Bobby Scott

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

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

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of the 60th Anniversary of the United Negro College Fund. The United Negro College Fund is the nation's oldest, most successful and most comprehensive minority higher education assistance organization. Over the past 60 years, UNCF has raised more than $2 billion to help a total of more than 300,000 students attend college. Today, of the approximately 65,000 students UNCF supports, 60 percent are the first in their families to attend college and 62 percent have annual family incomes of less than $25,000. UNCF doesn't just give students an opportunity to get a college education, but more of an opportunity to make a lasting contribution to our communities and nation by building successful careers. We all know how important a college education is today. It is virtually impossible to compete in today's global economy without a college degree. Studies have shown that workers with a college degree earn 75 percent more than those with only a high school diploma. While there are many obstacles that deter students from going to college, finances by no means should be the deciding factor. No one should be denied the opportunity to get an education and increase their earning potential based solely on their inability to pay for a college education. UNCF's founder, Dr. Frederick D. Patterson, president of what is now Tuskegee University, recognized that for many African-American students, lack of finances was the only thing standing in the way of their goal of getting a college education. In 1944, he issued a call to other black college presidents to raise money to help educate these qualified students. Now for the past 60 years UNCF has made sure that minority students at over 1,000 colleges and universities have the financial support they need. Not only does UNCF support students, but also higher education institutions throughout the country. UNCF provides operating support to 38 member historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs), which help the member schools keep tuition down at a rate 54 percent lower than tuition at other comparable schools. UNCF also administers millions of dollars to help provide computers, technology integration training for faculty members and technological infrastructure support for HBCUs. The fact that UNCF plays such a significant role in supporting our nation's HBCUs is important. HBCUs graduate far more than their share of African American professionals. While HBCUs represent just 3 percent of the nation's institutions of higher learning, they graduate nearly one-quarter of African Americans who earn undergraduate degrees. Nine of the top ten colleges that graduate the most African Americans who go on to earn Ph.Ds are HBCUs. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to have two of UNCF's member institutions in my state--Virginia Union University and Saint Paul's College. And two other HBCUs in my district that benefit from UNCF funding and programs--Hampton University and Norfolk State University. Graduates of UNCF institutions have indeed made lasting contributions in the fields of business, health care, the arts and even politics. In fact, several of my distinguished colleagues are UNCF alumni. In 1972, UNCF introduced its now famous slogan: ``A mind is a terrible thing to waste''. And through the diligent efforts of all who work with UNCF, by donating financial resources, time and in the case of many celebrities--their good name, they have made sure that the meaning of that slogan resonates across America. Most importantly, they have made sure that every student who has the desire can attend college. I commend those involved with the United Negro College Fund for their hard work and congratulate them on 60 years of service.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

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

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I come from a State with a long tradition of supporting religious freedom. The Virginia Statute For Religious Freedom, written by Thomas Jefferson preceded the first amendment to the Constitution. This bill does not protect religious freedom, and it also undermines fundamental rights of American citizens. Mr. Chairman, most experts believe that the bill is meaningless, because whether or not the recitation of the Pledge is constitutional or not constitutional is a matter for the courts to decide. And if it is unconstitutional, that ruling cannot be changed by a statute enacted by this body. Now, I happen to believe that the present Pledge of Allegiance is constitutional, and I agree with the dissent in the Newdow versus U.S. Congress case, the recent Ninth Circuit case involving the Pledge of Allegiance. In my judgment, the dissent accurately surmised, and I quote ``Legal world abstractions and ruminations aside, when all is said and done the danger that `under God' in our Pledge of Allegiance will tend to bring about a theocracy or suppress someone's belief is so minuscule as to be de minimis. The danger that phrase represents to our first amendment's freedoms is picayune at best.'' Now, to the extent that ``under God'' is worthy of this excessive attention, every hearing we have and every bill we pass on this issue only serves to chip away at the de minimis argument and we have to deal with the issue as it is explained in the Christian Century, a non- denominational Protestant weekly, which stated, and I quote, ``To the extent `under God' has real religious meaning, then it is unconstitutional. The phrase is constitutional to the extent that it is religiously innocuous. Given that choice, I side with the Ninth Circuit, the government should not link religion and patriotism.'' Now, that is an editorial position expressed by the Christian Century. The simple fact is we need to protect the Constitution and the rights of the court to decide whether the Pledge is constitutional or not, but the majority will not do that. H.R. 2028 is a court-stripping bill, plain and simple. We had the same debate on the floor just 2 months ago when we debated the Marriage Protection Act of 2003. Mr. Chairman, I ask that that debate be incorporated by reference here just to save time. Because at that time many of us expressed concern about the detrimental precedent that we would be setting by passing a court-stripping bill. Today, our concerns have been validated. This bill would strip the courts of their ability to hear cases that are clearly within Federal jurisdiction because they address fundamental constitutional rights and individual liberties guaranteed to us in the bill of rights. Furthermore, this bill is not limited to cases addressing the words ``under God.'' The recitation of the Pledge may, in some circumstances, implicate the right to free speech, the right of free association, the right to the free exercise of religion, and the establishment clause protections, all guaranteed under the first amendment to the Constitution. We need Federal courts to protect our rights, and this bill prohibits the courts from doing just that. This bill violates over 200 years of constitutional principle established in Marbury versus Madison that the Supreme Court can rule on the constitutionality of legislative actions. Now, if this kind of court-stripping legislation had been passed in 1954, Congress could have prohibited the Supreme Court from hearing cases involving segregation in public schools and the courts could not have ruled in Brown v. Board of Education. Or if it had passed such language in the 1960s, we might not have had the decision issued by what some are now calling rogue, unelected, lifetime-appointed, activist judges when they ruled to overrule the will of the people of Virginia and require Virginia to recognize marriages between blacks and whites. That could not have happened unless those so-called rogue, unelected, lifetime-appointed, activist judges made the decision they made. The truth is we rely on Federal courts to determine and enforce our civil rights. In our system of democracy, which we are touting around the world, courts are where citizens can vindicate their rights. Our government works on a system of checks and balances. That is why many organizations, legal associations, civil rights groups, and religious organizations, have written to oppose us overturning 200 years of judicial precedence. In closing, Mr. Chairman, we should, instead, adhere to the wisdom of the Supreme Court in the Barnette case, which said ``The very purpose of the bill of rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials, and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.'' Mr. Chairman, I submit for the Record letters from organizations in opposition to this bill. The Constitution Project, Washington, DC, September 20, 2004. House of Representatives, U.S. Capitol, Washington, DC. Dear Members of House of Representatives: I write on behalf of the Constitution Project to urge you to oppose H.R. 2028, the ``Pledge Protection Act of 2003.'' The Constitution Project, based on Georgetown University's Public Policy Institute, specializes in creating bipartisan consensus on a variety of legal and governance issues, and promoting that consensus to policymakers, opinion leaders, the media, and the public. We have initiatives on the death penalty, liberty and national security, war powers, and judicial independence (our Courts Initiative), among others. Each of our initiatives is directed by a bipartisan committee of prominent and influential businesspeople, scholars, and former public officials. Our Courts Initiative works to promote public education on the importance of our courts as protectors of Americans' essential constitutional freedoms. Its co-chairs are the Honorable Mickey Edwards, John Quincy Adams Lecturer at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University and former chair of the House of Representatives Republican Policy Committee (R-OK), and the Honorable Lloyd Cutler, a prominent Washington lawyer and White House counsel to Presidents Carter and Clinton. In 2000, the Courts Initiative created a bipartisan Task Force to examine and identify basic principles as to when the legislature acts unconstitutionally in setting the powers and jurisdiction of the judiciary. The Task Force was unanimous in its conclusion that some legislative acts restricting courts' powers and jurisdiction are unconstitutional. The Task Force also concluded that some legislative actions, even if constitutional, are undesirable. (The Task Force's findings and recommendations are published in Uncertain Justice: Politics and America's Courts 2000.) Our Task Force arrived at seven bipartisan consensus recommendations, including the following, which are relevant to the legislation at hand: 1. Congress and state legislatures should heed constitutional limits when considering proposals to restrict the powers and jurisdiction of the courts. 2. Legislatures should refrain from restricting court jurisdiction in an effort to control substantive judicial decisions in a manner that violates separation of powers, due process, or other constitutional principles. 3. Legislatures should not attempt to control substantive judicial decisions by enacting legislation that restricts court jurisdiction over particular types of cases. 4. Legislatures should refrain from restricting access to the courts and should take necessary affirmative steps to ensure adequate access to the courts for all Americans. Specifically, our Task Force was unanimous in its view that there are some constitutional limits on the authority the legislature to restrict court jurisdiction in an effort to control substantive judicial decisions. In particular, separation of powers, due process, and other constitutional provisions limit such authority. Task Force members had differing views about the scope and source of the constitutional limit on the legislature's power in this area. For instance, some believed that restrictions on jurisdiction become unconstitutional when they undermine the essential role of the Supreme Court. Others relied on a reading of the Vesting Clause of Article III, which places judicial power-- the power to decide cases--in the hands of the courts alone. Nonetheless, all believed that constitutional limitations exist. Apart from the constitutionality of laws restricting federal court jurisdiction, the Task Force was also unanimous in its view that legislative acts stripping courts of jurisdiction to hear particular types of cases in an effort to control substantive judicial decisions are undesirable and inappropriate in a democratic system with co-equal branches of government. Legislative restriction of jurisdiction in response to particular substantive decisions unduly politicizes the judicial process, and attempts by legislatures to affect substantive outcomes by curtailing judicial jurisdiction are inappropriate, even if believed constitutional. (Indeed, it was striking that members reflecting a broad ideological range--from, for example, Leonard Leo of the Federalist Society to Steven Shapiro of the American Civil Liberties Union--agreed that restrictions on jurisdiction to achieve substantive changes in the law are unwise and undesirable policy.) The Task Force was also unanimous that legislation that restricts access to the courts and precludes individuals from using a judicial forum to enforce rights is undesirable and unconstitutional. Rights are meaningless without a forum in which they can be vindicated. Therefore, access to the courts at both the federal and state levels is essential in order for rights to have effect. Legislatures have the duty to ensure meaningful access to the courts and legislative actions that preclude this are undesirable and unconstitutional. Our Task Force reached these conclusions and recommendations rightly. From its beginning, our system of constitutional democracy has depended on the independence of the judiciary. Judges are able to protect citizens' basic rights and decide cases fairly only if free to make decisions according to the law, without regard to political or public pressure. Similarly, the judiciary can maintain the checks and balances essential to preserving a healthy separation of powers only if able to resist overreaching by the political branches. Indeed, the cornerstone of American liberty is the power of the courts to protect individual rights from momentary excesses of political and popular majorities. In recent years, as part of the polarization and posturing that increasingly characterize our national and state politics, threats to judicial independence have become more commonplace. Attacks on judges for unpopular decisions, even those made in good faith, have become more rampant. Politicians are responding to unpopular decisions and litigants by attempting to restrict courts' powers in certain kinds of cases. However, Americans have much to lose if we do not exercise self-restraint and instead choose short-term political gain at the expense of judicial independence. The independence of our judiciary is, as Chief Justice Rehnquist described, ``one of the crown jewels of our system of government.'' In conclusion, while Article III of our Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate federal court jurisdiction, this power is not unlimited, and Congress should not--and in some instances may not--use its power to restrict federal court jurisdiction in ways that infringe upon separation of powers, violate individual rights and equal protection, or offend federalism. H.R. 2028 is poised to do all three by stripping federal courts--including even the U.S. Supreme Court--of the authority to hear cases involving the Pledge of Allegiance, even when such cases involve First Amendment issues of free speech and freedom of religion. It sets the dangerous precedent of transferring questions of federal and constitutional law exclusively to state courts and preventing American citizens from seeking protection of fundamental rights in federal court, and it threatens the critical and unique role that the federal courts play in constitutional balance of powers, interpreting and enforcing constitutional law, and providing legal certainty. For these reasons, as well as those detailed our Task Force's findings and recommendations, the Constitution Project urges you to oppose H.R. 2028. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Kathryn A. Monroe, Director, Courts Initiative.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I applaud the chairman of the committee for offering the manager's amendment that grants to the D.C. residents the same rights that apply to residents of the 50 States under this bill, that is, the right to have some recourse in a local, non-Federal court. However, the manager's amendment still does nothing to address the same problem with respect to U.S. citizens who are residents of the U.S. Virgin Islands, Northern Mariana Islands, and Guam. This amendment just goes to show that the majority was so busy stripping the courts of jurisdiction that it inadvertently stripped jurisdiction from all the courts, just as they did last week in a tort reform bill allowing foreign corporations to escape all liability for injuries to American citizens because the bill, in some cases, provided no United States jurisdiction in which the case could be brought.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the chairman, I think I agree with him on Puerto Rico, but disagree with regard to the Virgin Islands and others. If we could agree that the legislative intent is to make sure there will be some recourse, we could have that fixed in conference.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman to explain what this blue line on the top might be.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. One of the things that we have found in the debate on the budget is you really have to use charts because one side will say the deficit is bad; the other side, it is manageable. But when you look at the chart, going back to Johnson, Nixon, Ford and Carter, that is the yellow; the Reagan and Bush deficits, that is the red; the green, that is the Clinton administration; and this is on-budget surplus. That is after Social Security and Medicare, and then President Bush. You cannot create a chart like this by accident. The gentleman from South Carolina pointed out that in 1993 we cast tough votes. Not a single Republican in the House or the Senate voted for the budget that turned this deficit around, started it up. Now, some like to point out that the Republicans had control of the House and the Senate during six of the 8 years of the Clinton administration and, therefore, deserve some credit for the elimination of the deficit and the generation of the surplus. Wrong. In 1995, when the Republicans came in, they passed irresponsible budgets. President Clinton vetoed them. They threatened to close the Government down. He vetoed them again. They closed the Government down, rather than allow those deficits to return, and as a result of the Presidential vetoes, we maintained the progress towards a surplus. So you cannot take credit for those kinds of budgets that were vetoed. In fact, we know what would happen if the President had signed those budgets because, when President Bush came in, they passed the same kind of budget; and we see the total collapse of the budget, record deficits, as the gentleman from South Carolina has pointed out, as far as the eye can see. Now, just to give you an idea of the deterioration of the budget, this is the 2004 budget, the budget we are in today. In January 2001, when this administration came in, we projected a $390 billion surplus, and then the tax cuts and the administration policy was adopted so they had to, in May, recalculate. A 274 surplus was projected for this year. After September 11, March, almost 6 months after September 11, they projected, well, maybe it will be a small little deficit. In March of 2003, a year later, they recalculated $330 billion in the hole. Last month, latest figures, $422 billion in the hole, a deterioration of over $800 billion. Now, when you use big numbers we like to put them in perspective. You add up everybody's individual income tax. The revenue generated from the individual income tax across America totaled $800 billion. Deterioration in the budget for this year's budget since this administration came in, $800 billion deterioration. That is the number. When you run up deficits, you run up interest on the national debt. As the gentleman from South Carolina pointed out, the interest on the national debt, because the debt was headed towards zero, interest on the national debt was headed towards zero, but this chart shows the interest on the national debt that we are going to have to pay. In 2009, the difference of what we thought we are going to have to pay and what we have to pay, over $300 billion, and let us put that number in perspective. At $30,000 each, how many people can you hire with $300 billion? Answer: 10 million. Another question: How many people are drawing unemployment in America today? How many people are unemployed, drawing unemployment today in America? Answer: less than 9 million. You could hire everybody with a $30,000 job that is on unemployment and have billions of dollars left over with the additional interest on the national debt. We cannot fund No Child Left Behind for the lack of $9 billion. We cannot fully fund veterans health care the way it should be funded. There are a lot of things we cannot do because we do not have the money. $300 billion, interest on the national debt. This has national security implications, too, because a lot of that debt is bought by foreign countries, and you cannot negotiate a trade deal with somebody who has got $100 billion of your paper, China, Japan, other countries. It has national security implications. If somebody wanted to start building nuclear weapons and they are buying all of our debt, what kind of negotiations could we have? Interest on the national debt is run up because of the fiscal irresponsibility of this administration. We were told that we had to go into that kind of fiscal collapse to create jobs. We have heard this administration, and in fact, we had a member of the other party bragging about the success of this administration creating jobs just this afternoon. This chart shows what the actual numbers are, the percentage increase or decrease in jobs, going back to Herbert Hoover. Herbert Hoover lost jobs. Every other administration since then, before this administration, gained jobs. This administration lost jobs. Now, this is the chart. So that there is no confusion, this is the private sector job growth since Herbert Hoover. Now we will notice before we come up with the excuses that this time frame includes not only World War II and the Korean War and the Vietnam War and the Cold War and the hostages in Iran, Persian Gulf War, Somalia, Grenada, it also includes Pearl Harbor. Everybody back to that period of time created jobs. This administration did not. So 9/11 could not have caused this chart, and neither could the so-called inherited recession. First of all, let us get the facts straight. The recession started in March 2001, well after this administration had been sworn in, well after they had been elected and their policies were becoming part of the economy, which was reacting to their articulated policies; but whenever it occurred, this chart shows how many jobs you have 40 months after the beginning of a recession. Everybody is up to 3.8 percent, 1.9 percent. 1990 to 1993 is the worst before this administration. Everybody else 2, 3, 4, 7 percent more jobs, 40 months after a recession began until you get to this administration. So whenever this recession started, you cannot blame that recession for the collapse in the economy. One of the things that we pointed out is that we ought to be saving money because the baby boomers will retire. The blue bars show that we are bringing in more money in Social Security. The Medicare chart shows the same pattern; but after 2017, you will be paying out more money in Social Security than we are bringing in, and you cross the 300 line, that is $300 billion. That is $2,000 for every man, woman and child in America. Obviously, this is a very challenging chart to deal with until you look at this chart, which shows that if you add up all of the President's tax cuts and reduce them to present value so we know what we are talking about, that is more than the combined total deficit in Social Security plus the combined deficit in Medicare for as far as the eye can see, 75 years or more. In other words, we had a choice. We could make Social Security and Medicare solvent, or we could cut taxes. We had a choice. It was about the same amount of money. We cut taxes. We created the deficit, and now we do not know how we are going to pay for Social Security and Medicare. In fact, the GAO produced a chart that answers the question, if you do not change directions you might end up where you are headed. Where are we headed? This chart shows the line across is the revenue coming in at the President's policies. This shows right now we are borrowing money for some Government spending; but by 2040, we will have enough money for the blue, which is interest on the national debt, a little bit of money for Social Security. We will have to borrow the rest of the money for Social Security, no money for Medicare or Medicaid, and no money for the green which is Government spending like defense, transportation and everything else. Obviously, this is not sustainable. We have to do something and make profound changes in our economy, in our funding, in balancing the budget; and it is not going to be done with rhetoric and constitutional amendments. We are tomorrow marking up a constitutional amendment to so-called ``balance the budget,'' the balanced budget amendment. What they do not tell you is that the amendment does not require a balanced budget. It just prescribes the method for passing a budget that is not balanced. We had a hearing on that, and we asked the Republican witnesses whether or not it would be more likely or less likely that you would actually have a balanced budget if that legislation was adopted. They could not give a definitive answer to that question. The fact of the matter is it would make it less likely that you would pass a good deficit reduction plan because you made it more difficult. So even if that legislation were to pass, and it will not because people know what a fraud it is, it will not, but even if it passed, you would still, at some time or another, have to cast the tough votes. When we were fixing the deficit, eliminating the deficit, we had a rule called PAYGO, pay-go, pay as you go. If you want to increase spending, you have to increase taxes or cut spending to pay for it. If you want to cut taxes, you either have to cut spending or increase somebody else's taxes to pay for it. You could not have any initiative that had an adverse effect on the budget without paying for it. Well, right after this administration came in, that policy evaporated and they passed tax cuts without paying for it. They passed other programs without paying for it. And all of the red ink, interest on the national debt in this chart, is a direct result of that policy.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. And, Mr. Speaker, the most unseemly part of what is going on is, as the interest on the national debt gets bigger and bigger, and, as I earlier indicated, the individual income tax only generates about $800 billion, we are paying $200 billion, $300 billion, $350 billion more in interest on the national debt and growing right at the time when the Social Security Trust Fund is going to be running the big, bigger, and bigger deficits, we have to assume that this administration has no intention of paying Social Security after 2017.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will let me respond to the point on jobs, and the gentleman from North Carolina alluded to it, it is absolutely incredible that we could run all this red ink without creating jobs. At least when President Reagan was running up deficits he was creating jobs. It is difficult to cut taxes the way the administration has cut taxes, in those amounts, without creating some jobs. But the taxes they cut were the kinds of taxes that did not stimulate the economy. It only rewarded those in the very upper income, the ones least likely to actually spend it. If you want to stimulate the economy, give the money to those who will actually spend it. The gentleman from North Carolina mentioned extending unemployment benefits. People who had jobs, who lost a job and are continuing to look for a job but have not found one yet, their unemployment benefits have run out. If you give them some money, they will spend it right away. If you give a cut on dividends to someone who has substantial stock holdings already, if you cut tax and dividends in half and someone benefits $300, if you do the arithmetic they must have had, on average, $100,000 in stock. Three hundred dollars to them, if they wanted to buy something that cost $300 and they have a $100,000 stock portfolio, they would have already bought it. If they wanted a television, they would already have bought the television. The $300 tax cut does not stimulate the economy, given there. But if you give it to a family with children, unemployed, low income, they are going to spend the money. There are a lot of ways you can cut taxes and create many jobs, as President Reagan did, but if you cut the taxes that President Bush cut, which ruined the economy, ruined the budget and lost jobs, it is incredible how you can run up the deficits. And just the interest on the national deficit in 2009, in that year, if we did not have the kinds of increased interest on the national debt, we could hire 10 million people at $30,000 apiece, which would be more than anybody has created in 4 years. Ten million would be setting records. We could do that in 1 year with just the interest, each and every year, with the interest on the national debt that we are going to have to pay over and above what we expected to pay when this administration came in.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Four hundred twenty billion dollars. The 2009 interest on the national debt is $316 billion over and above what we expected it to be. These are numbers which mean that later on we will not be able to do the kinds of things that we want to do. We had projected surpluses in the hundreds of billions of dollars, which meant that we would be able to afford health care for the uninsured, education, college education, and veterans' benefits, including health care. The kinds of things that are real priorities. This year's budget did not have enough money in it to maintain present services for our veterans in health care. The veterans' groups wrote letters criticizing what we were doing, and yet we did not have the money because we are running up additional interest on the national debt. We have a lot of priorities we are not able to meet, and the interest on the national debt gets larger and larger and larger and starts hitting us at exactly the same time when the Social Security surplus evaporates.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I thank the gentleman. And the interest on the national debt that has to be paid, people have a sense that when you started charging things on your credit card, the minimum payment does not hurt you too much, until you start running up to where that minimum payment starts hurting. We are paying interest on the national debt at levels that rival the defense budget. The defense budget this year is what, around $400 billion?

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This bill is narrowly drawn and is different from the other bills because victims of negligence will have recourse. It is similar to Good Samaritan State laws that immunize volunteers but fails to immunize them from automobile accidents because there is an expectation that the automobile will have insurance. So victims of the negligence will have recourse. This bill requires insurance so victims, either on the plane or on the ground, will have recourse against the insurance policy but not against the volunteer organization. That is an appropriate balance, and I support the legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I ask the gentleman if this is the same bill that was reported from committee, because there were other drafts floating around in the last couple of days.

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

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I oppose the legislation that is drafted. H.R. 3369 provides immunity for nonprofit athletic organizations from lawsuits in the adoption of rules for sanctioned or approved athletic competitions or practices. This legislation would virtually eliminate any valid claims from being brought forth. Specifically, the legislation does not differentiate between meritorious lawsuits and frivolous lawsuits. H.R. 3369 prohibits civil litigation of any grievance arising under the rules promulgated by the nonprofit sporting organization. It exempts the athletic organization from liability for harm caused by an act or omission of the adoption of rules for sanctioned or approved athletic competitions or practices if the organization was acting within the scope of its duties, the organization was properly licensed, certified or authorized for the competition or practice, and the harm was not caused by the organization's willful or criminal misconduct, gross negligence, or reckless misconduct. So while lawsuits filed by parents because their child was not put on a team may rightly be dismissed, cases with legal merit such as a rule that endangers the life of a child would also be dismissed. In effect, this legislation would effectively bar them from their day in court, and H.R. 3369 would dramatically obstruct valid discrimination claims or other kinds of discrimination claims against such athletic organizations. Such lawsuits call attention to public safety hazards and discriminatory acts and need to be available for litigation to protect our Nation's children. As drafted, the broad immunity H.R. 3369 extends to nonprofit organizations reaches far beyond the potential for frivolous lawsuits in our Federal judicial system. H.R. 3369 prohibits civil litigation of any grievance arising out of the rules promulgated by nonprofit organizations. As drafted, this legislation is so broad that it would bar legitimate issues from being brought forth. Thus, such cases as discrimination, antitrust, labor, environmental and other important claims would not be allowed to go forward. Additionally, H.R. 3369 protects the right of a nonprofit organization to sue others. If the legislation is designed to suppress unnecessary litigation altogether, how is an organization's grievance legitimate but individual complaints are not? Written to suppress only the outlets available for individual citizens, this legislation simply overreaches. It is the height of hypocrisy to suggest that these organizations should be allowed to have their day in court while limiting the ability of individual athletes and others to hold them accountable. Mr. Speaker, previous immunity statutes like this would immunize coaches, volunteers and board members, but the injured party, somebody injured through no fault of their own, would have recourse against the organization. This bill leaves the injured party without any recourse at all. There are serious problems with this legislation, so I would urge my colleagues to oppose the bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. SCOTT of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks, and include extraneous material.)

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman has made all these statements that somebody can sue, somebody can sue, somebody can sue. What he has not related is anyone who has filed suit and actually recovered a judgment. I would like to introduce for the Record at this point a letter from the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights which outlines several civil rights claims that would be barred by this legislation. September 13, 2004. Dear Representative: On behalf of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights (LCCR), the nation's oldest, largest, and most diverse civil rights coalition representing people of color, women, children, older Americans, persons with disabilities, gays and lesbians, major religious organizations, labor unions, and civil and human rights groups, we urge you to vote against H.R. 3369, the ``Nonprofit Athletic Organization Protection Act of 2003.'' If enacted, this bill could set a dangerous precedent for the enforcement of civil rights laws generally and could specifically allow nonprofit athletic organizations to evade civil rights laws and unlawfully discriminate on the basis of race, sex, disability, or other characteristics protected by federal and/or state law. While the preamble suggests that the bill's intent is to protect nonprofit athletic organizations from liability arising from claims of ordinary negligence relating to the adoption of rules for competitions/practices, the actual text of the bill is much broader and creates the risk that such organizations could evade their obligations under laws unrelated to negligence, such as federal and state civil rights laws. More specifically, the bill provides that ``a nonprofit athletic organization [which includes the employees, agents, and volunteers of such organization] shall not be liable for harm caused by an act or omission of the . . . organization in the adoption of rules for sanction or approved athletic competitions or practices. . . . This language creates the risk of eliminating valid discrimination claims such as those found in the following cases: In Cureton v. NCAA, a class action lawsuit filed by African-American student athletes challenged the National Collegiate Athletic Association's rule requiring all potential student-athletes to achieve a minimum score on the SAT or the ACT as having a disparate impact on African- American students, in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Early on, the Educational Testing Services (ETS), which designed the SAT, criticized the NCAA's then-proposed use of a fixed cut-off score and warned that such a rule would have such a disproportionate impact, and it did. But only in the face of a lawsuit did the NCAA change its rule so that student athletes could be eligible for Division I schools on the basis of their grades, not just their test scores. In Michigan High School Athletic Association v. Communities for Equity, federal district and appellate courts in the Sixth Circuit have ruled that the state high school athletic association's practice of scheduling six girls' sports, and no boys' sports, in nontraditional and/or disadvantageous seasons discriminated against female athletes in violation of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 and the U.S. Constitution. The court found that the association's scheduling decisions harmed girls by limiting their opportunities for athletic scholarships and collegiate recruitment, limiting their opportunities to play in club or Olympic development programs, and causing them to miss opportunities for awards and recognition. In PGA Tour, Inc. v. Martin, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Americans with Disabilities Act requires the PGA Tour to allow professional golfer Casey Martin, who suffers from a circulatory disorder making it painful to walk long distances, to ride in a golf cart between shots at Tour events. The nonprofit PGA had ruled that walking the course in an integral part of golf, and Martin would gain an unfair advantage using the cart. In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court decided that the PGA could not deny Martin equal access to its tours on the basis of his disability. In addition, H.R. 3369 allows nonprofit athletic organizations to sue, but not be sued. It is the height of hypocrisy to suggest that these organizations should be allowed to have their day in court while limiting the ability of individual athletes and others to hold them accountable. Finally, the bill preempts state law that provides less liability protection to nonprofit athletic organizations but not state law that gives additional protection to nonprofit athletic organizations. There is no need for Congress to preempt state law at all. If states want to protect certain state athletic organizations, they can do so right now without any action by Congress. While we understand that those who oppose this bill might be accused of fueling litigation, we urge you to consider the risk that this bill could be used to exempt nonprofit athletic organizations, which exercise control over the lives of student-athletes, coaches, and many others, from treating these individuals fairly and in accordance with our nation's civil rights laws. Moreover, this bill would create additional litigation regarding who is covered by the bill and what types of claims it precludes. LCCR strongly urges you to oppose the ``Nonprofit Athletic Organization Protection Act of 2003.'' If you have any questions, or would like additional information, please contact Nancy Zirkin at 202/263-2880, or Julie Fernandes, Senior Policy Analyst, at 202/263-2856. Thank you in advance for your support. Sincerely, Wade Henderson, Executive Director. Nancy Zirkin, Deputy Director. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, can you tell us how much time remains on both sides?

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I would point out to the gentleman from Indiana that I would assume that anyone who has been immunized from liability would support the legislation. I would like to see a list of people who have been injured by negligence, victims of discrimination, victims of violations of labor law. Let us get some of those to see what they think about it. Mr. Speaker, as I said, we have immunized the volunteers, so in terms of running the organization, the volunteers have been immunized. A lot of places do not have problems with insurance. This mandates there is a blanket for everybody, State, local, everybody else, whether there are insurance problems or not. We hear so much from the other side about States rights. Well, here we are, whether there is a problem in the State or not, here we come with a Federal mandate changing all their tort laws. Whether or not you disagree or agree with the Americans for Disabilities Act, or whether you agree or disagree with civil rights laws or labor laws, people ought to have the right to bring these cases in appropriate circumstances. Otherwise, the agency has no responsibility in any of these areas. Now, accidents happen. We are not talking about accidents. What we are talking about is when an organization violates good common sense and someone is injured as a direct result of negligence. Should there be a recourse? Who should be responsible for the damage? If there is insurance, if you can get insurance, then certainly you should not immunize everybody. This can be done on a State-by-State basis. If Indiana cannot get insurance, then maybe Indiana can deal with that the best way Indiana feels Indiana can deal with it. If Virginia wants to deal with it in a different way, they can deal with it in a different way based on the availability of insurance. But, Mr. Speaker, this bill goes too far. It immunizes more than is needed and it immunizes more causes of action. Now, the gentleman has talked about what kinds of negotiations were going back and forth. That is true. But we are not talking about the negotiations, we are talking about what is in the bill. The fact is, because of what is in the bill discrimination cases are thrown out; because of the bill, labor disputes are thrown out; all kinds of Americans with disabilities and everything else are thrown out because of the legislation. It is clearly overbroad and should be defeated. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this legislation. While I salute the hard work of our volunteer firefighters, it appears to me we have before us a very extreme solution to a problem that does not exist. Although H.R. 1787 is supposed to encourage donation of firefighting equipment by eliminating civil liability barriers, there are no reported cases of businesses refusing to donate equipment, nor cases of volunteer firefighting companies suing their donors. The so-called problem could be solved without congressional action. First, we heard during our committee deliberations that a volunteer fire department could simply sign a contract waiving liability of the donors from negligence resulted from the donated firefighting equipment. This tactic would ensure that fire companies are informed and have consented to the immunity of the donor. We do not have to mandate the immunity. They can agree to it if they want or if the donor insists. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, 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 issue is a State issue, and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) has pointed out that many States have already dealt with the issue on a State basis. 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 reuse. With all of the other pertinent issues we have before Congress, I find it problematic that we are focusing our attention and problems on something that is frankly not a problem. I urge my colleagues to reject this bill which may in fact endanger firefighters. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, the threat of civil liability causes some to think twice about donating dangerous equipment, equipment which may place our firefighters in danger. If this bill passes, they will not have to be concerned about donating dangerous equipment. I am not sure that is a good thing. I would hope that we would defeat the bill, allow the volunteer firefighters to waive liability if they see fit, but not impose this mandated waiver on everybody whether they want it or not. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.