Bobby Scott

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

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

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

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

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I just want to remind the House that it is illegal to chop off fingers and you will be given more time than this bill will provide. Murdering 28 people is also already illegal, whether this bill passes or not. But this amendment just adds insult to injury. If a child comes into the country because his parents snuck into the country to work, this bill, the underlying bill provides for a 10-year mandatory minimum for a fist -fight. This just adds 5 more years of insult. I would hope we defeat the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition because we have not studied this. This issue did not come before the committee. We do not know anything about the accuracy of the data that may be circulated. We do not know what it is going to cost. And we particularly do not know whether or not this is a good cost-effective way of providing homeland security. For example, this will do nothing to prevent an Oklahoma bombing, where the problem was domestic. If we are going to spend money in homeland security, we ought to put it where it is most needed. We have not studied to determine whether this is the best use of the money or not. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I would hope we would not pass this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, if you kill a police officer you are going to get death or life without parole. If you make any murder in the Federal system you are looking at life. If you are talking about the impact of this bill, it is a 10-year mandatory minimum for second- offense fist fights. We have been asked where our compassion is for the victims. We have got mandatory minimums where you already know that it violates common sense, it wastes the taxpayers money, it fails to do anything about reducing crime. That is what the studies have shown. Trying juveniles as adults we know increases crime. That is a good question. Where is your compassion for the victims when you are actually increasing crime? We know what works to reduce crime. We know what polls well, and what we need to do is have some compassion for common sense and actually enact those provisions that will reduce crime. We know that prevention and early intervention work. You know, you can make jokes about it; but we know what works and we know what polls well. If we are going to show some compassion for our victims, we ought to do something to actually reduce crime.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record an editorial published this morning in the daily newspaper in Norfolk, Virginia, the Virginian Pilot, on this issue. [From the Virginia Pilot, May 5, 2005] A House Divided Against Itself The mood in certain precincts of Congress has become so poisonous that people aren't speaking our common language unless they're accusing political opponents of unspeakable crimes. The ``Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act'' would make it a federal offense to take a minor across a state line to get an abortion without the consent of her parents, for a physician to perform such abortions, and allows parents to sue anybody who does. Democrats on the Judiciary Committee offered several amendments that would have limited the law's scope. U.S. Rep. Bobby Scott, for example, sought to insert this line: ``The prohibitions of this section do not apply with respect to conduct by taxicab drivers, bus drivers or others in the business of professional transport.'' Pretty straightforward, right? Should the U.S. government prosecute a bus driver because a girl in one of its seats is traveling to end a pregnancy? No matter your answer to that question, the congressman's wording is pretty clear, unless you're a member of the Judiciary Committee's staff, which managed Scott's amendment into this: ``Mr. Scott offered an amendment that would have exempted sexual predators from prosecution if they're taxicab drivers, bus drivers or others in the business of professional transport.'' In other words, the staff of a committee on which Scott serves accused him of trying to protect sexual predators, arguably a crime in itself. It is the kind of libel--repeated against two other Democratic members of the committee--that only nameless, faceless bureaucrat would dare make. But, significantly, it's also the kind of power-made mischief that the Republican leadership felt deserved defense. The Congress Tuesday evening spent an hour debating a resolution to require Republicans to change the descriptions, which are supposed to be, and ordinarily are, written in dry, neutral language. That debate was itself illustrative of how deep the divisions in Congress have become. While the Democrats-- including Scott and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi--talked about how Republicans abused the truth to score political points, the majority changed the subject entirely and re- argued the merits of the abortion bill, which passed the week before. ``The issue is whether we can trust each other to deal with each other fairly,'' said Wisconsin Democrat Rep. David Obey, who had voted for the abortion bill. In the end, Tuesday's debate was a rancorous parry and feint, lasted an eternity and came to absolutely nothing. The resolution to change the descriptions, of course, failed on a party-line vote. Still, for 60 minutes, the rudeness that now rules the hall of the Capitol was on sharp display for all America to see. ``The rewrite says more about the person who wrote it, and those who defend it, than it does about the amendment itself,'' Scott said Tuesday. Scott's right. What is says is nothing kind, and not to be forgotten.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 366, the Vocational and Technical Education Act of the Future. This bill reauthorizes the Perkins Act, which provides career and technical education (CTE) programs at the State and local levels. In addition, the Perkins Act provides skill-building and academic opportunities for our youth and improves employment outcomes. We live in an information and knowledge-based economy. It is imperative, therefore, that we continue to recognize that a strong academic foundation is necessary for all students emerging from high school. Moreover, the skills necessary for entering postsecondary education are similar to the skills necessary for success in the modem workplace. For example, it is a fact that high school students entering construction related apprenticeship programs must have algebra, geometry and trigonometry skills, which are also requirements for college university systems. The research is clear. High school students completing a rigorous academic core coupled with a career concentration have test scores that are equal to or higher than those of students considered to be ``college prep''. They are more likely to pursue postsecondary education, have a higher grade point average in college, are less likely to drop out in their first year of college, and they have better employment and earnings outcomes than other students. This bill will ensure that ``rigorous and challenging academic content'' in the high school curriculum is aligned with postsecondary education. For the foregoing reasons, I encourage support for this bill to ensure that all high school students' educational needs are adequately met.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Dr. Marie V. McDemmond, who is retiring from her role as President of Norfolk State University (NSU). During her inspiring career in higher education, Dr. McDemmond has served more than 35 years as an extraordinary leader and educator. Dr. McDemmond has worked tirelessly to ensure fair access to higher education for minority and underserved populations throughout the country. Her steadfast commitment to this principle is well documented through her testimony before Congress and her service on numerous national boards and commissions. As a member of President Bush's Board of Advisors for Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Dr. McDemmond's service has brought national recognition to the issue of equity in funding and support for minority-serving institutions throughout these United States. Dr. McDemmond is the first woman to lead Norfolk State University and the first African-American woman to serve as President of a four-year college in Virginia. Her success has established the financial and academic credibility for her institution that exemplifies NSU's creed: ``Achieving with Excellence.'' In recognition of Dr. McDemmond's unwavering integrity, wisdom and dedicated service to others, members of the Commonwealth of Virginia's Congressional delegation offer the following: Our Commonwealth owes Dr. McDemmond a debt of gratitude for her outstanding commitment to higher education. Her leadership has helped Norfolk State to gain the financial resources and infrastructure necessary for prominence in science and technology. The success of her efforts has earned the accolades of government officials and legislators throughout Virginia, and her insights have been sought on several occasions by President George W. Bush. I join with the other members of Virginia's Congressional Delegation in commending Dr. McDemmond for a lifetime of exceptional work.--Senator John Warner (R-VA) Dr. McDemmond has been one of our Commonwealth's outstanding educational and technological leaders. Her tireless work to secure the financial resources necessary to lead Norfolk State University to the forefront in science and technology has helped close the so-called opportunity divide. For her efforts, she has received wide recognition and much deserved praise and admiration. She is a leader who will be sorely missed, but I am confident she will continue to have a great influence on Norfolk State's bright future--Senator George Allen (R-VA) Dr. Marie V. McDemmond has been an invaluable asset to Norfolk State University and to higher education in Virginia. Norfolk State University has truly benefited from her innovative and visionary style, which has positioned the university to excel in the 21st century. It has been a distinct pleasure of mine to work with Dr. McDemmond specifically in bridging the digital divide between Historically Black Colleges and Universities and other universities. She will be very much missed at Norfolk State University and within the entire collegiate community-- Congressman Randy Forbes (R-VA) Dr. McDemmond is everything a leader should be: full of energy, dedicated to her students and determined to do the very best for NSU. She has tremendous courage, and she is always willing to tackle big challenges. Often such people can be intimidating, but to the contrary, Dr. McDemmond is so easy to work with. I consider her a great friend, and my prayers are with her as she retires from her service-- Congresswoman Thelma Drake (R-VA) Under the leadership of Dr. Marie McDemmond, Norfolk State University (NSU) has developed into a vibrant institution with cutting edge programs and operations. Dr. McDemmond has positioned NSU as a regional leader in information technologies and other fields in the southeastern U.S. and a national leader among minority serving institutions. While Dr. McDemmond's leadership of NSU will be sorely missed, we are gratified to know that she has chosen to continue to serve NSU and the greater higher education community by teaching at NSU. The lives of all she has touched through her dedication and service have been made richer and we are grateful to her for her important contributions--Congressman Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott (R-VA) On the occasion of her retirement, it gives me great pleasure to recognize and commend Dr. McDemmond for her service and dedication to the cause of higher education in Virginia.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. I rise in support of the resolution. H.R. 748, the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act, makes it illegal to transport a minor across State lines for the purposes of getting an abortion. Now, transport is not defined in the bill. When the Judiciary Committee marked up the bill, I offered an amendment which said simply that we should exempt taxicab drivers and others in the business of professional transport from the transportation provisions of the bill, because as written, it would be a Federal crime for a taxicab driver to take a young woman who gets in a cab and says, take me to the abortion clinic so I can get an abortion. If the taxicab driver complied with that task, he would be committing a Federal crime. Now, even if he were not prosecuted, there is a civil liability provision in the bill which exposes the cab driver and through the principles of agency, the entire cab company, to civil liability by the parents of the young woman who find out how she got to the clinic. So let me read my amendment: ``The prohibitions of this section shall not apply with respect to conduct of taxicab drivers, bus drivers or others in the business of professional transport.'' However, the report in the markup filed by the majority described the amendment thusly: ``Mr. Scott offered an amendment that would have exempted sexual predators from prosecution if they are taxicab drivers, bus drivers or others in the business of professional transport.'' Now, I will let the public decide whether or not that is a distortion. I believe that it is. But I would just say that if a prosecutor has evidence that a person is a sexual predator, the last thing they would do would be to go to this provision of the code, which is a misdemeanor, rather than the various felonies that they could prosecute the person for. The amendment does not immunize a sexual predator from the crimes of being a sexual predator, just the provisions of this transportation provision which is just a misdemeanor. Now, Mr. Speaker, let me just say, in any event, whatever you think of the bill, this distortion obviously speaks to character; but in my view, the descriptions in the committee report and the distortion of those amendments, particularly the one I just described, say more about the character of the person responsible for describing the amendment that way and the character of those trying to defend the distortion, than it does about my amendment. I would therefore, Mr. Speaker, hope that we would pass the resolution so that the House will not be on record as condoning such misrepresentations.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. For those same 10 years, what is the projected surplus to be now?

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Would the gentleman remind us what the 10-year surplus was projected to be at the beginning of this administration?

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Let me ask one more question. The gentlemen mentions interest on the national debt. I remember in 2001 when this administration came in, when Chairman Greenspan was testifying, the questions he had to answer were along the lines of should we pay off the whole national debt or should we pay off just the short-term debt or the long-term debt? What will happen to the interest rates when you pay off the national debt? Were the projections not at the beginning of 2001 when this administration came in that we could pay all the debt held by the public, we could pay it off by 2008, and by 2013, 2015, we could have put all the money back into the trust funds that we borrowed from like Social Security?

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Now, Mr. Speaker, could the gentleman show me where Social Security and Medicare present surpluses are on that chart?

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. So that means we spend the Social Security plus, and then spend even more than that after we have spent the surplus?

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. In the final years of the Clinton administration we had the Social Security and Medicare surplus and we were talking about a lockbox where that would be put to save Social Security and Medicare without spending it; is that right?

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 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 the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, let me read the operative language of the bill. ``Whoever knowingly transports a minor across a State line with the intent that such minor obtain an abortion,'' clearly covers a taxicab driver who knows where he is going and has heard the discussion behind him. I just do not think the bill ought to apply to the taxicab driver. If the others do not think it applies, then just pass the amendment. I think it is a commonsense amendment. The taxicab driver ought not get caught up into an interfamily dispute over who did what and he get sued and the cab company get sued because he did not know it was illegal to take the fare to the nearest abortion clinic which happened to be across the State line. The taxicab driver could clearly know and he could hear the discussion about where they were going and why. That would make him guilty, the taxicab company guilty, the sorority sister that called the taxicab guilty for conspiracy. This is a commonsense amendment. I do not think the taxicab driver ought to be part of this discussion, ought not be sued by a mad parent, and I hope we will adopt the amendment. 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. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.