that personal courage and sacrifice that our brave men and women aboard the USS Enterprise Battle Group displayed. They were en route back to the United States following a scheduled peacetime deployment from the Persian Gulf in support of Operation Southern Watch over Iraq when they were suddenly and unexpectedly redeployed to the war effort in Afghanistan. Mr. Speaker, it is also that same courage and personal sacrifice that the families, friends, loved ones of the entire USS Enterprise Battle Group, the members of the United States Armed Forces, and the victims of the September 11 attack had to display and continue to have to display while keeping the faith that our Nation will be protected. And so, Mr. Speaker, we ask our colleagues to support the resolution which recognizes the service, sacrifice, and courage of the crew members of the USS Enterprise Battle Group, the United States Armed Forces, and the families, friends and loved ones of those who have died or risked their lives on and after September 11. I particularly, Mr. Speaker, want to thank my colleague, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Schrock), for his leadership in introducing this resolution.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, we have done a lot in a rush after September 11: Questioning the attorney's right to talk to his client without being listened to; military trials where the Attorney General and the Secretary of Defense will certify someone was a foreign terrorist and deny them a fair trial, whether they happen to be, in fact, a guilty terrorist or not. The individual might be an innocent citizen, but is still stuck with this system because the Attorney General has accused the individual. We passed the airline security bill which included provisions which significantly reduced the rights of victims to be compensated for their injuries and without consideration by the Committee on the Judiciary which has jurisdiction over this, and now we are asked to suspend the rules and pass a bill which includes provisions which reduce the rights of victims of unconstitutional, unreasonable searches by government officials, searches which could include strip searches and so-called cavity searches. Many of these searches have been found to be conducted pursuant to racial profiling. They have only been stopped by lawsuits, and here we have bill that will throw some of these people out of court and make it less likely that these unconstitutional searches will be stopped. The Supreme Court has held that the objective reasonableness of the official's behavior ought to be the standard, not the so-called good faith standard that is in this bill as the standard for liability. If we are going to change the standard, we ought to do it through the regular legislative process. Let the Committee on the Judiciary have hearings so we can consider whether a change needs to take place. Rather, we are here on a motion to suspend the rules and just pass the bill. I would hope that we would not proceed with this standard, with this procedure, where we cannot have amendments or hearings, we have to take it up or down. This is too serious an issue to consider this way. I urge Members to defeat the motion to suspend the rules.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3210. H.R. 3210, in its present form, contains a litany of tort reform provisions that are necessary to achieve the basic purpose of this bill. This bill began as a bipartisan effort to provide a mechanism for addressing the insurance risk in connection with terrorist acts, but has ended up as yet another vehicle to enact a one-sided, tort reform agenda, which has failed every time it has been subjected to the regular, deliberative legislative process. Under this bill, all victims of a future terrorist act will be required to bring their action in federal court. Once the Secretary of the Treasury makes a determination that a ``terrorist act'' occurred, then all claims with any relation to that terrorist act must be brought in federal court. There would be no opportunity for a victim to choose to bring an action in state court, even though the state court may otherwise have jurisdiction over the matter and even though the state court may be more convenient or more efficient. This process will cause unnecessary complications related to the statute of limitations, if suit is filed in the wrong court, and will present unnecessary questions related to what ``related to terrorism'' means in those cases in which terrorism might have a vague connection to the cause of action. For example, are cases involving failure to perform in a contract dispute ``related to terrorism'' if the airline disruption after September 11 is alleged to be a factor? And if a questionable ``related to terrorism'' defense is offered, must the case be remanded to federal court? Worse, this bill contains radical liability limitations that are not even limited to cases involving insurance coverage and includes other provisions that bear little relationship to the issue of insurance. For example, future victims of terrorism would be precluded from collecting punitive damages--even in cases where it can be shown that the most outrageous acts of gross negligence or intentional misconduct contributed to the act of terrorism. This bill would also severely limit the ability of the victims of terrorism to collect non-economic damages. Non-economic damages include physical impairment, disfigurement and mental anguish, and these will be denied, whether insurance is available or not. Further, this bill puts extreme and unprecedented limits on plaintiff's attorney's fees. In the bill which purports to assist insurance companies, it is important to note that insurance companies do not pay plaintiff's attorney's fees; those fees are paid by the plaintiff out of the recovery. Therefore, the amount the insurance company pays is not effected by the size of the attorney's fee. The only effect this provision might have on the insurance company is to deny some plaintiffs the ability to hire an attorney to bring a meritorious claim. Only meritorious claims will be effected, because most attorneys get nothing, if there is no recovery. It is also important to note that the bill does not limit defense attorney's fees--which the insurance companies do pay. There is no good reason for including these extreme tort reform provisions that will limit the rights of victims in a bill which is supposed to be designed to address the capacity of insurers to provide coverage for risks from terrorism. I therefore urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 3210 in its current form.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my colleagues in paying tribute to former Congressman Thomas N. Downing. Tom represented Virginia's First Congressional District from 1959 to 1977. He represented part of what is now the First and Third Congressional Districts, and part, at one time, of the Second. Tom began his public service career in the military. In 1940, he graduated from Virginia Military Institute. From 1942 to 1946, he served as the troop commander of the Mechanized Cavalry with Third United States Army and commanded the first troops in the Third Army to invade Germany. For his exemplary service involving the rescue of two of his men during a reconnaissance operation in Northern France, Tom was awarded the Silver Star. The citation accompanying the Silver Star read in part ``Captain Downing, without hesitation, and with utter disregard for his personal safety, ran to the aid of his men among a hail of bullets.'' After his service in the military, Tom would return to school to earn his law degree from the University of Virginia. He practiced law in Hampton for 11 years and also served as a substitute judge of the municipal court for the City of Warwick prior to his election to the Eighty-sixth Congress in 1958. He would serve eight succeeding Congresses with little opposition. While in Congress he was a member of the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee and the Space Science and Technology Committee. During his career in Congress, he represented the Commonwealth and the First Congressional District with distinction. He worked to ensure the future of Newport News Shipyard and was instrumental in the yard's acquisition of the North Yard for its expansion. As a senior lawmaker on the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, Tom had significant expertise in maritime issues and played a major role in crafting legislation. On that Committee, he was a strong advocate of building a strong and modem U.S. Merchant Marine Service for this country's national security. Tom served as Chair of the Merchant Marine Subcommittee. As Chair, he presided over and helped to craft major legislation to overhaul and modemize the merchant marines. The Merchant Marine Act of 1970 was one of his signature pieces of legislation and was designed to renovate the American Merchant Navy by 1980. In addition to his work on merchant marine issues on that Committee, he also played a prominent role in crafting legislation that sought to preserve the resources of our oceans and waterways. He played a leading role in the implementation of the Ocean-Dumping Convention and in extending U.S. fishing rights to the 200 mile limit bill. He also played a role in crafting the Deep Water Port Act as well as legislation on deep sea bed mining. At the time of his retirement from the House, one of his colleagues called him the ``premier expert on the problems of the Nation's maritime commerce and its commercial fisheries industry.'' As the Chairman of the NASA Oversight Subcommittee of the then Space Science and Technology Committee, his interests in scientific research made him a national leader of the space effort. On that Subcommittee, he also represented the interests of NASA Langley Research Center located in Hampton, Virginia. Tom Downing also made a gift to future generations of Virginians and North Carolinians through his efforts to create the Assateague Island National Seashore Park and the Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge. In the Ninety-Fourth Congress, his colleagues called upon him to chair the prominent Select Committee on Assassinations that launched new investigations into the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy and the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. He had been a leading critic of the Warren Commission and was the author of the 1976 legislation to reopen investigation into both cases. Even knowing of his retirement, his colleagues could think of no other Member who could have served in that post with his ability and integrity during the nation's time of turmoil. As the dean of the Virginia Delegation at the time, Tom Downing helped to set the tone and tradition of our delegation today. He consistently sought and achieved joint action by Members of the delegation, irrespective of party affiliation, to deal with matters affecting the entire State. Today, we still honor that tradition and work together as a delegation to speak with one voice for Virginia's interests. Even after his lengthy service in Congress, Tom Downing continued his commitment to public service. He served on the Board of Visitors of the Virginia Military Institute from 1985 to 1993 and served as President of the Board of Directors of The Mariners' Museum. Mr. Speaker, Tom Downing served in this body as a true statesman and Virginia gentleman. He was a good friend to everyone on the Virginia Peninsula and he will be sorely missed.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, today, we celebrate the 50th Anniversary of Jet Magazine, and congratulate Mr. John H. Johnson and the Jet Magazine family on 50 outstanding years of covering African-American life. Both Ebony and Jet Magazine have meant a lot to African-Americans; it was a way for us to be connected as a community, at a time when there were few publications of widespread circulation devoted to African- American life. Many of us can remember the first time we glimpsed Jet and Ebony in our family homes, and learned about current events, and the lives and achievements of our fellow African-American. The success and longevity of Ebony and Jet Magazine are due to the vision, hard work and perseverence of John H. Johnson, the publisher, chairman, and Chief Executive Officer of Johnson Publishing Company. John Johnson began with a vision and an idea. When he was in his early 20's, he worked for the Supreme Liberty Life Insurance Company, then the largest African-American owned business in the North. One of John Johnson's jobs was to comb African-American newspapers and magazines from around the country, in order to brief the President of Supreme Liberty Life. John Johnson soon discovered that African- Americans were hungry for news of their own community--news that was broader than what was reported in the predominantly white media of the time, and news that was not, as Mr. Johnson remarked, ``only in connection with a crime.'' So in 1942 John Johnson founded Negro Digest. However, due to his humble roots, Mr. Johnson did not have the financial support necessary to support his new publication. At the time, mainstream banks did not commonly make loans to African-Americans, so John Johnson ended up borrowing $500 at the Citizens Loan Corporation, using his mother's furniture for collateral. The magazine quickly became successful. In 1945, John Johnson launched Ebony, modeling it after Life and Look magazines. Ebony started as a magazine about achievement and success. John Johnson realized the importance of African-Americans feeling good about themselves, and of their achievements in the context of American society. In his book, Succeeding Against the Odds, Mr. Johnson wrote that at the time, ``There was no consistent coverage of the human dimension of black Americans in Northern newspapers and magazines. It's hard to make people realize this, but blacks didn't get married on the society pages of major American dailies until the late sixties.'' Jet Magazine followed in 1951, and continued John Johnson's vision of reporting about the people, history and current events of the African- American community. For example, Jet Magazine's Ticker Tape column, authored by Simeon Booker, has been a consistent source of information about current events, and governmental and legislative decisions. Over the years, John Johnson has helped to present the news and interests of people of color virtually around the world. Today we salute him, and one of his flagship publications--Jet Magazine--for being part of our lives for 50 years. All of us look forward to another 50 years of success, and of Ebony and Jet Magazine continuing to bring the news not only to all of us, but also to future generations.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, we find ourselves in the wake of September 11 and we are using the tragedy to pass controversial legislation. It is not the first time, of course. Just a few days ago we repealed the alternative minimum tax, a tax on corporations who have loopholes and deductions and were paying no tax at all. We had an alternative minimum tax for them to pay, and under the name of economic stimulus, this House voted to repeal that tax. In the name of airline security in the wake of September 11, we had a bill that included tort reform that had been defeated year after year. In the name of antiterrorist crime legislation, we had wiretap authority that applied to cases that had nothing to do with terrorism, in fact, in some cases had nothing to do with any alleged crime. And we passed excessive wiretap authority in the wake of September 11. Now we are using September 11 to try to pass prayer in public school. The last time we had hearings on the issue of prayer in public school, we had deliberations, subcommittee and committee, and when it came to the floor, it was defeated. It was defeated because we know that children can already pray in public school today. They have that option. They do not need the bill. They can pray. If the teacher passes out a math test, they can pray. Before the meal, they can say grace. That is okay. That is allowed today. What we cannot do is instruct the children to pray whether they want to or not. This resolution not only tells them to pray, but tells them what to pray for, and reserves, according to the resolution, a sufficient period of time during the day for prayer or quiet reflection, whatever that sufficient period of time during the day means. I mean, some religions require prayers several times a day. Some religions have prayers that are relatively long, others relatively short. I do not know who decides. I received a letter today from Reverend Barry Lynn, the Executive Director of Americans United, who said in his letter, ``Students already have an individual right to pray voluntarily in school as long as they are not disruptive. This resolution, however, is a radical departure from constitutional standards because it calls for a mandatory time of classroom prayer on a specific topic. This resolution instructs children specifically what to pray for. Under our constitutional separation of church and state, it is the job of parents and clergy, not the government, to tell children when to pray, how to pray and what to pray for.'' He cites Justice Anthony Kennedy who explained in Lee v. Weisman, a 1992 case, ``The First Amendment's religious clauses mean that religious beliefs and religious expression are too precious to either be proscribed or prescribed by the state.'' Mr. Speaker, because we know that children can already pray and because this resolution has not gone through the regular process, it encourages school districts to violate the Constitution. It is ambiguous, and it uses the September 11 tragedy as an excuse to pass legislation which has failed in the past when subjected to the regular process. I would urge my colleagues to defeat this resolution.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to say I do not question the sincerity of the gentleman from North Carolina. He is a man of principle. We are talking about the resolution, not talking about the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina. This is a controversial resolution. It might be constitutional; it might not. If we worked on it consistent with the Virginia supreme court case, we might make it constitutional, but it is very controversial. It prescribes what the prayer is. Therefore, it ought not, without any hearings at all, be adopted. Mr. Speaker, if we want to help our children, we might help them by having school psychologists in the school. Child health care with mental health parity, I think that would help the children. Smaller class sizes, that would help the children. There are a lot of ways we can help the children rather than spending time on the floor of the House debating a resolution such as this. I would hope that we defeat the resolution and not suspend the rules.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the conference report for VA-HUD. The bill funds many important agencies, and much has been said about those agencies, particularly about Veterans' Affairs. But I would like to specifically recognize the hard work of the members of the conference committee for their work in approving funding increase for aeronautics research. We know that dollar for dollar, investments in aeronautics research pays off. Every aircraft worldwide uses NASA technology, and the research center located in Hampton, Virginia, has been at the forefront of developing these cutting-edge technologies. Engineering principles developed from the past research at Langley have contributed to overall aircraft safety and efficiency, including things like wind design, noise abatement, structural integrity, and fuel efficiency. It is important to remember that these principles were developed 5, 10 and 20 years before they led to improvements in the aircraft we see today. In recent years, NASA's research has been reduced by about one-third. Reversing that declining trend in aeronautics funding now will enable the aggressive research and technology programs that are needed to lead the United States into the 21st century, as the world's leader in aeronautics and space research, a key cornerstone of our future economic prosperity. Again, I extend my appreciation to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) and the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) and the other conferees for their strong support for the national investments in aeronautics research, and I urge Members to support the conference committee report.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. I would like to speak very briefly on the victims' compensation portion of the amendment, better titled ``Limits on Victims' Compensation.'' This liability section includes a lot of tort reform provisions not considered by the Committee on the Judiciary, and there are a number of unanswered questions that hopefully would be resolved had it been considered by the Committee on the Judiciary. For example, to qualify for relief, and that is it limits loss to insurance coverage, to qualify for that kind of relief from liability, the defendant must show the damages arise out of the hijacking and subsequent crashes on September 11. The question, of course, is what does ``arise out of'' mean? If you are in a breach-of-contract suit in state court in California and alleging that the goods were not delivered or were slow to deliver and that might have been caused by the September 11 crash and the subsequent failure of people to move, does that count as arising out of the crashes? Why should we reward people for not having insurance? If two cases are identical and one person has insurance, they can recover. In the next case, the person does not have insurance or is self-insured, no recovery. That is obviously not fair. How do deductibles work? If you have $1 million coverage and $10,000 deductible, what happens to a $9,000 claim? Do you lose it because it is not covered by insurance? When we had the airline relief bill, we provided specific help to specific defendants, knowing the kinds of cases; and we knew their insurance coverage. That is not the case here. There are other provisions, like the attorney's fees provision where you assume that the person is charging a contingent percentage fee. They may be charging a flat fee. Also the collateral source rules. These provisions have not been considered by the Committee on the Judiciary. They have nothing to do with security; and, therefore, the manager's amendment ought to be defeated.