Bobby Scott

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner), who is a distinguished member of the Judiciary Committee and sponsor of the legislation.

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

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking Act, or PACT Act, introduced by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner), strengthens our law enforcement capabilities against the illegal smuggling of tobacco products. Every year, billions of cigarettes are illegally smuggled across State lines. This fraudulent activity not only harms the public health but deprives State and local governments of sorely needed tax revenues. In fact, tax evasion is a chief motivator for cigarette smuggling. Buying cigarettes in a State where the cigarette tax is low and selling them in a State where the cigarette tax is high allows the trafficker to sell the cigarettes at a discount and still turn an illicit profit. States lose $1 billion in uncollected taxes each year as a result of illegal cigarette smuggling. The illicit profit also helps finance other criminal activity which creates a revenue stream for organized crime. Because of the scope and interstate nature of this activity, States cannot adequately address it on their own. It has long been recognized as a Federal concern. With the existing Federal statutes, the Jenkins Act, which requires reporting interstate cigarette sales to tax officials in the buyer's State, and the Contraband Cigarette Trafficking Act, which prohibits knowingly dealing in contraband cigarettes or smokeless tobacco, those two statutes are simply not up to the task in the Internet age. The Internet, in particular, makes it possible for today's tobacco smugglers to be even more mobile and invisible and to operate with near impunity. Even when the smugglers can be identified and pursued, they can simply shut down operations and quickly reappear under a new name and Web site. The PACT Act addresses the shortcomings in the current law by targeting the delivery systems for illegal Internet tobacco sales: the postal system and commercial delivery services. With limited exceptions, sending tobacco products through the United States mail will be criminally prohibited. And vendors using commercial delivery services for retail sales will be required to notify the tax authorities in the receiving State, conspicuously label all tobacco products, verify the purchaser's age, and keep careful records of all sales. The bill raises cigarette trafficking from a misdemeanor to a felony. And it authorizes the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to inspect the premises and files of sellers of significant quantities of cigarettes or smokeless tobacco. H.R. 4081 enjoys support from a diverse spectrum of entities, including the National Association of Convenience Stores, Altria--the parent company of Phillip Morris--the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, the American Wholesale Marketers Association, and the National Association of Attorneys General, among others. I commend my colleague, Mr. Weiner, for his leadership on this important legislation. I also commend the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Conyers, and the ranking member, Mr. Smith, for their leadership in making this a bipartisan effort. I also want to thank the other committees whose jurisdiction has touched on this bill for working with us to bring it to the floor today. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. House of Representatives, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Washington, DC, September 8, 2008. Hon. John Conyers, Jr., Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Conyers: I write to you regarding H.R. 4081, the ``Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking Act of 2008''. H.R. 4081 contains provisions that fall within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. I recognize and appreciate your desire to bring this legislation before the House in an expeditious manner and, accordingly, I will not seek a sequential referral of the bill. However, I agree to waive consideration of this bill with the mutual understanding that my decision to forego a sequential referral of the bill does not waive, reduce, or otherwise affect the jurisdiction of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure over H.R. 4081. Further, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure reserves the right to seek the appointment of conferees during any House-Senate conference convened on this legislation on provisions of the bill that are within the Committee's jurisdiction. I ask for your commitment to support any request by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure for the appointment of conferees on H.R. 4081 or similar legislation. Please place a copy of this letter and your response acknowledging the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure's jurisdictional interest in the Congressional Record during consideration of the measure on the House Floor. I look forward to working with you as we prepare to pass this important legislation. Sincerely, James L. Oberstar, Chairman.

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

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4081) to prevent tobacco smuggling, to ensure the collection of all tobacco taxes, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 2135, the Child Soldiers Accountability Act of 2008. S. 2135 amends title 18 of the United States Code to create a criminal provision under U.S. law aimed at those who recruit or conscript children under the age of 15 into armed conflict. It establishes criminal penalties for up to 20 years in prison and up to life imprisonment if death results from the crime. The bill also makes it a violation of immigration law for any person seeking admission to the United States to have committed such acts. Finally, the bill would extend United States jurisdiction to perpetrators of this crime who are present in the United States, regardless of their nationality or where the crime takes place, so that those who commit these crimes cannot use this country as a safe haven from prosecution. This type of jurisdiction exists for similar crimes such as laws on torture and genocide, which allow for extraterritorial jurisdiction for crimes committed outside of the United States. In at least 18 countries around the world, children are utilized as direct participants in war. Many of these children soldiers, some as young as 8 years old, are abducted or recruited by force and often compelled to follow orders to participate under harsh duress. And girls make up more than 30 percent of child soldiers and participate in many conflicts. Oftentimes, they are abused and raped. Once recruited, these children, boys and girls, participate in all forms of combat, even wielding AK-47s and M-16s as portrayed in the media. There is international opposition to recruiting and using child soldiers. Over 110 countries, including the United States, have ratified the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which prohibits the recruitment and use of child soldiers under the age of 18. Nevertheless, the prevalence and nature of the child soldier problem is not going away. It continues to plague the international community. For example, in Uganda, the rebel group has abducted at least 20,000 children and has forced them to work as laborers, soldiers, and sex slaves. We hear about the ongoing persecution and atrocities in Burma, but what has escaped media attention is the use of child soldiers there, as the government has recruited up to 70,000 children, more than any other country in the world. Recruiting and using child soldiers does not currently violate United States criminal law. S. 2135 was introduced by Senator Durbin and Senator Coburn to correct that problem. We overwhelmingly passed the Genocide Accountability Act last year to end the immunity gap in genocide law. By this bill, we seek to do the same thing for those who maliciously recruit and use innocent children in warfare. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, on the passage of S. 2403, I was unavoidably detained. I would like the Record to reflect that had I been present I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor and privilege to rise in support of S. 2403, a bill to designate the new Federal Courthouse, located in the 700 block of East Broad Street, Richmond, Virginia, as the ``Spottswood W. Robinson III and Robert R. Merhige, Jr. United States Courthouse.'' The Commonwealth of Virginia has a rich history of contributions in the founding of this country and in the establishment and development of our legal system. Virginia practitioners such as George Wythe, Thomas Jefferson, John Marshall, James Monroe, and Henry Clay have all profoundly shaped and molded our country's legal traditions. In fact, the first law school in the country was our own College of William and Mary located in Williamsburg, Virginia. It is therefore fitting that we would name the new Federal Courthouse in our State's capital after two distinguished jurists, Judge Spottswood W. Robinson III and Judge Robert R. Merhige, Jr., whose exemplary careers under the law displayed the best ideals and principles of our Constitution and legal traditions. Spottswood William Robinson III was born in Richmond, Virginia, on July 26, 1916, and passed away in his home in Virginia on October 11, 1998. He attended Virginia Union University and then Howard University Law School, graduating first in his class in 1939 and serving as a member of the faculty until 1947. In 1964 Judge Robinson became the first African American to be appointed to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. In 1966 President Lyndon B. Johnson appointed Judge Robinson the first African American to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. On May 7, 1981, Judge Robinson became the first African American to serve as chief judge of the District of Columbia Circuit. Judge Robinson served on the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and as dean of the Howard University Law School. In addition to these exemplary and groundbreaking roles, Judge Robinson is probably best known for his role as one of the lead attorneys with the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund from 1948 to 1960 and specifically for his representation of the Virginia plaintiffs in the 1954 landmark U.S. Supreme Court case of Brown v. Board of Education, which declared ``separate but equal'' schools unconstitutional and is one of the landmark cases in our Nation's history. Judge Robert R. Merhige was born in New York, New York on February 5, 1919, and passed away in Richmond on February 18, 2005. He attended High Point College in North Carolina where he received his undergraduate degree in 1940. He then earned his law degree from T.C. Williams School of Law at the University of Richmond from which he graduated at the top of his class in 1942. From 1942 to 1945, during World War II, Judge Merhige served in the United States Army Air Force as a crewman on a B-17 bomber based in Italy. After the war he returned to Richmond where he practiced law from 1945 to 1967. During that time, Judge Merhige established himself as a formidable trial lawyer representing a wide variety of clients. In August of 1967, Judge Merhige was appointed U.S. District Court judge for the Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division, by President Lyndon B. Johnson, where he served for 31 years. While on the Federal bench, Judge Merhige presided over some of the most important and complex litigation in United States history. He ordered the University of Virginia to admit women in 1970. In 1972 he ordered the desegregation of dozens of Virginia school districts. As a result of his decision, he and his family were victims of threats and violence, and he was given 24-hour protection by U.S. marshals. His judicial courage and independence in the face of strong opposition is a testament to his dedication to equal justice under the law, and I believe his example is as pertinent today as it was then. The new Federal Courthouse in Richmond is under construction and nearing completion. I believe that naming it after these two exemplary jurists will not only serve as a tribute to their fierce adherence to the Constitution and to their legacy of equal justice under the law but also will serve as a reminder of their contributions to ensuring a fair and just legal system for all people. Mr. Speaker, I commend Senator John Warner and Senator Jim Webb for introducing this bill in the Senate, as well as the support from the entire Virginia delegation. I would like to thank Chairman Oberstar and Chairwoman Norton, Ranking Members Mica and Graves, Representatives Carney and King, and both the Democratic and Republican leadership for the swift passage of this measure.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the life and work of a treasured citizen of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Madam Annie B. Daniels. The year 2008 marks the 50th year Madam Daniels has operated her business on Chestnut Avenue in Newport News. In recognition of both this anniversary and her many civic accomplishments, I would like to say a few words about this remarkable woman. Annie B. Daniels was born in Grove Hill, Alabama. At an early age, Madam Daniels had the desire to become a hairdresser, having been inspired by her great aunt Lady Bell Pugh, a local hairdresser. Madam Daniels began her formal beautician training at the Barnett Institute in Grove Hill and continued at the Freeman Beauty School of Savannah, Georgia. She moved to Newport News, Virginia, and enrolled in the Spratley Beauty College. Upon graduation, she worked in privately owned salons until she opened her singularly owned and operated beauty parlor on 1309 30th Street in 1948. Although the ability to operate her own salon was empowering, Madam Daniels was unsatisfied with her first business and in 1958 she established the Madam Daniels' Salon at 2901 Chestnut Avenue. A year later she added an educational component to the salon and the Madam Daniels' School of Beauty Culture was born. Starting with just four students and a basic course of study, the school has grown tremendously in both enrollment and curriculum. Madam Daniels' School of Beauty Culture is a fixture of the southeastern Newport News community, and its graduates have gone on to make their mark in the beauty industry around the world. Hand in hand with her entrepreneurial work, Madam Daniels has been an important advocate for civil rights and social justice in Virginia. She was active in the Civil Rights Movement in Virginia, becoming the first fully paid female life member of the Newport News branch of the NAACP. For over a decade she chaired the local life membership committee, and through her efforts to increase life memberships, the branch was nationally recognized. Madam Daniels's civic engagement has been recognized by the City of Newport News, the NAACP, Hampton University, the Urban League of Hampton Roads, the Peninsula Chapter of 100 Black Men of America, and the Virginia General Assembly. Her advice and counsel are actively sought by local mayors, city council members, and state and national representatives, including myself. I congratulate Madam Daniels on her 50 years as a successful entrepreneur and for her 50 years of commitment and service to her community, state, and country.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank and commend Chairman Miller, Ranking Member McKeon, Chairman Hinojosa, and Ranking Member Keller for their hard work on this bill. This bill contains many important provisions that will make college more affordable for our students, particularly the Pell Grant and loan forgiveness provisions. It also has many provisions helpful to institutions of higher learning, especially Historically Black Colleges and Universities which have been funded for new master's programs at Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Predominantly Black Institutions. It also, as the Chairman has indicated, has a new program to help the rapidly growing field of modeling and simulation. Mr. Speaker, there is new language in the bill dealing with the accreditation of colleges, and it is important to explicitly note that this new language does not adversely affect or change anti- discrimination provisions. The bill also contains a direction to the Department of Education to reword the financial aid application to make it clear that students can get financial aid, even if they have a drug offense. We have worked long and hard on this bill, and for the foregoing reasons, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the bill. Mr. Speaker, it has been ten years since the Higher Education Act has been reauthorized and I am pleased that we will now make many needed updates to this law. I would like to commend Chairman Miller, Ranking Member McKeon, Chairman Hinojosa, and Ranking Member Keller for their work on this bill. I would also like to thank the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate's Health, Education, Labor & Pensions committee, Senators Kennedy and Enzi. Additionally, I would like to express my gratitude to Senator Mikulski for all her efforts in Senator Kennedy's absence. I would also like to thank the House and Senate Committees' staff; we could not have reached this point without your hard work and dedication. This bill contains many important provisions that will help make a college education more affordable for student and their families. I am particularly pleased with the increase in the authorization of the Pell grant and the loan forgiveness provision that will aid students who give back to their community if they enter a profession in an area of national need, including mental health professionals and child welfare workers. The legislation also specifically assists minority students in several ways. For example, it contains a provision to promote cultural diversity in the entertainment media industry. It will also require that a study be conducted on whether race, ethnicity, or gender biases exist in the design of standardized admission tests used by higher education institutions. The information collected for the study is intended to be made available to the public--except in cases where the entity providing the information shows good cause or in the case where the information is proprietary--so that if such biases are found we can work to correct them. The bill requires the Department of Education to conform hate crime reporting requirements to FBI guidelines to more accurately report incidents of hate crimes on our campuses. This will result in consistent and accurate reporting of crimes against persons and crimes against property. In addition, improved data will give parents and students a more accurate sense of campus safety and education institutions a better picture of their campus climate. The legislation also contains many provisions helpful to institutions of higher education. The Secretary will now be required to develop and maintain a plan to help schools cope with natural and man-made disasters. The bill also creates an Education Disaster and Emergency Relief Loan Program to provide emergency loan funds to schools after a federal declared major disaster or emergency, including those schools affected by the 2005 Gulf Hurricanes. Additionally, the bill includes a provision which significantly helps schools affected by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita by holding them harmless for purposes of Title III funding. This bill also does a great deal to help the Historically Black Colleges and Universities. The authorization levels for HBCUs have been increased to $375 million dollars, which is almost three times the amount that is in the current Higher Education Act. The amount for the Historically Black Graduate Institutions program has significantly increased as well. The bill also provides funding for Masters programs at Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Predominantly Black Institutions that focus on science, technology, engineering, mathematics, health and other fields in which Blacks are underrepresented. The legislation strengthens and develops college-level programs in the rapidly growing field of Modeling and Simulation. This is a field of study that refers to replicating a system on a smaller scale or on a computer for extensive examination. There is not a single field of study or profession that cannot benefit from this type of analysis including urban planning, medicine and national security. This legislation includes several positive changes to the TRIO programs, which provide assistance to low-income and first generation college-going students. The bill eliminates the Absolute Priority conditions imposed on Upward Bound programs by the Department of Education without requiring a recompetition. In addition, the bill creates an appeals process for TRIO programs to ensure that the grantmaking process is as fair and transparent as possible. Mr. Speaker, there is a clarification that I feel must be made with regard to new language added to an existing accreditation provision. Current law requires that accrediting agencies or associations apply and enforce their standards in a manner that respects the missions of institutions of higher education. This bill states that respecting missions of institutions of higher education includes religious missions. It is important to explicitly note what is and is not intended by the new language. Pursuant to the House Report filed by the House Committee on Education and Labor on December 19, 2007 (H. Rept. 110-500, Part I), it is important to make clear that this new language does not affect or change nondiscrimination provisions. The House Report states in relevant part: ``The new language requiring accrediting agencies or associations to apply and enforce their standards in a manner that respects the missions of institutions of higher education, including religious missions, reflects Congress' belief that accredited institutions should be allowed to choose their own missions rather than having them imposed or regulated by accrediting bodies. In response to concerns raised by Representatives Robert C. Scott (D-VA) and Ruben Hinojosa (D-TX) about whether the amendment would harm the ability of accreditors to enforce nondiscrimination provisions, the author of the amendment, Representative Timothy Walberg (R-MI), explained that the provision would not affect nondiscrimination provisions and instead would require accreditors to respect the missions of schools, including when the missions are religious. ``It is the intent of the Committee that this amendment does not change or alter current accreditation requirements, and the exemptions included in those requirements (such as those allowed by the American Bar Association and the American Psychological Association), for the enforcement of nondiscrimination provisions. The Committee also notes that this provision does not alter title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 or other federal antidiscrimination statutes, which remain applicable to institutions of higher education to the same extent as before. The Department of Education shall not promulgate any regulations that provide any new exceptions to current nondiscrimination provisions. ``It is also the intent of the Committee that this amendment does not change or alter current accreditation requirements, and the exemptions included in those requirements, for training professionals in the practice of medicine and other health care professions.'' Similarly, the Senate report that accompanies S. 1642 (the companion bill to H.R. 4137) filed by the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions on November 15, 2007 (Report No. 110-231) confirms this position. The Senate report states in relevant part: ``Accrediting agencies or associations recognized by the Department of Education are invested with a public trust and perform an important public function. Congress expects that those receiving Department recognition will perform those functions with the same diligence and competence as would be provided by any public body and that their procedures will be conducted with the same level of transparency, due process, and accountability that would apply to the Department if it performed this function itself. ``The new language requiring accrediting agencies or associations to apply and enforce their standards in a manner that respects the missions of institutions of higher education, including religious missions, reflects these goals. It is not intended to allow an institution to deny a person participation in, the benefits of, or to subject a person to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance under existing laws, including those with respect to race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, or disability; or because the person has not complied with a standard of the institution that requires the person to discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, or disability.'' Mr. Speaker, I would also like to highlight a provision included in the Statement of Managers to the Conference which I feel is extremely important. Currently, the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) is written in a way that misleads many students to believe that if they have been convicted of a drug offense, they do not qualify for financial aid. In the Statement of Managers, Conferees encourage the Department to reword the FAFSA to more accurately reflect the ways in which students who have been convicted of drug offenses can obtain financial aid. Mr. Speaker, we have worked long and hard for a comprehensive, bipartisan bill. While not perfect, I believe this bill goes a long way towards making college more affordable for students and their families and towards helping our institutions and higher education provide a quality education to our nation's youth. For the foregoing reasons, I support the bill and urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

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

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 6531, the Vessel Hull Design Protection Amendments of 2008, makes technical corrections to the 1998 Vessel Hull Design Protection Act for the purpose of clarifying Congress' intent that the design of an original vessel hull, separate from a vessel deck, may be protected. In 1998, the Vessel Hull Design Protection Act established sui generis intellectual property protection for original vessel hull designs. That Act sought to address the problems of copycats who make molds of popular boat designs in order to produce knock-off versions. These knock-offs obviously cut into the market of the original manufacturers who had invested substantial time and resources in designing and testing their boats. Nevertheless, some copycats--mostly operating overseas--have exploited a flaw in the language of the 1998 Act. As defined in the Act, a protected ``hull'' consists of both the hull and deck of a vessel. In determining infringement, the courts have interpreted this to mean that an allegedly infringing design must be substantially similar to both the hull and the deck of the protected design taken together. This means that a vessel with a hull identical to a protected design but with a different deck is not considered an infringement. This loophole has allowed copycats to continue to take and use popular hull designs of others with impunity. To correct the problem, H.R. 6531 explicitly extends protection to a hull, a deck, or both, as the original manufacturer chooses. If a manufacturer elects to protect just the hull, infringement will be judged based on whether the hull of the alleged infringer is substantially similar. The same applies also if only the deck is protected. If a manufacturer elects to protect both the hull and the deck, infringement will continue to be judged on whether the combined hull and deck design is substantially similar. It is anticipated that the Copyright Office will promulgate regulations and a registration form that will clearly indicate that a deck, a hull, or hull-and-deck combination can be protected in one application. H.R. 6531 also amends the 1998 Act to ensure that any vessel manufactured by or on behalf of the Department of Defense is governed by that agency's general procurement law, notwithstanding vessel hull design protection. Passage of H.R. 6531 will finally provide boat manufacturers with the protection that Congress intended to give them a decade ago. And one point, Mr. Speaker, the bill does not address the problem of fashion design policy that is hurting U.S. designers. But given the complexity of developing the appropriate protection scheme for fashion designs, it would be better addressed in a more thorough manner the next Congress. So I urge my colleagues to support this important measure this time. 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 include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6531) to amend chapter 13 of title 17, United States Code (relating to the vessel hull design protection), to clarify the definitions of a hull and a deck.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

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

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in strong support of S. 2565, the Law Enforcement Congressional Badge Bravery Act of 2008. This excellent measure establishes a formal process by which Congress will be able to recognize acts of bravery of all of our Nation's law enforcement officers who become injured in the course of their duties. Of the more than 70 Federal law enforcement agencies, only two have an awards programs to recognize their officers. Such scant recognition for the sacrifices that these officers make is simply unacceptable. This legislation builds on legislation the House passed in April, H.R. 4056, authored by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Ellsworth), to accord Congressional recognition for the dangers Federal law enforcement officers face for our safety each day. H.R. 4056 would have established a meaningful and long-overdue system to honor deserving officers. S. 2565 takes a somewhat different approach. It extends recognition for State and local law enforcement officers, as well as Federal officers, injured in the line of duty. A Member of Congress or the Attorney General would be authorized to present, on behalf of Congress, a Congressional Badge of Bravery not only to Federal officers but also to any State or local officers cited by the Attorney General based upon the recommendation of a board established by this measure. Mr. Speaker, the men and women in law enforcement, like many hardworking public servants, must work long and often irregular hours unlike other public servants. However, law enforcement officers undertake their responsibilities with the full knowledge that they are at risk of severe injury or worse, and it is fitting that we honor these officers for whom the risk becomes the reality. S. 2565 will now accord these brave men and women formal Congressional recognition, an honor that is so much deserved. I want to thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Ellsworth) and the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden) for their leadership in this important legislation, and I encourage my colleagues to support it. 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 include extraneous material on the Senate bill under consideration.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 2565) to establish an awards mechanism to honor exceptional acts of bravery in the line of duty by Federal law enforcement officers.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 36th anniversary of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. Title IX was the culmination of the hard work of many women and men who fought for women's rights to equal opportunities within the American education system. Today, we remember their efforts and we celebrate their achievements. Title IX was the first comprehensive federal law to prohibit sex discrimination against students and employees of educational institutions. Title IX has benefited both males and females, and is at the heart of efforts to create gender equitable schools with equal opportunities and treatment for women. The law requires educational institutions to maintain policies, practices and programs that do not discriminate against anyone based on sex. Under this law, males and females must receive fair and equal treatment in all areas of higher education, such as admissions, educational programs and athletics. The benefits of Title IX are compelling and throughout these 36 years we have seen women seize the opportunity to thrive within the education system in all areas. High school sports participation for females has risen 903% since the early 70s. In 1970, women earned only 14% of doctoral degrees, but today earn nearly 50%. Over these 36 years, women have entered and thrived in male-dominated fields such as business and science. I'd like to recognize the 92 current female Members of this Congress who have also entered and thrived in another male-dominated field. Many of my distinguished colleagues have been beneficiaries of Title IX. They have rightfully been given an opportunity to be free from sex discrimination and they are continuing to pave the way for women coming after them. Throughout our recent history, America has seen the growing momentum to achieve the equality enshrined in our Constitution. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was the first giant step, which prohibited discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex and national origin. Then during the decade after the passage of the Civil Rights Act, Congress passed a series of laws extending civil rights protections in federally assisted programs. There was Title IX, then Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 which protected those with disabilities, then the Age Discrimination Act of 1975 which prohibited age discrimination, and then the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act to provide education and intervention programs to youth with disabilities. In the last 44 years we have made great progress towards achieving equality and extraordinary legislation such as Title IX has made this possible. However, despite all this progress, equal rights and opportunities for all have not yet been realized. We continue on the journey to obtain equal opportunities for all Americans, and we acknowledge that there is much more to be done for women and for other historically marginalized groups. But on the 36th anniversary of Title IX, we celebrate our achievements as they give us strength to continue on the path towards equality.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I oppose H.R. 6304. It allows widespread acquisition of private conversations without meaningful court review. The bill actually permits the government to perform mass untargeted surveillance of any and all conversations believed to be coming into and out of the United States without any individualized finding and without a requirement that wrongdoing is believed to be involved at all. It arguably is not limited just to terrorism. It could be any foreign intelligence, which would include diplomacy and anything else. It is vague on what can be done with the information after it is acquired and who has access to it, and the only court review is a check on whether or not the government certifies that the process has been followed. The court does not review who, what and where the tapping will take place. Furthermore, the collection of all of this data can be done under emergency provisions before the court acts, but the collection can continue to be done even if the court later rejects the application if the administration appeals. The bill also provides retroactive immunity to communications companies who may have violated people's rights, and whether or not those rights have been violated should be reviewed by the courts, not decided here in Congress. Madam Speaker, we can protect Americans' national security and protect civil rights by providing government access to personal conversations with meaningful court review. This bill fails to do that, and therefore should be defeated.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Clerk be authorized to make technical corrections in the engrossment of H.R. 5781, including corrections in spelling, punctuation, section and title numbering, cross-referencing, conforming amendments to the table of contents and short titles, and the insertion of appropriate headings.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chairman, I rise today in support of the NASA Authorization Act of 2008. It authorizes $20.2 billion for NASA in FY 09, including $1 billion to speed development of the Crew Exploration Vehicle and Crew Launch Vehicle. This bill authorizes increased funding for vital aeronautics research after several years of cuts. In fact, it authorizes $853 million for aeronautics research, a $341 million dollar increase over FY 07 levels. This includes continued funding for the next-generation air transportation system initiative--a collaborative federal effort to design a new air traffic control system that can accommodate increased air traffic, which is expected to double or even triple by 2025. This important work being conducted by engineers and scientists at NASA Langley will lay the groundwork for a more efficient, safer, and environmentally-friendly air traffic system that will reduce delays and allow our Nation to move more people and goods around the United States and around the world. Madam Chairman, we know that investing in aeronautics research pays off. The aviation industry is the number one positive contributor to the U.S. balance of trade, with a net contribution to this balance of more than $60 billion in 2007. This is directly attributable to our past investment in aeronautics research. EVERY aircraft, worldwide, uses NASA technology. And NASA Langley Research Center located in Hampton, Virginia has been at the forefront of developing many of these cutting edge technologies. Engineering principles developed from past research at Langley have contributed to overall aircraft safety and efficiency through advances in wing design, noise abatement, structural integrity, and fuel efficiency. And it is important to remember that these principles were developed 5, 10, 20, or even 30 years before they led to improvements in the commercial aircraft we see today. Though we may not see the benefits of today's investments in research for several decades, if we fail to make these investments today, we will regret that decision 20 or 30 years from now. Our Nation's leadership position in aeronautics is made more secure by the commitments we make today. Madam Chairman, this bill recognizes that aeronautics has been an essential part of NASA's mission since the Agency's founding 50 years ago. NASA's aeronautics research and development efforts, including the work done by the workers at Langley Research Center in Virginia, have made the United States the world leader in the aeronautics industry. I commend Chairman Gordon and the Members of the Science and Technology Committee for their hard work on this bill and for bringing it to the full House, and I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I rise today to commemorate a milestone in the struggle for equality and civil rights. On this day 41 years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that the United States would no longer allow race-based restrictions on marriage to deprive Americans of their rights. Today, on the anniversary of the Supreme Court's decision in Loving v. Virginia, we are once again reminded that America is a place of equality and freedom. As an interracial couple, Mildred and Richard Loving challenged laws in effect in Virginia and 15 other states which prohibited interracial marriage. On June 12, 1967 the Supreme Court recognized the merits of Mr. and Mrs. Loving's claims and overturned all race-based restrictions on marriage. The Court ruled unanimously that Virginia's prohibition against interracial marriage violated both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In its decision, the Court held that, ``The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.'' On this day, I would like to celebrate the lives and audacity of both Mr. and Mrs. Loving, whose vision paved the way for a freer and more colorblind society in America. Richard Loving died in a car accident in 1975 and we lost Mildred Loving to pneumonia only last month. It is the courage and the spirit of the Lovings and others like them that continue to give us hope that Americans from all walks of life will be free from discrimination. There have been recent efforts in Congress to strip the courts of jurisdiction by legislative means. This is ill-advisable and I hope the example of Loving v. Virginia serves as a reminder to us all that this is a precarious path. Should the Court have been stripped of jurisdiction to hear this case, as some have proposed for certain controversial issues, this landmark case would have never been possible. What was once highly controversial is now accepted as commonplace thanks to those judges who were, at the time, disparaged for being ``activist judges''. Today we are a better, stronger and fairer nation thanks to their jurisprudence. I would also like to pay tribute to a colleague and friend who played an integral part in the Loving v. Virginia case. I had the honor of serving with Attorney Bernard S. Cohen in the Virginia House of Delegates for 3 years. As Mr. and Mrs. Loving's attorney, Mr. Cohen worked tirelessly for the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment, and I think it is appropriate to recognize him for all of his efforts and his commitment to civil rights. Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join with me in remembering this historic case, and urge our nation to keep in mind the equality and freedom for which the Court's decision stands.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I thank the gentleman from Maryland for his hard work on this bill and for his leadership on the Chesapeake Bay issues. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 5540, the Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails Network Continuing Reauthorization Act. I commend my colleague from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes) for introducing the bill, which will help further the Chesapeake Bay's restoration. I serve as cochair of the bipartisan Chesapeake Bay Task Force, and I'm proud to be an original cosponsor of this legislation. Over 400 years ago, the first permanent English settlers of North America sailed into the Chesapeake Bay and settled on the banks of the James River at Jamestown, Virginia. Although the Chesapeake Bay played a significant role in the founding of this great Nation, the bay is often one of the most overlooked natural and economic estuaries in the United States. The Chesapeake Bay Watershed touches 41 congressional districts in the States of Virginia, West Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, Pennsylvania, New York and the District of Columbia. Mr. Speaker, I have been actively involved in ensuring that the resources are available to protect and restore the Chesapeake Bay since my days in the Virginia General Assembly. When I served in the Virginia House of Delegates, I was a member of a joint Virginia/Maryland legislative task force that first recommended in 1980 a multi-State commission to address bay issues. And that multi-State commission continues to recognize the Chesapeake Bay as a vitally important regional and national treasure. H.R. 5540 will reauthorize the Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network, which is the National Park Service component of the greater Chesapeake Bay Program. The goal of this network is to conserve the natural beauty and cultural heritage of the bay for the benefit and enjoyment of future generations through grants, technical assistance to parks, volunteer groups, wildlife refuges, historical sites, museums and water trails throughout the bay watershed. The network ties all of these sites and projects together to actively engage citizens to help clean up the Chesapeake Bay. Since 2000, the network has grown to include 156 gateways in six States and the District of Columbia. Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman from Maryland for his leadership. And I want to take the opportunity to thank our new Virginia colleague, Mr. Wittman, for his long-time leadership and activity in Chesapeake Bay issues. I commend the Committee on Natural Resources for reporting the bill favorably to the full House and urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. It also maintains accommodations for children's health care, higher education, and rejects the cuts in Medicare and Medicaid. It does this, maintaining the middle class tax cuts. So instead of following the reckless fiscal policies of the past, instead of following the reckless recommendations of this administration, this responsible budget funds our priorities in a fiscally responsible way. I want to thank the gentleman from South Carolina for his leadership in presenting this fiscally responsible budget. I urge my colleagues to adopt this conference report.