Bobby Scott

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4311. This bill protects judges against certain security threats. The September 11 tragedy and events thereafter have only heightened the security concerns that make this legislation necessary. H.R. 4311 permanently extends the ability of judges to request redaction of their financial disclosure reports. The current redaction authority sunsets at the end of this year. Thus it is imperative that we act quickly to get this bill to the Senate where we hope it will pass before the end of the year so that the legislation can be enacted. The redaction authority for judges is appropriately limited and thus should not raise concerns about undue restrictions on public access to financial disclosure reports. A judge's report may only be redacted if the Judicial Conference and the U.S. Marshals Service both find that revealing the personal and sensitive information could endanger that particular judge. Furthermore, the report can only be redacted to the extent necessary to protect the judge and only for so long as a danger exists. The redaction authority has not been abused to date. Of over 2,000 judges filing reports in 2000, only 6 percent had their reports redacted in any way. Typically, the information redacted is limited to such things as a spouse's place of work, location of a judge's second home and things of that nature. It is obvious how a person of ill will could misuse that information to harm a judge or the judge's family. This law is tightly drawn, and it requires the Judicial Conference, in concert with the Department of Justice, to file an annual report detailing the number and circumstances of all of the redactions. This statutory reporting requirement enables Congress to monitor for any abuse of the redaction authority, so I would urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter).

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

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. The gentleman talked about spending the money. We are spending the money. Six hundred thousand people get out every year. Two-thirds of them come back. That is 400,000 going back. At just $20,000 a year, that is $8 billion we are spending because we don't reduce recidivism. It is actually probably more like $10 billion to $16 billion by the time you invest 20, 30, $40,000 a piece, but at a minimum $8 billion, if we spent a portion of that, if we could significantly reduce recidivism by turning lives around like the life you mentioned instead of having to pay for incarceration, we are now on the receiving end of the tax money that she is paying. Every program we have seen, and this is no different, of those reentry programs when you provide education, you reduce recidivism, save more money than you spend, drug treatment, transitional services, significantly reducing recidivism because of the expense of incarceration, 20, 30, $40,000 a year, you don't have to reduce recidivism very much to save the taxpayer some money. We are spending the money now and we ought to be spending it better. We ought to be smart on crime rather than rhetorical on crime. If we were smarter on crime, we would spend some of this $8 billion that we are going to spend next year because we did not make the investments last year. We need to make the investments in these people to reduce recidivism and save money, and if we do that, it would save more money than we spend if we pass this bill.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I ask them to decide right up front what choice they are going to make on crime policy. Are you trying to reduce crime or are you trying to play politics? We know what helps us get elected. We know how to play politics. We also know how to reduce crime. Once you have made that choice, the rest of crime policy is easy. If you are playing politics, you don't have to worry about the effects of the policy, you just have to make sure that you have got a good vote- getting slogan. You can be wasting the taxpayers' money. You can be even increasing crime. Some of these slogans like codifying ``If you do the adult crime, you do the adult time.'' That slogan has been studied up and down and the conclusion of every study is that the crime rate will go up if you codify that slogan. The crime rate will go up. You help yourself get elected, the crime rate goes up. Like I said, make your choice. If you are interested in reducing crime, some of these policies are stupid. If you are interested in getting elected, some of those slogans are very helpful. When you get into helping prisoners, let's decide not whether you are interested in the prisoner or not, just whether you are interested in reducing crime. If your goal is to reduce crime, this is one of the most cost-effective expenditures you can make, a lot better than lengthening the sentence. Ninety-five percent will get out of prison at one point or another. You have got 600,000 people, almost 700,000 people coming back into the community, two-thirds of whom will end up going back to prison if we don't do anything. If you want to take that 650,000, almost 700,000 people, spend a little bit of money and you can reduce the crime rate amongst that group, if you can reduce the crime rate, you will not only reduce crime, you will also save the taxpayer a lot of money and spare the potential victims of crime that victimization. If you ignore what you have done for humanity in helping the prisoners, just ignore that, just look at what you are doing for the taxpayer and the law-abiding citizen, this is the right thing to do. You also help prisoners lead a more productive life. But that is frankly, from a public policy position, a secondary aspect. We are trying to reduce crime. We are trying to save money. This saves money and reduces crime so that the law-abiding citizen doesn't have to worry as much about being a victim of crime. You do that by helping the prisoner lead a productive life. That is what your bill does. It is cost effective and reduces crime.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) and the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones) for working together tonight on this Special Order. I especially want to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) for his hard work in dealing with prisoners and their problems. Obviously, we are in a democracy where in most States prisoners cannot vote, so there is nothing in it for you. However, there is something in it for the prisoners. But also there is something in it when you help those prisoners get out and do well. There is also something in it for everybody else, because if they get out and do well rather than get out, and with the present trend, two-thirds are going right back to prison. The public, the law-abiding public benefits from your work, because they are less likely to be victimized by another crime. They also as taxpayers are less likely to have to pay for the $20,000, $30,000, or $40,000 a year incarceration for the two-thirds of the prisoners that go back. So the gentleman's work not only helps the prisoners, but also help the law-abiding citizens in terms of their public safety and helps the taxpayers in terms of not having to pay for the incarceration. Your legislation is bipartisan legislation. It is not a panacea for everything that needs to be done, but it certainly makes a significant step in the right direction in ensuring those who leave our Federal and State prisons have the assistance they need to avoid returning. As you mentioned, there are close to 700,000 people who will leave the prisons, the jails and prisons of the United States next year. Most will be ill prepared to succeed in earning a living and leading a law- abiding life, and the resources to help them are very limited. Your bill will help them. Now, we know that the chances of success for the prisoners are extremely small. Two-thirds come back to prison within 3 years. We know, as the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones) has pointed out, that it is hard to get a job if you have got a felony record. Obviously, the fact that you have that gap in your resume does not help. The fact that you have to say that you are a convicted felon does not help you get a job. Most prisoners have limited education, they have limited resources, they have limited job skills, they are disqualified from many Federal programs by virtue of a drug offense. And there are benefits that they are not entitled to. We also have a situation where they have limited or no family support, no community support. So it is not surprising that two-thirds of all prisoners released are rearrested for new crimes within 3 years of their release. Although the national crime rate has fallen significantly over the last few years, we are seeing more and more people sent to prison for longer and longer times, and the problem is going to continue to grow before it gets better. We are still passing new bills with longer prison sentences and establishing mandatory minimum sentences and other kinds of sentences that make sure that the time served is even longer and longer and more and more people are sent to prison. We have seen some of these schemes, like the mandatory minimums studied. And the studies have concluded that minimum mandatory sentences are distorted in the effort to establish an orderly, fair, and appropriate sentencing scheme. These programs discriminate against minorities, violate common sense, and in the end waste the taxpayers' money. Now, all of this focus on the draconian sentences has led us to the point, as you pointed out, over 2.2 million people are locked up in our Federal prisons and State jails, a five-fold increase in just the last 20 years. The prison population on the Federal level has increased over seven-fold in the last 20 years. For example, in 1984 the daily lock-up count in prisons and jails was just over 400,000. 400,000. 25,000 in the Federal prisons. Today 2 million prisoners are in State and local prisons. Almost 200,000 in Federal prisons. 400,000 20 years ago, over 2 million today. According to many studies, most of that is through the new sentencing schemes like mandatory minimums. As a result of the focus on incarceration, the United States leads the world in incarceration, by far. We are in first place: 726 inmates per 100,000 population. 726. Second place Russia, 532. We are at 726. 532. Most are in the hundreds. England, 142 per 100,000. Australia, 117. Canada, 116. Germany, 91. France, 95 per 100,000. The United States, 700-and-some per 100,000. When you go into the inner cities, it is not 700-and-some; it is 3,000 per 100,000. Five thousand in the inner cities. 116 in Canada, 5,000 in our inner cities. No matter how tough we get in sentencing, the fact is that 95 percent of inmates will be released at some point. The question is whether they are going to reenter society in a context that better prepares them to lead law-abiding lives or whether two-thirds will return to prison within 3 years, as the present trend is. If we are going to continue to send more people to prison with longer and longer sentences and spend that kind of money, we ought to spend the little bit of money in this bill to reduce the chances when they are released that they will be likely to come back to prison. That is why the Second Chance Act is so important. And I applaud the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) and the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones) and former Representative Portman. This is a bipartisan bill supported by over 90 cosponsors, including me and virtually all of the criminal justice advocates and organizations in the country, including law enforcement who work with or are familiar with the situation encountered by those leaving our prisons. The only criticism I have heard of this legislation is that it perhaps might not go far enough to fully address all of the problems of those facing problems reentering society from prisons. Now, I agree with that criticism, because it does not do everything that needs to be done, but it is an important first step. And so I am a cosponsor of not only this bill but one that is being developed by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) that was introduced last Congress and will be refiled this Congress, the Reentry Enhancement Act. That bill addresses many of the programs and issues touched by this bill and goes even further by actually implementing many of the programs on a national level. Now, I have seen the value of these programs. The Virginia CARES Program, Community Action Reentry System, Virginia CARES Program, has been studied, and they have just little meager resources. But those who get the benefits of that program, we have seen a 25 percent reduction in recidivism compared to like prisoners who do not get a benefit from the program. Twenty-five percent reduction. When you calculate that out in terms of those that do not come back into prison and what we would have to pay for their incarceration, we save more money than we spend. And we not only help the prisoners lead a productive life, save more money than we spend and also spare that 25 percent of victims who would have been victimized, victims of crime, they do not have to be victims of crime because we made that cost-effective expenditure of money helping the prisoners, but also helping the taxpayer and helping public safety. As a society, we often breathe a sigh of relief when a long sentence is issued for a crime as if that is the end of our responsibilities. But with the numbers of prisoners and the amount of money we spend with those long sentences and the fact that when they finish that long sentence, they are going to turn around and go right back, we need to do more. We need to make sure that we do the financially and morally responsible thing. We cannot allow ourselves the luxury of sounding tough on crime, tough on crime policies with no attention to what happens next. To continue in the direction we are going is unfair to the taxpayer, unfair to those prisoners, and unfair to the unsuspecting people that will be victims of crime because we did not spend the money that we needed to spend. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the work of my colleagues in developing and promoting this legislation. I look forward to continuing to work with them and other members of the bipartisan coalition to enact this measure so that we cannot only help the prisoners but help the taxpayers and help public safety. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, this plan has $70 billion in tax cuts, $50 billion in spending cuts, and therefore adds $24 billion to the national debt. Let us look at one of those cuts, cuts in student aid. We know that your future opportunities depend on your education, and college will enhance your education. Unfortunately, 400,000 children cannot go to college because they cannot afford to. It will get worse before it gets better. In the last 4 years, the cost of a public college education went up $3,000. The maximum Pell grant in this package as adopted will not go up at all. This bill cuts over $14 billion over 5 years from student aid, adding up to $5,800 per student of what they have got to pay on those loans. That is not the right vision for the future. It is particularly egregious when you look at the tax cuts that go into effect next year. One tax cut goes into effect involving personal exemptions and standard deductions. Mr. Speaker, this is a chart of who gets it. Under $200,000, you cannot even see what you get. Millionaires get $19,000; $500,000 to $1 million, over $4,000. Ninety-seven percent of this tax cut goes to those making over $200,000. Fully phased in, it is $100 billion over 5 years. While this tax cut is going into effect, we are cutting student aid by $14 billion, denying many students an opportunity to go to college, and, saddling many others with up to $5,800 in new debt. We can do better than that. We ought defeat this resolution and not saddle those children with additional debt.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from North Carolina for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, the USS Carl Vinson was scheduled to commence Refueling and Complex Overhaul at Northrop Grumman Newport News last week on November 10. The authorization and funding for this project was included in the President's fiscal year 2006 budget request and was included in each Chamber's version of the fiscal year 2006 defense authorization and appropriations bills. There is no controversy about these provisions, but the defense bills, as we have heard, have not passed, they are still being negotiated, and there may be some time before final action is taken. Since neither the defense authorization or appropriations conference reports have passed, the lack of authorization language and funding has prevented the Navy from moving forward with this contract, and no work can begin until some legislation actually passes. Some of the workers may be temporarily placed on other jobs, but most will either be idle or laid off, possibly replaced by less experienced workers. Vendor schedules will also be adversely affected. Mr. Speaker, this delay will obviously increase the costs of the overhaul program. It will complicate other ship construction and repair schedules at Northrop Grumman Newport News facilities. H.R. 4326 will allow the work to proceed without further delay. It will save money and enhance national security by speeding up the return of the Vinson to the carrier fleet. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Jo Ann Davis), for her hard work on this bill; my other colleagues, Mrs. Drake and the gentleman from North Carolina. We all have shipyard workers in our districts. I want to also thank the leadership of the Armed Services Committee and the leadership of the House for expediting the passage of this bill.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, it is my understanding that this was in fact their request, in fact, their number one request. Does the gentleman have any evidence or know anything contrary to that?

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, also, did the Federal officials ask for this new power? I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the gentleman from Iowa would respond to a couple of questions. I would ask the gentleman whether or not this applies to Federal officials only; we are not imposing this on State officials.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this amendment eliminates the mandatory minimum sentences in the bill and replaces them with increases in maximum sentences for which a defendant can be sentenced. This is not a soft-on-crime amendment but a sensible-on-crime amendment. In each instance in which it eliminates a mandatory minimum sentence, it raises the maximum term to which an offender can be sentenced, except in situations where they can already get life. With the higher maximums, offenders who deserve it can be sentenced to even greater sentences than the bill allows. But those who are bit players in an offense or those who do not deserve as much time as ringleaders, do not have to be sentenced to that time anyway. What sense does it make to sentence an offender to more time than anyone believes they deserve? That is an inevitable result of mandatory minimum sentencing. The notion that we have to have mandatory minimum sentences to force judges to sentence those who kill, injure or threaten judges or their families or others associated with the courts is obviously absurd. Judges have not asked for mandatory minimum sentences as a protection for themselves and their families. Indeed, they have asked for just the opposite. Having the experience of sentencing people on an ongoing basis, judges see the differences in activities, roles, backgrounds of the offenders of crime. They know it makes no sense to sentence just on the basis of the name of the crime rather than on the basis of the facts and circumstances of the crime and the level of involvement and background of the offenders. Having heard all the facts and circumstances in the case, they are in a much better position to sentence offenders than Congress is in sentencing offenders with no knowledge of the individual case. To ensure a systemic approach in sentencing like offenders in a similar manner, we have created the Sentencing Commission and the sentencing guideline system. By increasing the maximums, we signal to the Sentencing Commission to consider increasing the guideline minimums, which they characteristically do when we make such suggestions. The sentencing statistics do not establish that the courts have not followed the guidelines, especially when you take into account that most of the deviations result from government motions, or acquiescences in sentences, and guideline-sanctioned departures. Sentencing is not an exact science and should not be held to rigid statistical measurements. Some have suggested that mandatory minimum sentencing is necessary because of recent Supreme Court decisions that prevent sentencing increases based on factors not established at the trial. Yet, their positions on mandatory minimum sentences appear to be no different before those cases were decided. Mandatory minimums have been studied and have been found to disrupt an orderly sentencing scheme, to be discriminatory against minorities, to waste the taxpayers' money when compared to traditional sentencing where individual roles and culpability can be taken into account. If we do not trust judges to sentence offenders sufficient in other cases, the one instance where we should be able to trust judges is in the case where the charge is murder, injury, or threats to judges. Certainly, Mr. Chairman, mandatory minimums are not indicated in this bill, so I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and remove the mandatory minimums from the bill. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I think the amendment is clarifying in nature, and I have no objection. I am not aware of any objection.

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

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would eliminate the expansion of the Federal death penalty jurisdiction on the basis of any portion of the salary of a State or local official being covered with Federal funds. That means they could be eligible for a Federal death penalty. The notion that the Federal Government has to replace the States and localities in murder prosecutions against those who would murder a State judge or others associated with a judge or courts is absurd. States have shown themselves quite capable of prosecuting murder cases and in obtaining death penalties where applicable. They have done far more of it, frankly, than the Federal Government, so there is no indication that this raw extension of Federal power is necessary or even desired. If a State has chosen to represent the will of its citizens by not authorizing a death penalty, why should Congress step in and impose it in spite of the State's public policy choice? The States certainly have not asked that we add a Federal death penalty to apply to the murder of federally funded State or local officials. And there is no evidence that the kind of people who would kill or plot to kill a State court judge or other officials may be deterred by a Federal death penalty. The public is clearly rethinking the appropriateness of the death penalty, in general, due to the evidence that it is ineffective in deterring crime, that it is racially discriminatory, and found more often than not to be erroneously applied. A 23-year comprehensive study of the death penalty found that the death penalty had been erroneously applied 68 percent of the time. So it is not surprising that over 120 people sentenced to death over the last 10 years have been released from death row, having been completely exonerated of the crimes for which they are convicted or otherwise found to be not guilty. Nor is it surprising that with such a sorry record of death penalty administration, that several States have abolished the death penalty or placed moratoriums on the applications of their death penalty while studies are being conducted, and why some, while they have it on the books, have not applied it in many years. In recognition of the problems States and localities were having with administering the death penalty, Congress adopted the Innocence Protection Act just a few years ago. It provides funding to State and local entities to help ensure that there is competent counsel at all parts of the trial. Mr. Chairman, during committee deliberations of the death penalty, we heard references to econometric research of economist Joanna M. Shepherd. I want to point out, more recently, she has done further analysis in elaboration of her research and found, in terms of deterring murders, executions deter murders in six States, have no effect on murders in eight States, and increased murders in 13 States. Mr. Chairman, despite the fact that the death penalty is arbitrarily applied, it is discriminatory and we make mistakes, I would hope that we would delete the death penalty from this bill by adopting the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Reclaiming my time, I would finally ask, is this the right to carry, subject to training and regulation prescribed by the Attorney General? I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1751. With several sensational incidents in recent years involving the murders of judges, family members of judges, court personnel, witnesses and other victims, we have seen the consequences of insufficient security for our court operations and personnel associated with the courts. All are agreed that enhancement of security for our courts and all persons associated with them is imperative. However, the main focus of this bill is not the things that the courts have asked for to enhance their security, but on extraneous death penalties and mandatory minimum sentences which will do nothing to improve the security of our courts or personnel associated with them. Mr. Chairman, I want to acknowledge and thank Chairman Sensenbrenner for making significant improvements in this bill since our initial consideration of the bill in subcommittee, by removing a number of the superfluous mandatory minimum sentences and death penalties from the bill. However, all such provisions were not removed. The notion that Congress has to direct judges on how to sentence those who harm or threaten judges and their families and others associated with court activities, or that Congress has to replace the States in prosecution of murders of State judges and other State officials is absurd. The kinds of people we are talking about clearly have not been deterred by death penalties and mandatory minimum sentences already on the books and applicable to them for those kinds of crimes, so they certainly will not be deterred by adding more such mandatory minimums. And judges facing such defendants clearly do not need congressional guidance on what the appropriate sentences may be. Accordingly, I have prepared an amendment which would remove the provisions allowing the Federal Government, simply on the basis of someone's salary being paid in part by Federal funds, to take over traditional State prosecutions of State murder cases. I have also prepared an amendment which would remove the mandatory minimum sentencing in Federal cases involving judges, their family members or other court personnel, and replaced them with higher maximums that would allow even greater sentences than the bill allows in cases which warrant it, but would not require sentences which violate common sense. The courts have not requested mandatory minimums or death penalties because they do nothing to protect the court. Nevertheless, here we go again with more mandatory minimums and more death penalties. In fact, Mr. Chairman, the Federal courts have consistently and loudly expressed their strong opposition to mandatory minimum sentences. Through rigorous study and analysis, as well as through their everyday experiences in sentencing major players and bit players in crime, the courts have determined mandatory minimums to be less effective than regular sentencing. They have found them to be racially discriminatory in their application. They have found mandatory minimums to waste money compared to traditional sentences, and they have found mandatory minimums to be a violation of common sense. The Judicial Conference has written us often to express their opposition to mandatory minimum sentencing and has just written us again with this bill to state their opposition to mandatory minimum sentences as a violation of the systemic sentencing scheme designed to ``reduce unwarranted disparity and to provide proportionality and fairness in punishment.'' That idea is violated with mandatory minimums. The Judicial Conference and everyone concerned supports the grant programs in the bill aimed at strengthening court security and personnel and providing security for persons associated with the courts. Absent mandatory minimums and the extension of the death penalties, this bill would be one that we could all support. Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, because of the mandatory minimums and death penalty it is not one we can all support. Judicial Conference of the United States, Washington, DC, November 8, 2005. Hon. John Conyers, Jr., Ranking Democrat, Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representative Conyers: On behalf of the Judicial Conference of the United States, the policy-making body of the federal judiciary. I am writing to convey its views regarding several of the provisions contained in H.R. 1751, the ``Secure Access to Justice and Court Protection Act of 2005.'' Much of the impetus for portions of this bill arose from the tragic circumstances surrounding the attempted murder of Judge Joan Lefkow of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Although Judge Lefkow survived the attack, her mother and husband were shot and killed by the assailant, a disgruntled litigant. The current bill contains several provisions that are of particular interest to the federal courts. Section 13 of the bill requires the U.S. Marshals Service to consult with the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts regarding the security requirements of the Judicial Branch. While the provision does not extend to a requirement that the Marshals Service ``coordinate'' with the judiciary, we believe the proposed change is positive and will enhance judicial security. Section 14 of the bill is positive in that it will help protect judges from the malicious recording of fictitious liens and is supported by the Judicial Conference. Section 16 of the bill is of particular interest to federal judges and their security because it will allow them to continue to redact sensitive information from their financial disclosure forms. Not a day goes by without some unauthorized incursion into an information database containing personal information and this provision is an important tool in protecting such personal information. Unfortunately, the bill also contains various provisions that expand the application of mandatory minimum sentences. The Judicial Conference opposes mandatory minimum sentencing provisions because they undermine the sentencing guideline regime Congress established under the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 by preventing the systematic development of guidelines that reduce unwarranted disparity and provide proportionality and fairness in punishment. The bill also contains a provision that would allow the presiding judge, at all levels of the judicial process, to permit the photographing, electronic recording, broadcasting, or televising to the public of the court proceedings over which that judge presides. The Judicial Conference believes that the circuit councils of each circuit should retain the authority to establish rules for the photographing, recording, or broadcasting of appellate arguments in their courts. The Judicial Conference does not support legislation that would allow trial court judges the discretion to broadcast their courts' proceedings. I appreciate having the opportunity to express the views of the Judicial Conference in relation to H.R., 1751, the ``Secure Access to Justice and Court Protection Act of 2005.'' If you have any questions regarding this legislation please contact Arthur White at (202) 502-1700. Sincerely, Leonidas Ralph Mecham, Secretary.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, can you advise how much time remains?

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to instruct. The current House bill provisions for 10 year sunsets on the 215 and 206 roving wiretap powers is not much better than no sunset at all. What we are talking about under the 215 provision is power to get access to your personal records from a business, including a public library, without you ever knowing about it, or what is done with the information. And the librarian or other business operator cannot tell you or anyone else other than the business's attorney or appropriate superiors, about the FBI's taking your records. Under the roving wiretaps provision, after obtaining a roving wiretap from the secret FISA court, the FBI can follow the target around and tap any phone the target has access to, including yours if he or she happens to be a neighbor and comes to your house, without having to first determine that the phone is actually being used by the target before they start listening in. The 4-year sunsets worked to make the Justice Department responsive to Congress in providing the information needed to properly perform its oversight responsibility for the extraordinary powers extended under the PATRIOT Act, but only in the last year of the sunset. For most of the 4-year period leading up to the sunsets, the Justice Department refused any meaningful oversight of their PATRIOT Act powers and other war on terror authorities. Even with Chairman Sensenbrenner threatening a subpoena because he was not getting answers to his PATRIOT Act questions, it wasn't until the powers were set to expire that we got real answers--hard numbers and at least anecdotal evidence of their use. Take, for example, the effort to try to get information about library record requests under the secretive Section 215 powers where the recipient of the order is gagged from disclosing any information about it: first we were told that information about even the number of these orders was secret, so it couldn't be disclosed. It was only in the last year of the sunset that we were finally told that there had been no 215 orders issued to libraries, then we learned that this was misleading because most libraries cooperated with FBI requests for information without requiring a 215 order, and with all the secrecy and gag orders in effect, we still don't know what the full story is. Perhaps some of the pending lawsuits will finally reveal what has been going on in this area. The problem with a 10-year sunset is that it will have no impact on the current Administration, or the next one and only have an impact in the last year of the 3rd Administration from now. Moreover, with a 20- year retirement period for most career officials, in 10 years most of today's officials will have retired. So, that's really of little oversight value if we have to wait that long to get the kind of responsive information for oversight we were finally able to get in the last year of the current sunsets. Accordingly, we should accede to the Senate sunset provisions which call for 4-year sunsets on the three most controversial and worrisome PATRIOT powers--secret acquisition of library and other business records, roving wiretaps, and the ``lone wolf'' provision for terrorism investigations, which allows a single individual to fall under the extraordinary, secretly administered foreign surveillance powers otherwise reserved for use against agents of foreign governments or organizations.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleagues, Congressman Rangel of NY, Congressman Conyers of MI, Congressman Thompson of MS, Congressman Jefferson of LA, Congressman Frank of MA, Congresswoman Jackson-Lee of TX, Congressman Paul of TX, Congresswoman Johnson of TX, Congresswoman Lee of CA, Congressman Hastings of FL and Congressman Al Green of TX in introducing the ``Elimination of Barriers for Katrina Victims Act.'' We are pleased to be joined by a coalition of almost 100 national, state and local organizations who have expressed their support for the legislation, such as the American Academy of Addiction Psychiatry, American College of Mental Health Administration, Drug Policy Alliance Network, League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), NAACP, NAADAC-The Association for Addiction Professionals, National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence, and the National Urban League, and the list is growing as word of the legislation gets out. Millions of Americans were displaced from their homes due to Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita and hundreds of thousands have not been able to return and may never be able to do so. Having lost their homes, their communities, their jobs and other support systems, most have required emergency food, clothing, shelter, medical, or monetary assistance. According to FEMA reports, an estimated 2.1 million Americans have already applied for federal aid. Unfortunately, many of these individuals and their families are in desperate need, but, due to a prior drug conviction, will not be able to receive certain federal assistance available to other victims in need. While it is impossible to know for sure how many families will be denied public assistance because of drug convictions, it is likely in the tens of thousands. More than 1.5 million Americans are arrested for drug offenses every year. Several federal laws disqualify those with felony convictions to receive certain federal benefits. A recent GAO report commissioned by myself and Congressman Rush of IL reveals that these disqualifications are having a huge impact on receipt of federal benefits for which those with prior drug convictions would otherwise receive. For example, an estimated 41,000 students were denied college assistance during the 2003/2004 academic year because of drug convictions. While the GAO was only able to collect data from 15 public housing agencies, out of more than 3,000, those 15 agencies denied housing to almost 1,500 families because of past drug violations in 2003 alone. That indicates that there are thousands of families and tens of thousands of individuals unable to receive housing benefits because a family member has a drug conviction. The drug conviction ban on eligibility for federal benefits also applies to Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or the TANF program. TANF eligibility applies to families with minor children. One study reflected that almost 25 percent of drug offenders released from prison in 2001 were eligible for TANF benefits, but were permanently barred from receiving it due to their state's application of the federal ban for a drug conviction. While some states do not apply the federal ban completely, other states, such as Alabama, Mississippi, Texas and Virginia, where many of the displaced families are staying, have fully applied the ban. Hurricanes Katrina and Rita have inflicted suffering on millions of people. The suffering will fall even harder on victims denied aid because of past drug offenses. Parents who have lost everything and are struggling to feed themselves and their family will be denied TANF and food stamps; students who have lost their school, tuition, fees, room and board, but could continue their education in another school willing to accept them, or who were in school elsewhere when their parents lost the ability to continue paying for their education, will be denied student loans; and entire families that have lost everything in the disasters will be denied housing--all due to the federal bans for a past drug conviction. The ``Elimination of Barriers for Katrina Victims Act'' applies only to past drug offenses, some of which were many years ago, and suspends the disqualification for only a 3-year period. This temporary adjustment period in federal disqualifications would allow families affected by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita a chance to put their lives back together through the same means as other victims who suddenly lost their homes and livelihood through no fault of their own. Therefore, we are introducing this bill today and urge our colleagues to quickly enact it into law to assist families who are otherwise hopelessly destitute because of the disasters and the impact of a drug conviction.