Bobby Scott

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the legislation, which is the congressional response to the Supreme Court decision Kelo v. City of New London. By enacting this legislation, we are undermining the States' rights and assuming the role of a city council. We should not change Federal law every time Members of Congress disagree with the judgment of a locality when it uses eminent domain for the purpose of economic development. We were elected to the United States Congress, not to local city councils. Mr. Chairman, it is impossible for Congress to draw a bright line principle separating those cases in which economic development is appropriate for a particular area and when it is not. The Constitution does require that the taking be for public use. It is the role of a city council to weigh the needs of a particular community and consider when the government should use eminent domain. Sometimes that might mean taking property for the purpose of economic development. Sometimes it may not. Sometimes we will agree with the judgment of the locality. Sometimes we will disagree. I cannot think of a more fitting example of the quagmire this bill presents than the situation we have right here in Washington, D.C., where they are trying to build a baseball stadium. I find it ironic that, at the same time we are marking up the bill, Washington, D.C. is using eminent domain to build a baseball stadium. The debate on this bill has already exposed the shortcomings of the legislation. For example, we found that if a stadium were built and owned by the city at taxpayer expense, it would clearly be allowed under the bill. On the other hand, if the owner offered to build a stadium at his own expense, that might not be allowed. The bill requires public access to the stadium as ``a matter of right.'' Does that mean that the skyboxes must be put to public auction, or can the owner pick and choose which businesses can acquire rights to skyboxes? Anybody who surveys baseball or football stadiums around the country will find all kinds of public and private and joint public-private ownership combinations. Could some use eminent domain, while others be prohibited from using eminent domain based on the fact that they want to limit access to skyboxes or how the title of the stadium is held? Mr. Chairman, the World Trade Center and Lincoln Center in New York, the Baltimore Inner Harbor, even President Bush's baseball stadium in Houston, Texas, were all made possible by eminent domain takings for the purpose of economic development. And although we might agree or disagree with the wisdom of these projects, most would agree that they should not have been illegal. These are political decisions that ought to be left to the localities within the confines of their State legislature's parameters. If Congress cannot leave eminent domain to the States, then we should focus on the real issues involved in eminent domain. We should require, for example, that just compensation should include replacement cost, not just technical appraisal value. We should require that relocation expenses be paid to owners and tenants. As written, the bill does nothing to ensure that displaced individuals receive reasonable compensation for the replacement value and relocation expenses. The bill does nothing to ensure compensation for loss of goodwill of a business, nothing to ensure that due consideration is given for the length of time a family or business has been at a particular location. Nothing in the bill deals with the fact that the poor and minorities are usually the victims of eminent domain abuses. Let us put some protections in the bill so that those who are relatively weak politically can be protected from unfair use of eminent domain. Mr. Chairman, I would like to place in the Record at this point letters from the National League of Cities, the National Conference of State Legislatures and the National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials. Mr. Chairman, I believe that the decision-making power of eminent domain should remain at the State and local level and that congressional attempts to define when eminent domain is reasonable and when it is not will cause more problems than they solve. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to oppose the bill. National League of Cities, Washington, DC, October 27, 2005. Hon. James Sensenbrenner, Chair, House Judiciary Committee, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC. Hon. John Conyers, Jr., Ranking Member, House Judiciary Committee, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Sensenbrenner and Ranking Member Conyers: The National League of Cities (NLC) strongly opposes H.R. 4128, the Private Property Rights Protection Act of 2005. NLC is the country's largest and oldest organization serving municipal government, with nearly 1,600 direct member cities and 49 state municipal leagues, which collectively represent more than 18,000 United States communities. NLC acknowledges the spirit underlying this bill and does not condone abuse of eminent domain power that violates state law. However, NLC believes this bill, or any anti-eminent domain bill pending in Congress, is unnecessary at this time because of the ongoing actions of state legislatures and the absence of direct evidence confirming that alleged abuses of eminent domain authority are of a national scope and scale that demand immediate federal action. Despite fearful rhetoric in the press, the Supreme Court's decision in Kelo v. City of New London did not expand the use or powers of eminent domain. The Kelo decision confirmed that eminent domain, a power derived from state law, is not a one- size-fits-all power. The Court declared that this power is one best left to the states and their political subdivisions. The Kelo Court, affirming federalism, did not preclude ``any state from placing further restrictions on its exercise of the Takings power.'' Approximately 30 states are already reviewing or planning to review their eminent domain laws during upcoming legislative sessions, with the majority focused on just compensation and comprehensive planning process modifications. Since June 2005, Alabama, Texas, and Delaware enacted laws that tighten the application of eminent domain power in each state. NLC urges Congress to let state governments act on their own eminent domain laws and not move forward with federal legislation. Many aspects of H.R. 4128, led by the proposed definition at Section 8 of ``economic development,'' trouble NLC. Economic development is a process, not the concrete act of taking private property from A and giving it to B for a ``commercial enterprise carried on for profit.'' If enacted, the bill could have the unintended consequence of preventing hurricane-damaged communities from rebuilding. In those communities, eminent domain may be necessary to assemble land and help with negotiations associated with comprehensive redevelopment plans. Implementing those comprehensive redevelopment plans would ``increase tax revenue, tax base, employment, or general economic health,'' violating the bill's further definition of economic development. Moreover, the bill at Section 2(b) grants final authority to the appointed--not elected--judiciary to determine what constitutes ``economic development.'' Curiously, this was an important argument against the Kelo decision raised by property rights activists. The practical effects from this bill, including its loose definition at Section 8 of ``Federal economic development funds'' and its creation of a private right of action at Section 4 that invites forum shopping, would not chill, but rather freeze the process of economic development across the country. Eminent domain is a powerful tool for local governments-- its prudent use, when exercised in the sunshine of public scrutiny, helps achieve a greater public good that benefits the entire community. Again, NLC opposes H.R. 4128 for the reasons stated in this letter. Please weigh carefully the unintended consequences from a rush to pass federal legislation in response to unsubstantiated fears over the Supreme Court's decision in Kelo v. City of New London. Sincerely, Donald J. Borut Executive Director.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleagues, Congressman Conyers of MI, Congressman Rangel of NY, 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 conviction. 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 convictions. 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.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, it was with great sadness that I learned of the passing of Mrs. Rosa Parks on October 24, 2005. I rise today along with my colleagues to celebrate and remember the life of a remarkable woman. I know that I speak for my colleagues here today when I say that America has lost one of its greatest citizens. Mrs. Rosa Parks became one the Nation's first heroes of the Civil Rights Movement. Her refusal to give up her seat on a Montgomery Alabama bus solely because of her race sparked a result that no one could have predicted. The 381-day boycott of the Montgomery Alabama bus system and Mrs. Parks' court case were the first nationally recognized battles of the Civil Rights Movement. This movement eventually brought about legislation to end segregation in public accommodations, to secure the voting rights of all citizens, and to eliminate discriminatory housing practices, effectively changing the face of American society forever. Although Mrs. Parks' actions were pivotal in creating laws, her actions also galvanized public support for the equal treatment of African Americans. It's important to remember that Mrs. Parks' actions did not exist in a vacuum. Less than a year had passed since the grisly lynching death of Emmett Till in Mississippi. Violence was a constant threat to anyone, black or white, who spoke out against the status quo. Mrs. Parks' actions resulted in death threats against her and her husband, threats which caused her to leave Alabama. The fact that people could harbor such hatred against Mrs. Parks solely for her desire to be treated as an equal person exposed to much of the country the cruel and ignorant practices of Jim Crow. The images from the fight for civil rights filled television screens throughout the world and were central in changing public opinions. I had the honor and pleasure to meet Mrs. Parks when I was a fifth grade student in the late 1950's. She worked at Hampton Institute, now Hampton University, with my grandmother at the Holly Tree Inn. After leaving Hampton, she moved to Detroit, Michigan where she found work as a seamstress. In 1965, she went on to serve in the office of our distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Conyers. Her 23 years of service to him and to this body are also worthy of commendation. I want to express my condolences to the Parks family. Rosa Parks' act of non-violent resistance showed the world the power of one person in the face of injustice. Her name rightly belongs in the pantheon of individuals who have put the civil rights of all above their own personal safety. We have lost a national treasure.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, as this chart shows, we could have done better, and we did do better when President Clinton vetoed the irresponsible budgets and there were enough Democrats in Congress to sustain those vetoes. And if we look at that chart, every year is better than the one before. And when this administration came in in 2001, they inherited a 10-year $5 trillion surplus, $5 trillion surplus; and now it looks like those same 10 years will run into a deficit of over $3 trillion, a total of over $9 trillion.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I just want to emphasize the fact that all of these cuts in spending today are not due and have virtually nothing to do with Hurricane Katrina. They are there whether Hurricane Katrina spending happened or not.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Therefore, when the tax cuts were offered, they did not have to be paid for. So the question was not how would you like some new tax cuts with these spending cuts, or how would you like these tax cuts with increased taxes here to pay for them; the question before us was: How would you like some tax cuts? Congress said, well, I think I will. At the same time, how would you like some more spending increases? You do not have to raise taxes to pay for them and/or cut other spending, so the question before you is how would you like to spend more money? Well, I think I will. This chart shows what happened.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, with PAYGO, that means if you want to have a new spending program, you have to cut spending somewhere else or raise taxes to pay for it. If you have a new tax cut, either you have to cut spending that same amount or raise some other taxes, but you have to pay as you go. What happens under that is if you have natural growth, you can do better each year on the deficit. But what happened in 2001 with PAYGO?

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. And Republicans threatened to close down the government. In fact, they closed down the government, but President Clinton refused to sign those massive tax cuts we could not afford. Year by year he held that veto pen out to make sure that we did not do anything irresponsible, and we ran up those surpluses. The first thing this President did was sign those massive tax cuts that we could not afford, and we see what happened. I think it would be helpful if the gentleman would explain what PAYGO means to know how we could maintain that fiscal discipline.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, as we look at that chart where each year under the Clinton administration was better than the one before, and we went into such surplus that when Chairman Greenspan was testifying before Congress in 2001, he was answering questions like, What happens if we pay off the entire national debt? What is going to happen to the bond market? What is going to happen to interest rates? We had at that point projected we would be able to pay off the national debt held by the public by 2008. By 2013, if we were continuing to run surpluses, we would be able to put all of the money back in the trust funds. Members talk about Social Security being empty. Social Security would have had gotten all its money back, and there would be assets in the trust fund, not the IOUs we have now. But in 2001, Congress passed massive tax cuts, President Bush signed them, and we see what happened. Now, Members will remember in 1995 when the Republicans took over the United States House and Senate, they also passed massive tax cuts. What happened to those tax cuts in 1995? What did President Clinton do to those tax cuts?

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. The Committee on Education and the Workforce has essentially three programs they can get the money from: student loans, school lunches, and, to a small extent, job training programs. That is about it. So when you have billions of dollars coming out of those programs, obviously the students who are borrowing money, the students who eat lunches at school and possibly job training. The job training money is so small that you could wipe the whole program out and still not come up to the billion of dollars you need to reconcile the instruction from the Committee on the Budget. Basically it is student loans and school lunches. In order to fund tax cuts, in this case as we have shown primarily for the wealthy, and as you have indicated, had we done nothing with the budget, had we not passed the budget, had we not made any changes, just let the budget go on as it usually does without the changes, the bottom line would be over $100 billion better off if we had done nothing. Instead we have cut taxes, those well over $100 billion worth coming up next year, and to make up for some of it, we are going after student loans, school lunches, and other committees and child support payments, facilitating those. We are cutting back on those support services, cutting back on Medicaid and other necessary food stamps. The kinds of services that Katrina victims would actually need, that is what we are cutting back on to fund not the cost of Katrina, the cost of the tax cuts, because the cuts we are making have not even covered the tax cuts yet. So obviously we are not doing anything in term of the ravages of the hurricanes.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. The bottom line is you get it from the students. They will be paying more. Thousands of dollars each on average for student loans, they will have to pay. It is the only way to get it. If you cut the subsidy, somebody's got to pick it up, and it is the students. We also try to make up for a little bit of it by attacking pensions, those who have pensions in the Pension Guaranty Fund, come up with a little money by adding some fees on to that. But in terms of trying to meet the requirement of the Committee on the Budget to try to get this thing closer in terms of deficit, student loans and school lunches, it just seems to be an inappropriate priority, and we can certainly do better than that.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. The simple bottom line is if you take money out of the student loan program, somebody's going to pay it. It is the students, and it is thousands of dollars more per student.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I would say if you talk about student loans and helping student loans, if you cut back on the student loan program, somebody has to pick up that weight. The students who are affected by this will be paying thousands of dollars, $5,000 and $6,000 more, for their college education than they would have had we not gone after the student loan program to pay for the tax cuts.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, $200 billion, and instead, we are going after student loans. We are going after food stamps. We are going after Medicaid. This is not something new, somebody taking something somebody already has. This had not even gone into effect yet, where the millionaires get $19,000. Everybody making less than $75,000 gets nothing; $75,000 to $100,000, you get $1. You cannot even see on this chart what you get until you get up around $200,000 in income. So, when we talk about tax cuts for the wealthy, this is what we are talking about, $200,000. You talked about paying for Katrina and what that does to our fiscal situation. This chart shows the annual deficit as you have outlined, if we pay for Katrina and if we do not pay for Katrina, and the solid line shows what the projections are, and the dotted line is if we borrow money and do not pay for Katrina how much more deficit there would be. This is obviously a blip on the screen because it shows that there is a 1-year deterioration in the budget, but then it goes back. You can hardly tell a difference in the lines later on. It does not make any difference at all later on what we are doing to Katrina. When this administration came in, there was a projected over $5 trillion surplus coming in, and by the time they finish, we are looking at in excess of $3 trillion in deficit for the same 10 years, a $9 trillion swing, $200 billion for Katrina, which is the estimated total cost. That is .2. Nobody said anything about the $9 trillion, and all of the sudden, as you have suggested, they are going to jump up and try to be fiscally conservative by making people cut student loans and food stamps and Medicaid to pay for the .2, which has zero to do with the long-term deterioration in the budget to begin with. I appreciate your pointing this out to everyone, that the Katrina cost is virtually negligible compared to all of the other damage done to this budget.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. In the wrong direction.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I would point out, and I appreciate the gentleman bringing this to our attention, that when the Committee on the Budget instructed the Committee on Education and the Workforce to cut mandatory spending by those billions of dollars, there were only a couple of programs in the education jurisdiction that has mandatory spending. One is student loans, and then school lunches, and, to a little minor extent, job training. Those are the only programs we could cut to accommodate that instruction that the Committee on the Budget gave. When you start talking about balancing the budget, and we say balancing the budget on the backs of those that actually need the help, going after student loans, when student loans right now and when assistance for higher education is at an all- time low, 20 or 30 years ago a Pell grant would cover about 85 percent of the cost of going to a public college. Now it is about 30 percent, and the rest you have to make up with student loans. We are cutting the student loan subsidies, which means that the students could end up paying thousands of dollars more for their education than they do now. That is because we are not paying for Katrina. We are paying for the tax cuts, and some of these tax cuts are about as mean-spirited in terms of priorities as you can imagine. We call them tax cuts for the wealthy. People say, oh, no, no, it is not tax cuts for the wealthy. The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) is familiar with the tax cut that had not even gone into effect yet but will go into effect next year. Two hundred billion dollars, 5-year cost, to implement the two tax cuts that address the personal exemption and standard deduction phase- in. We have a chart that shows who gets the benefit of this $200 billion. If you make under $75,000 a year, you do not get anything; $75,000 to $100,000, on average you will get $1.00; $100,000 to $200,000 on average will get $25, there is a bar down there, you just cannot see it, in terms of what you might get, but $25; $200,000 to $500,000, about 500 and some dollars on average; $500,000 to $1 million, over $4,000; and over $1 million, on average you will be getting $19,000. That is how we distribute 5-year costs, $200 billion, and rather than let us not make this go into effect and have the $200 billion go to deficit reduction.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, let me remind Members, this is the kind of tax cut that is under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means. As this chart shows, it is $200 billion primarily for the wealthy. If a family makes less than $200,000, you can hardly see what you would get. Instead of going after this tax cut that has not even gone into effect yet, they attack unemployment compensation, SSI, and the child support enforcement services. Those are the kinds of things that make a difference in people's lives. When I was in the State senate, one of the things that we kept having problems with in child support enforcement was the interstate cases. Virginia could take care of its own cases. We put the resources in to find the responsible parent. We would get the wage withholding. We could take care of the case if it was in Virginia. But once it went out of State, we had problems. Those are the kinds of cases that the child support enforcement from the Federal Government can help. That is what you are eliminating, and those are the kinds of things that make a difference in people's lives because parents need that child support to help raise the children. If you do not get it, it is much more difficult to raise the children. You have financial stress. We are cutting back on that kind of assistance to people in order to fund the tax cuts, many of which go primarily to the wealthy.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. And you get absolutely nothing for interest on the national debt. It is money down the drain. You do not get the first rifle. You do not get the first schoolbook. You do not get any health care. You do not get anything for interest on the national debt.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. So the debt service in 2015 is going to rival the entire military budget?

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for pointing that out. Sometimes it is helpful to puts these numbers in perspective. Is it not true that the military budget on an annual basis is approximately $400 billion?

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman indicated that last year was the third largest deficit in the history of the United States. When were the other two?

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, once again we find ourselves here debating the scope of the Second Amendment and whether its purpose is to protect the sanctity of state militias or provide a fundamental right to individuals, irrespective of their relationship to state militias, to possess firearms. While this bill cites in its findings that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms, there has been a definitive resolution by the courts of just what right the Second Amendment protects. In United States v. Miller, the Supreme Court wrote in 1939 that the ``obvious purpose'' of the right to keep and bear arms in the Second Amendment was ``to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness'' of state militias and that the guarantee of that right ``must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.'' This language was a clear indication that the Second Amendment right to ``bear arms'' guarantees the right of the people to maintain effective state militias, but does not provide any type of individual right to own or possess weapons. Mr. Speaker, for more than sixty years following the Supreme Court's decision in Miller, there was little judicial debate regarding the scope of the Second amendment. In fact, virtually every federal appeals court has decided this issue and only one, the Fifth Circuit in United States v. Emerson, has endorsed the individual rights view. Since the Emerson opinion in 2001--which was joined by only two circuit court judges and actually upheld the gun law at issue--the individual rights view has been rejected by the Fourth, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth and Tenth Circuits. The First, Second, Third and Eighth Circuits also have issued definitive rulings rejecting the individual rights view. The First Circuit held that the second amendment applies only to firearms having a ``reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia.'' 1939 Miller case. In 1984, in the Second Circuit, the court cited Miller for the proposition that the right to possess a gun was ``not a fundamental right'' because the Second Amendment did not guarantee the right to keep and bear a weapon unless the evidence showed the firearm had some ``reasonable relationship'' to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia--U.S. v. Toner. In 1996, in the Third Circuit, defendant's possession of machine guns did not have a connection with militia-related activity required for second amendment protections to apply--U.S. v. Rybar. The Fourth Circuit, a 1995 case, stated that courts have consistently held that the second amendment only confers a collective right of keeping and bearing arms which bear a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia--Love v. Pepersack. The Sixth Circuit, in 2000, held that the lower courts have uniformly held that the second amendment preserves a collective rather than an individual right--U.S. v. Napier. The Seventh Circuit, the second amendment establishes no right to possess a firearm apart from the role possession of the gun might play in maintaining a State militia. That is a 1999 case--Gillespie v. City of Indianapolis. The Eighth Circuit stated that the purpose of the second amendment is to restrain the Federal Government from regulating the possession of arms where such regulation would interfere with the preservation or efficiency of the militia. That is a 1992 case--U.S. v. Hale. The Ninth Circuit in 2003 stated that it is this collective rights model which provides the best interpretation of the second amendment-- Silveira v. Lockyer. The Tenth Circuit, a 1977 case, to apply the amendment so as to guarantee an appellant's right to keep an unregistered firearm which has not been shown to have any connection with the militia, merely because he is technically a member of the Kansas militia, would be unjustifiable in terms of either logic or policy--U.S. v. Oakes. The Eleventh Circuit, a 1997 case concerning motivating the creation of the second amendment, convinces us that the amendment was intended to protect only the use or protection of weapons reasonably related to a militia actively maintained and trained by the States--U.S. v. Wright. I believe these cases are evidence of the remarkable degree of judicial consensus on the meaning of the Second Amendment. Mr. Speaker, I suggest that if my colleagues across the aisle want to amend the Constitution, they should do it by amendment rather than attempting to do it through findings. Mr, Speaker, this bill also contains a provision requiring a conviction before a defendant who has violated 18 U.S.C. 924(h) can be sued. Requiring a conviction before an offender can be sued for the civil consequences of his unlawful acts would constitute an extraordinary change in traditional civil liability standards. The public will remember that O.J. Simpson was found civilly liable for damages, even though he had been acquitted in criminal court. Moreover, such a requirement would create absurd results, based on what a prosecutor may decide to do in a particular case, and when he decides to do it. The prosecutor may choose not to prosecute a particular case at all, for various reasons. This would preclude a claim, regardless of how egregious the injuries or clear the liability. Or, even where the case is prosecuted, the prosecutor may decide to plea bargain by allowing a defendant who has unlawfully transferred a number guns to plead guilty to one transfer and drop the remainder. It would be absurd to allow one case to go forward and not others, depending on which case was technically pleaded. Of course, it is always possible that a case will be thrown out because of an unlawful search or seizure because of a coerced confession, or simply because the prosecutor is unable to obtain a conviction. And even where there is a conviction, the timing of the conviction, alone, may be dispositive of the claim, because there is nothing in the bill or the law which tolls the statute of limitations on a civil claim, pending a conviction. And there is nothing in the bill to deal with what happens if the conviction is reversed or appeal. Absent a conviction, the unlawful transfer still must be proven in order to pursue the case. This should be protection enough for someone who causes another harm by criminal conduct. Mr. Speaker, this bill is an unprecedented attack on the due process rights of victims injured by the misconduct of an industry that seeks to escape the legal rules that govern the rest of us and I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill. I submit the following list of cases supporting collective view for the Record. A Sampling of Court Decisions that Support the Militia Interpretation of the Second Amendment from The Legal Action Project. u.S. SUPREME COURT U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 55 (1980).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, and the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price) mentioned the question of whether the wealthy would be sacrificing in this budget. I just want to point out as we consider how to pay for the $200 billion potential cost of Katrina that there are two particular tax cuts that have not gone into effect yet, but will go into effect January 1. They are nicknamed PEP and Pease, the Personal Exemption Phaseout and the standard deduction phaseout. And as the gentleman has inferred, they only help the wealthy. Now, we have to show a chart, because no one will believe it unless you show a chart. This shows how that cost of PEP and Pease will be distributed. If you make under $75,000 a year, you will get zero from this tax cut. If you make $75,000 to $100,000, you might get a dollar. If you make $100,000 to $200,000, you might get $25. You can hardly see the bar. Take my word for it, there is a little bar there to show the $25 you might get. At $200,000 to $500,000, you get $558, on average; and at $.5 million to $1 million, you get over $4,000. But if you make over $1 million, this tax cut that has not even started yet but will start next year, you will get about a $19,000 benefit from that. To implement this tax cut, the 5-year cost is $200 billion. We wonder how to pay for Katrina? How about not letting this tax cut go into effect. That would cover the entire potential cost of a Katrina right there. But instead we are going to ask Medicare and Medicaid, possibly veterans health care, certainly student loans and school lunches, food stamps, and those who are most in need, those programs that the Katrina victims would actually be using, those are the programs that will be cut and not a tax cut for millionaires. I think our priorities are wrong, and I appreciate the gentleman giving us the opportunity to bring this kind of chart to show what kind of tax cuts have not even gone into effect yet, but will go into effect beginning next year. And when we say it is a tax cut skewed to the wealthy, this chart shows exactly how that takes place.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. So the outyear deficit is essentially the same whether you pay for Katrina or not. That it is really a blip on the screen. So whatever our fiscal problems are, Katrina is absolutely irrelevant because that is only a blip on the screen. This is the size of the deficit, the solid line without Katrina, the dotted line with Katrina. And after a couple years, you do not notice the distance.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I would ask the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) to explain this.