Bobby Scott

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

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

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the chairman for his commitment. And with that, I will not offer the amendment, but will be working to make sure that consumer identity theft investigation and prosecution is properly funded under the bill.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk which would increase the funding for investigation and prosecution of consumer identity fraud. Approximately 10 million people a year are being victimized by identity theft. Last year's business and financial institutions lost about $52 billion, and consumers lost about $5 billion due to identity theft. Too little is being done to effectively address consumer identity theft and credit card fraud. Presently what happens is the credit card companies just simply wipe out the debt, but the fees are not never appropriately pursued. The problem is that the laws we have on the books are not being adequately enforced due to insufficient investigative and prosecutorial resources. While the Department of Justice devotes some resources towards identity theft, it is not a high priority due to inadequate resources, and so the thieves practice their wares with impunity. Mr. Chairman, last year we passed legislation which authorized money for consumer identity theft enforcement. We have not properly funded that, and this amendment would go a long way into properly funding it. I understand, however, Mr. Chairman, that the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Wolf) has expressed some concerns about the offsets and the funding level in the bill already, and I would ask the chairman if he would work with us to make sure that the funding of identity theft is properly done under the bill between now, over in the Senate, and in conference.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Reverend W. Henry Maxwell, Sr., who is retiring from his role as Pastor of Ivy Baptist Church in Newport News, Virginia. Reverend Maxwell served as pastor at Ivy Baptist for 37 years. In this position, he has been an extraordinary shepherd over a vibrant and growing flock. I have attended Sunday services at Ivy Baptist and seen his hand at work in his church and community. During his tenure, the Church established a Day Care ministry that has been a vital and thriving community resource for over thirty years. Under his leadership, the church outgrew its original building, and Reverend Maxwell oversaw the purchase of and transition to a new location. And seven years ago, not to rest on previous accomplishments, Reverend Maxwell spurred the construction of an additional wing to the current Church location, that the congregation saw fit to name the W. Henry Maxwell Family Life Center. Even though he officially retired December 31, 2004, Reverend Maxwell has graciously served as interim pastor while the church searched for his successor. Through his counsel and mentorship, the Ivy Baptist family has produced successful businesspeople, local, state, and federal government workers, and 14 licensed ministers. Reverend Maxwell has worked tirelessly to improve the lives of his parishioners and the lives of all citizens in the church's Southeast Newport News community. His steadfast commitment to principle is well documented through his service on numerous associations, including a term as President of the Newport News Branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). His dedication to civic improvement is best illustrated through his work as a public servant. Reverend Maxwell represented citizens from the cities of Newport News and Hampton as both a member of the Virginia House of Delegates and the Virginia State Senate in a twenty-year political career. Reverend Maxwell spent much of his time and effort in the Virginia General Assembly addressing the various disparities faced by many of his constituents--the culmination of this effort being his work as an early proponent of diversity in the state judiciary. In his role as State Senator, Reverend Maxwell strove to make sure that the judiciary was comprised of judges more representative of the communities they served, and he has ensured that all Virginians who walk into a court feel that they have a fair chance of equal protection under the law. I had the honor and privilege of serving with Reverend Maxwell in the Virginia General Assembly for nine years, and I have worked with him outside of the Assembly on many issues. Reverend Maxwell, as a humble servant of God, would balk at the accolades I have bestowed upon him, but I would be remiss if I did not say I consider him an ally, mentor, and friend. On the occasion of his retirement, it gives me great pleasure to recognize and commend Reverend W. Henry Maxwell, Sr. for his service and dedication to the parishioners of lvy Baptist Church and to the people of Newport News and Hampton, Virginia.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment to the legislation. While I salute the hard work of our volunteer firefighters, it appears to me that we have a very extreme solution to a problem that does not exist. Although the amendment purports to encourage donation of fire fighting equipment by eliminating civil liability barriers, there are no reported cases of businesses refusing to donate their equipment nor cases of volunteer fire fighting companies suing their donors. Whatever the so-called problem is could be solved or addressed without congressional action. For example, in the 108th Congress when the similar legislation was before the Committee on the Judiciary, we heard during our committee deliberations that a volunteer fire department could simply sign a contract waiving liability of the donors from negligence resulting from the donated fire equipment. This tactic would ensure that fire companies are informed and have consented to the immunity of the donor. Congress does not have to mandate the immunity. The groups can agree to it if they want or if the donor insists. Mr. Chairman, this is not a Federal issue. It is a matter that can be dealt with by the States. There is nothing Federal about local volunteer fire departments. This liability is a State issue, and many States have already dealt with it. For example, some States provide immunity but only after requiring certification that the equipment is safe. This amendment provides no such immunity. For the safety of our volunteers, companies should not be given blanket immunity for donating fire equipment. While it may be true that most of the equipment is perfectly usable, companies should be prevented from donating obsolete equipment known to be of dubious safety. Certain equipment, like protective gear and breathing apparatus, can deteriorate over time and may not be suitable for use. So the threat of civil liability causes some to think twice about donating dangerous equipment, equipment which may place our firefighters in danger. If this amendment passes, they will not have to be concerned about donating that dangerous equipment. I would hope that we would defeat the amendment, allow the volunteer firefighters to waive the liability if they want, but not impose a federally mandated waiver on everybody whether they want to use it or not. I urge my colleagues to reject the amendment which may, in fact, endanger our firefighters.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I want to remind the House that it is already illegal to murder, rape, kidnap, cut off hands with machete attacks, conspiracy to do any of those acts. We lock people up for that. In fact, since we are talking about immigrants, one in 27 Hispanic males 25 to 29 are in jail today already. Those are crimes. They are doing the time. Also, for those who are crossing State lines and all that, we have RICO, Continuing Criminal Enterprise. That is already the law. But this amendment just adds insult. And let us be clear: Second- offense fist fight by a bunch of kids, under the bill, is 10 years mandatory minimum. This adds 5 years to the 10-year mandatory minimum for second-offense fist fighting. I think that is excessive. If the fist fight deserves more time, the Sentencing Commission can deal with that. I would hope that we would defeat the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the bill, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chairman, it is unfortunate that we are again debating how to reduce juvenile crime and violence. Rather than following through on the proven crime and violence prevention techniques that work, we are back to tough-talking sound byte policies that have been proven to not only fail to reduce crime but actually increase crime, waste taxpayers' money and discriminate against minorities. Seven years ago, it was the Violent Youth Predator Act. Now it is the ``Gang Busters'' bill, with the same array of poll-tested sound bytes: trying more juveniles as adults and mandatory minimum sentences. The bill includes mandatory life or death penalties, even for unintentional acts. This bill is in no way like the bill we developed a few years ago on a bipartisan basis to address youth crime and violence following the dark days following the Columbine school shootings. That bill was cosponsored by all of the members of the Subcommittee on Crime and was based on combined wisdom and expertise of law enforcement, juvenile court judges, administrators, researchers, criminologists and juvenile justice advocates along with the entire political spectrum. All of the Hastert-Gephardt Task Force members called witnesses to let us know what we should do to reduce crime and violence amongst juveniles. Not a single one of those witnesses said we needed to add more Federal mandatory minimum sentences. Not one mentioned the death penalty. Not one said anything about trying more juveniles as adults. Not one. The fully bipartisan bill we developed from recommendations of those experts was full of collaborative efforts between Federal, State, and local officials aimed at addressing the problems caused by young people and addressing them early, focused on prevention and keeping them out of trouble to begin with. And when they first get in trouble, intervene early and provide sufficient sanctions and services to get them back on the straight and narrow. Further, if they do come back, hit them with graduated sanctions and services to the extent required to address the problem, including keeping them away from or getting them out of gang activities. At that time, as now, we can try juveniles as adults as early as 13-years old and sentence them with harsh sentences when they commit serious, violent offenses, both at the Federal as well as the State level. So make no mistake about it: The children affected by this bill will be those children whose roles in gang crimes are minor or fringe, because we are already trying youth who commit serious violent offenses as adults and locking them up for long periods of time. It is the lesser offenders, the children who get in fist fights, committing misdemeanors, who will be subject to the 10-year, mandatory minimum numbers in this bill. Those who commit murder or rape or chop off hands with machetes or even conspire to do that are already subject to life sentences. So the 10-year mandatory minimums will be the friends who get in fights. Madam Chairman, we already lock up more people than anywhere on earth: 714 per 100,000, way above whatever is in second place, way above the national average of 100 per 100,000. In fact, whereas there is 1 out of 63 white youth 25- to 29-years old in jail today, we lock up one out of every 8 African-American youth in jail today. This bill, with all of its discriminatory policies, will only add to that disparity. And for what? A long line of studies conducted by the Department of Justice and crime researchers have consistently told us that treating more juveniles as adults will increase crime and violence. The Coalition of Juvenile Justice study, ``Childhood on Trial,'' coincidentally released the same day as this bill was introduced, covers thousands of cases over a long period of time and confirmed that adult treatment of more juveniles increases crime and violence and is discriminatory in its application. That is primarily because if the judge finds a person guilty in adult court, his only possibilities are lock the child up with adults or let them walk on probation or parole. If they get locked up with adults, they will obviously come out worse than they went in. And so the studies show that if we increase the number of juveniles tried as adults we will not only increase crime, but we will increase violent crime. Now, this bill not only includes provisions to try more juveniles as adults. It also includes more mandatory minimums. We know from all of the credible research, mandatory minimum sentences are the most costly and least effective way to address crime. As compared to intelligent approaches, like having the worst offenders get the most time and lesser offenders get less time, or drug treatment for drug-addicted offenders, mandatory minimum sentences have been shown to waste money and discriminate against minorities. That is why the Federal Judicial Conference has told us time and time again that mandatory minimum sentences violate common sense. We also know that the death penalty is not only flawed, but is disproportionately applied to minorities and the poor. It also does not reduce crime. Some 199 people have been freed from Death Row over the last 10 years because they were innocent of the crimes for which they received the death penalty. Now, until we fund the innocence protection provisions we passed last year, we should not be passing new death penalties. But unfortunately, despite all of our agreement and progress, we have failed in the most important aspect of our prior work, and that is to provide adequate funding for the initiatives that we passed. The most money we have ever been able to get appropriated for the juvenile justice bills was $55 million a year, about one-tenth of what was necessary. We are, in fact, cutting funding for these programs in our budget, and also cutting money for local law enforcement. And this bill provides nothing for prevention, nothing for early intervention, and virtually nothing in the bill goes to local law enforcement. It all goes to Federal prosecution and incarceration. Instead, almost $400 million in the bill will go to the Federal prosecutors and possibly billions to locking up people under the long mandatory minimum sentences. Madam Chairman, we have a choice in crime policy. We can play politics, or we can reduce crime. And we know what to do to reduce crime. All the researchers have told us. In fact, a few weeks ago I met with some students at Monument High School in South Boston, Massachusetts, and I told them about this upcoming hearing we were having on the gang bill, and I asked them what did they think needed to be done to keep kids out of gangs. They said, kids join gangs for reputation, protection, to feel wanted, to have friends, and to get money. And what is needed to prevent them from joining gangs was ample recreation for boys as well as girls, jobs and internships for training and money, and assistance to allow their families to live in decent homes. Recently, I met with law enforcement officials in my district, and they had similar advice. Neither group said anything about the need for more mandatory minimums, trying more juveniles as adults, or new death penalties. None of them asked us to waste money on these programs. But we took their advice a few years ago and actually started the process for doing what was necessary to reduce crime: prevention and early intervention. But we did not finish the job of funding the programs. We should fund juvenile justice prevention programs, early intervention programs, and local law enforcement instead of passing this bill. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute just to say, first of all, that my distinguished colleague from Virginia and I will be working together later this week if they try to close any military bases. But on this bill we, unfortunately, have to disagree. First of all, Madam Chairman, murder, rape, kidnapping are already illegal in every State. Interstate gang members can be caught by RICO and organized crime, continuing criminal enterprise, FBI is already working on that. But this bill contains a provision that fist fights can subject young people to 10-year mandatory minimums. The after-school programs that have been disparaged are the kinds of things that will actually reduce gang involvement. You can disparage them by calling it arts and crafts for gang members. But if you ask the researchers what will actually make a difference, it is those after- school programs to give the kids constructive things to do with their time. Madam Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff), a former prosecutor.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would just say, this is interesting timing of the amendment, because we just passed the Goodlatte amendment, and now we are going to study, I guess, whether or not we should have passed it because, as the gentleman from Georgia has indicated, we do not know the link between illegal aliens and gang membership, and so we have to study it. We just passed an amendment to add 5 years mandatory minimum to sentences if a couple of them get into a fist fight. So I guess it is nice to know whether we should have passed it or not, but I just want to point out that it is an interesting place to consider this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Having heard the distinguished views from my friend, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) and the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood), I am convinced that the amendment is well taken, however misplaced in time. We should have considered this before the gentleman from Roanoke, Virginia, but as my colleague has said, better late than never. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I want to remind Members of the House that murders are already illegal. Intentional murder subjects you to either the death penalty or mandatory life. Racketeering and those other charges are illegal. The mandatory minimums in the bill apply to second-offense fist fights, and I guess if you are an illegal immigrant, you get an additional 5 years mandatory minimum. If that is not enough, Mr. Chairman, we have already said that, for those 25 to 29 in the African-American community, 1 out of 8 are already in jail today. Apparently, that is not enough penalty, and we need to increase it. The Sentencing Commission has studied the impact of mandatory minimum sentences and have found that they not only violate the entire purpose of the Sentencing Commission, but they are also applied in a racially discriminatory manner. We also have found, Mr. Chairman, that the Rand Corporation has studied mandatory minimums and found that it is not a cost-effective sentencing scheme. They found that compared to a more intelligent scheme where the more serious criminals get more time and less serious get less time, mandatory minimums are less effective in reducing crime. They are also much less effective than drug rehabilitation for drug penalties. So we have the Rand Corporation designating mandatory minimums as a waste of the taxpayers' money. The Judicial Conference of the United States, the Chief Justice of the United States presiding, has written us a letter saying, not only that trying juveniles as adults is bad policy but also the mandatory minimums, and they have maintained opposition to mandatory minimums since 1953. They write: The reason is manifest. Mandatory minimums severely distort and damage the Federal sentencing system. Mandatory minimums undermine the sentencing guideline regime Congress so carefully established in the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 by preventing the rational development of guidelines that reduce unwanted disparity and provide proportionality and fairness. Mandatory minimums also destroy honesty in sentencing by encouraging charge and fact plea bargains. In fact, the U.S. Sentencing Commission has documented that mandatory minimums have the opposite of their intended effect. Far from fostering certainty in punishment, mandatory minimums result in unwarranted sentencing disparity. Mandatory minimums also treat dissimilar offenders in a similar fashion, although these offenders can be quite different with respect to the seriousness of their conduct or their danger to society. Finally, mandatory minimums require the sentencing court to impose the same sentence on offenders when sound policy and common sense call for reasonable differences and punishment. Accordingly, we respectfully request that the expansion of the Federal criminal justice system over juvenile offenders be seriously reconsidered, and that the mandatory minimum sentences provision in the bill be removed. Mr. Chairman, that is exactly what this amendment does, and I would hope that the amendment would be adopted.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I hope we defeat the amendment. As I said, it may or may not, we do not know, be a cost-effective use of the taxpayers' money. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. If the bill passes or does not pass, it will still be illegal to stab someone 16 times. What we ought to be looking at are the kinds of initiatives that will reduce the chances that that will happen again. Giving a 10-year mandatory minimum for a second offense fist fight is not going to reduce the chance that someone will be stabbed 16 times when you are not funding any of the programs that are desperately needed to actually reduce juvenile crime. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Inglis).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chairman, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Whether this bill passes or not, murder, rape, robbery will be illegal. People will be prosecuted. They will get time in jail. In fact, as I indicated before, for 15- to 19-year-old African Americans in this country, one out of eight are already in jail today. This bill, which will try more juveniles as adults, will not only increase the number in jail but will also increase the crime rate. Mandatory minimums have been shown to be discriminatory and waste the taxpayers' money. The death penalty is discriminatory and does not do anything about crime. This bill will give 10 years mandatory minimums to second-offense fist fights, and that is not the kind of sentence that is going to do anything about these violent kinds of crimes that my colleagues are talking about. Ten years, mandatory minimum, second offense, fist fight. Madam Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary. (Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis). (Mr. DAVIS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary. (Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Continuing my reservation of objection, Mr. Chairman, how does the modification change the original manager's amendment?

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I would ask the gentleman to please explain the modification, if that is not part of his presentation.

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

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, if you listen to the debate, you might not think it is illegal to use a machete to chop somebody's hand off or to, last night, gang-rape a handicapped child in the park, murder for hire, cold- blooded murders. You might not think those are illegal. In most jurisdictions in the country, certainly in the jurisdictions that I represent, it is already illegal to take a machete and chop somebody's hand off, and I have not heard complaints from the local police that they need a new Federal law to help deal with those crimes. Mr. Speaker, this bill was introduced just about 2 months ago, incidentally the same day that a juvenile justice coalition released just another study showing how trying more juveniles as adults will actually increase crime. The rule, of course, does not allow us to address that issue, where juveniles, the marginal juveniles, the ones not now tried as adults in State court, would be tried as adults under this legislation. I have not seen any study that contradicts them, but all of the studies I have seen show that that will actually increase the crime rate because when they are tried as adults, they are also locked up with adult criminals and come out worse than they went in. No amendments in this rule are allowed to address the death penalty, which has been shown to be racially discriminatory, which has been shown to have no effect on crime and shown to be so inappropriate that the Supreme Court with seven Republican appointees sitting on the court ruled that, for juveniles, the death penalty was unconstitutional. We have not had an opportunity under the rule to address that, not even the fact that under the bill you can have a capital prosecution for accidents, accidental actions. It does not require an intent to kill someone. It could have been an accident. There was no amendment allowed for that. There is no amendment to allow the little money in the bill to go to local law enforcement. Virtually all of the money goes to Federal law enforcement. If you are going to have an effect on gangs, the money ought to go to where the gangs are actually fought, on the local. Mr. Speaker, we have not had the amendments to actually address the kinds of problems that are in the bill. It came out at the last minute. My colleague from Virginia has mentioned all the people supporting it. I know one letter we received talked about the need for all of the money in the bill going to law enforcement and help get the money for law enforcement in the bill to the localities, and you look in the bill and there is no money. It is all for Federal law enforcement, Federal prosecution. Virtually nothing for local law enforcement. If you look at the title of the bill, you think you are doing something. In fact, you are doing nothing. Mr. Speaker, the impact of this bill is going to round up a few low- level people committing little crimes, some even misdemeanors, and they will be getting 5- and 10-year mandatory minimum sentences. If we are going to do something about crime, if you ask anybody that knows what they are talking about what to do about juvenile crime, they will tell you prevention and early intervention. Keep the kids out of trouble and if they get in trouble to begin with, get them right back on track. There is no money in here for prevention. We have heard a crack about arts and crafts for gang members. Let me tell you something. Arts and crafts for gang members will do more to reduce juvenile crime and gang membership than the provisions in this bill, and everybody knows it. I have got to admit that the sound bites and slogans are stronger on the other side, but all of the studies show that this bill would do virtually nothing to reduce juvenile crime and is certainly not an effective use of the taxpayers' money if your goal is to actually reduce crime. You need to put the money into prevention and early intervention. We lead the world in incarceration already. If you are going to get any more crime reduction out of the next dollar we are going to spend, it ought to go into prevention and early intervention to keep the kids out of trouble; 850,000 kids are not going to come out of gangs because we pass this legislation. They are in gangs now because they have nothing to do in the afternoon. We need to defeat this bill and do something serious about juvenile crime.