Bobby Scott

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Madam Speaker, let me just first say I believe it is inappropriate to even discuss the PATRIOT Act until we have had hearings to find out what is going on with the NSA wiretaps. The PATRIOT Act could be, in fact, irrelevant if you are wiretapping at will, as the President has suggested; and we want to know exactly what is going on with those wiretaps before we do anything else. But this bill is on the floor, so we have to discuss that. Unfortunately, I have to oppose this bill because it still continues to require no finding of individualized suspicion as a trigger to the secret record search powers in sections 215 and 505. That means that innocent Americans can have their sensitive records searched without any showing that they are an agent of a terrorist organization or scheming with terrorist organizations or doing anything illegal. Instead, this continues the problems in the original PATRIOT Act. This bill addresses several of the problems, but doesn't actually solve them. One thing it helps is the fact that the recipient of a national security letter will be able to consult a lawyer without having to notify the government of the attorney's name. This is merely cosmetic, because that has actually been the recent practice. In terms of these interstate letters, the bill addresses the right to challenge the gag order which applies to the secret orders under 215, as well as the national security letters; but it says that you can't make the challenge for 1 year. It codifies a 1-year period during which you can't do anything. That makes the present law worse. Presumably, you could go in right away to challenge the NSA and see the secret orders; but now you have to wait a year, and at the end of the year, you can't do anything, because all the government has to do is certify that the gag order needs to stay in effect. The judge has no discretion as to overturning that certification. So although this issue is addressed, it is actually made worse. Finally, Madam Speaker, there is a question on the protection of privacy of library patrons in terms of the Internet service providers as to whether or not the library is an Internet service provider. The language is a little bit confusing. Madam Speaker, I would enter into the Record a colloquy between the Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, and the Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Sununu, the chief patron of the bill. Assuming that he means what he said he meant on the floor of the Senate, we don't have a problem with it. So I would like to ask unanimous consent to introduce into the Record the colloquy between the two Senators as to what section 5 actually means. Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I would like to introduce this. It represents the intent of the chief sponsor of the bill, which we agree with, although I understand the manager of the bill in the House may not. Colloquy Between Senators John Sununu and Dick Durbin on Section 5 of S. 2271, February 16, 2006 Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, at this moment, I wish to address the bill pending before the Senate, and that is S. 2271. I commend Senator John Sununu of New Hampshire, who is here in the Chamber. Were it not for his hard work, we would not be here today. For weeks, while many of us were doing other things back home, Senator Sununu was working assiduously with the White House to find a way to address some very vexing and challenging issues when it came to modifying the PATRIOT Act. He has done an excellent job. I commend him and tell him that I have enjoyed working with him over the last 2 years, where we have crossed party lines and tried to find ways to keep the PATRIOT Act as a tool to make America safe but also at the same time to protect our basic liberties. Every step of the way, as we considered changes to the PATRIOT Act, we have been supported by our Nation's librarians. These are wonderful men and women-- professionals--who are dedicated to the libraries across America, which are such rich resources. I thank the librarians of America, especially for their heroic efforts to amend the PATRIOT Act in a responsible way and, equally as important, to defend our Constitution. I understand that section 5 of Senator Sununu's bill, S. 2271, will help protect the privacy of Americans' library records. I ask the indulgence of the Chair that I might enter into a colloquy with Senator Sununu relative to section 5. I would like to ask Senator Sununu, through the Chair, if he could explain to me what section 5 will accomplish. Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I am pleased to be on the floor today and pleased to be able to see the light at the end of the tunnel on PATRIOT reauthorization, thanks to the work of Senator Durbin and others. We have legislation before us that will make the adjustments to the PATRIOT Act reauthorization conference report mentioned by the Senator from Illinois. He specifically mentioned section 5 of our legislation. As he began to describe, section 5 is intended to clarify current law regarding the applicability of National Security Letters to libraries. A National Security Letter is a type of administrative subpoena, a powerful tool available to law enforcement officials, to get access to documents. It is a document signed by an FBI agent that requires a business to provide certain kinds of personal records on their customers to the Government. These subpoenas are not approved by a judge before being issued. What we did in this legislation is add clarifying language that states that libraries operating in their traditional functions: lending books, providing access to digital books or periodicals in digital format, and providing basic access to the Internet would not be subject to a national security letter. There is no National Security Letter statute existing in current law that permits the FBI explicitly to obtain library records. But, as was indicated by the Senator from Illinois, librarians have been concerned that existing National Security Letter authority is vague enough so that it could be used to allow the Government to treat libraries as they do communication service providers such as a telephone company or a traditional Internet service provider from whom consumers would go out and get their access to the Internet and send and receive e-mail. Section 5 clarifies, as I indicated, that a library providing basic Internet access would not be subject to a national security letter, simply by virtue of making that access available to the public. Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator from New Hampshire. It is my understanding that most public libraries, as he explained, offer Internet access to the public. Because of this, they are concerned that the Government might consider them to be communications service providers similar to the traditional providers, such as AT&T, Verizon, and AOL. So if I understand it correctly, your bill clarifies that libraries, simply because they provide basic Internet access, are not communications service providers under the law and are not subject to national security letters as a result. I ask the Senator from New Hampshire, through the Chair, is that a correct conclusion? Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I absolutely believe that the conclusion of the Senator from Illinois is correct, A library providing basic Internet access would not be subject to a National Security Letter as a result of that particular service and other services that are very much in keeping with the traditional role of libraries. Some have noted or may note that basic Internet access gives library patrons the ability to send and receive e-mail by, for example, accessing an Internet-based e-mail service. But in that case, it is the Web site operator who is providing the communication service--the Internet communication service provider itself--and not the library, which is simply making available a computer with access to the Internet. So I certainly share the concerns of the Senator from Illinois and others who have worked very long and hard on this and other provisions. I think it does add clarity to the law as he described, in addition to providing other improvements to the PATRIOT Act as they relate to civil liberty protections. All along, this has been about providing law enforcement with the tools that they need in their terrorism investigations while, at the same time, balancing those powers with the need to protect civil liberties. I think, in the legislation before us, we have added clarity to the law in giving access to the courts to object to section 215 gag orders and, of course, striking a very punitive provision dealing with counsel and not forcing the recipient of a National Security Letter to disclose the name of their attorney to the FBI. All of these are improvements to the underlying legislation, and I recognize that we had a overwhelming, bipartisan vote today to move forward on this package. I anticipate that we will have similar bipartisan votes in the days ahead to conclude work on this legislation and get a much improved PATRIOT Act signed into law. Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator from New Hampshire, as well, because that clarification is important. So if a library offers basic Internet access, and within that access a patron can, for example, send and receive e-mail by accessing an Internet-based e-mail service such as Hotmail, for example, that does not mean the library is a communications service provider and, therefore, it does not mean that a library could be subject to these national security letters of investigation. By way of comparison, a gas station that has a pay phone isn't a telephone company. So a library that has Internet access, where a person can find an Internet e-mail service, is not a communications service provider; therefore, it would not fall under the purview of the NSL provision in 18 U.S.C. 2709. It is a critically important distinction. I thank the Senator from New Hampshire for making that clear and for all of his good work on this bill. Libraries are fundamental to America. They symbolize our access to education. They are available to everyone, regardless of social or economic status. When we first introduced the SAFE Act, I went to the Chicago Public Library to make the announcement. The library was established in 1873, and for over 130 years it has given the people of the City of Chicago the ability to read and learn and communicate. Here is what the mission statement says at that public library: We welcome and support all people and their enjoyment of reading and pursuit of lifelong learning. We believe in the freedom to read, to learn, and to discover. We have to ensure, in the Senate and in Congress, in the bills that we pass, including the PATRIOT Act, that this freedom to read, learn, and discover is preserved for our children and our grandchildren. Mr. President, I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I would say that if we had actually improved the economy with all those tax cuts, it might have been worth it. But this chart shows that the economic improvement, the number of jobs created since Herbert Hoover, it shows that after we have run the budget into the ditch, we still have ended up with the worst job performance since Herbert Hoover.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. If the gentleman would yield further, not only that, and the way the question is framed, it is significant, because the overwhelming portion of the tax cuts are going to people that make more than $200,000. There is one tax cut that goes into effect this year, colloquially known as PEP and Pease, dealing with standard deductions and other kinds of deductions that can be made. To make a long story short, it only affects the wealthy. If you are making more than $1 million, you get out of this tax cut, when it is fully phased in, about $19,000. If you are down between $75,000 and $100,000, on average you will get $1. If you are under $75,000, you get zero. This shows how we are going to spend $20 billion a year when this thing is fully phased in. It would seem to me this is how we get into deficit, with those kinds of cuts. $20 billion a year, let's put that into perspective. All the BRAC base closings that you suffered in Northern Virginia and I suffered in Hampton Roads, Virginia, all of the BRAC closings, we will be lucky to save $20 billion over 20 years. $20 billion a year, when people under $75,000 don't get a dime; people over $100,000 might get $1; $100,000 to $200,000 might get $25, over $1 million, $19,000. That is how we are spending $20 billion a year in that tax cut. It seems to me before we pass tax cuts like that, we ought to get the budget straight. Let's not be down here in the dumps talking about more tax cuts, particularly when they are weighted overwhelmingly toward the wealthy.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Virginia for yielding to me. My colleague from Virginia, you have done an excellent job in outlining what the problem is. I like to use charts as I describe what the problem is. Our previous speaker indicated, the Truth Squad, as to what the truth is. I would like to point out exactly what he is talking about because this chart shows the deficit back through the Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton administrations, up to a surplus and what has happened in the last 5 years. When they talk about bragging about fiscal responsibility from the Republican side, this is the line they are talking about, the one they are bragging about right here. When they ask what the Democratic plan is to get us out of this mess, I would say, Mr. Speaker, the Democratic plan is this blue line right here. That is what we had under President Clinton. My colleague from Virginia will remember in 1993 the first budget passed under the Clinton administration. It passed without a single Republican vote, House or Senate, and we took that budget and took it up to a surplus. In 1995, when the Republicans came in and took control of Congress, they passed a different kind of budget, and President Clinton vetoed that budget. In fact, they threatened to close down the government if he did not sign those tax cuts, and he vetoed it again and the government was shut down. President Clinton would not sign an irresponsible budget. And as a result, we have almost a straight line up into a surplus. When President Bush came in, everything collapsed. They stopped paying for tax cuts or paying for spending cuts. Pay-as-you-go dissolved, and here is what you have. And this is the line they are bragging about. Now, unfortunately, it is going to get worse before it gets better. The President says that he wants to cut the deficit in half in 5 years. That is a fairly, what I would say, modest goal, taking into consideration the fact that you had a huge surplus to begin with to say that you are only going to clean up half of the mess, but the fact is he cannot even do it if we make the tax cuts permanent and do other things that he has suggested. And they are passing. This is the line we are going to follow for the next 10 years. Deep into deficits. This green line is the promise, which is not much, but the red line is what we are going to probably do. This little blue line up here is an interesting line because that is the budget from this administration in 2003 before they continued cutting taxes. They showed that by now we would be up into surplus. 2003 is significant because that is after 2001. After the war we still had projected, before we continued to mess up the budget, we were supposed to be in surplus now, but here we are deep in the ditch. In fact, as my colleague from Virginia has indicated, we had, when this administration started, a projected $5.6 trillion surplus for the following decade. We have dropped almost $9 trillion to, the same year, a $3.3 trillion deficit, a turnaround of $8.9 trillion. Now, let us put that number in perspective because it is a big number. If you add up everybody's individual income tax, what everybody pays on April 15, every individual, what your individual tax is, it averages year by year to be about $800 billion. An average deterioration in the budget, almost $900 billion, deterioration in the budget. And when you talk about the war, the gentleman mentioned less than $500 billion, 0.5. Talk about Katrina, $200 billion, we might want to pay for the Katrina aftermath, 0.2. An $8.9 trillion deterioration; you cannot blame it on 0.5 and 0.2. And since that happened, it looks like you would have changed course somehow to accommodate it. No, you kept going straight. But you cannot blame 0.5 and 0.2 on a $9 trillion deterioration. Now, the Truth Squad indicated a blank slate of the Democrats who voted for the spending cuts in 1991. That is true. But they did not tell you what the spending cuts were. Food stamps and health care for the working poor, and I say ``working poor'' because when you cut, you cut from the top. The ones that are struggling, the ones that are just barely making it, you whack them. The very poor are untouched; it is just the working, struggling poor that get whacked with food stamps and health care. They also cut child care, child support enforcement, foster care. We had a group come into my office the other day talking about the effects on foster care. Many at-risk children who are in foster care now will not have resources to help them. These are the ones at most risk of getting into trouble, getting into other problems that we are going to have to deal with. Those are the ones that got whacked by that budget, as well as, as the gentleman indicated, student loans. That is what we did not vote for. But he also did not say what that was a total package of. They had spending cuts and they had tax cuts. The spending cuts were less than $40 billion. The tax cuts were $70 billion. Had we passed the plan, we were going to be $30 billion worse off, further in the ditch than we started off. These are some of the problems with the budget. And let me get these other charts which point out that when you run up that kind of deficit, that is kind of esoteric, but at some point not only do you have to pay it back, but in the meanwhile, interest on the national debt. By 2010, compared to where we were on the line on interest in the national debt, we are going to be spending over $200 billion more in interest on the national debt, $227 billion more in interest on the national debt than we had projected. At $22,000 a year for a job, how many people can you hire with $227 billion? Answer: 10 million. There are only 8 or 9 million people looking for work, drawing unemployment today. You could hire each and every one of them with a $22,000 job and have money left over with the additional interest in the national debt that we are going to have to pay. Now, as you have indicated, we are running up debt. This chart shows the Social Security cash flow. What we are spending now, the little blue line, shows that we are bringing in more than we are paying out. In 2017, we are going to start paying out more than we are bringing in. Right at the time we are deepest in the debt, paying the most in interest on the debt, we are going to need to come up with cash to pay for Social Security. Now, there is an old adage that goes, ``If you don't change directions, you might end up where you're headed.'' Let us look at what where we are headed with this budget. This black line shows the taxes if we continue making these tax cuts permanent, as the Republicans have continued to pass. Where are we headed? By 2040, this line goes across and shows that we could be able to pay for the blue, interest on the national debt; the yellow, Social Security, and we would have to borrow a lot of money to pay for that because you are not even covering Social Security; but we would also have to borrow for the red, which is Medicare and Medicaid; and green, which is government spending like defense, education, FBI, and everything else we do, all with borrowed money. Obviously, this is not a sustainable direction. We have to change directions, and we need to start now. It is not getting any better. I thank you for leading this Special Order. We have a lot of work to do. Again, if people want to know what the Democratic plan is, the democratic plan is the blue. We dug ourselves deeply out of debt and ran up a surplus sufficient to have an over-$5 trillion surplus. Mentioning Social Security, to pay for Social Security for the next 75 years, we would need today $4 trillion more in the trust fund, $4 trillion more. We had over a $5 trillion surplus squandered away, turned into a deficit. We had the Social Security problem licked because we had gone into surplus. We could have paid Social Security for the next 75 years. But, no, we went in a different direction. We need to get back to the Democratic plan and certainly reject more of what we have been doing for the last 5 years.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to recognize the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People on its 97th anniversary. The NAACP holds a very special meaning to me. One honor I especially treasure is being named Virginia's first individual Golden Heritage Life Member. That honor was a great addition to the honor of having served as president of the Newport News chapter. The NAACP also holds a special place in the collective memory of all of our people. The NAACP is an organization that has made a difference from the very beginning. In 1909, 60 prominent Americans, including Ida B. Wells- Barnett and W.E.B. DuBois, met on the occasion of the 100th anniversary of the birth of Abraham Lincoln to discuss racial violence and social justice. Out of that meeting, the NAACP was born--with the goal of securing rights, liberties and protections for all Americans, as guaranteed by the Constitution. The NAACP has always fought against injustices by using nonviolent protests, the press, the ballot, and the courts. The NAACP took on the President of the United States in 1918 and President Wilson finally publicly condemned lynching. During World War I, the NAACP successfully campaigned for African Americans to be commissioned as officers in the army. And in World War II, the NAACP pressured Roosevelt into ordering a non-discriminatory policy in war-related industries and Federal employment. In 1946, the NAACP won the Morgan v. Virginia case where the Supreme Court banned states from having segregated facilities on buses and trains that crossed state borders. And in 1948, the NAACP pressured President Truman into signing the Executive Order that banned discrimination in the armed forces. In 1954, the NAACP won its landmark legal case--Brown v. the Board of Education--declaring ``separate and equal'' unconstitutional. Through the 50s and 60s protests made a lot of difference. In 1955, NAACP member Rosa Parks was arrested and fined for refusing to give up her seat on a segregated bus in Montgomery, Alabama. This led to the Montgomery bus boycott, which led to the emergence of Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. All of these events led to the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the 1965 Voting Rights Act, President Johnson's 1965 Executive Order banning employment discrimination in Federal contracts, the 1968 Fair Housing Act, and other landmark civil rights reforms. The NAACP is what the late Bishop Stephen Gill Spotswood, a former National Board Chairman, has called ``the oldest, largest, most effective, most consulted, most militant, most feared and most loved of all civil rights organizations in the world.'' Bishop Spotswood's statement remains true today. In the 21st Century, the NAACP is needed as much as ever to make a difference--at all levels--National, State and local. Despite victories won long ago we are still facing challenges. In its 97th year, the NAACP needs to continue its great legacy of contribution and commitment to ensure that these hard-won civil rights will always be protected. Congratulations on your 97th anniversary.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from North Carolina for organizing this Special Order so that we can give appropriate recognition to black fraternal, social, and civic organizations. African Americans have been in the forefront of significant change in American society, and many of those leading the fight were members of very distinguished organizations with the support of those organizations. I share membership in Alpha Phi Alpha with my distinguished colleague from Georgia and six other Members of Congress. As my colleague mentioned, Alpha Phi Alpha was the first collegiate black fraternity. I am proud to be a long-time and life member of Alpha Phi Alpha. And since its founding in 1906, Alpha Phi Alpha and all black fraternities and sororities have supplied a voice and vision to the struggle of African Americans and people of color around the world. For example, one of the long-standing programs sponsored by Alpha Phi Alpha is ``Go to high school, go to college.'' Another is ``A voteless people is a hopeless people.'' They encouraged education and voter registration. More recent projects for Alpha Phi Alpha is Project Alpha, promoting responsibility among African American males in all aspects of health care. Before the formation of college fraternities, the very first African American fraternity, Sigma Pi Phi, was formed in 1904 in Philadelphia by a group of physicians and dentists. This organization was created for college and professionally educated African Americans including college presidents, Congressmen, cabinet members, and nationally prominent figures such as W.E.B. DuBois and Martin Luther King, Jr. I am also a member of Sigma Pi Phi. There are countless other organizations that have existed for the purpose of improving economic status, spiritual well-being, and civil rights of all Americans. The Free African Society was founded in 1787; the National Negro Business League was founded in 1900; the National Afro-American Council in 1903; the Niagara Movement, the forerunner of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, NAACP, was well under way by 1905. The members of these and many other organizations have addressed the most serious moral challenges facing Americans today. The contribution of African American social and civic organizations has included everything from scholarships to social reconstruction. The members of these organizations have confronted the handicaps, the restrictions, the persecutions, the prejudices, the inequities in the opportunities faced by people of color. Thanks to the relentless efforts of African American member organizations, there are more people of color today in corporate, Federal, State and municipal offices than ever before. The work of members of Alpha Phi Alpha, Sigma Pi Phi and other organizations has had a huge impact over the last 100 years, but our work is far from over. In the 21st century, we will continue to work for political, economic and social change. It is imperative that all fraternal, social and civic organizations in the African American community continue to provide service to African Americans as a whole and the United States in general. Carter G. Woodson, known as the father of Black History, was born in Buckingham County, Virginia, to former slaves. He reminded us of the importance of commemorating African American contributions when he stated, ``If a race has no history, if it has no worthwhile tradition, it becomes a negligible factor in the thought of the world, and it stands in danger of being exterminated.'' As we celebrate African American History Month, let us recognize the achievement and traditions of African Americans and let us never forget the members of black fraternal, social, and civic organizations that pursued unchartered paths and paid for the freedom that we hold so dear. Again, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from North Carolina for organizing this Special Order so that we can recognize these organizations appropriately.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1259. By authorizing the Tuskegee Airmen to receive the Congressional Gold Medal, we are not only recognizing an exemplary military record, but also strength of character in the face of prejudice and racism. The Tuskegee Airmen, a unit of 1,000 African American pilots, were America's first black military airmen. Trained at Tuskegee Army Air Field in Tuskegee, Alabama, these men had to overcome biased notions of their fighting ability. After graduation from pilot training at Tuskegee, 450 members of the unit were sent overseas for combat assignments. These men saw extensive action, completing 15,000 missions between 1941-1946 without losing one American bomber during any escort mission. Collectively they earned more than 744 medals and their heroic service led to the greater achievement of integrating the U.S. Armed Forces--a watershed event in American history. Their brave actions broke forever the myths that allowed segregation, inequity and injustice toward African-Americans to exist in our military. Today, the remaining survivors, now in their 80's, are role models to generations of young men and women both in and outside of the military. The Tuskegee Airmen persevered and by sharing their stories have taught generations of Americans about the high price of freedom. They were dedicated and determined young men who came from every section of the country. I am particularly proud to recognize the 38 airmen who were from the State of Virginia, 10 of whom are still living. The living Virginia Tuskegee Airmen are Howard Baugh of Petersburg, Wiley Selden of Norfolk, Grant Williams of Hampton, Ezra Hill of Hampton, Francis Home of Hampton, Theodore Wilson of Roanoke, William Green of Staunton, Carl Johnson of Charlottesville, Augustus Palmer of Newport News and Floyd Carter of Norfolk. These men served as trailblazers in the efforts to create equal rights and equal treatment for all people. It is my honor to thank them for their service, legacy and rich heritage.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, the wealth and generosity of the American people is possibly the greatest story to come from the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Upon seeing their fellow citizens in need, Americans pledged millions of dollars to the Red Cross and other charitable organizations. Families hosted displaced evacuees, while others welcomed strangers into their homes, schools, and houses of worship. I would like to commend one group of volunteers who have put their specialized skills to use in bringing critical services back to New Orleans. This past Sunday, forty dentists and forty support volunteers from the Commonwealth of Virginia, in conjunction with the Virginia Dental Association, left Virginia on a Mission of Mercy. They joined with 400 medical professionals and 150 support volunteers from thirty-eight different states and transformed the New Orleans Zoo into one large health care clinic. They will spend this week staffing this clinic, providing health care free of charge to anyone who needs it. The dentists from Virginia are not just providing checkups, but are performing extractions, fillings, partial realignments, and all other procedures that one would normally receive in a dentist's office. The 500 dental patients that will be treated daily are just a portion of the 1600 patients that will be triaged through the clinic coordinated by Remote Area Medical of Knoxville, Tennessee. The doctors and support volunteers participating in the Mission of Mercy are paying for their own transportation and lodging. On top of those costs, many of them are forced to close their own practices in their home states in order to participate in the mission. This simple gift to the people of New Orleans is a much needed one. The image of homes flooded by Katrina's waters is prevalent in our minds. It is easy to forget that businesses, such as doctor's offices, were also destroyed. For the parts of New Orleans that weren't flooded, many still lack power and potable water. For many of the brave citizens and aid workers that still inhabit the city, health care is a creature comfort that is either unavailable or too expensive. It is a necessity that sadly takes a backseat to more immediate concerns. The federal government has yet to fully live up to its responsibility to the citizens whose lives were ravaged by Hurricane Katrina, and until the federal government fulfills this responsibility, the job is left to private citizens to put a great city back together again. I salute the medical professionals and volunteers from around the country and especially those from the Virginia Dental Association who are giving of their time, money, and expertise to help bring normalcy back to the lives of their fellow citizens. The entire Virginia Congressional delegation salutes the Virginia Dental Association as ambassadors of goodwill and Virginia values.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would hope that we would give this brief extension to the PATRIOT Act and that we would use this time effectively to review the NSA wiretaps and also to use this time effectively to develop a bill that can pass both Chambers. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I now yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), the ranking member of the Select Committee on Intelligence. (Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I intend to support this short extension today. And doing so will give the Members an opportunity to work together to work on the conference report from the last Congress to include some commonsense improvements to ensure that there are appropriate protections for our citizens' civil rights and civil liberties. Now, many of the provisions of the original PATRIOT Act for which concerns had been expressed have proven to be noncontroversial and have not operated to threaten civil liberties. Other provisions, however, have become more problematic. This extension will give us the time to look at things like the searches for libraries and other intrusive records; second, a standard for issuing national security letters which are essentially subpoenas without probable cause and without the normal checks and balances and a mechanism for making sure that personal information obtained under these letters is destroyed or properly protected. A review of wire taps, I think, is appropriate, the roving wiretaps and also review of wiretaps under the President's new NSA policy which many legal scholars believe are just illegal. Those are spying on domestic law-abiding citizens. If there is probable cause that someone is breaking the law, obviously a criminal warrant could be given. We need to look and see exactly what is being done and review the law to determine whether or not they are, in fact, illegal. The elimination of totally unnecessary provisions in the conference report involving habeas corpus and expanding the death penalty had nothing to do with the original PATRIOT Act. Mr. Speaker, as the chairman has indicated, there are improvements in the PATRIOT Act that are in the conference report, but we need to make sure that we have a version that can pass. We can pass a PATRIOT Act. The Senate has passed the PATRIOT Act several times on virtually a unanimous vote or even unanimous consent. The House Judiciary Committee passed unanimously the original PATRIOT Act until a late-night switch to another version that no one had read. But we can pass a PATRIOT Act; and if we use our time effectively, we can develop an act which serves the needs of law enforcement without allowing the unnecessary spying on law-abiding citizens. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler). (Mr. NADLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, it was with great sadness that I learned of the passing of Mrs. Coretta Scott King. I rise today along with my colleagues to celebrate and remember the life of a remarkable woman and support H. Res. 655. I know that I speak for my colleagues here today when I say that America has lost one of its great citizens. Mrs. King's greatness lay in the special talents she had and her ability to use them in the numerous roles she played in her life. She started her adult life as an accomplished musician, receiving music degrees from Antioch College in Yellow Springs, OH, and the New England Conservatory of Music in Boston, MA. It was in Massachusetts that she met Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. They were married on June 18, 1953. In 1954, with her husband's installation at Dexter Avenue Baptist Church in Montgomery, AL, Mrs. King accepted the roles and responsibilities of a pastor's wife. Mrs. King's singular talents may have been known just to members of the Dexter Avenue Baptist Church if it had not been for the winds of change swirling around Montgomery in 1955. With the arrest of Rosa Parks for her refusal to give up her seat on a Montgomery public bus, the struggle for civil rights for Blacks in America formally began. Dr. King was at the epicenter of the civil rights movement, and Mrs. King was there by his side. It is amazing that Coretta Scott King could play such a vital role in the civil rights movement while simultaneously raising a family. She was the mother of four at a time when a woman was expected to be a homemaker and not much else. Not content to stand on the sidelines of history, Mrs. King spoke on the cause of equality to church, civic, college, fraternal and peace groups. She also produced and performed in a series of freedom concerts as fundraisers for the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, the direct action organization of which Dr. King served as first president. It is easy to forget the duress under which Mrs. King lived such an exemplary life. The threat of violent death was always present. The King family home was bombed in 1956. Death threats against her family arrived by phone and mail constantly, and Martin was stabbed and nearly killed in a New York department store in 1958. The threat became reality with Dr. King's assassination on April 4, 1968. No one would accuse Mrs. King of cowardice if she had retired from public life after Dr. King's death. But Dr. King's dream of an undivided America became her dream, and Mrs. King continued to work as an advocate for equality through nonviolent resistance. Mrs. King devoted much of her energy to developing the Martin Luther King, Jr. Center for Nonviolent Social Change in Atlanta as a living memorial to her husband's life and dream. She led goodwill missions around the world speaking at massive peace and justice rallies. She was the first woman to deliver the class day address at Harvard University and the first woman to preach at a statutory service at St. Paul's Cathedral in London. Mrs. King led the campaign to establish Dr. King's birthday as a national holiday. In 1983, the 98th Congress passed H.R. 5890 instituting the Martin Luther King, Jr. Federal Holiday Commission, which Mrs. King chaired for its duration. And in January 1986, Mrs. King oversaw the first legal holiday in honor of her husband--a holiday which has come to be celebrated by millions of people. My thoughts and prayers are with the King family. I hope that this resolution honoring Mrs. King will be a comfort to them at this difficult time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of myself, Congresswoman Jo Ann Davis and Congresswoman Thelma Drake to call attention to a group of young students from Hampton, Virginia, who have distinguished themselves, their school, their community and the Commonwealth of Virginia. The Hampton High School Crabbers football team had a remarkable season, and we believe the Crabbers deserve formal recognition for their accomplishments. On December 10, 2005, the Hampton High School Crabbers won their 17th state football championship, defeating Stone Bridge High School of Ashburn 15-8, at Todd Stadium in Newport News, Virginia. The Crabbers finished the season with a 12-1 record. Hampton High holds a Virginia record of 17 state football championships. This is also the 12th state championship for Hampton High Head Football Coach Mike Smith. This latest championship is just another accolade for the City of Hampton's oldest school. Hampton High School is also the direct descendent of the Syms-Eaton School, the first free school established in the American colonies. Syms Free School was founded in 1647. The school has existed in many incarnations and buildings since then, with Hampton's current school building being constructed in 1956. The legacy of Hampton High is not limited to just the field of athletics. Under the Direction of Principal Anthony Woods, the Hampton faculty seeks to inspire students to strive for excellence and achievement in the classroom, in their extracurricular activities and in their communities. Hampton High has the second highest percentage of accredited teachers in the state of Virginia. Hampton High received the Award of Academic Excellence from the Department of Education in 1985. Hampton students meet rigorous academic requirements, and they take responsibility for their own academic progress, behavior and attendance. It is clear that this drive for excellence in academics goes hand in hand with excellence in athletics. The Crabber's excellence in football is characteristic of the quality of athletics in the Peninsula District of Virginia. Hampton High School's championship this year marked the lOth time in the last fifteen years that a Peninsula District team has won a state title in football. To quote from our hometown newspaper, the Daily Press, ``High school football on the Peninsula is championship football. `` We would like to extend our enthusiastic congratulations to Coach Mike Smith, his coaching staff and all of the players on the Hampton High School Crabbers, the 2005 Group AAA Division Virginia High School League state football champions.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my opposition to the Katrina education proposal because it unwisely contains vouchers for displaced students attending private schools. While the Supreme Court has addressed the constitutionality of school voucher proposals, I continue to oppose them because I believe they take away much needed resources and attention from our public schools. Even under the extraordinary circumstances of hurricane Katrina, I continue to believe that vouchers for displaced students to attend private schools is a misguided policy. I offer into the Record a letter from Americans United for Separation of Church and State that further discusses problems inherent in this legislation. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Washington, DC., December 16, 2005. Dear Senator: Americans United for Separation of Church and State, representing more than 75,000 individual members and 9,500 clergy nationwide, as well as cooperating houses of worship and other religious bodies committed to the preservation of religious liberty, urges you to oppose a Hurricane Katrina education proposal that includes private school vouchers and aid to restart private school operations. We understand that this proposal will be attached to the Department of Defense Appropriations bill and we urge your opposition to including it in that measure. Originally attached to the Senate-passed Budget Reconciliation legislation, the education package, sponsored by Senators Alexander (R-TN), Enzi (R-WY), Kennedy (D-MA) and Dodd (D-CT), constitutes the first national educational voucher program--authorizing funding at $1.2 billion--and sets a dangerous precedent that undermines America's commitment to fully funding the Nation's public schools. The current proposal allows up to $6,000 per displaced student (or up to $7,500 per displaced student with a disability) to be sent to any public, private, or religious school nationwide of the displaced family's choice in order to defray tuition costs. Under the bill, funds from the Federal Government would go through State structures to the Local Education Agencies (LEAs), which would hold the money for distribution. The Federal funds would then be distributed from the LEA to any school educating an eligible child on a per-capita basis. As a result, per-capita funding would go from a governmental entity (the LEA) to public, private, and religious schools, depending on where displaced families have decided to educate their children. This is the very essence of a school voucher program, which allows families to decide where students will be educated and then drives government money to those schools on a per capita basis. As a result, this is a school voucher program, regardless of the terminology used under the bill. There is no analytical difference between the funding structure under this bill and traditional, ``pure'' school voucher programs. It would mark the first national Federally-funded voucher program in everything but name. Although Americans United opposed the Senate-passed Enzi- Kennedy legislation as attached to the Senate Budget Reconciliation bill, the newly crafted compromise eliminates all religious liberty protections afforded to displaced students in that legislation. The Enzi-Kennedy legislation contained some provisions that attempted to ensure that government funds will not be used for ``religious instruction, proselytization, or worship.'' However, these provisions have been completely removed from the current draft. In addition, the Enzi-Kennedy legislation contained a provision to protect students from being required to participate in religious worship or religious classes. This ``Opt-In'' provision has been replaced with an ``Opt-Out'' requirement, placing the entire burden on the displaced parents to object to any religious proselytization and indoctrination of their children. In addition, neither the Enzi-Kennedy legislation nor the new draft contain a requirement to provide both parents and students notice of their rights regarding participation in religious activities. Although both proposals contain a prohibition against religious discrimination as to students, both fail to provide enforcement mechanisms or to ensure that displaced students are informed of their right to not be discriminated against for any refusal to participate in religious activity. The argument has been made that some religious schools are the only option for displaced students. It is all the more reason to ensure that any measure contain strong and effective religious liberty protections to ensure that rights of displaced students are protected. This voucher program could also authorize government-funded religious discrimination in staffing. The bill contains no provision barring religious schools from hiring co- religionists only or requiring that employees' personal conduct conform to the tenets and teachings of the schools' associated faiths. Vouchers may well result in publicly supported employment discrimination, not only on religious grounds, but also on the basis of gender, sexual orientation, or other protected classes. In addition, the Enzi-Kennedy legislation provided $450 million in ``immediate aid to restart school operations'' solely for public schools. The current proposal provides the same level of funding but allows--for the first time--private and religious schools to receive aid. These funds are designated for recovery of student data, purchasing instructional materials and textbooks, and rental of mobile educational units with the requirement that purchased equipment and materials ``shall be secular, neutral, and nonideological.'' Although we acknowledge the provision attempts to maintain current law against using Federal funds to buy religious materials, we are deeply troubled by the underlying proposal of allowing scarce Federal dollars to be funneled to private and religious schools for start-up costs. Americans United is committed to the protection of public education. However, we strongly believe that the Nation's civil liberties must be upheld even in difficult circumstances, including natural disasters. It is inappropriate to capitalize on the Katrina disaster by attempting to push through Congress a divisive and unsound vouchers policy that would severely undermine American's longstanding commitment to public education. It is the public schools that have long served as the safety net for all displaced school children. Billions of dollars set aside for these voucher and restart programs should be invested instead into our public schools for the benefit of all students. If you have any questions about this legislative proposal or would like further information on any other issue of importance to Americans United, please contact Aaron D. Schuham, Legislative Director, at (202) 466-3234, extension 240. Sincerely, Rev. Barry W. Lynn, Executive Director.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, this resolution purports to protect the symbols of Christmas, but what really needs to be protected are not the symbols of Christmas, but rather the spirit of Christmas. The spirit of Christmas demands generosity and goodwill towards others. Instead of legislation that respects the spirit of Christmas, Congress in just these past few weeks has passed a budget that includes mean-spirited attacks on the least of us. For those who are hungry, we are cutting food stamps. For those who are sick, we are cutting Medicaid. For those who are in prison, we are imposing senseless mandatory minimums. For others we are ignoring increases in heating costs and cutting student loans. At the same time we are cutting those programs to help the least of us, we are cutting taxes for the wealthiest in society. Madam Speaker, we ought to express our passion for Christmas through deeds, not words; and we should not be distracted from our responsibility to uphold the spirit of Christmas as we consider the effects our actions on the Federal budget will have on the least of us during this holiday season. For these reasons I oppose this resolution.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding me this time. I rise in support of this bill. The trafficking of persons as work slaves, sex slaves, or other exploitive and illicit purposes is a modern slave trade that occurs all too often around the world, including in the United States. Through the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000, we have begun a concerted effort around the world to address this terrible business of trafficking in persons, internationally as well as domestically. We must continue that effort by reauthorizing that law by passing H.R. 972. At the Judiciary markup of this bill, we added a section to implement the essential provisions of H.R. 2012, the End Demand for Sex Trafficking Act of 2005, which is designed to more effectively get at the issue of domestic trafficking and commercial sex acts in this country as part of the overall effort to address domestic trafficking in persons. For over a year, I have been working with a bipartisan and politically diverse group of Members of the House and Senate, along with nongovernmental organizations, committed individuals, and others to get at an aspect of trafficking in persons in this country that is just as pernicious as the trafficking in persons anywhere in the world, and that is the brutal pimp system of prostitution of women and young girls. The horrific nature and the appalling magnitude of this scourge is evident by the following information: It is estimated that the number of women and children trapped in prostitution in the United States ranges between hundreds of thousands to well over a million; the average age of entry into prostitution in the United States is estimated to be about 16 years old; nearly 85 percent of the women and girls in prostitution in the United States have a pimp to whom all of the proceeds of their activities go. Among these women and girls are some as young as 11. Most are physically abused or sexually assaulted; most are controlled by drugs and are isolated, confined, and restrained. Many have weapons used against them and have death threats against them and their families. Pimping is a lucrative criminal practice. Oakland, California, had a study just a few years ago where they identified 218 minors ages 11 to 15 being prostituted by 155 pimps. They found that the average revenue was about $200,000 a year for each pimp. When we try to get cooperation of other countries to go after sex trafficking in their country, some point to our toleration of this brutal system of prostitution in this country to suggest that we have no moral authority to criticize them. H.R. 972 with the provisions of the End Demand Act strikes a crushing blow against this brutal system of domestic trafficking in this country; and it is done in a way that is most effective, by funding local law enforcement rather than creating new Federal crimes that will require us to divert Federal assets to this problem. We can fund local law enforcement where it is most effective. I would like to thank Ms. Pryce of Ohio and Mrs. Maloney of New York, the chief sponsors of the End Demand Act; Chairman Sensenbrenner and the subcommittee chairman, Mr. Coble; the ranking member, Mr. Conyers; Chairman Hyde and the subcommittee chairman, Mr. Smith; Mr. Lantos, the ranking member; and the subcommittee ranking member, Mr. Payne, and their staffs. My staff person, Bobby Vassar, has been working on this extremely hard over the course of at least a year. I thank them for their hard work in putting together an End Demand bill and getting its provisions in a bill in a form on which we can all agree. I urge my colleagues to support the legislation.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to thank the gentleman from Florida and the gentleman from Wisconsin for bringing this bill forward. It makes it clear that endangering pilots and passengers with laser beams is illegal. Whatever the law may be, this will make it absolutely clear. I would hope that the House will pass the bill so that the pilots and passengers can be protected. 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, I am a cosponsor of H.R. 1400, and I urge my colleagues to support it. The rash of incidents involving hand-held lasers have fueled a growing concern within the aviation industry. In fact, since November of November of 2004, airline pilots have reported over 100 incidents of lasers being aimed into their cockpits. The potential harmful effects of such lasers is quite serious. The FAA research has shown that even some low-level lasers can temporarily disable and disorient a pilot during critical stages of flight. Needless to say, the results could be devastating. Although I have some concern that when the bill is applied, it will likely involve some stupid or misguided young person fooling around with a laser beam, we all realize that the conduct the bill prohibits can be very dangerous, whether done by a fool or by a terrorist. So it must be strongly discouraged. Since the bill does not have mandatory minimum sentencing, the Sentencing Commission and the courts can apply the appropriate punishment for violators based on specific facts and circumstances of the case. After this bill is passed, as a further precautionary step, perhaps the appropriate committee of jurisdiction could also consider requiring manufactures of laser products to issue strong notices and warnings on lasers and packaging alerting them to the provisions of this law so that all will be on notice. But for now I think this bill is an appropriate step for Congress to address this potentially disastrous problem. Mr. Speaker, I support the bill and urge my colleagues to do the same. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this is a very important bill. It deals with the protection of judges, and I would hope that the Members of the House would pass the bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).