Bobby Scott

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. First of all, we will work together on the funding, no question about that. Furthermore, there is not a one-to-one replacement. You have about four people in prison working on what would otherwise be one job.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, because, as I indicated, as a result of the initiatives that are in this bill, we have already lost thousands of jobs. And if we had had the law as it was in 2000, we would have about 9,000 more people working. The gentleman from Massachusetts has said there are other alternatives. If we were guaranteed funding for that, I would support it. The problem is that the FPI pays for itself, so it doesn't need appropriation. If we can guarantee the funding, there wouldn't be any debate on this. The job training also may not have funding. So we don't know that that is going to take place. So there is no guarantee. The problem with this approach is that there is no guarantee for funding. The FPI program pays for itself, and has been paying for itself for over 70 years. It works well. We know it works, and the replacements are just speculative.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate Mr. Conyers giving me the opportunity to respond to my friend from North Carolina, who suggested that I was misguided by opposing the bill. Perhaps I am misguided, because the bill increases crime and I am trying to reduce crime. We know that increasing jobs will reduce crime. This bill, we know, reduces jobs. The goal of FPI has been traditionally for 25 percent of the jobs to be FPI jobs. As a result of the initiatives in this bill, many of which were enacted in 2001, the percentage of jobs has gone from 25 to 18, 2,000 fewer jobs. And if we had maintained the 25 percent, there would be 9,000 more people working in FPI jobs, with a much lower chance of getting into trouble when they are released. This reduction in jobs will increase crime. Maybe opposing an increase in crime is misguided, but I think we ought to reguide ourselves and support those initiatives, which will actually reduce crime, not increase crime, as this bill does.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I would tell my friend from Michigan that you would get my support if you just guaranteed that the jobs would be there. We need people working on these jobs. If they are working on jobs, there will be less crime. So anything that will guarantee the jobs I can support.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2965, the Federal Prison Industries Competition in Contracting Act. The Federal Prison Industries program was signed into law by President Roosevelt in 1934, in the midst of the Great Depression. This program was enacted as a way to protect the public by teaching prisoners real work habits and skills, so that when they are released, they will be better able to find and hold a job to support themselves and their families and be less likely to commit crimes in the future. It is clear that the program has done just that. Follow-up studies covering as much as 16 years of data have shown that inmates who participate in Prison Industries are much more likely to be employed and much less likely to commit crimes than prisoners who do not participate in the program. While this certainly benefits offenders and their families, the real public policy benefit is that, as a result of this program, there are fewer victims of crime. Contrary to the indication given by the proponents of this bill, the FPI program does not have a significant impact on business and labor. In its first year of operation, the percent of Federal contract procurement from FPI represented one-fourth of 1 percent of total annual Federal agency procurement dollars; and it is the same today, one-fourth of 1 percent, and this is just Federal procurement. It is obviously a minuscule portion of the total economy. Critics, who were philosophically opposed to the program back in the 1930s and they are still opposed today, suggest that FPI has caused substantial losses in jobs for law-abiding citizens. The furniture and apparel industries are the two industries in which FPI has traditionally done most of its work. When asked under oath, representatives of these industries testified that the FPI sales represent an insignificant and negligible portion of their industries. At our last hearing, the office furniture industry representative was not able to point to any loss to his industry caused by FPI. I am the first to concede that there may be problems with FPI that need improvement, and we have made improvements through activities in Congress and the FPI board over the last 10 years. While it is understandable that every company that does not get a contract that FPI gets may be disappointed, just as they would be disappointed if another company got the same contract, the public safety and institutional safety and management benefits of this program have an insignificant impact on business and labor, and it is a public policy success story. All able inmates in the Federal system are required, by law, to work. Non-FPI inmate jobs pay about $0.12 to $0.30 an hour, while FPI jobs pay about $1 up to $1.15 per hour. There are currently enough FPI jobs for only 18 percent of the work-eligible population. The other 82 percent of the prisoners work in non-FPI-related maintenance jobs. In 2000, FPI jobs represented 25 percent of the prison jobs. In recent years, however, because we have passed restrictions like there are in this bill, there are fewer jobs and that has caused the elimination of over 2,000 jobs at the same time that the prison population has increased by 23,000 inmates, and it is still increasing. This bill will shrink FPI jobs even more. We need to promote, not reduce, Federal Prison Industries jobs because the FPI program strongly supports education. To hold down an FPI job, an inmate must have completed high school, or be making steady progress towards obtaining a GED, and maintain a good record of behavior. This is not only true for those who hold FPI jobs but also those who are on the waiting list for a job, as well as those seeking to establish eligibility to be placed on the waiting list; and once in an FPI job, an inmate cannot earn more than $0.40 an hour until he earns a GED. That is why FPI is not only a great job skills development and education development tool, but it is also a great management tool to help ensure prisons operate efficiently and safely for prison employees as well as inmates. I have never met a prison administrator who does not support this program. Few offenders enter the program with marketable work skills. The vast majority do not even have basic work habits, such as showing up for work on time each day and working cooperatively and productively with others. Such work habits are required to maintain an FPI job. These are the same work habits required to be a good, productive, desirable worker anywhere, and that is why inmates who have FPI work experience have been found to be significantly more employable than those that do not. I oppose this bill because it will obviously reduce job opportunities. The bill amends the current requirement in law for agencies to purchase goods from FPI and establishes a competitive bid process for agency purchases of goods and services from FPI, unless the Attorney General and the Bureau of Prisons certify that they cannot safely run the prisons without the particular contract award. It is unrealistic to expect that any official would publicly admit such a level of incompetence in order to obtain a contract, so it is unlikely that that provision will ever be used. The bill claims to make an effort to replace mandatory source and service contracts by providing a transition preference program for agencies using FPI, by authorizing new options such as providing products or services to charitable and nonprofit organizations contingent on appropriations, by allowing FPI to provide services and products to Federal agencies on a noncompetitive basis if they would otherwise be provided from offshore, and by authorizing work training programs for FPI to produce goods and services for private companies if the goods and services are not produced anywhere in the United States. However, there is no basis for concluding that these authorities would replace the loss of jobs now available and legally sanctioned, and it is unlikely to suspect that the appropriations would be made or that the job training programs will be sufficient because most of the job training programs are 2 years at most. Obviously, people with longer sentences cannot benefit from that. So before we decimate what the Department of Justice defines as the most important rehabilitation program, without a reliable replacement for those jobs, I believe we should direct a comprehensive study of its impact on labor and business and its beneficial impact on public safety before we do anything else. In the face of all the good that this program does, I do not believe that we should throw the baby out with the bath water. Mr. Chairman, I would hope that we would defeat the bill and we maintain these jobs.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to recognize Historically Black Colleges and Universities Week. Historically Black Colleges and Universities play a critical role in the American higher education system. This year's theme--``The Tradition Continues: New Successes and Challenges''--is especially fitting considering the precarious state of affairs of higher education funding and student aid for all institutions of higher education. These theme is also appropriate as many HBCUs around the country welcomed students displaced last year by Hurricane Katrina. For most of America's history, African Americans who received a college education could only get it from and HBCU. Today, HBCUs remain one of the surest ways for an African American, or student of any race, to receive a high quality education. In 1965, Congress officially defined an HBCU in Title III of the Higher Education Act as an institution: whose principal mission was the education of black Americans; that is accredited; and that was established before 1964. The first HBCU, Cheney University in Pennsylvania, was founded in 1837. Today, there are 105 Historically Black Colleges and Universities. I am proud to have 5 HBCUs in my home State of Virginia: Hampton University, Norfolk State University, Saint Paul's College, Virginia State University, and Virginia Union University. HBCUs graduate far more than their share of African American professionals. While the 105 HBCUs represent just 3 percent of the Nation's institutions of higher learning, they graduate nearly one- quarter of African Americans who earn undergraduate degrees. HBCUs, because of their unique sensibility to the special needs of young African American minds, remain the institutions that demonstrate the most effective ability to graduate African American students who are poised to be competitive in the corporate, research, academic, governmental and military arenas. Consider these statistics: Experts in their chosen field Over half of all African American professionals are graduates of HBCUs. Nine of the top ten colleges that graduate the most African Americans who go on to earn Ph.D.s are HBCUs. More than 50 percent of the Nation's African American public school teachers and 70 percent of African American dentists earned degrees at HBCUs. HBCUs Spelman College and Bennett College produce over half of the nation's African American female doctorates in all science fields. Excellent Institutions As ranked by Black Enterprise in 2003, seven of the top ten ``Top Colleges and Universities for African Americans,'' including the top six, were HBCUs. HBCU Xavier University #1 nationally in placing African-Americans into medical school. HBCUs also dominate the upper echelon in terms of numbers of African American graduates per school for the last academic year Seven of the top eight producers of African-American baccalaureates overall were HBCUs, including #1 Florida A&M University and #2 Howard University. Sixteen of the top 21 producers of African American baccalaureates in biological and biomedical sciences were HBCUs, including the entire top six: Xavier University of LA (#1), Hampton University (#2), Howard University (#3), Morgan State University (#4), Jackson State University (#5), and Tennessee State University (#6). Eight of the top nine producers of African American baccalaureates in mathematics and statistics were HBCUs: #1 Morehouse College, #2 South Carolina State University, #3 Alabama State University, #3 Spelman College, #5 Southern University and A&M College, #6 Tennessee State University, #7 Hampton University, and #9 Howard University. Three of the top five producers of African American baccalaureates in psychology were HBCUs: #1 Florida A&M University, #3 Hampton University, and #5 Howard University. While these statistics overwhelmingly demonstrate the importance of HBCUs, the proof of the power of an HBCU is in the success of its graduates. I am proud to serve with 15 members of the U.S. House of Representatives that are graduates of these fine institutions. Mr. Speaker, HBCUs have played an important role in educating African-American students. I would like to commend them for their past efforts and wish them continued success in the future. I am confident that HBCUs will continue to ensure that students of all races receives a quality higher education.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, the events of 9/11 were a tragedy and continue to affect Americans and our way of life today. On the anniversary of this sad day, we should be coming together, in a display of unity, understanding and common values, commending those selfless firefighters, police officers and others who provided aid without regard to their own lives, honoring the memory of those who are not with us today, and consulting those who continue to grieve. Instead, the majority in this body has used this day in our history as an excuse to create more partisan legislation and mislead the American people about the state of America's safety. I am saddened by the use of 9/11 in this distorted manner, and I ask my colleagues to consider, instead, taking action that is more appropriate to mark this tragic event in our lifetime and to prepare ourselves against another such tragedy.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Thank you, Brother Davis. Mr. Speaker, it is truly an honor for me to congratulate Alpha Phi Alpha fraternity on our centennial celebration, commemorating 100 years of civil service and social progress. Alpha Phi Alpha fraternity was founded on December 4, 1906, at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York, by seven young men known as the Seven Jewels. 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, the foundation of Alpha Phi Alpha principles of scholarship, fellowship, good character and the uplifting of humanity were laid. Alpha Phi Alpha now has a presence on hundreds of college campuses as well as in hundreds of alumni chapters in 44 States, the District of Columbia, Africa, Asia, Europe and the Caribbean islands. Over the years, Alpha Phi Alpha has played a fundamental role in the positive development of the character and education of more than 175,000 men, and it has been paramount in the fight to advance civil rights and enhance the socioeconomic status of all in American society. Notable Alphas include Thurgood Marshall, W.E.B. DuBois, Adam Clayton Powell, Martin Luther King, Jr., Edward Brooke, Andrew Young, William Gray, Paul Robeson, and there are countless others who have served or now serve as leaders in government, business, entertainment, science and education. Today, in Congress, the eight Members have already been identified, but I would like to mention at this time three national programs that have been designed by Alpha Phi Alpha to benefit the future of African Americans and humanity as a whole. Every Alpha chapter is committed to the implementation of these programs. The Go-to-High-School, Go-to-College program was established in 1922 and focuses on the importance of African American youth completing secondary and collegiate education as a road to advancement. Statistics prove that school completion is the single best predictor for future success, and Alpha Phi Alpha is committed to promoting education among African American youth and the importance of completing one's education. ``A Voteless People is a Hopeless People'' began as an Alpha Phi Alpha program during the 1930s when many African Americans had the right to vote, but were prevented from doing so due to poll taxes, threats of reprisal, and lack of education about the voting process. The program, which focus on voter education and voter registration, also facilitates town meetings and candidate forums to improve political awareness and empowerment. Project Alpha was started by a chapter in Chicago in the late 1970s and is now a national Alpha program implemented in collaboration with the March of Dimes Birth Defects Foundation. It is designed to provide education, motivation, and skill-building on issues of responsibility, relationships, teen pregnancy, and sexually transmitted diseases for young males 12 to 15 years of age. Project Alpha reaches hundreds of communities and thousands of teen males to teach them the importance of responsibility in their personal lives. Mr. Speaker, on this centennial anniversary, it is my privilege to recognize the 100th anniversary of Alpha Phi Alpha fraternity; to commend all Alpha brothers, past and present, for their bond of friendship, common ideals and service to the community; and to wish Alpha Phi Alpha success in the next 100 years as it continues to enrich the lives of its members, its alumni, and through them, communities around the world.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to control that time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Cramer).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy), one of the leading authors of the bill.

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

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, the crimes committed against the children named in the bill, those not named, and the suffering of their families is a tragedy for all of us, yet this does not release us from the responsibility to legislate on a sound and reasoned basis. I believe the situation is serious and grave enough to warrant a bill that is based on approaches that have been proven to reduce this scourge in our society, not on sound bites that will merely pander to our emotions. This bill focuses on establishing a national sex offender registry and an Internet posting system for the public to allegedly track the whereabouts of convicted and released sex offenders, and it also includes a number of gratuitous provisions, such as eight additional and duplicative Federal death penalties and 11 additional Federal mandatory minimum sentences. Virtually all of the death penalty cases, as with most criminal cases, are State cases. The cases referenced by children named in this bill, because of the grave tragedies they have suffered, are all State offenses, and I don't believe a single one of them would have been covered by Federal law. But I think all the Federal cases, you would think that all of them would be Federal cases from the provisions in the bill. Mr. Speaker, we recently increased Federal sex offenses penalties in the PROTECT Act with mandatory minimums of at least 5 years and some up to mandatory life, even in cases involving consensual sex between teenagers. And these increases came right after the Sentencing Commission had already increased penalties for sex offenses at the direction of Congress. And all of these increases were Federal cases based on the name of the crime and the political appeal of striking out harshly against offenders. But because of the few cases that are actually under Federal jurisdiction, they will primarily affect Native Americans on reservations, because all of their cases come under Federal jurisdiction. There is no evidence that Native American offenders warrant any harsher treatment than any other offenders. Now, with no more basis than we had before, just the name of the crime and the continuing political appeal of appearing tough on sex offenders, we are again greatly increasing penalties with more death penalties and increased mandatory minimums, including more mandatory minimums for teenagers having consensual sex. Now, we can all agree that 35, 45-year-old or even older persons, enticing or transporting a minor across State lines to engage in sexual activity is despicable and should be severely punished. However, the mandatory minimum sentences in this bill include the 18-year-old high school student who entices or transports a 17-year-old boyfriend or girlfriend across State lines. Under the provisions of the bill, prom night in the Washington D.C., Virginia, and Maryland area could have nightmarish consequences. And to show how ridiculous it could be, if two teenagers, one 18 and one 17, engage in sexual activity without crossing a State line, you will have, if there is any prosecution at all, it will be a misdemeanor on the part of the 18-year-old. So we have the absurd anomaly of making what is now an infrequently prosecuted misdemeanor into a 10-year mandatory minimum sentence for teens who cross State lines to do it. Imposing a 10-year mandatory prison term on teenagers engaged in consensual sex is not responsible legislating. Rather than taking such cases out of the bill, we are told that we should simply trust the prosecutor. Don't trust the Sentencing Commission's discretion to set guidelines designed to reflect what sentence should be based on the facts and circumstances of the case or the background and role of the offender, rather than simply the name of the case, the name of the provision. And don't trust judges to look at the facts and circumstances of the case, the offender's role and background and guidelines to arrive at an appropriate sentence after hearing all of the evidence at trial. Take the discretion away from these officials and trust prosecutors to decide when to ignore law requiring a 10-year mandatory minimum sentence. And trust there are no prosecutors who can be affected by issues such as local political influences. A few years ago, in Georgia, involving an interracial couple, a teenager got 10 years for having consensual sex with his teenage girlfriend. The problem with mandatory minimum sentences is that they defy common sense. If you deserve the mandatory minimum, you can get it. If it violates common sense, you have to get it anyway. Many studies have shown that mandatory minimums wasted taxpayers' money, are unfairly applied to minorities, and violate common sense. The jury is out as to whether publicly accessible sex offender registers will have any beneficial effect on reducing sex crimes, but the studies that have been done indicate that the registries do not have any effect in reducing sex crimes. And I have seen no study that suggests that the policy of posting the name of juvenile delinquents, as this bill does, on the Internet, serves any constructive purpose. Of course, programs and grants to assist children and to provide the type of sex offender treatment that studies have been shown that can cut recidivism in half are not in this bill. And so, Mr. Speaker, unlike most of my colleagues we will hear from today, I believe that we can do better than this bill to effectively address the scourge of child sexual assault. Most of the criminals affected by the mandatory minimums in this bill deserve the punishment in the bill, but they would have gotten it anyway under present law. But a 10-year mandatory minimum for consensual prom night activities does not make sense. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, when I listed the organizations opposed to the bill, I inadvertently left off Americans United for Separation of Church and State and the National Council of Negro Women.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, anytime we consider legislation like this, one can be assured that veterans benefits have either just been cut or are about to be cut. Instead of addressing the real issues of patriotism, such as the adequacy of health care funding for veterans or the fact that the number of veterans waiting for benefit determinations has increased by approximately 80,000 since last year alone, we are going to use this bill to divert attention from those more pressing issues. Mr. Chairman, this bill is aimed at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals case, Newdow v. U.S. Congress, which held that the words ``under God'' in the Pledge are unconstitutional in the context of public school recitations. I happen to disagree with that decision and I agree with the dissent in that case which stated, ``Legal world abstractions and ruminations aside, when all is said and done, the danger that `under God' in our Pledge of Allegiance will tend to bring about a theocracy or suppress someone's belief is so miniscule as to be de minimis. The danger that the phrase represents to our first amendment's freedoms is picayune at best.'' I agree with that language, Mr. Chairman. So as we discuss the constitutionality of ``under God'' in the Pledge, we must recognize that every bill that is introduced, every hearing we have, every vote that we take on the issue enhances the importance of this issue and these actions serve to chip away at the de minimis argument and actually increase the chance that the court will ultimately decide that the Pledge is unconstitutional. The simple fact is that we need to respect the Constitution and the right of courts to decide whether the Pledge is constitutional or not. But the majority will not do that. H.R. 2389 is a court-stripping bill as the bill does not address the substance of the arguments pro and con, it just prohibits Federal courts, including the Supreme Court, from deciding the case. This bill is a blatant attempt to prevent the judicial branch from doing its job. The foundation of our democracy rests on the principle of checks and balances of power among three coequal branches, and this bill is a flagrant disregard of that principle. In addition, this bill will result in unprecedented confusion as each State court will decide how to interpret the Federal Constitution. It also sets a poor precedent that at any time we are considering a bill that might be found unconstitutional by the courts, we might just prohibit the courts from saying so by taking away their right to hear the case. Mr. Chairman, this bill would strip Federal courts from their ability to hear cases that are clearly within Federal jurisdiction because those cases address Federal constitutional rights and individual liberties guaranteed under the Bill of Rights, and many rights may be involved because the bill is not limited to cases addressing the words ``under God.'' The recitation of the Pledge may in some situations implicate the right of free speech, the right of freedom of association, the right to free exercise of religion, the establishment clause protections, all guaranteed under the first amendment of the Constitution. The passage of this bill will mean that there will be no Federal law on a Federal constitutional question, not even a supreme law of the land to guide other Federal or State courts on the matter or to definitively state the law when there are inconsistent decisions in different States. So a Federal constitutional right could be applied inconsistently to American citizens simply because they live in different parts of the country. The need for a Federal review of many different rights that may be involved is not speculative. For example, Mr. Chairman, even before the words ``under God'' were in the Pledge, the Supreme Court in 1943 held in West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette that a compulsory flag salute and accompanying Pledge were unconstitutional when required of a public school student in violation of the student's religious beliefs. In that case, the lawsuit was originally filed in Federal Court and was never considered in State court. If this legislation passes, State courts won't even have to follow prior Supreme Court precedents. The reason that State courts are prohibited from ignoring Supreme Court precedent is if they do so, the Supreme Court is there, ready and willing and able to reverse the State court's decision. But no more under this bill. We may well end up with 50 interpretations and applications of a single Federal constitutional right. For over 200 years, since Marbury v. Madison in 1803, the Supreme Court has been the final arbiter of what is constitutional and what is not. So while Congress has the power to regulate jurisdiction of Federal courts, the court-stripping language of H.R. 2389 grossly exceeds that power in violation of the principles of separation of powers. If this court-stripping idea had been around in 1954, Congress could have prohibited the Supreme Court from hearing issues involving student assignment to public schools. We never would have had the decision of Brown v. Board of Education, or it could have passed in the 1960s, and the decision in the Federal court in Loving v. Virginia, to overrule the will of the people of Virginia and require Virginia to recognize racially mixed marriages, might not have ever happened. The judges in those decisions were described just as judges are described today: liberal, rogue, unelected, life-time appointed activist judges. But they made the right decisions in those cases. The truth is that we rely on Federal courts to determine and enforce our constitutional rights. America is more politically and religiously diverse than it was in 1943, but instead of embracing that diversity, this bill would jeopardize our fundamental rights. We should instead adhere to the wisdom of the Supreme Court in the Barnette case which said, and I quote, ``The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy and place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials, and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.'' Mr. Chairman, there are numerous legal, civil rights and religious organizations opposed to this legislation, including the American Bar Association, the ACLU, the American Jewish Committee, the Anti- Defamation League, the Baptist Joint Committee, the Constitutional Project, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, Legal Momentum, the National Women's Law Center and People for the American Way. Mr. Chairman, I will ask unanimous consent to insert those letters into the Record at the appropriate time, and there are other organizations, of course, that are opposed to the bill. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this legislation. June 14, 2006. Protect Separation of Powers and Religious Minorities' Longstanding Constitutional Rights; Oppose Final Passage of H.R. 2389. Dear Representative: We, the undersigned religious, civil rights, and civil liberties organizations, urge you to oppose H.R. 2389, the ``Pledge Protection Act,'' misguided legislation that would strip all federal courts, including the Supreme Court, from hearing First Amendment challenges to the Pledge of Allegiance and from enforcing longstanding constitutional rights in federal court. The signatories to this letter include organizations that supported the court challenge to the constitutionality of including ``under God'' in the Pledge of Allegiance, organizations that opposed that challenge, and organizations that took no position on the matter. We are united, however, in believing that H.R. 2389 threatens the separation of powers that is a fundamental aspect of our constitutional structure. Beyond this, while the legislation ostensibly responds to the controversy surrounding ``under God'' in the Pledge of Allegiance, this legislation sweeps far more broadly, with potentially severe constitutional implications for religious minorities who are adversely affected by government-mandated recitation of the Pledge. First and foremost, we are opposed to H.R. 2389 because this legislation, by entirely stripping all federal courts, including the Supreme Court, of jurisdiction over a particular class of cases, threatens the separation of powers established by the Constitution, and undermines the unique function of the federal courts to interpret constitutional law. This legislation deprives the federal courts of the ability to hear cases involving religious and free speech rights of students, parents, and other individuals. The denial of a federal forum to plaintiffs to vindicate their constitutional rights would force plaintiffs out of federal courts, which are specifically suited for the vindication of federal interests, and into state courts, which may be hostile or unsympathetic to these federal claims, and which may lack expertise and independent safeguards provided to federal judges under Article III of the Constitution. In addition, as drafted, the bill would deny access to the federal courts in cases to enforce existing constitutional rights for religious minorities. Over sixty years ago, the Supreme Court decided the case of West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943). In Barnette, the Supreme Court struck down a West Virginia law that mandated schoolchildren to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. Under the West Virginia law, religious minorities faced expulsion from school and could be subject to prosecution and fined, if convicted of violating the statute's provisions. In striking down that statute, the Court reasoned: ``To believe that patriotism will not flourish if patriotic ceremonies are voluntary and spontaneous instead of a compulsory routine is to make an unflattering estimate of the appeal of our institutions to free minds . . . If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high, or petty can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion.'' 319 U.S. at 639-40. Moreover, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, holding unconstitutional two provisions of a Pennsylvania law mandating recitation of the Pledge, said, ``It may be useful to note our belief that most citizens of the United States willingly recite the Pledge of Allegiance and proudly sing the national anthem. But the rights embodied in the Constitution, most particularly the First Amendment, protect the minority--those persons who march to their own drummers. It is they who need the protection afforded by the Constitution and it is the responsibility of federal judges to ensure that protection.'' Circle School v. Pappert, 381 F.3d 172, 183 (3d Cir. 2004). H.R. 2389 would undermine the longstanding constitutional rights of religious minorities to seek redress in the federal courts in cases involving mandatory recitation of the Pledge. As a result, this legislation will seriously harm religious minorities and the constitutional free speech rights of countless individuals. H.R. 2389 also raises serious legal concerns about the violation of the principles of separation of powers, equal protection and due process. The bill undermines public confidence in the federal courts by expressing outright hostility toward them, threatens the legitimacy of future congressional action by removing the federal courts as a neutral arbiter, and rejects the unifying function of the federal judiciary by denying federal courts the opportunity to interpret the law. We strongly believe that this legislation as drafted will have broad, negative implications on the ability of individuals to seek enforcement of previously constitutionally protected rights concerning mandatory recitation of the Pledge. We therefore urge, in the strongest terms, your rejection of this misguided and unwise legislation. Sincerely, American Civil Liberties Union. American Humanists Association. American Jewish Committee. Americans for Democratic Action. Americans United for Separation of Church and State. Anti-Defamation League. Baptist Joint Committee. Buddhist Peace Fellowship. Central Conference of American Rabbis. Disciples Justice Action Network (Disciples of Christ). Equal Partners in Faith. Federation of Jain Associations in North America (JAINA). Friends Committee on National Legislation. Human Rights Campaign. Jewish Council For Public Affairs (JCPA). Leadership Conference on Civil Rights. Legal Momentum (formerly NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund). National Council of Jewish Women. National Council of Negro Women, Inc. National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association (NFPRHA). National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. People For the American Way. Secular Coalition for America. Sikh Coalition. The Interfaith Alliance. The Workmen's Circle/ Arbeter Ring. Union for Reform Judaism. Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations. Woodhull Freedom Federation.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. Mr. Chairman, this amendment presents a new process, which was not considered in our exhaustive hearings. In fact, testimony at our hearings showed that the present bailout process is reasonable and inexpensive--all 11 jurisdictions that tried to bailout were able to do so. Although there is not a problem now--this amendment is a problem. There are nearly 900 jurisdictions covered nationwide by section 5. This amendment forces the Department of Justice to conduct an investigation in each jurisdiction every year. This amendment also reverses the longstanding requirement that jurisdictions bear the burden of establishing that they are free from discrimination, and instead places the burden on the Attorney General to determine whether each jurisdiction qualifies for bailout. Voting Section attorneys at the Department of Justice would have to spend time developing the evidence necessary to make these determinations, rather than focusing their efforts on enforcing the act. There is no funding for this additional responsibility. There is no problem, so let's not make one. We should defeat the Westmoreland amendment.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. Mr. Chairman, Section 203 works: when language assistance is available, voter participation goes up. When language assistance is not available, voter participation goes down. We are talking about citizens. In fact three-fourths of those affected by Section 203 are natural born Americans. Section 203 only applies where there is a large number of citizens in the jurisdiction with the same language--enough voters to affect the outcome of an election--and enough for those who don't like how the affected community votes to have an incentive to try to depress the vote. Section 203 is not a burden to communities. The evidence presented in our hearings was that the cost is negligible. For example, the bilingual poll worker will be paid the same amount as any other poll worker who would have been hired anyway. Finally, Mr. Chairman, this amendment will not result in voters being encouraged to improve their English. Our hearing record revealed voters in affected jurisdictions waiting years to get into adult education classes. A repeal of Section 203 may make it less likely that those education programs will be properly funded in the future, and a repeal will definitely result in lower voter participation. Mr. Chairman, we should encourage voter participation by defeating the King amendment.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, in the 40 years since its passage, the Voting Rights Act has guaranteed millions of minority voters the right to vote. As the Supreme Court noted in 1964, ``Other rights, even the most basic, are illusory if the right to vote is undermined.'' Mr. Chairman, the Voting Rights Act has been effective in eliminating schemes and barriers to the ballot box. But several key provisions of the act are scheduled to expire in 2007. This bill will reauthorize those important provisions. One is section 5, preclearance. It is crucial because it prevents election changes in covered jurisdictions from going into effect before being precleared by the Justice Department as being free from discrimination. If preclearance expires, an illegal scheme could help somebody win elections. That person would be able to serve until the victims of discrimination come up with the money to file a lawsuit. And then, when the scheme is thrown out, the perpetrator of that crime will get to run with all the advantages of incumbency when they run for reelection. Because of preclearance, illegal plans never go into effect. All of the States are not covered by section 5, but States which are covered got covered the old-fashioned way, they earned it. They were found to have had a history of implementing barriers and schemes that were effective in denying minorities the right to vote. Present law has a bailout provision which our hearing record demonstrates works for those who are no longer discriminating. Another important provision to be reauthorized is section 203 regarding language. It works. When language assistance is available, more people vote. It applies only in jurisdictions when there are enough voters to actually affect an election, so it is important where it applies. The cost of implementation is negligible. Mr. Chairman, the Voting Rights Act works to ensure the right to vote. We should pass H.R. 9 without amendment.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, there is no civil rights legislation more important or effective than the Voting Rights Act. The right to vote is the very foundation of our democracy, and as the Supreme Court noted in 1964, other rights, even the most basic, are illusory if the right to vote is undermined. The Voting Rights Act has made that right a reality. In Virginia, my home State, because of all sorts of schemes and barriers, there were no African American State legislators or Federal legislators, not a single African American State or Federal judge in 1964. After four decades of the Voting Rights Act which prohibited those schemes and removed those barriers, we now have 18 legislators and over 40 judges serving in Virginia. We do not need to return to the days before 1965. We do need to extend the expiring provisions of the Voting Rights Act. We should support H.R. 9 without amendment.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I oppose the bill because it does not prohibit Internet gambling; it only tries to prohibit running an Internet gambling operation. But because of the nature of the Internet, it is probably unlikely to do that, and that is because even if we are successful in closing down business sites in the United States or in countries we can get to cooperate, it will be ineffective because it will have no effect on those operations run outside of the reach of the Department of Justice. Furthermore, it does not prohibit illegal gambling, just running the operations so that gamblers will be as free as they are now to gamble over the Internet. Further, Mr. Speaker, it provides a credit card prohibition. We heard from witnesses during our hearings that this will create an enforcement nightmare for financial institutions because it requires them to stop and look for illegal Internet gambling transactions. It is hard to identify those transactions, because they are not going to be identified as an illegal Internet transaction. It will just be you may have a company with one code for all payments, even though the company may have many activities, including Internet gambling. Just as Caesar's Palace has a hotel and a gaming operation, a foreign company may have a hotel and a casino and an Internet gaming operation which is legal in that country, all paid to a single account. What about e-cash or electronic payment systems, or an escrow agent located in another country? All the bank knows is that the payment came from PayPal or went to some escrow agent. With some Internet gambling operations being legal, how would the final institution distinguish between what is legal and what is illegal? Furthermore, we should not overestimate the cooperation we might get from other countries. The Internet gambling Web sites were virtually unheard of a few years ago and now represent billion-dollar businesses and are growing at phenomenal rates. Over 85 foreign countries allow some form of gambling online, and that number is likely to grow as well. So what governments are likely to cooperate with us in prosecuting businesses that they authorize to operate? Even if we are successful in getting cooperation from some countries, it would simply increase the profit opportunities for sites located in uncooperative countries, especially those with whom the United States does not have normal diplomatic relations, and those sites would be unregulated with no consumer protections. Again, we have heard these stories about the problems of Internet gambling. But this bill does not prohibit Internet gambling. It prohibits running the operation. If we wanted to be effective in prosecuting illegal gambling on the Internet, we would prosecute the individual gamblers. A few sting operations would get the word out that if you gamble on the Internet, you will be caught, because the money trail will lead back to each individual Internet gambler. So as long as individuals can gamble over the Internet with impunity, the market will be provided for them from some place. Mr. Speaker, this bill does not prohibit Internet gambling, just tries to prohibit running the operation in a jurisdiction within the reach of the Department of Justice, then it sets up an impossible regulatory scheme, requiring banks to figure out which of billions of transactions might be related to illegal Internet gambling. If we want to prohibit Internet gambling, let's debate that. Meanwhile, we should defeat this bill.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, one of the problems with the discussion so far is we keep talking about prohibiting Internet gambling. There is nothing in the bill that prohibits Internet gambling. The prohibition is against running a gambling operation on the Internet in the United States. If you are running one offshore, there is no prohibition. So what we are doing is setting up a monopoly for offshore operations beyond the reach. We are also setting up a credit card situation which cannot be enforced. How is a credit card company going to deny a bill coming in when they don't know what it is for? The credit card company has got to know it is illegal, they have got to know it was for illegal gambling rather than for something else. A lot of companies that have a lot of different entities, they may be charging for a hotel room, not for Internet gambling. And it cannot possibly be enforced. So you have a regulatory scheme that can't work and no prohibition against gambling. If we wanted to get serious about Internet gambling, you should have put in there it is illegal to gamble. That is not in the bill. This bill is a message bill. It is unenforceable; you can't regulate it. It would make more sense since the cat is out of the bag, many countries are running Internet gambling operations already. If we are going to do anything, we ought to regulate the operations, supervise it, and tax it.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a great citizen of the Commonwealth of Virginia and a true public servant. On June 30, 2006, Councilman Turner M. Spencer will step down from the Hampton, Virginia City Council after 20 years of dedicated service. I would like to take a few moments to highlight just some of Councilman Spencer's achievements. Dr. Spencer holds bachelor's and master's degrees in Biology from Virginia State University, a master's degree in education from Hampton University, and a Doctorate in Higher Education Administration from the College of William and Mary. In 1958, Dr. Spencer served his country on active duty for 2 years in the United States Army, rising to the rank of captain, and he continued his military career with the United States Army Reserves, retiring as a major. Our grateful Nation is indebted to his service. Dr. Spencer's career in public service began in the classroom. He joined the faculty of Thomas Nelson Community College in 1968, eventually serving as Chairman of the Thomas Nelson Biology Department until his retirement in 2000. Dr. Spencer played an integral part in the education and training of thousands of students in Hampton and surrounding cities. In addition to his distinguished personal career, Councilman Spencer has had a long and prosperous political career. In 1986, he was first appointed to the Hampton City Council. He has served continuously on the council for the last 20 years, including a term as Vice-Mayor. He has also served his city as Chairman of the Hampton Redevelopment and Housing Authority, and as Chairman of the Hampton Roads Transportation District Commission. His expertise in transportation, an area of great importance in our State, was recognized when he was elected President of the Virginia Transit Association in 1995. In that same year, leaders from other Virginia localities selected Councilman Spencer to be a member of the Executive Committee of the Virginia Municipal League and President of the League's Transportation Policy Committee. Councilman Spencer's service to his State has not caused him to neglect his community. He is a member of the Board of Directors for the Boys & Girls Clubs of Greater Hampton Roads, and he has served on the Board of Trustees of both Messiah Baptist Church and First Baptist Church, Hampton. As he prepares to step down from the City Council, I have no doubt that Councilman Spencer will remain active in the community. Whether it's through his membership in Kiwanis International or the Alpha Alpha Chapter of Omega Psi Phi Fraternity, Inc., I expect to see Councilman Spencer continuing to play a role in local and State civic affairs. I once again congratulate Councilman Spencer on his 20 years of service to the citizens of Hampton, the Commonwealth of Virginia and the United States of America.