Bobby Scott

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

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

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, we live in a democracy where we respect checks and balances. The PATRIOT Act is part of a pattern of lacking checks and balances. Military tribunals, not part of the PATRIOT Act but part of a pattern of reduced checks and balances. Military tribunals were presented with no public trials, no presumption of innocence, no guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Secret evidence could be used, no judicial review. Part of that pattern is the enemy combatant where the administration designates someone as an enemy combatant, can arrest them and hold them indefinitely without charges, never having an opportunity to contest the allegations. We have seen material witnesses, people arrested under the material witness laws, held indefinitely, no charges. That is the context that we are considering the PATRIOT Act. Those are not in the PATRIOT Act, but we are considering the PATRIOT Act in that context. We considered a bill on the same day of the second bombing in Great Britain with no money for port security, no money to secure our rails or bus transportation, no money for first responders. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this bill, frankly not so much for what is in the bill but for what is not in the bill, what we are not going to do today. We can have plenty of privacy without threatening security, and we missed an opportunity to require standards for wiretaps and ``sneak and peak'' searches. We missed an opportunity to require probable cause of a crime before invading people's privacy. We missed the opportunity to limit these provisions and extraordinary powers to terrorism. Ninety percent of the ``sneak and peak'' searches have nothing to do with terrorism. Remember that when the government invades one's privacy, it is not robots and computers; it is government employees who may be neighbors looking at one's medical records, listening to their private conversations, sneaking and peaking into their homes without their knowledge or consent. The PATRIOT Act gives broad expansive powers to government agents to invade privacy. The major check on any abuse in the act has been the sunset provisions. Provisions will expire if they are abused. During our deliberations, we got a lot of cooperation on those provisions that are sunsetting. When asked information on those, we got the information. Some of it came in right before the hearing, but because of the sunset we got a lot of cooperation. Because of the sunset we found no abuses in the libraries. That is because of the sunset. Although government agencies have gone to at least 200 libraries for information, that has not been abused because they know if they abused it they would lose the benefit of that provision. Medical records have not been abused. There has not been any unnecessary sharing of sensitive information of a personal nature. We have not run criminal investigations without probable cause using the provisions of the PATRIOT Act. They could have, because of the broad discretion in the bill, but they did not, because of the sunset. Without the sunset provision, the abuse could take place. Fourteen of the 16 sunset provisions are removed, and the two that are left, 10- year sunsets, which will get us through this administration, clean through the next Presidential term and most of the way through the next. Mr. Chairman, we need to defeat this bill, go back to the Committee on the Judiciary and establish a much better piece of legislation that will protect our privacy and ensure our safety.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds. I say that we need money for port security and rail security funding. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I would say that it would have been extremely helpful if we could have considered that. We could have got the definition straight, and we could have considered it in a more deliberative process rather than trying to deal with it here on the floor where we have some constitutional questions such as the death penalty for conspiracy.

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

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman, as it has been indicated, this amendment involves a lot of new definitions. It would be helpful if we had considered this in committee where we could have gotten the definitions straight. This is a complex rewrite of two different sections, 18 U.S.C. 1992 and 1993, which involve wrecking trains and attacks on mass transportation systems. First, it involves mandatory minimums, and we know from our committee deliberations that the Judicial Conference writes us a letter every time we consider a new mandatory minimum to remind us that mandatory minimums violate common sense. If it is a commonsense sentence, it should be applied. If it is not a commonsense sentence, it has to be applied anyway. In addition to that, there are problems with the death penalties in the bill. It would allow death penalties for conspiracy. That offers up constitutional questions. It also would create new death penalties even in States that do not include a death penalty. Mr. Chairman, if we are going to deal with attacks on mass transit, it would be helpful if we would put the money into port security and rail security and bus security and fund those resources. That would go a long way in making us more secure. Having four amendments like this when we have insufficient time to deliberate is not substantially as helpful as the money would have been in making us more secure. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Could the Reading Clerk read the amendment?

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this amendment emphasizes a point that we are trying to do this on the floor without a mark-up, and it may have many unintended consequences. Despite the name of the title, the title of the amendment is ``Combating Terrorism Financing Act of 2005,'' but if you read the provisions, it is not limited to terrorism financing but for all violations of economic sanctions imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. I mean, a senior citizen who has traveled to Cuba on a bicycle excursion or a clergy attempting to send humanitarian services or supplies to Cuba could get caught up in this. It talks about misuse of Social Security numbers so if somebody misuses a Social Security number to get a job, having nothing to do with terrorism, just is cheating to get a job, they could get caught up in this. It raises questions about sending money to your relatives back home. All of this is implicated in this amendment. It obviously covers terrorism, but we do not know what else it covers. People who get caught up in this are looking at 20-year sentences. Money-laundering statutes are already very broadly written, and this just broadens it even further. I would hope we would defeat the amendment so we could have some time to make sure it could be limited to terrorism financing and just not every violation of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and other kinds of money- laundering statutes. We also have had not an opportunity to hear from people that may be involved in this, organizations helping immigrant populations, banks or other agencies that may have an interest in this who we just have not had time to hear from to know what their reaction would be. So I would hope that we would defeat the amendment so we could have more time to consider it. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. As the gentleman said, we had a little piece of a hearing, but it was not much; and we did not have the opportunity to discuss this bill. It was not marked up in subcommittee or the committee. The committee elected not to make it part of the bill, and I would hope that we would make the same decision and defer this until it can be appropriately considered. I oppose the amendment. 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, the sponsor of the amendment mentioned that hearing we had. I would remind him that the hearing was a hearing on habeas corpus, also the same hearing we heard the issue of the question of whether the death penalty deters murder or other crimes, and this bill. We were given one witness to cover all of that. Our witness covered habeas corpus. We did not have the opportunity to invite a witness to discuss this bill and the policy implications of death penalty where no death occurs and alternate jury rules, peremptory challenges, the number of jurors needed to impose a death penalty, all of these death penalties involved. So to suggest that that was a fair hearing, I think, does not do justice to actually what happened on that day and the consideration of this bill. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren), a member of the committee.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. It provides for the enactment of extremely controversial provisions which we have had inadequate time to consider. We have not had the opportunity to hear critical testimony on controversial aspects of this bill such as the provision to apply the death penalty to offenses where no death results, the change in alternative jury rules and peremptory challenge rules, another change of the number of jurors needed to impose the death penalty and other changes which could constitute constitutional problems. Another problem with the bill, it provides for expansion of the Federal death penalty, both for crimes that the supporters of the death penalty might think warrant the death penalty, as well as crimes that most people would not expect to be associated with the most severe of penalties. This bill does not limit crimes through the death penalty eligibility to the heinous crimes or those who have traditionally been considered severe enough to require either a death penalty or even life without parole. The bill is so broad that it includes offenses such as those related to protection of computers, property offenses and financial or other material support provisions. Because the bill makes attempts and conspiracies to commit such crimes death penalty eligible, it covers those who may have only had a minor role in the offense. If a death results, even if it was not the specific intended result, anyone who is involved in committing or attempting to commit or conspiring to commit the covert offense would be eligible for the death penalty. The provisions of this bill create a death penalty liability tantamount to a Federal felony murder rule, and it presents constitutional issues as well as questions of the appropriateness of the death penalty in certain cases. The provisions of this bill will be duplicative of state jurisdiction laws in many instances and actually conflicting with others. One such conflict would be where a State has chosen not to authorize capital punishment and the Federal Government pursues the death penalty against that State's wishes. Another concern we always have to consider is expansion of the death penalty when we know that there is a frequent error rate in applying the death penalty. One study showed that 68 percent of the death penalty decisions by the trial court were eventually overturned. Mr. Chairman, there is another conflict or difficulty that will arise in the efforts to further international cooperation in pursuing suspected terrorists. We are already experiencing difficulties in securing the cooperation of the rest of the civilized world in bringing terrorists to justice due to our existing proliferation of death penalty offenses when other countries will not extradite criminals to the United States if they will be subject to the death penalty. When we add these difficulties to the other controversial issues as to whether someone who supports an organization's social or humanitarian programs knows that it has been designated as a terrorist organization it can only exacerbate the difficulty and further undermine United States efforts. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Could the chairman explain which amendment is being considered at this point?

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

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I would like to join my colleague from Virginia in his interest in the security of the Port of Hampton Roads. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is well drafted to target the problem of port security. It closes an apparent oversight in the fact that it is not a Federal crime for a vessel operator to fail to stop when ordered to do so by a Federal law enforcement officer, and makes it clear that that is a crime. The penalties are increased penalties, but not mandatory minimums, so the increases will make sense. I will not, however, be supporting the amendment because it has several new death penalties in it. It has death penalties, some of which push the envelope on constitutionality, because some can be imposed even if there is no intent to kill; they are broad enough to even include deaths which result from violating the stowaway statute. Mr. Chairman, death penalties cannot be a deterrent to suicide bombers, so that part of the bill I think would not be helpful in terms of port security. What we do need in port security is significant increases in funding for port security, funding for bus and rail security, funding for first responders. That is the kind of thing that will make us safer. As to the other parts of the bill, I would like to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff) and the other cosponsors for their hard work in focusing us on port security, which is desperately needed.

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

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

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, a Democratic amendment was scheduled next, but I believe that amendment is not going to be offered.

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

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this provides mandatory minimums, which we have frequently said if it had come up in committee we would have a letter ready from the Judicial Conference reminding us that mandatory minimums violate common sense, because if the penalty makes sense, it can be imposed; if it does not make sense, it has to be imposed anyway. This amendment is unnecessarily confusing and duplicative of current law. It is already a crime punishable by 20 years in prison, or life in prison in some circumstances, to provide material support of any kind to a terrorist organization or to support a person in carrying out terrorist acts regardless of how the money came about, whether it was from drug proceeds or otherwise. If anyone is engaged in drug trafficking of any significance in order to support terrorism, they can already be charged with both a drug offense and the material support of terrorism. This might, unfortunately, bring in some small-time dealer that did not know what he was doing and all of a sudden he is subjected to 20- year mandatory minimums when he was not much of a dealer at all. This new crime would substantially broaden the Federal death penalty in ways that might actually violate the Constitution. For example, indirect offenses like conspiracy are generally not death eligible, but financing is more analogous to conspiracy than the direct crimes like hijacking, bombing or murder by drug king, which are already death eligible. Drug trafficking and terrorism crimes already carry numerous penalties for the most egregious offenses, so we do not need them anew in this case. Mr. Chairman, I hope we defeat this amendment. We did not put it into the bill in committee when we would have had an opportunity to ensure it did not conflict with various other provisions of the law or was unnecessarily duplicative. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond to the suggestion about mandatory minimums. This may be a crime where high sentences may be appropriate; and if they are appropriate in the individual case, they can be applied. What the mandatory minimum imposes, whether it makes any sense or not, whether it violates common sense, it still has to be applied. That is why we get a letter from the Judicial Conference every time we have a bill before us with mandatory minimums in it, they remind us that the mandatory minimums violate common sense. We also have the opportunity to review the studies that we have seen that show that mandatory minimums waste taxpayer money, as opposed to other ways that you can sentence. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.