Bobby Scott

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I request 5 legislative days during which Members may insert material relevant to H. Res. 182 into the Record.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 182) commending and congratulating Virginia State University on the occasion of its 125th anniversary, as amended.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, before we respond to the President's call for an additional 20,000 troops in Iraq, we must put his call in the context of the history of the war, beginning with the discussion of what the current 130,000 troops are doing there now. The original reasons we were provided with the rationale for going to war, that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, that Iraqi leaders were connected with the 9/11 attacks, and that Iraq posed an imminent threat to the United States, all turned out not to be true. Saddam Hussein was captured and recently hanged, al-Zarqawi is dead, and Iraq held democratic elections over a year ago, and yet we are still in Iraq. Throughout the war, the President has attempted to associate our presence in Iraq with a so-called war on terrorism. The truth is that our presence in Iraq has actually increased our risk to terrorism. Furthermore, the term ``war on terrorism'' is a rhetorical term without any relationship to reality. Terrorism is not an enemy. It is a tactic. The enemy is al Qaeda. We attacked Afghanistan because al Qaeda was there, not in Iraq. The President is now saying he is laying out a new mission in Iraq, thereby clearly acknowledging that, whatever the old mission was, it was not working. But there is still no clearly defined end goal and no clearly defined explanation of how failure or success can be measured. If our mission now is to stabilize Baghdad, many military experts have already said that an additional force of 20,000 troops is woefully insufficient to accomplish that goal. The fact is that the administration has already increased troop levels on several occasions during this war. None of the previous surges in troop levels have had any lasting effect on the war, and there is no credible evidence to believe that this surge will be any different. And how can we have confidence in predictions of success? Before our invasion in Iraq, Secretary Rumsfeld predicted that the war in Iraq would last ``6 days, 6 weeks. I doubt 6 months.'' Vice President Cheney predicted we would be greeted as liberators. Almost 4 years ago, the President stood before a sign that said ``Mission Accomplished'' and proclaimed major combat operations in Iraq have ended. A year and a half ago Vice President Cheney said the Iraqis were ``in the last throes'' of the insurgency. And yet here we are discussing an increase, not a decrease, in troop levels. At the outset of this war, the administration predicted that the cost of the war would be so minuscule that it advised the House Committee on the Budget not even to include the cost of the war in the Federal budget. The administration official who suggested that the cost of the war might exceed $100 billion was fired. To date we have appropriated nearly $400 billion, and the President has already formally requested another $200 billion more, with no end in sight. Over 3,100 courageous Americans and countless Iraqis have already lost their lives. How many more will die if this strategy falls as far from the predicted result as the original length of time and cost estimates of the war? Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, as part of developing a mission and strategy, it is imperative that we ask where these additional troops are going to come from. Many will undoubtedly come from the National Guard and Reserves, but they have already been in Iraq for longer-than- average deployments and many have already completed multiple tours of duty. Other troops must be redeployed from other assignments; so we must ask what moving these troops will mean to our global national security. Last November the American people sent a powerful message. They want a change in Iraq, not more of the same. They expect an honest explanation of why we entered Iraq in the first place, what the present situation is, what goal do we expect to achieve, and what the strategy will be to accomplish it. Only then can we intelligently discuss the troop levels necessary to accomplish that goal. Unfortunately, all we have gotten from this administration is essentially ``Don't worry, be happy, success is around the corner; and if you don't believe that, then you are not patriotic and you are not supporting the troops.'' For my colleagues who say that failure is not an option, I ask what will happen if the President's so-called ``New Way Forward'' fails, as many experts predict it will? Are we then required to further escalate the war, further strain our military, sending thousands more of our troops to Iraq? How many more of our young men and women must die before the administration acknowledges what was in the National Intelligence Estimate? And I quote, ``The term `civil war' accurately describes key elements of the Iraqi conflict.' '' Mr. Speaker, although the resolution before us is technically nonbinding, it gives the House an opportunity to call upon the President to work cooperatively with Congress to develop an effective strategy to bring our troops home. The American people and our courageous men and women on the front lines deserve a clearly articulated and sensible approach to ending the war. This resolution puts the House on record as saying that an escalation of military forces is a step in the wrong direction. I therefore urge my colleagues to support the resolution.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to rise to congratulate the NAACP on its 98th Anniversary. As the Nation's oldest civil rights organization, the NAACP has for 98 years fought to ensure the political, educational, social and economic equality of all persons, so that all may share and participate in this country's great Democracy. The NAACP was founded by a multiracial group of activists who answered ``The Call'' for a national conference to discuss the civil and political rights of African Americans. This conference was in response to the race riots that took place in Springfield, Illinois in the summer of 1908. Since that time, the NAACP has sought to ensure equal rights for all citizens and to eliminate race prejudice in the United States by working to improve the democratic process and by seeking the enactment and enforcement of laws that secure civil rights. The NAACP also acts as a watchdog and informs the public of the adverse effects of discrimination. The NAACP also educates the public about their constitutional rights, and when necessary, undertakes court cases to enforce and secure those rights. The NAACP has a long and impressive history of activism and has contributed greatly to shaping America as we know it today. One of its first legislative initiatives was an anti-lynching campaign in the early 1900s. In the 1940s, the NAACP was influential in President Roosevelt's decision to issue an Executive Order prohibiting discrimination in contracts with the Department of Defense and in President Truman's decision to issue an Executive Order ending discrimination in the military. In the 1950s, the NAACP worked to bring an end to segregation in public schools; that work culminated in the case of Brown v. Board of Education. In the 1960s, the NAACP worked to raise support for the passage of the Civil Rights Act. In the 1970s, it helped expand voter participation through voter registration efforts. And the list goes on. Today, the NAACP continues to eliminate race prejudice whenever it rears its ugly head. It continues to act as a watchdog to protect the civil rights of all people. And it educates the public about civil rights so that future generations will know tolerance and equality as the norm, rather than the exception. I am proud to be a Diamond Life Member of the NAACP and to have served as a Branch President of the Newport News Chapter. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the NAACP on 98 years of service to our great country and its people, and I wish them another successful 98 years.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank you for organizing this Special Order so that we could pay appropriate tribute to Father Drinan. I rise today to honor the memory of our former colleague, the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts, Father Robert Drinan. Father Drinan was elected to this body in 1970 on a platform that advocated progressive ideals, basic human rights for all, and ending our involvement in Vietnam. During his tenure in the House, Father Drinan was a powerful voice for the poor and disadvantaged; and as a man of faith, he clearly understood morality in its true sense. Just 2 years ago on NBC's ``Meet the Press,'' Father Drinan eloquently stated: There's a common core of moral and religious beliefs, and frankly, we are in total violation of that. We are supposed to be good to the poor; we have more poor children in America than any other industrialized nation. We're supposed to love prisoners and help them; we have 2.1 million people in prison, the largest of any country on the Earth. We also allow 11 children to be killed every day. All of the religions are opposed to that. That's violence. Why don't we organize on that? Father Drinan spent his life advocating to change these realities. As chairman of the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Father Drinan strived to reform our still broken criminal justice system; and as the new chairman of that subcommittee, I hope to carry on Father Drinan's legacy in that regard. Father Drinan's compassion for the disadvantaged did not end with his tenure in Congress. After leaving Congress, Father Drinan continued to advocate for basic rights with his service with the International League of Human Rights, the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, the International Labor Rights Fund, and the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund. He also spent the last 26 years as a law professor at Georgetown University. I did not have the personal privilege of serving alongside Father Drinan in this Chamber, but I first encountered Father Drinan's commitment to equality during my senior year in college. At that time, Father Drinan was dean of the Boston College Law School, and he went out of his way to open opportunities for minorities at the law school. This motivated me to apply to Boston College Law School, and today, I am a proud graduate of the class of 1973. Mr. Speaker, this evening we pay final tribute to one who dedicated his life to improving the lives of others and making the American Dream accessible to all. A Jesuit priest who, even as a Member of Congress, lived in a small room in the Jesuit community at Georgetown, Father Drinan helped make better the lives of countless millions of Americans of all religious, racial and ethnic backgrounds. Our great Nation will certainly feel the loss of this courageous and compassionate humanitarian. I thank you for yielding to me and thank you for the opportunity to pay tribute to Father Drinan.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

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

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

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) for introducing this resolution that salutes Grand Valley State for their recent victory over the Northwest Missouri State Bearcats in the NCAA Division II national football championship in December. Grand Valley State was led by quarterback Cullen Finnerty, who completed 15 of 33 passes for 225 yards and rushed for 115 yards on 22 carries for 340 yards of total offense, becoming the first quarterback in the history of the NCAA Division II national football championship to pass for more than 200 yards and rush for more than 100 yards. The game also saw tremendous plays by Bill Brechin, who made two first quarter interceptions. I would also point out that Northwest Missouri State University also played an excellent game, and I congratulate them for their effort. The Lakers are no strangers to this championship, having won in 2002, 2003 and 2005. It is also the second year that the Lakers have defeated the Bearcats in a championship game. Much is due to the coaching of Chuck Martin, who was named Division II Coach of the Year for the second year. Clearly, the Lakers deserve to be recognized by the House for their outstanding accomplishments on the football field, and I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days during which Members may insert material relevant to H. Res. 62.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 62) congratulating the Grand Valley State University Lakers for winning the 2006 NCAA Division II Football National Championship.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady from California for her leadership. Mr. Speaker, before we can even consider sending more of our young men and women into harm's way, we must first determine what our mission is in Iraq. Only then will it be possible to intelligently discuss the number of troops necessary to meet that mission. But 4 years after going to war in Iraq, the administration has yet to clearly articulate a mission. Without a mission and a strategy with a credible chance of success, we should not even be discussing an increase in troop levels. Mr. Speaker, before we respond to the President's call for an escalation of the war in Iraq, we must first put his speech in the context of the history of the war in Iraq. We need to begin with a discussion of what the current 130,000 troops are doing in Iraq now before we can discuss what 20,000 additional troops might do. The original reasons which were provided as the rationale for going to war, Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, Iraqi leaders were connected with the 9/11 attacks, and that Iraq posed an imminent threat to the United States, all turned out not to be true. We have found no weapons of mass destruction, and we know that Iraqi leaders were not connected with the 9/11 attacks. And we were told before the invasion into Iraq that, in the opinion of the CIA, Iraq posed no imminent terrorist threat to the United States. In fact, a letter from the Director of the CIA to the Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, dated October 7, 2002, specifically stated that the CIA believed that Iraq and Saddam Hussein did not pose a terrorist threat to the United States and would not be expected to pose such a threat unless we attacked Iraq. Last night, the President once again attempted to associate our presence in Iraq with the so-called war on terrorism. The truth is that our presence in Iraq has actually increased our risk to terrorism. Furthermore, the term ``war on terrorism'' is a rhetorical term without any relationship to reality. ``Terrorism'' is not an enemy; it is a tactic. The enemy is al Qaeda. We attacked Afghanistan because al Qaeda was there. But after the initial reasons turned out to be false, we have been subjected to a series of excuses for being in Iraq, such as the need to capture Saddam Hussein, the need to capture al-Zarqawi and the need to establish a democracy. Well, Saddam Hussein was in jail for almost 2 years before he was recently hanged. Al-Zarqawi was killed over 6 months ago, and Iraq held Democratic elections over a year ago. Yet we remain in Iraq, with no apparent end in sight. And here we are talking about increasing, not decreasing, troop levels. So what are we doing in Iraq? Why did we go in? What do we expect to accomplish? And what will our strategy be for getting out? After we receive truthful answers to these questions, we can intelligently discuss appropriate troop levels. Last night, the President said he was laying out a new mission for Iraq, thereby clearly acknowledging that whatever the old mission was, it wasn't working. But there is still no clearly defined end goal and clearly defined explanation of how failure or success can be measured. So we remain where we were before the speech, which is on an unclear, undefined path, while continuing to put more troops in harm's way. If our mission is to stabilize Baghdad, military experts have already said that an additional 20,000 troops is woefully insufficient, so sending these troops will not accomplish that goal. And what happens if Iraq fails to meet its responsibilities, or Baghdad remains unstable and the price is more American deaths? Will we send even more troops? Or will we just cut and run? And how will we know the new initiative will work? Before our invasion into Iraq, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld predicted that the war would last, and I quote, ``six days, six weeks. I doubt 6 months.'' It has been almost 4 years, and we are still in Iraq with no end in sight. At the outset of the war, the administration advised the House Budget Committee that it expected the cost of the war to be so minuscule that it advised the committee not to include the cost of the war in the Federal budget, and the administration official who suggested that the cost of the war might exceed $100 billion was fired. To date, the cost of the war to the United States is over $375 billion, with no end in sight. Over 3,000 courageous Americans have already lost their lives. How many more will die if this new strategy falls as far from the predicted result as the original time and cost estimates? We need to be honest in clearly stating the likelihood that this initiative might fail. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, as far as developing a new mission and strategy, it is imperative that we ask where these additional troops will come from. Many will have to come from the National Guard and Reserve, and the escalation will mean longer and multiple deployments. But our troops already in Iraq have served for above-average deployments, and many have already completed multiple tours. Other troops may be redeployed from other assignments. So we must ask what moving these troops will mean to our global national security. We cannot assess the wisdom of an escalation without first answering these critical questions. We need to develop a coherent plan for Iraq, and that can only begin with truthfully acknowledging our situation there. Unfortunately, all we have gotten from this administration is essentially ``Don't worry, be happy. Success is around the corner. And if you don't believe that, then you are not patriotic.'' Last November, the American people sent a powerful message that they wanted a real change in Iraq, not more of the same. This Congress needs to hold substantive hearings on why we entered Iraq in the first place, what the present situation is, what we can now expect to accomplish and what the strategy is to accomplish it, and only then can we intelligently discuss the troop levels necessary to accomplish that goal. It is absurd to discuss troop levels first before we have answers to these critical questions. The American people and our courageous men and women on the front lines deserve a clear, articulated and sensible approach to ending the war in Iraq. Starting with an escalation of military forces is a step in the wrong direction.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the contributions of a citizen of the City of Hampton, who has dedicated her life to making her city and the Commonwealth of Virginia a better place to live and learn. I would like to pay tribute to the contributions of retired Delegate Dr. Mary T. Christian. In 1955, Dr. Christian graduated with highest honors from Hampton Institute, now Hampton University, with a B.S. in Elementary Education. From there she received a Master's Degree from Columbia University in 1960, and her Ph.D. from Michigan State University in 1967. Dr. Christian began her civic service as a teacher at Aberdeen Elementary School in 1960 and held this position for 6 years before moving on to Hampton University. At Hampton, she started as an Instructor in the Education Department before becoming a Professor, then rose to Chair the Education Department in 1970, followed by becoming Dean of the School of Education in 1980, and in 1987 she became Professor Emeritus. Dr. Christian has been appointed to several committees with the Virginia Department of Education throughout her career. Dr. Christian's educational career alone is worthy of celebration. But outside of the classroom, Dr. Christian was an effective state legislator, representing the 92nd District in the Virginia House of Delegates from 1986-2004. She served ably on the Appropriations, Education, and Rules Standing Committees, and was the Co-chair of the Militia and Police Committee. Dr. Christian was also selected to be a member of various General Assembly Commissions including the Joint Commission on Technology and Science, the Hampton Roads Third Crossing Bridge Tunnel Commission, and the Commission on Access and Diversity. Before I came to Congress, I had the pleasure to serve with Dr. Christian in the General Assembly and I know her to be a skilled public servant who keeps the needs of her constituents paramount in her mind while making decisions in Richmond. Dr. Christian has received many awards and accolades throughout her career. She has been inducted into the Alpha Kappa Mu, Kappa Delta Pi, and Phi Beta Theta honor societies. She is an Honorary Board Member of the National Patient Advocate Foundation. She has received both the Merit Award for Community Service and the Award for Service to Youth from the NAACP. In 2002, Thomas Nelson Community College named the Mary T. Christian Auditorium after her. Dr. Christian is a member of First Baptist Church of Hampton and its Fellowship Choir, and is also a member of Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Inc., as well as a life member of the NAACP. Locally, Dr. Christian was founder and leader of several civic and community organizations: Groups Representing Organizations United for Progress (GROUP); Leadership Development Caucus (LDC); Coalition for Community Pride and Progress (CCPP); Association for Restoration of Historic Cemeteries (ARHC); and Co-Chair of the Coalition for Preservation of the Virginia School for the Deaf, Blind and Multi- Disabled at Hampton. On January 14, 2007, the Hampton Roads Community will come together and pay tribute to Dr. Christian for her many years of service. Proceeds from this tribute event will be used to establish the Dr. Mary T. Christian Scholarship Fund at Hampton University. I would like to congratulate Dr. Christian on her distinguished career of service to the citizens of Hampton Roads and the Commonwealth of Virginia and wish her well in her retirement.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor an institution in the City of Richmond, VA. This year, Trinity Baptist Church is celebrating its centennial and I would like to take some time to recognize its history of service as a house of worship in Richmond during the last 100 years. The church that we know as Trinity Baptist began in 1906 as the Sixth Mount Zion Sunday School class, which met at the home of Marcellus Waller, Sr., and Nannie Waller at 1007 West Leigh Street in Richmond. As this faith community grew, the idea was put forth to formally organize a church, and Brother Charles Thompkin suggested they call it Trinity. After a consultation with a representative from the Baptist Churches, Trinity Baptist Church was established on August 6, 1906, with Rev. James Williams as its first Pastor. Under Pastor George Carrington, who led Trinity from 1915-1919, a new sanctuary was built at 1630 Rose Avenue. In 1960, Trinity had again outgrown its building, and Pastor King David Turner appointed a Planning Committee to find a new home for the church. Pastor Turner's work was continued by Pastor Welford David Adkins, who led the church through the purchase of land and construction of a new 1,000 seat sanctuary in 1972. For the last 26 years, Trinity Baptist has been ably led by Rev. A. Lincoln James. Under his stewardship, Trinity has increased its staff to include Ministers of Fine Arts, Economic Development, Christian Education, and Children and Youth. Trinity's daily bag lunch feeding program and clothes closet literally feed the hungry and clothe the poor. The church's work with Caritas Charities Prose Ministry helps the homeless, and its Angel Tree program ministers to prisoners. Rev. James has also licensed or ordained over 60 sons and daughters of Trinity into the gospel ministry, and he oversaw the ordination of the church's first female deacons in 2004. I would like to once again congratulate Rev. James and the members of Trinity Baptist on their centennial and wish them another century of continued service to their community.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I cannot support the bill in its present form. I think we can put a bill together if we are given time. Since we have little time, we got through E. F is the bill can be made more effective by prohibiting caller ID spoofing with the intent to mislead any other person. G, the bill could be made more effective by clarifying the definition of ``caller ID information.'' H, the bill can be made more effective by focusing the definition of ``telephone call'' on the service used to receive calls rather than the service used to make calls. I, the bill can be made more effective by expanding the definition of ``VOIP service.'' Then one, they could go through what the VOIP service details. The bill can be made more effective by including a forfeiture provision. The bill can be made more effective by giving prosecutors tools to combat money laundering of illegal proceeds of violations of the PHONE Act and the CAN-SPAM Act. Mr. Speaker, you will remember that we were not going to get this until I demanded it time and time again and they finally produced it, and now we find out that the information from the FBI is very critical of the bill, suggesting that it needs a lot of work, and we can do the work. We could sit down and hammer it out. I think everybody agrees that something needs to be done about this situation. It is a work in progress. I notice in here an amendment that was suggested this afternoon is, in fact, in the bill in a slightly different wording and I think better wording in the bill than the original suggestion. So it is a work in progress. But, Mr. Speaker, this is not the way we ought to be legislating. We can do better than this, and I think we ought to defeat the bill now, bring it up early in the next session, and have a product that everybody can be proud of. 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. A, the bill could be made more effective by creating a more graduated series of offenses and then details. B, the bill could be made more effective by prohibiting attempts, then a description. C, a new provision should be numbered 18 U.S.C. 1039 and a description. D, the drafters may wish to include a clear statement of jurisdiction. E, the bill could be made more effective by prohibiting, generating, and transmitting misleading caller identification information in addition to modifying such information, on and on and on. These are substantive recommendations that we are just going to ignore by taking this bill up in the middle of the night right here at the end of the session with a bill that has been handed to this side at the last minute, with the FBI recommendations that have been hiding the ball right up until I demanded it, and then they finally let it go. This is a ridiculous way to put things in the Criminal Code, and I would hope we would defeat the legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, having just been handed the letter and gone through it very quickly, I would just point out that the last sentence on the first page says, ``The department has a number of recommendations (described below) to clarify the bill and to make it even more effective.'' They suggest, just briefly going through it, A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, J, K, improvements needed for the bill. I do not know if this is a copy or original or what, but I hope everybody reads the letter that was entered previously in the Record so they will know that we are taking this action before we have had any time to consider the recommendations of the FBI which will have the responsibility of enforcing the bill, if it ever becomes law at the end of this session. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Actually I would say to the gentleman from Utah, I haven't gotten any letter from the Justice Department yet. I assume it is in transit. It is a long way from that side of the aisle to this side of the aisle. I don't know what kind of communication method we are using, but I haven't gotten it yet. I would point out, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania has indicated, when we make calls out of our offices in Congress, the caller ID number that shows up on someone's caller ID machine is some nonworking switchboard number.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, when the FBI testified on the bill, they indicated they had some concerns. I assume I will get the concerns after we finish considering the bill. We had to beg for a copy of the legislation so we would know what we are debating. Now, I guess, would it hurt your feelings to let me know what the FBI had to say about it? They had concerns when they testified on the bill. Let me just say that. I will just wait over here until I can get a copy of their comments so I know what they said. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this was earlier identified as bipartisan legislation. It is legislation that is supported in principle by both sides. However, I would point out that as of this morning, there were no Democratic cosponsors. But it is important legislation, because of the examples cited by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, and the bill is still a work in progress. It is an improved bill. In fact, it includes many amendments that have been discussed. One, it limits the application of the bill to cases where there is harassment or defrauding, not just misleading. I think that is an important improvement. And there is language offered by this side that addressed the case we heard where someone else's caller ID number was being used, people were making insulting phone calls, they would look at their caller ID and then call the person whose caller ID number was there. He didn't know anything about it and he was getting all of these complaining phone calls. Both of these are good improvements. But I would still be interested in knowing what the FBI might have to say about it. They have to enforce the law. They might have some important suggestions that would be important to include in the bill. I would ask the proponents of the bill again why it is so important to consider the legislation before the FBI has had an opportunity to be heard? We don't have to adopt their ideas, but it seems to me that since they are going to enforce it, we ought to at least listen to what they have to say. We had indicated to the other side that we would bring it up as one of the first bills next year if we could get the FBI consideration, continue negotiating the little details and have a bill that we could be proud of. However, Mr. Speaker, we are having it today, a work in progress, where this side just gets handed the legislation as the debate starts, which is I think insulting, and I think we have heard references to what happens in the middle of the night. Hopefully we can get the answer about the FBI from the other side. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for introducing the bill that addresses an important issue. People should be prohibited from defrauding, harassing others using this technology. A misleading caller ID can enable criminals to get information that they couldn't otherwise get. It will enable people to harass. There may be, however, legitimate uses for this technology, and that is why I have to oppose the motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill at this point. There are a lot of people for whom it should be illegal. But, Mr. Speaker, I want to express my appreciation for them handing me a bill as the debate started. We have been negotiating the information in the bill. We had a hearing and we found that there are a lot of legitimate uses for this. For example, women's shelters use misleading caller ID numbers. Businesses may use a misleading caller ID number if they are calling from one line of many lines. If they want people to call back on their main line, they want to use that caller ID. When we had our hearing we heard that we may want to differentiate from defrauding and harassing with a criminal intent for criminal gain as opposed to just harassing. Maybe we might not have a 5-year felony, you might want to have a misdemeanor. So I was under the impression earlier today that we were going to continue negotiating this and work on it and get a decent bill next year. Also I heard, Mr. Speaker, that the FBI has made recommendations on the bill. We don't have that information yet because the recommendations have not been cleared by OMB. I would ask the chief sponsor or the proponents of the legislation why it is so important to pass the legislation before the Bush administration's Federal Bureau of Investigation comments can be considered? Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. We have looked around the House for a bill, and we have been unable to find a bill in the Speaker's lobby or on the Speaker's desk, other than the introduced bill. Could someone explain to us what we are now considering?

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. The Reading Clerk has read the title of the bill. Does that mean it is the originally introduced bill without amendments?

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

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a letter provided by the French Embassy from the city of St. Denis from their mayor. November 7, 2006. Martin Bozmarov, Attorney, Issy-Les-Moulineaux, Dear Mr. Bozmarov: On behalf of the Philadelphia City Council, you informed me that a delegation from that council, headed by its chairman, will be coming to Saint-Denis to ask the City of Saint-Denis to reconsider naming one of our streets ``Mumia Abu-Jamal.'' You also informed me that the delegation would like to address the Saint-Denis City Council meeting of November 30. This request calls for an explanation of the reasons underlying the city's decision to name one of its streets after Mumia Abu-Jamal. As you know, Mumia Abu-Jamal has proclaimed his innocence for nearly a quarter century. He has always denied firing the shots that resulted in the death of police officer Daniel Faulkner on December 9, 1981. His defenders, as well as the movements and associations that have rallied on his behalf, have accumulated a considerable number of elements that justify his request for a new trial. These have largely highlighted the unfair nature of the investigation: the lack of ballistics tests, the failure to take fingerprints, the failure to secure the area and perform other tests. It seems that important witnesses were bribed, excluded or intimidated. Several police reports were contradictory. And the American press itself asserted that Judge Sabo had exerted pressure in demanding the death penalty against Mr. Abu-Jamal on July 3, 1982. Even more troubling, a man who acknowledged he was Mr. Faulkner's killer never testified in court, on the pretext that his confession did not come within the deadline for the proceedings. All of these aspects largely justify the doubts that exist with respect to Mr. Abu-Jamal's guilt and the growing movement supporting him, to which we wanted to contribute. Our action also expresses our total opposition to the death penalty, which threatens Mr. Abu-Jamal each day. For even now, despite all the international agreements on human rights, the death penalty continues to be handed down in a majority of American states. Several dozen American prisoners are on death row. There are more than 60 in Texas alone. Executions are still taking place, and it takes the courageous mobilization of a part of U.S. public opinion to rescue certain convicts from this barbarous practice. It is in this context that Mumia Abu-Jamal has become one of the emblematic figures in the fight for justice and for the abolition of the death penalty in the United States and throughout the world. And it is precisely this fight that we wanted to support in naming one of our city streets after him. In this movement, the town of Saint-Denis is not alone. You are aware that committees supporting this prisoner from Philadelphia have been formed in many communities of France and other European countries. You also know that Mumia Abu- Jamal has been made an honorary citizen of Paris, that French parliamentarians have visited him regularly in prison, and that each year, concerts, demonstrations, marches and assemblies are organized in his support. In fact, this is not the first time that international public opinion has rallied in support of American citizens who appear to be unjustly accused in their own country. That was the case for Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti between 1920 and 1927, for Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, who were executed by electric chair in 1953, and in 1973 for Angela Davis, who was initially convicted of murder before being fully acquitted. In these circumstances, we are happy that the inauguration of a Rue Mumia Abu-Jamal in Saint-Denis lends additional support to this fight. We are proud of this act and have no intention of reversing it. As for the City Council session of November 30, I would like to remind you that it is public and therefore open to anyone who would like to attend. However, only members of the City Council are authorized to take the floor. Finally, I would like to mention that quite recently, during a mission to the United States in the course of which he met with Mumia Abu-Jamal, our deputy Patrick Braouezec was not received by the mayor of Philadelphia, even though he had an appointment. Sincerely, Didier Paillard.