Bobby Scott

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. When President Clinton left office it looked as though we could pay off the national debt by 2008 or 2009, which meant we would be paying out zero interest on the national debt. We would be able to replace all the money in the trust funds by about 2012, 2014, somewhere in there so there would be zero interest on the national debt paid to the trust funds. Right now, about 2009, interest national debt is projected, instead around zero, about $300 billion a year. At $30,000 apiece that is enough to hire 10 million Americans, more than the total number unemployed today. Where are we going? This chart shows, this red line is President Bush's projection of cutting the deficit in half in 5 years. First of all, we just showed that we started off with a surplus. We ought to be replacing the surplus, not just cleaning up half the mess. So the discussion about whether or not you can cut the deficit in half in 5 years really is out of place. This chart up here shows in 2002, after 2001 President Bush projected surpluses in the hundreds of billions of dollars, and now he is talking about cutting the deficit in half. This chart down here shows a more realistic projection because it includes actually the war in Iraq and Social Security privatization, interest on all of that debt, extending the tax cuts and all of these policies would put us down on this line below.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. African generally. If we put more money into prevention, we would not have to build those two new prisons as we have to today.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. The budget deficit.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, functional democracy requires that the citizens have confidence in an election process and of course confidence that all legitimate votes will be counted. Clearly the State of Ohio is not able to provide such confidence. First, there is a significant unexplained, uninvestigated difference in exit polling results and the reported election results. There are specific unresolved allegations of other election problems, particularly the long lines in some precincts that were caused not because of an unanticipated voter turnout but because of insufficient voting machines in the precinct. Other allegations were widespread and none of these allegations was investigated. I know, Mr. Speaker, that this objection is somewhat awkward because it does not have the apparent support for the candidate involved, but I believe it is our responsibility to ensure that election results meet the spirit and letter of our Constitution and that we have confidence in the process by demonstrating that voting schemes and irregularities are not ignored. Mr. Speaker, I would hope that we would take this in consideration as we review this election return so that this does not happen again.

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

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, a functioning democracy requires that the citizens have confidence in its election process, and of course confidence that all legitimate votes will be properly counted. We saw the importance of this principle in the recent Ukraine national election and in the Washington State Governor's election. Clearly, the State of Ohio is not able to provide such confidence. First there is a significant, unexplained and un-investigated difference in exit polling results and the reported election results. Then, there are many specific, serious, unresolved allegations of voting irregularities in Ohio. For example, strong evidence exists to indicate that in some predominately Black precincts, voters had to stand in line to vote for as much as 10 hours due, not to an unanticipated voter turn out, but to a clearly insufficient number of voting machines at the precinct. Other allegations include evidence that numerous requests for provisional ballots were improperly denied, that the counting of provisional ballots violated the Help America Vote Act and that there were over 90,000 ballots cast which were set aside as spoiled ballots without justification. Not one of these allegations was officially investigated. Now I know that this objection is somewhat awkward because it does not have the apparent support of the candidate involved, but I believe it is our duty and responsibility to assure that election results meet the spirit and the letter of our Constitution and that we instill confidence in the process by demonstrating that voting schemes and irregularities are not ignored.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I support this provision to fix the misguided insertion in the Omnibus Appropriations bill allowing Congressional staff to view individual tax returns. However, I protest the process through which that insertion, and others, were inserted into a 3,000-plus page spending bill without the knowledge of most members and without an opportunity to correct all of them. One such additional insertion is a provision which effectively eliminates one of our most effective tools to fight crime--the Federal Prison Industries program. Study after study--some of them covering as much as 16 years of follow-up data--have shown that inmates who participate in the Federal Prison Industries program are more likely to be employed and less likely to commit crimes than those who do not take part. And corrections officials tell us that Federal Prison Industries are critical to their maintaining safety and security in the prisons by giving inmates something productive to do with their time. Crime victims and the inmates' dependents benefit, as well. Last year alone, inmate workers paid more than $3 million from their wages in the form of restitution to victims and support payments to dependents. Inserting provisions in a 3,000-plus page bill with no opportunity to know about them or review them prior to voting on them, not only violates House rules against legislating on an appropriations measure, but violates principles of transparency and regular order in legislating, as well.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. California's 21 missions, which run along a 600-mile stretch of highway from San Diego to Sonoma, are indeed historically significant and contribute tremendously to the rich historical, cultural, and architectural heritage of California and this country's westward growth. At the same time we strive to preserve these historical landmarks, we must also be careful to preserve religious liberty and honor the establishment clause of the first amendment of the Constitution. Nineteen of the 21 missions that comprise California's historic mission trail are currently owned by the Roman Catholic Church; they operate as active parishes and hold regularly scheduled religious services. There is a clear line of Supreme Court cases that address government funding of improvement of real property for the direct benefit of buildings used for religious purposes including worship, sectarian service, or instruction. Three Supreme Court decisions, Tilton v. Richardson in 1971, Hunt v. McNair in 1973, and Committee For Public Education v. Nyquist in 1973, make it clear that no government funds may be used to construct, maintain, restore, or make capital improvements to physical structures that are used as houses of worship, even if religious services are infrequent. H.R. 1446 contains a provision which requires that the purpose of any grant under this act is secular, does not promote religion, and seeks to protect qualities that are historically significant. It is therefore clear that any grant or assistance provided under this act must also be consistent with the Supreme Court decisions in this area of the law. Mr. Speaker, I am submitting for inclusion in the Record at this point a letter from Americans United for Separation of Church and State, which raises questions about the issue I have just raised. Preserve Religious Liberty: Oppose the California Missions Preservation Act (H.R. 1446) November 17, 2004. Dear Representative: Americans United for Separation of Church and State urges you to oppose the California Missions Preservation Act, H.R. 1446, which we understand will be on the floor of the House of Representatives today. Americans United represents more than 70,000 individual members throughout the fifty states and in the District of Columbia, as well as cooperating houses of worship and other religious bodies committed to preservation of religious liberty. This bill is unconstitutional and would significantly erode key church-state separation protections. H.R. 1446 would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to enter into agreements and make grants to the California Missions Foundation to ``restore and repair'' the California missions and the religious artwork and artifacts associated with the missions. The bill would authorize a $10,000,000 appropriation for the 2004-2009 period to fund these goals. The 21 missions comprising California's historic mission trail were founded between 1769 and 1823. 19 of the 21 missions are owned by the Roman Catholic Church, operate as active parishes, and have regularly scheduled religious services. There is no doubt that California's 21 missions are historically significant, and contribute greatly to the rich historical, cultural and architectural heritage of California and the American West. Although we recognize that preservation of these historic buildings is important, we strongly believe that the preservation of Americans' constitutional rights is vital. In short, the California Missions Preservation Act would violate the First Amendment by forcing taxpayers nationwide to pay for church repairs, even repairs and restoration of facilities with active congregations. Under the bill, government funding will flow to houses of worship for capital improvements in violation of the Constitution. Time after time, the United states Supreme Court has required that no government funds be used to maintain, restore, or make capital improvements to physical structures that are used as houses of worship, even if religious services are infrequent. Three Supreme Court decisions (Tilton v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 672 (1971), Hunt v. McNair, 413 U.S. 734 (1973), Committee for Public Education v. Nyquist, 413 U.S. 756 (1973)) make clear that it is unconstitutional to allow federal grants for capital improvements of structures devoted to worship or religious instruction, and all three of these decisions remain binding law on all government entities. The illegality of the proposal to fund the California missions is exacerbated when one considers the issue of government directly funding religious icons. Because one of the objectives of the California Missions Foundation is to preserve the Spanish colonial and mission-era artworks and artifacts of the California missions, and because the bill specifically authorizes federal funds to be used to preserve the artworks and artifacts associated with the California missions, the Secretary of the Interior would be empowered to provide government money specifically to maintain or restore religious artifacts and icons associated with devotional and worship activities at the missions, a result that would be clearly unconstitutional. We are fully aware of the historical and cultural significance of the California missions. However, it is essential for Congress to maintain our nation's commitment to safeguarding religious liberty for all Americans. Nineteen of the 21 California missions are churches, not just museums, and are still used for religious services. The repair and upkeep of the missions, therefore, must be paid for by those who worship there or by other interested individuals or private organizations through voluntary contributions. The House of Representatives should refrain from passing this blatantly unconstitutional bill. If you have any questions regarding this legislation or would like further information on any other issue of importance to Americans United, please contact Aaron D. Schuham, Legislative Director, at (202) 466-3234, extension 240. Sincerely, Rev. Barry W. Lynn, Executive Director.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I thank the gentleman from South Carolina for yielding, and I thank him for his leadership. We have heard that we have had to increase the debt limit. This chart shows why the debt ceiling had to be increased. It shows the deficit from the Johnson, Nixon, Ford and Carter administrations, the Reagan and Bush administrations, the deficit changing into a surplus, and then the massive red ink in this administration. It shows that it may get a little better for a couple of years, but unless there is a profound change in direction, it just keeps getting worse. When you run up this kind of deficit, we talk about increasing the debt limit, but one thing you have to do is pay interest on all of that debt. We have heard that the surplus projected at the end of the Clinton administration would have virtually paid off the debt held by the public by 2008. Instead, by 2008 we will have almost a $300 billion additional interest on the debt that has been run up. $300 billion increased interest to be paid. We talk about No Child Left Behind underfunded by $9 billion, veterans' health care underfunded by a couple of billion dollars. We have got other things, a couple of billion dollars here and there. We are squeezing here and there. By 2008, interest on the national debt, money just down the drain, $300 billion additional because of the fiscal irresponsibility. We hear that they want to privatize Social Security. This is the Social Security cash flow which my colleagues will notice, in 2017, instead of a surplus, we are going to be starting to run a deficit, huge deficits approaching, by 2037, $1 trillion. One wonders how could we ever have paid this surplus and why we should be running up as much of a surplus as possible now to be able to accommodate this. This chart shows that if you look at the tax cuts that this administration has enacted and has in store, the present value of all of those tax cuts is $14.2 trillion. We could have paid all of the Social Security benefits without increasing the age of retirement, without reducing benefits, for $3.7 trillion in present value. Medicare's deficit, the same kind of chart, $8.2 trillion. $11.9 trillion is what it would have cost to make Social Security and Medicare both financially solvent for the next 75 years. $14.2 trillion in tax cuts. We had a choice: Tax cuts or make Social Security and Medicare solvent for 75 years. We made the wrong choice. This chart responds to the adage, if you don't change directions, you might end up where you are headed. This chart shows where we are headed at our present rate and present policies. This shows that right now we are borrowing money to pay for some of the green which is Federal spending. Unfortunately, by 2040, unless there is a profound change in direction, we will be able to pay interest on the national debt and a little bit of Social Security and have to borrow the rest of the money for Social Security. We will have no money for Medicare and Medicaid and no money for government spending like defense, education, transportation. Obviously, there has to be a profound change in direction. Otherwise, interest on the national debt will start eating up virtually every penny that we have. We are going in the wrong direction. We have to change directions back to the period of time when we made the tough choices, eliminated the deficit and created the surplus. We can go back to that era if we make the tough choices, make the right choices, but we are not doing that now. When we start talking about increasing the debt ceiling, this is one of the symptoms and one of the consequences of all of this red ink. I thank the gentleman from South Carolina for yielding, and I thank him for his leadership on fiscal responsibility.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, along with my colleagues, Representative JoAnn Davis and Representative Ed Schrock, I rise with great pride to call attention to a group of young students who have distinguished themselves, their school, their community, and the Commonwealth of Virginia. The Hampton High School Crabbers football team won their 700th game last night. By doing so, the Crabbers became one of only 11 high school football programs in the Nation to reach 700 victories. This is a remarkable feat and I believe they deserve formal recognition for their accomplishment. Hampton High School began playing football in 1899, so the legacy of this milestone extends to the hundreds of players who have worn the Crabber uniform and to coaches such as Mike Smith, Dick Esleeck, James ``Suey'' Eason, and Johnny Palmer. Coach Smith has been head coach for more than half of the Crabbers' 700 wins, and has been a part of more than 400 victories. My colleagues JoAnn Davis, Ed Schrock, and I would like to extend our enthusiastic congratulations to the Hampton High School players and their families, Coach Smith and the rest of his coaching staff, Hampton High alumni, and the entire Hampton High community for their remarkable accomplishment.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), the ranking member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition for the minority, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this amendment adds to the list of crimes for which the presumption of detention occurs. It is an extraneous PATRIOT Act II provision not sought by the 9/11 Commission. This puts the defendant in a position where he has to prove the unprovable. The Department of Justice has a bad record of detaining people who should not be detained. Brendon Mayfield, a lawyer in Seattle, was detained as a material witness in the Madrid train bombing. The Department of Justice was subsequently forced to admit that they had the wrong person, in that Mr. Mayfield had nothing to do with the crime, notwithstanding the fact that he had been held on one of these presumptions of detention. I would hope we would consider this when we consider PATRIOT Act II. 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. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. There is one bill, the firefighters bill, that is in here, we considered that, and we had a debate on it. I just want to incorporate by reference the problems with that legislation. It is not necessary because firefighters can receive gifts, and if they want to immunize the donor, they can do that under present law. Furthermore, the answer to giving firefighters more equipment is in funding first responders equipment, rather than tort reform. So I would hope that we would consider that as we consider the en bloc amendments. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition to the amendments.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Chairman, this bill creates 23 new death penalties, making all Federal crimes of terrorism punishable by death. We would remind people that a 23-year study of over 4,500 death penalty cases found reversible error in 68 percent of the cases. We suspect that approximately 100 people in the last 10 years have been wrongfully executed. This burden falls disproportionately on minorities. So when you talk about a strong signal, the signal, I guess, is you put people to death because, well, they might have been guilty. We know in the end the death penalty will not deter suicide bombers from completing their crimes. Furthermore, we have the problem of international law, the fact that most countries in the world, particularly our allies, do not have the death penalty and will not extradite criminals to the United States if they will be subject to the death penalty. One of the problems with the Federal crimes of terrorism is that it is somewhat vague. It could include some kind of a political protest. The death could occur by accident. It was not even intended. Somebody got trampled in the protest, for example, and here you are talking about the death penalty. But because it includes not only completing the crime and killing somebody, it includes support for someone. You might want to rename this the ``Put Mama to Death Bill.'' If a mother harbors her son, lets him stay at home, she would then become and everybody in the family becomes subject to the death penalty. Mr. Chairman, this has nothing to do with reorganization of the intelligence community. I would hope that we would reserve judgment on this and consider this bill and others when we consider the Patriot Act. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman from Delaware has indicated, we have had this debate before, and I would just point out that my concerns with parts of the amendment are outweighed by the support of the other provisions in the other bills in the bloc. So I will not be opposing the bloc.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would point out that we will be considering the Patriot Act. I would hope that we would consider this legislation as part of that. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes. Mr. Chairman, this did not go through the Committee on the Judiciary and it is somewhat complicated and it appears to be overlapping and recreates and reauthorizations present law. For example under title XVIII, chapter 10 already criminalizes the use of biological weapons; chapter 11(b) criminalizes chemical weapons; chapter 39 criminalizes nuclear weapons; chapter 4 criminalizes the use of explosives, and on and on. In addition, many of those, all of those offenses are predicates to 18 U.S.C. (a) 2332(b) which provides for the death penalty if death results from any violation of those statutes. The only change appears to be a mandatory 30 years for attempts and conspiracies. There is no differentiation for a role in a conspiracy, relative knowledge of the crime, or even if death were an accident that had not been intended. What we have is new mandatory minimums. We have, in the Committee on the Judiciary, often cited many findings and recommendations from researchers, sentencing professionals, even the judicial branch, justices on the Supreme Court, including the chief justice, citing problems created by mandatory sentences. They have been found to be a waste of money compared to alternatives such as treatment or traditional sentencing. They disrupt the ability of the Sentencing Commission and the courts to apply an orderly, proportional, nondisparate sentencing system. They discriminate against minorities and they transfer an inordinate amount of discretion to prosecutors in an adversarial system. Mandatory minimum sentences increase disparities in sentencing because they do not allow distinctions between major players and bit players in a crime. In a recent letter to the subcommittee, the U.S. Judicial Conference, headed by the chief justice of the Supreme Court, noted and I quote: In addition to resulting in unwarranted sentencing disparities, mandatory minimums often lead to treatment of dissimilar offenders in a similar manner by requiring courts to impose the same sentence on offenders, when sound policy and common sense call for reasonable differences in punishment to reflect differences in the seriousness of the conduct or danger to society. In other words, mandatory minimums violate common sense. That is the chief justice and the U.S. Judicial Conference. Mr. Chairman, this bill, the underlying bill, is a reorganization bill. We should not include controversial criminal penalties, especially when the Judicial Conference headed by the chief justice tells us that these things violate common sense. We also need to study the international implications of this, because when we add in the death penalty, we add in complications of international cooperation. Most countries around the world do not have the death penalty and we have had problems where they would not even extradite criminals to the United States because we have all of these death penalties. We need to study this, and having a floor amendment is not the appropriate way to legislate. Mr. Chairman, I would hope that we would defeat this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, I would just point out that we already have in the Code serious penalties for all of these crimes. The appropriate way to legislate would be to go through the committee so that we could see exactly how these fit into the present sentencing scheme. I would hope that we defeat the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Chairman, this is a 10-page amendment with mandatory minimum sentences, mandatory sentences of life imprisonment, and a death penalty provision. It has not been considered by any subcommittee or the full Committee on the Judiciary, and I am not sure it has even been considered by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. We have information that the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure has not considered it and, in fact, may not support it. It appears to make, but it is not clear whether conspiracies, attempts and threats are subject to the same penalties as the underlying offense. Not only have these provisions not been considered by the appropriate committees of jurisdiction, but because of the mandatory minimum sentences, neither sentencing experts nor judges on the U.S. Sentencing Commission who have the responsibility to assure a rational and proportional sentencing system, nor any Federal judge who would review all the facts and circumstances of the case, will get to assess whether or not these sentences make any sense. Mr. Chairman, I remind my colleagues that the Judicial Conference has written a letter saying that these mandatory minimums violate common sense, and yet here we are asked to decide in a 5-minute debate whether or not they are appropriate in this case. Mr. Chairman, the author of the amendment indicates that we are trying to conform one code section to another. I would ask that we do that when we consider the code sections. We are going to consider the PATRIOT Act. That is one of the code sections involved. And the time to consider the PATRIOT Act and amending the PATRIOT Act is when we have the PATRIOT Act before us; not when we are doing a reorganization bill without any serious committee of jurisdiction considering the underlying amendment. I say again, Mr. Chairman, when we have death penalty, that makes life complicated from an international point of view. We may have terrorists who are caught in another country. We cannot get them extradited because of all of these death penalties and we need to consider that. We have heard that the Shoe Bomber was complicated as to which code section he was under. We have an easy case for attempted murder, plain and simple. It gives life imprisonment. Certainly the death penalty, if he had completed the act, would not have made any sense. The death penalty for a suicide bomber is obviously not going to be much of a deterrent. Mr. Chairman, I would hope that we would consider all the implications and not adopt this amendment at this time. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Chairman, in 2001, we considered this provision when we put it in the PATRIOT Act. It was inconsistent with an older version. We need to consider whether we want to conform the law to the newer version or to the older version. That is why we have committees, so we can assess what the appropriate punishment is. Mr. Chairman, 5-minute debates on the floor without committee consideration does not give us that opportunity. I would hope that we would delay consideration of this by defeating the amendment and consider the issue when we do the PATRIOT Act. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentlewoman from West Virginia whether or not conspiracies, attempts, and threats are subject to the same penalties as the underlying offense.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I yield to the gentlewoman from West Virginia.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Reclaiming my time, I would say again, you have mandatory minimums in the bill which would not give anybody any flexibility, and if a conspiracy attempt and threat are subject to the same mandatory minimums as actually completing the crime, that would be something that we would want to consider. It is just not clear. If the gentlewoman wants time to respond, I will give her time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Reclaiming my time, I would hope we would defeat the amendment.