Bobby Scott

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. If the gentlelady would yield, that's why we need to remain competitive and make sure that all of our students have an opportunity to go to college. We need to make sure that they have the knowledge to be successful, and we need to make sure that we are making those investments in early childhood education, in elementary and in secondary, and are making sure that all of our students have access to college. That means we have to make sure we continue to invest in Pell Grants and to reduce the interest on student loans so that everybody can get into college. One of the things we also have to do is to make sure they have the support, and not only the encouragement, to go to college. They need the financial access but also the support so they can stay in college. That's why the Federal TRIO Programs are so important--Talent Search, Upward Bound, Upward Bound Math and Science, Veterans Upward Bound, and Student Support Services. Once they get into college, there are the educational support centers and the Ronald E. McNair Post-Baccalaureate Achievement Program. The TRIO Programs encourage low-income and first-generation students to think in terms of college. For many of them, it's just not an expectation in their families, so they think, after high school, that's going to be about it. We need to instill upon them an expectation that, if you can do the work, you ought to continue your education. The TRIO Programs are extremely important in making sure they have not only the financial access but the support once they get there so that they can graduate.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I thank the gentlewoman from Wisconsin for talking about education and talking about the importance of educating all of our young children. Quality education is more important today than ever before with the rapid development of a global marketplace. We find that we're competing not just with cities across a State or even cities across the Nation but cities all over the world. We can't compete with other countries on things like lower wages. There are people who work in other countries for wages that we can't compete with. We can't necessarily compete in terms of location. You don't have to work right next to your coworkers anymore. If you can work across the hall from your coworkers, you can work across the globe from your coworkers. And in manufacturing, if you manufacture something, you don't have to be that close to your customers. You can ship things overnight from almost anywhere. In the global economy when you're trying to get a plant financed, there used to be a time where you had to locate the plant in the United States because you needed financing. Now with worldwide banking, you can put that plant anywhere that you want. The one reason that businesses would want to locate in the United States or in a particular community is because they know they can find well-educated workers. So education becomes the competitive advantage. And when you start looking at the location, you know you can get the good workers. You know that the communities will benefit by having a good education. We know these communities that invest heavily in education suffer less crime, pay less welfare, and we know the individuals benefit, the students benefit with a good education. There's an old adage that says ``the more you learn, the more you earn.'' The more education you get, the higher your income will be. So we need to focus on education if we're going to maintain our competitiveness. But, unfortunately, we're finding that we're slipping in terms of math and science on any international basis. We used to be fairly high. We're kind of drifting down. We're kind of in the middle of the pack right now but dropping. We used to be number one in graduating our students from high school. Now we're dropping. We used to be number one in those going to college. We used to be number one by far. Now many countries are having more young people go to college and graduate from college than in the United States.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4122, the Graduation for All Act of 2009 (GFA). I would like to thank Chairman George Miller for introducing this comprehensive bill that creates a three-year grant to help turn around our nation's lowest performing schools. This bill will help address some of the problems facing our schools and ensure that they are moving toward a goal of graduating all of our children. For far too long, schools have not been held accountable for ensuring that students graduate on time with a high school diploma. As a result, some students leave high school without a meaningful education that provides quality academic experiences sufficient for success in college or the workplace. Additionally, high school students are dropping out at an alarming rate. A recent study found that only 53 percent of all young people in the nation's 50 largest cities are graduating from high school on time. Regrettably, roughly 12 percent of all secondary schools in the United States produce approximately half of the nation's secondary school dropouts. In these secondary schools, known as ``dropout factories,'' African American, Native American and Hispanic students have graduation rates that are 50 percent or below. Recently, strong reform efforts have targeted dropout factories and other low performing high schools, but it is obvious we have to do more and start our efforts earlier. More of an emphasis must be placed on the lowest performing middle schools. Too many students leave middle school with significant deficiencies such as being behind on English and Math proficiency; this leaves them ill prepared for the rigors of high school. Increasing graduation rates and improving academic achievement will enrich the lives of our children as well as strengthen our workforce and nation as a whole. A nation enjoys a competitive advantage in the global marketplace when it has a well educated and well trained workforce. If we expect to compete, we must ensure that all of our children receive a quality education. The Graduation for All Act will make education a priority and invests significant funding to accomplish several goals. First, it provides funding for schools to increase teacher and leadership effectiveness, hire highly qualified teachers, restructure schools, and transition students out of low performing schools into higher achieving schools. Second, the bill will fund initiatives that increase college access and completion such as dual enrollment and early college programs. Finally, the legislation includes provisions from the Every Student Counts Act (ESCA, H.R. 1569), which I introduced on March 17, 2009, that will require consistent and accurate counting of high school dropouts, require the establishment of aggressive and attainable graduation rate goals, and provide incentives to meet these goals. This bill will make significant strides toward improving student achievement, postsecondary readiness and graduation rates. It is my hope that Congress will move this legislation quickly and it will be signed into law. This will ensure that all of our nation's students will receive the kind of help and support required for them to obtain a quality education. Thank you.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I rise today along with my colleague Rep. Randy Forbes, to call attention to a group of young students from Petersburg, Virginia, who have distinguished themselves, their University, and the Commonwealth of Virginia. I direct my colleagues' attention to the brothers of the Beta Gamma Chapter of Alpha Phi Alpha fraternity at Virginia State University. Over the last three years the Beta Gamma chapter has partnered with Big Brothers Big Sisters and has maintained one hundred percent chapter membership participation rate. They are the first, and only, Alpha Phi Alpha chapter in the country to accomplish this remarkable achievement. I would like to applaud my brothers for volunteering to be responsible role models for at-risk youth, helping them to reach their full potential and to lead vibrant, successful lives. Alpha Phi Alpha fraternity was founded on December 4, 1906, at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York. As the first intercollegiate Greek letter fraternity established for African Americans, Alpha Phi Alpha initially served as a brotherhood and study and support group for minority students at Cornell, but it also recognized the need to help correct the educational, economic, political and social injustices faced by African Americans. From that initial foundation at Cornell, the core Alpha Phi Alpha principles of scholarship, fellowship, good character and the uplifting of humanity were established. Alpha Phi Alpha now has a presence on hundreds of college campuses as well as in hundreds of alumni chapters in 44 States. The presence is also felt here in Washington, where nine members of the U.S. Congress are members of Alpha Phi Alpha fraternity. In 1991, an agreement was entered into between Alpha Phi Alpha and Big Brothers Big Sisters of America to unite their efforts to transform communities and the lives of young African Americans. The men of Alpha Phi Alpha have become thoroughly engaged in recruiting volunteers, and cultivating a positive relationship and experience with their Little Brothers. The brothers of Beta Gamma continue this proud tradition by proactively engaging the Petersburg community's schools and families, in addition providing one-on-one youth mentoring for children at-risk of slipping through the cracks of our society. Studies show that the regular presence of a responsible adult provides lasting, positive impacts on the life of a child. Those children mentored by the Big Brothers of Beta Gamma chapter will be less likely to use drugs and alcohol, will perform better in school, and will have healthier family relationships. Today, I rise to recognize these young gentlemen for their genuine concern for their local community and for their dedication to public service.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the enduring legacy of a faith institution in the city of Richmond. On Saturday, November 28, 2009, The Saint Paul's Baptist Church will celebrate its 100th anniversary, and in recognition of this milestone I would like to take a moment to reflect on the history of this esteemed church and its contributions to the greater Richmond community. The Saint Paul's Baptist Church began, fittingly, on Thanksgiving night in 1909, when a group of congregants of First Union Baptist Church received a letter of release to form their own Church. The newly organized Church elected Rev. George Pinkney as its first Pastor. Reverend Pinkney's years were dedicated to establishing the new parish on a firm footing. Under his leadership, the first sanctuary with a seating capacity greater than 50 was constructed on Botetourt Street. The Saint Paul's family grew considerably in a short period of time under Reverend Pinkney and the church's second pastor and Reverend Pinkney's son, Timothy Pinkney. During the service of Saint Paul's third pastor, Rev. Isaiah Hines (1913-1928), a second sanctuary was built that accommodated the growing church's 200 worshippers. Saint Paul's underwent significant change under the leadership of their fourth and longest serving pastor, Rev. Journey A. Mosby. During his 40 year tenure, the church expanded its commitment to the development of young people, especially aspiring theological students from nearby Virginia Union University. Reverend Mosby was also responsible for many ministries that still exist in the church today. A new building was once again needed to accommodate the growing congregation. Reverend Mosby launched an expansion campaign on Thanksgiving Day 1950 and by 1957, the church was able to buy an existing facility on the corner of 26th and Marshall Streets in the Church Hill neighborhood. This served as the Church's home for 45 years, and the Parish House is now listed on the National Park Service's National Register of Historic Places. The Church's fifth pastor, Rev. James Leary, was installed in 1969. Under his direction, the Saint Paul's Baptist Federal Credit Union, the Saint Paul's Housing Corporation, the Saint Paul's Manor, and the J.A. Mosby Scholarship fund were all initiated. Saint Paul's sixth and current pastor is Rev. Lance Watson, installed in 1985. Under his leadership, Saint Paul's has continued to thrive and expand. Over the last 30 years, the congregation has grown to over 12,000 members. The church has instituted many more ministries including a bookstore, multiple schools, a counseling service, a community development corporation, and a media company that produces weekly recordings of Saint Paul's services and broadcasts them nationally. In 2002, the Church moved into its present facility on Creighton Road. Although this is now the heart of Saint Paul's, the church has multiple locations throughout Greater Richmond including the Marshall Avenue facility, which is under development to become a performing arts center. Saint Paul's has been such a positive spiritual influence on the Richmond community that since 2005, two churches faced with the prospect of selling their property on the open market elected instead to give their physical plants to Saint Paul's to help expand its ministry. The church's dedication to ``finding needs and meeting them, finding hurts and healing them, finding problems and solving them'' has made it an indispensible institution of faith in the Greater Richmond area. I would like to commend Pastor Watson and the congregation of The Saint Paul's Baptist Church as they celebrate their 100th anniversary. I hope that their next 100 years of service will be as fruitful as their first 100 years.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, all afternoon we have heard about the freedom to be uninsured. Seniors in my district do not want us to repeal government-run Medicare so that they can enjoy a freedom to be uninsured, and those without insurance now do not view themselves as enjoying some freedom. They want insurance. The Republican substitute responds to the comprehensive Affordable Healthcare for America Act with a bill that fails to reduce costs, fails to cover uninsured Americans, and it may study, but it does not help, those with preexisting conditions. It does, however, attack innocent victims of medical malpractice. One recent study showed that medical malpractice represents less than one-third of one percent of all health care costs, and yet the Republican substitute seeks to blame our broken health care insurance system on innocent victims of malpractice. For those victims, the bill limits the ability to hire a lawyer, complicates the lawsuit, shifts the cost of medical malpractice from the doctor to the victim's own private insurance, and, in some cases, causes the injured victims to lose the right to sue before they even know they have been injured. None of these unfair provisions were passed during previous attempts when the Republicans controlled the House, the Senate and the White House, and they should not be passed now. The substitute should be defeated.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, all afternoon we have heard about the ``freedom'' to be uninsured. Seniors in my district do not want us to repeal government run Medicare so that they can enjoy a ``freedom'' to be uninsured, and those without insurance now do not view themselves as enjoying some ``freedom''; they want insurance. The Republican substitute responds to the comprehensive Affordable Health Care for America act with a bill that fails to reduce cost, fails to cover uninsured Americans, and it may study--but it does not help--those with pre-existing conditions. It does, however, attack innocent victims of medical malpractice. One recent study showed that medical malpractice represents less than one-third of one percent of all health care costs. And yet the Republican substitute seeks to blame our broken health care insurance system on innocent victims of medical malpractice. For those victims, the bill limits the ability to hire a lawyer, complicates the lawsuit, shifts the costs of medical malpractice from the doctor to the victims' own private insurance, and in some cases causes the injured victims to lose the right to sue before they even know they've been injured. I'd like to share some specific examples of the egregious provisions included in the Republican substitute. Under the Republican substitute, a young child whose life is forever devastated by medical malpractice can lose all right to sue on his or her eighth birthday--long before he or she reaches legal age to make his or her own decision. Under the Republican substitute, when two or more wrongdoers act together, and one of them is able to flee or put their assets out of reach, the innocent victim is left short, while the other wrongdoer is shielded from full responsibility. They call this the ``fair share rule.'' Under the Republican substitute, it is more difficult for a medical malpractice victim to get a lawyer's help to fight against the insurance companies, because the bill permits a court to reduce the fee paid to the victim's lawyer--after the case has been fought and won. This provision penalizes victims with winning cases. One would think the purpose of this provision is to save the insurance carrier money and thereby reduce malpractice premiums; however, insurance carriers are not responsible for the victim's lawyer's fee. Insurance carriers are responsible for the defendant's lawyer's fee, so permitting the court to reduce fees paid to defendant's lawyers would actually save money and reduce premiums. The substitute does not allow that. This makes no sense. Under current practice, the victim's lawyers already don't get paid if the victim loses. Now they might not get paid even if the victim wins. Under the Republican substitute, if the victim has health insurance that helps pay for the victim's care while the victim is waiting for the wrongdoer to be held accountable, the wrongdoer can escape legal accountability for that part of the cost entirely. The wrongdoer gets to shift the cost onto the victim's own health insurance. That's the Republican approach to health insurance reform--saddling the victim's insurer with the cost of someone else's negligence, while letting the wrongdoer off the hook. Under the Republican substitute, the only time punitive damages would ever be available is when the wrongdoer has maliciously injured the victim that is, when the wrongdoer has committed a violent felony. And even then--even in cases of the most heinous violence imaginable--the Republican substitute caps punitive damages. The Republican substitute is empty of any meaningful health insurance reform, and it is utterly callous to malpractice victims. None of these unfair provisions were passed during previous attempts when the Republicans controlled the House, the Senate and the White House, and they should not be passed now. The substitute should be defeated. In contrast, the majority's Affordable Health Care for America Act reduces the number of uninsured, increases accessibility of health care, controls skyrocketing costs, and addresses the denial of coverage based on pre-existing conditions. This legislation will put us on a new path where health care will be affordable to all and not just a luxury for some, and I am proud to support this historic health insurance reform legislation.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

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

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I think the wording, as it is, says that an owner-operator who uses force or authorized the use of force to defend a vessel of the United States against an act of piracy shall not be liable for any injury or death caused by such force. That does not limit it, in its present version, to civil. It would actually exempt him from any liability, that would include criminal. I would hope that the gentleman, whatever happens to the amendment, would work cooperatively so that we would limit it to the intent as he has articulated today.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Just civil.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Yes, you do exempt them from criminal acts?

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Reclaiming my time, I would ask another question, Mr. Chairman. Is it your intent to limit this to the application of civil law and not criminal law? Would you exempt owners and operators from criminal acts?

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I would like to pose a couple of questions to the sponsor of the amendment, if he would respond. My first question would be whether it's his intent, because the language under the amendment does not limit it to the high seas, is it your intent to limit this application to high seas? I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I fully share the desire of the sponsor of the amendment to effectively combat piracy on the high seas, but I hope this amendment will not be adopted. As he has pointed out, the manager's amendment does address this issue and does so consistently with well-established, long-observed legal traditions which go back to the ancient civilizations of Rome and Babylon. The language in the bill, now with the manager's amendment, incorporated language of the Transportation and Infrastructure and the Judiciary Committee in place of what was in the introduced bill. Now this amendment, unfortunately, goes too far. It grants absolute immunity within the United States on our lakes and rivers to violence against our own citizens. Now, the difference in the two provision, one carefully crafted by the Judiciary Committee and now the one being offered on the floor, is not about enabling ship's crews to respond to piracy. Both do that fine. The difference is that this amendment would eliminate all legal restraints. There will be no legal accountability, not even under criminal law. When they say no liability, the way the bill is drafted, it would be you could commit crimes against people and still be exempt. Now, I can't imagine that the sponsor actually meant to do this. I think he is talking about civil liability. But when he says--the language in the bill, with the manager's amendment, says that you are totally immune unless you knew what you were doing was substantially in excess of what was necessary. The language in the amendment, however, is not even limited to a civil liability. It's not even limited to during the attack. It could be after the attack when no one is under any danger, and there is no limit on what crimes can be committed at that point. I would hope, whether this amendment is adopted or not, if there are still concerns about the amendment, that we would work together cooperatively as we go forward to make sure that we give the crewmembers all of the flexibility they need in these situations without going too far and allowing crime and torture and everything else under criminal law. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, responsible health insurance reform requires a comprehensive approach. For example, health insurance companies often deny coverage if you have a preexisting condition. But if we require insurance companies to cover preexisting conditions, all Americans must be required to carry health insurance; otherwise, people will just wait until they get sick before they buy insurance. And if all Americans are going to be covered, we must have mandates and taxes to subsidize those who can't afford it. Furthermore, in most States, there's only one company with an overwhelming market share, and so, without a public option, people in many States would be mandated to buy insurance from a sole-source, for- profit corporation without any limit on what it can charge. You know that's not fair. So even though there is a consensus that people with preexisting conditions should be able to buy insurance at a reasonable cost, we cannot achieve that goal without mandates, subsidies, and a public option to provide competition. That's why we need comprehensive health insurance reform with a public option.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, today I rise to introduce the Civil Access to Justice Act of 2009. The purpose of this legislation is to reauthorize the Legal Services Corporation, which has not been reauthorized by Congress since 1977. Legal Services Corporation was established by Congress in 1974 to provide legal assistance to low- income people in civil matters. LSC directs and supervises the federal grants to local legal service providers who give legal assistance to low-income clients. I am particularly pleased that we are introducing this bill, not only because it helps those in need, but because of my personal experiences with the program. Over 30 years ago, I was the founding Chairman of the Board of Peninsula Legal Aid Center, Inc., so I am aware of the need for resources to make a legal services program fully operational. In this bill, we are seeking to ensure that the Corporation has the resources required to help those in need. The bill accomplishes several goals. It increases the authorized funding level for LSC to $750 million. This is approximately the amount, adjusted for inflation, appropriated in 1981, which was the high watermark for LSC funding. LSC is currently funded at $390 million--which, in current dollars, is well below the amount needed to fully fund the program. Currently, more than 80 percent of individuals who need civil legal representation do not have the means to obtain it. Families who need this assistance the most make less than 125 percent of the poverty line or about $27,500 for a family of four. Nationally, 50 percent of these eligible applicants for legal assistance from federally funded programs are turned away mainly because these programs lack ample funding. Moreover, as the economy continues to decline, the number of individuals who will need legal representation will increase. We need to ensure that resources are available to provide legal services to those who cannot afford adequate representation. The $750 million authorized in the bill should be enough to ensure a minimum level of access to legal aid in every county in the country. Although the program has not been reauthorized in over 30 years, appropriations bills over that time have placed restrictions on the activities that attorneys in LSC programs can provide. The bill lifts most of these restrictions, including collecting attorneys' fees, permitting legal aid attorneys to bringing class-action suits, and allowing lobbying with non-federal funds. In the spirit of compromise, the bill does maintain the prohibition on abortion related litigation and incorporates some limits on whom LSC-funded programs can represent, including prisoners challenging prison conditions and people convicted of illegal drug possession in public housing eviction proceedings. The bill also provides for more effective administration of LSC. The Government Accountability Office wrote reports highlighting issues with the governance of LSC. In an August 2007 report, GAO found ``. . . LSC has not kept up with evolving reforms aimed at strengthening internal control over an organization's financial reporting process and systems.'' That same report stated that ``The current board has four committees, but none are specifically targeted at providing critical audit, ethics, or compensation functions, which are important governance mechanisms commonly used in corporate governance structures. Because it has not taken advantage of opportunities to incorporate such practices, LSC's Board of Directors is at risk of not being able to fulfill its role of effective governance and oversight.'' Overall, the Civil Access to Justice Act of 2009 will provide relief to those who need civil legal representation. I would like to thank Judiciary Committee Chairman Conyers and Representatives Cohen, Watt, Delahunt, Linda Sanchez and Hank Johnson for their hard work and dedication to this cause. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor and support this important legislation to ensure that those who need civil legal representation are able to obtain it.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady from California (Ms. Chu) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Sestak) for their leadership on the issue of campus safety. I rise in support of H. Res. 90, a resolution supporting the goals and ideals of the National Campus Safety Awareness Month. This resolution helps bring awareness to the issue of campus safety. Each year, college campuses across the Nation see a number of criminal offenses, including homicide, forcible sex offenses, aggravated assaults and arson occurring on their campuses. A recent example is the unfortunate murder that occurred at Yale University just a few weeks ago. Additionally, over the past few years we have seen numerous tragedies occur at colleges and universities, including the disastrous events that occurred at Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois University. National Campus Safety Awareness Month provides an opportunity for campuses to evaluate their campus safety practices and engage in efforts to improve campus safety. In addition to Campus Safety Awareness Month, one way in which we can improve campus safety would be to provide a one-stop shop for universities to obtain safety information. This is why I introduced the Center to Advance, Monitor and Preserve University Security, or the CAMPUS, Safety Act of 2009. The purpose of this legislation is to enable our institutions of higher education to easily obtain the best information available on how to keep our campuses safe and how to respond in the event of a campus emergency. The CAMPUS Safety Act creates a National Center for Campus Public Safety, which will be administered through the Department of Justice. The center is designed to train campus public safety agencies in state-of-the-art practices to ensure campus safety, encourage research to strengthen college campus safety and security, and serve as a clearinghouse for the dissemination of relevant campus public safety information. This bill passed the House of Representatives in February. It also passed last year, but it still awaits action from the Senate. Once the National Center for Campus Public Safety is established it, along with events like the National Campus Awareness Month, will be able to greatly assist schools in assessing their campus safety initiatives. I commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Sestak) for introducing this resolution to bring awareness to this issue and urge my colleagues to support this important resolution.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for his introduction of the resolution and urge support of the resolution. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlelady from Ohio, a strong supporter of law enforcement, Ms. Sutton.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the sponsor of the resolution, a law enforcement officer himself, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this resolution supports this year's National Night Out events coordinated by the National Association of Town Watch and encourages the President to focus attention on neighborhood crime prevention, community policing and Federal efforts to participate in various local events. The 26th Annual National Night Out, America's night out against crime, was held on Tuesday, August 4, 2009. The National Night Out is designed to promote crime and drug prevention efforts, create support for local anti-crime programs and strengthen neighborhood camaraderie and police-community partnerships. Last year's National Night Out campaign involved citizens, law enforcement agencies, civic groups, businesses, neighborhood organizations and local officials from over 15,000 communities from all 50 States, as well as U.S. territories, Canadian cities and military bases worldwide. In 2008, over 37 million people participated in National Night Out events. National Night Out has the support of many agencies and organizations, including the National Sheriffs Association, the United States Conference of Mayors, and the National League of Cities. On August 4, people from communities around the country sat on their porches with their lights on to show their support for neighborhood crime prevention and drug abuse prevention efforts. Local sponsors also organized events such as block parties, cookouts, parades and visits with local law enforcement agencies, as well as rallies and marches. National Night Out events have become a very popular way to build police-community relations and to encourage people to volunteer in their communities. For those reasons, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the resolution introduced by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak). I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 623) requesting that the President focus appropriate attention on neighborhood crime prevention and community policing, and coordinate certain Federal efforts to participate in National Night Out, which occurs the first Tuesday of August each year, including by supporting local efforts and community watch groups and by supporting local officials, to promote community safety and help provide homeland security.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I thank you for your commitment and thank you for your willingness to work on this important issue and thank my colleague from Virginia for his support and look forward to working with you in conference.