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, today, I am introducing in the U.S. House of Representatives the ``Identity Theft Investigation and Prosecution Act of 2003'' with my colleagues Rep. Howard Coble, the gentleman from North Carolina, Rep. John Conyers, the gentleman from Michigan, Rep. Ed Case, the gentleman from Hawaii, Rep. Martin Frost, the gentleman from Texas, Rep. Barney Frank, the gentleman from Massachusetts, Rep. Howard Berman, the gentleman from California, Rep. Jan Schakowsky, the gentlewoman from Illinois, Rep. Barbara Lee, the gentlewoman from California, and Rep. Dennis Kucinich, the gentleman from Ohio, as original cosponsors. This bill will address the issue of identity theft and fraud immediately by providing the Department of Justice, DOJ, with resources specifically for that purpose. With the advent of the Internet, identity theft has grown exponentially in recent years. The Federal Trade Commission, FTC, recently released a survey showing that 27.3 million Americans have been victims of identity theft in the last five years, including 9.9 million people in the last year alone. According to the release, last year's identity theft losses to businesses and financial institutions totaled nearly $48 billion, with consumer victims reporting $5 billion in out-of-pocket losses. While most identity thieves use the information to make purchases, according to the FTC release, 15 percent of victims--almost 1.5 million people in the last year--reported that their personal information was misused in nonfinancial ways, such as to obtain government documents, for tax fraud, and other non-financial purposes. The most common nonfinancial misuse took place when the thief used the victim's name and identifying information upon routine stops by law enforcement officials, or while attempting or committing a crime. Identity theft prevention and detection can assist in preventing terrorism, as well. The Identity Theft Investigation and Prosecution Act would provide 100 million dollars to the Department of Justice, DOJ, for dedicated enforcement of the laws against identity theft and credit card fraud. While states can enforce similar state laws, today's interstate travel, Internet and technology realities make it difficult and cumbersome for state prosecutors to effectively address national and international identity theft and credit card fraud scams. We already have sufficient laws to address identity theft. It is a serious crime to use someone else's identity and credit to steal money, goods, services or to use the information to perpetuate other frauds. The problem is that there are not sufficient dedicated resources where they are most needed to have a significant immediate impact on the matter. We have developed the ``Identity Theft Investigation and Prosecution Act of 2003'' to do just that. Much effort is underway to prevent and limit identity theft and fraud through consumer education, consumer hotlines, public service announcements, more sophisticated identity theft detection and cutoff mechanisms, law enforcement and consumer advocacy training, etc. Yet, it is not enough to effectively address the problem. Although credit card companies wipe out most credit card fraud debts for the victims, the thieves are rarely pursued or prosecuted. The DOJ devotes some resources and enforcement toward identity theft, but it is not a high priority in its law enforcement scheme to pursue enough cases to have an impact. Identity thieves know they can pursue their crimes with a high degree of impunity. This bill would enable the DOJ to establish a large, national enforcement program to go after identity theft and abuse.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I have the honor of serving in this body as a Representative from Virginia, the home State of James Madison and Thomas Jefferson who authored the statute on religious freedom which served as a model for the religious freedom provisions in our Bill of Rights. So I am pleased to rise in support of H. Res. 423, recognizing the fifth anniversary of the signing of the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 and urging renewed commitment to eliminating violations of the internationally recognized right to freedom of religion and protecting fundamental human rights. I want to thank my distinguished colleague from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) for his sponsorship of this resolution. I agree with the provisions, the whereases in this resolution: whereas religious freedom is an absolute right and all people are entitled to do with their own souls as they choose; whereas the right of freedom of religion is expressed in the declaration on the elimination of all forms of intolerance and discrimination based on religion or belief adopted and proclaimed by the United Nations and many other organizations; whereas freedom of all individuals to adopt, believe, worship, observe, teach and practice a religion individually or collectively has been explicitly articulated; whereas religious persecution is not confined to a country, a region, or a regime; but whereas all governments should provide and protect religious liberty. I agree with all of those principles, but I feel compelled to point out that this House has not always followed the principles articulated in the resolution. For example, just a few months ago, this House in the Head Start reauthorization bill, by a very close vote rejected the long-standing principle that teachers could not be fired or denied employment solely because of their religious belief. Instead, we adopted a provision which allows the 8 percent of the Head Start programs which are faith- based to discriminate based on religion, with Federal money, not the church money, but with the Federal money. Ironically, that vote to allow the discrimination came one day after congressional leaders participated in a ceremony praising the 40th anniversary of the March on Washington. Ironic because one of the few articulated purposes and successes of the March on Washington was a prohibition against employment discrimination with Federal money. Head Start, since inception, has prohibited employment discrimination based on religion, and hopefully the Senate will reject the House action and reaffirm the prohibitions against discrimination with the Federal money. So, Mr. Speaker, as we celebrate the International Religious Freedom Act and condemn religious intolerance, we ought to renew our own commitment to that principle here in the United States and condemn efforts to allow employment discrimination with Federal money based solely on religious beliefs.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, as I indicated in my remarks, this would be part of the amendment that I just withdrew. This would actually provide meaningful job opportunities for inmates. It would therefore reduce crime. It has the added advantage, it would help nonprofit charitable organizations get goods and services they may not be able to get. It does not have the advantage that it is paid for by itself. We would have to appropriate funds. But because it accomplishes all of the goals that we all have stated as goals for the prison industries program, I would hope that we would adopt this amendment.

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

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I am not sure which section this amendment is in. I would hope that it would not prejudice amendments in previous sections.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, for the reasons I have already articulated, I think this would be a good amendment, and I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, my goal is to make sure that we have the provision of significant job opportunities for prisoners that will reduce crime. FPI does it with no cost. The gentleman from Michigan has suggested by his assurances that we might be able to come up with alternatives that will actually provide jobs another way and reduce costs. It might cost something. But I think the main focus ought to be the provision of jobs so we can reduce crime. It has been proven that these programs reduce crime. With the gentleman's assurance that we can work together and possibly come up with some accommodation to replace the jobs that may be lost in the underlying bill, I will ask to withdraw the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

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

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, the first item of this amendment was developed and agreed to recently with the proponents of the bill. It is a proposal to authorize FPI to develop a specific program for inmates to produce goods and provide services for charitable organizations. Although I fear that the funds authorized to develop the project may not be ever appropriated, if the funds are appropriated, I see it as a way of providing, for some of the inmates, work opportunities to compensate for the jobs lost by the passage of this bill. So I have included that provision along with other pilot projects that I believe should be examined for their potential to make up for the job loss as well. Mr. Chairman, the other parts of the amendment are as follows. There is an offshore repatriation, there is a Federal Prison Industry enhancement, and a not-for-profit provision. These provisions are not new to the proponents of the bill. In the last Congress, the supporters of the bill and the opponents of the bill, along with their staffs and along with the staff of FPI, worked to develop a compromise proposal on various parts of the bill restructuring FPI to present to the rest of us. A compromise proposal was developed and many of the elements agreed to are reflected in the bill before us. These pilot authorities would complete the rest of the compromise proposal that we appeared to agree on last year. Specifically, on the offshore repatriation provision, FPI would be authorized to produce commercial market items for private companies to sell and distribute which have been produced offshore for at least 3 years, provided inmates are paid at least twice the foreign market wage for producing the product. This is to ensure that the lower wage is not the focus of the pilot, and also provides for protections for any businesses or workers engaged in the production of these products in the United States, including a challenging procedure which would halt production if any product that a business or worker could show is actually being produced, or has been produced in the United States in the past 3 years. The other provision is Federal PIE. FPI would be authorized to produce items for the domestic commercial market provided inmates are paid prevailing domestic market wages. This would allow FPI to pilot a program similar to the Federal Prison Industries Enhancement programs, or PIE, already in operation under Federal law for State Prison Industries programs but not for the Federal Prison Industry program. Under this program, FPI would be allowed to pilot the production of products or services for which there is not a domestic labor force available. There are also strong protections against American worker displacements in this pilot. And again, the language is the language developed by representatives of three Members working with FPI staff. There is a not-for-profit provision. This involves producing goods or services for not-for-profits at a negotiated rate that would not otherwise be paid for by nonprofits or done by noninmate workers for pay. During the pilot programs this amendment would authorize, there would be extensive input from the International Trade Commission and the Department of Labor. Any activity under them would be reported to the public and any potential affected parties for comment. All actions taken by FPI relative to the projects would be done in public meetings. We are talking about pilot programs for proposals. If the pilots do not work or create programs, as some have expressed, then we could simply put a stop to them. But if we are going to take away jobs, if we are going to take away the only reliable basis the prison system has had to ensure real work opportunities for prisoners because one-fourth of 1 percent of the Federal procurement expenditures are deemed too much of a market share for a program which has been proven to reduce crime, it would be irresponsible for us to not at least test other ways to give the program some actual continued reliability. I would hope that my colleagues would support the amendment.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, section 7 limits the ability of FPI and State Prison Industries programs to do services and reflects the reality that promoting competition is not what proponents of FPI want. Presently, there is no mandatory source on services as opposed to products, and so straight competition is the only way that FPI can get a service contract. The bill will limit the ability of FPI to get service contracts and actually eliminate the ability of State prison service programs in State prisons. The mandatory source in products is being eliminated in the bill. Restricting FPI's ability to continue to perform service contracts as it does now with no particular replacement will only serve to further replace inmate work opportunities. There appears to be no justification for prohibiting States from continuing their service contracts in a bill designed to reform the Federal Prison Industry program. I am told by Delco Remy, an international company which contracts with State and Federal inmates to break down auto parts for reusable materials to produce new auto parts, I have been told by that company that 600 law-abiding Virginians, along with 300 State and Federal inmates, will lose their jobs as a direct result of this bill, and about the same number of law-abiding citizens and State and Federal inmates in South Carolina will lose their jobs. Ironically, the likelihood is that the jobs will not go to other law-abiding citizens in the United States, but will go to Delco Remy plants outside of the United States. Other States have service contract programs as well, so it is likely that thousands of law-abiding citizens, as well as inmates, will lose their jobs as a result of this gratuitous, unrelated provision attacking State programs in a bill designed to restructure the Federal Prison Industry programs. One of the major problems of the bill is we are taking actions without full knowledge of the consequences. That is why several of us have requested a GAO study of the potential impact of this bill, including the impact of the provision outlawing service contracts. The information will be available in April, and that is why we should wait for that information and in the meantime adopt this amendment.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. It allows the Attorney General to protect public safety. If the Attorney General concludes that, in order to protect public safety, he needs the continuation of the prison industries program, he ought to be able to respond to that crisis in a way that responds to the crisis and not just send a letter to Congress to hope something might get done while the crisis is going on. The warden apparently can do this now in the bill, but that is fairly unrealistic because the warden would have to report to the Attorney General that he cannot do his job in order to trigger that element of the bill. That is obviously not a realistic thing to think that a warden would volunteer to the fact that he cannot do his job as a condition to protect public safety. I would hope that this safety valve amendment would be adopted so that our public safety can, in fact, be protected.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, this is a ``truth-in- legislating'' amendment. We have been told that the underlying bill phases out mandatory source. This amendment would actually provide for a 5-year phaseout of the mandatory source law, which is what the proponents say the bill does. Unfortunately, the bill, in fact, immediately eliminates the mandatory source program and replaces it with an agency preference program where an agency may be required to make a purchase or may not, and there is no way to know whether it will actually replace the number of jobs without significant erosion of the program. After the 5 years, agencies under the bill do not even have to go through a preference process, and if one reads the language left after my amendment strikes out the agency preference program, we still have the bill, but with a 5-year phaseout of the mandatory source rule now in effect. Now, if anybody believes that there is a 5-year phaseout of the current mandatory source rule under the bill, rather than an immediate elimination, just read the bill. Page 4 of the bill, starting on line 20, says ``agencies shall solicit an offer'' from FPI. Nothing wrong with that. But note that the words no longer require a purchase, which is the current mandatory source law. Proponents of the bill would have you believe that the public wants agency bureaucrats to have the option of buying furniture or office supplies with all the bells and whistles and all the colors, shapes, and sizes that the private sector can muster, rather than having them promoting the proven public policy of promoting meaningful work experience for inmates, most of whom would not be imprisoned in the first place if they had the work place skills and knew how to hold down a job. Now, FPI was created in 1934. And the point of the 1934 law was, as a matter of sound public policy, that we should carve out a little minuscule portion of Federal agency purchases to provide marketable work skills and productivity to prisoners so that they will be productively occupied while in prison and be able to get a job when they get out. Now, this program has been shown that it works. Not only has it shown that inmates who participate in FPI are significantly more likely to find productive employment, but they have shown that they are 24 percent less likely to commit a new crime upon release. That means 24 percent fewer victims. The program and developers are aware that inmates constitute the least educated, least disciplined, least trained, least skilled, and least productive workforce around. The program requires an emphasis on manual work to employ as many people as possible. And as a result of all of those factors, the FPI estimates that it takes four inmates to do the work of one properly trained private sector employee. That is clearly not the intent of the developers of the program to have inmates compete with the private sector, or that inmates be prevented from doing any work that could be done by the private sector. In 1934, any FPI work could have been done by the private sector, and that is still the case today. The whole of the FPI revenues constitute less than one-quarter of 1 percent of Federal agency purchasing. And with the entire private sector market and 99.75 percent of the Federal market, spreading the remaining one-quarter of 1 percent of the Federal market over the entire private business sector is not likely to create any new jobs. So it would simply be absorbed in the existing workforce. On the other hand, almost 80 percent of the revenues that FPI takes in goes back to purchase raw materials through the Federal procurement process and a subcontractor with private sector businesses producing FPI products for agencies. Now there are hundreds of these businesses. They hire thousands of workers. Over 60 percent of them are small, minority, women-owned or disadvantaged businesses, and for many of them FPI is their only client. A high number of these private sector jobs are held by law-abiding citizens, and they will be immediately gone with the elimination of the mandatory source of FPI since there will be no reliable orders or revenues. When we put restrictions on the mandatory source program in the Department of Defense last year, we saw a significant erosion of inmate jobs without any indication that industry jobs in the private sector would increase as a result. We should not be gutting this proven crime-reduction program that does not require taxpayer funding, suddenly, without knowing the consequences and without giving the prison system a realistic period to try to develop something to replace it. We should certainly not be doing this to give agency bureaucrats just a few more choices in furniture purchases. Several of us have asked the GAO to study the impact on the prison system, FPI, the businesses, and the public from eliminating the FPI mandatory source provision. This will provide a meaningful transition. And I would hope that we would adopt the amendment.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I would first like to start off with an agreement with my friend from North Carolina, who indicated when he was in the State Senate, as I was in the State Senate in Virginia, often bills would go to a study and that would defeat the bill. That is true because after they studied an issue, they would find that the bill had no merit. It also helped bills because after they studied a bill, they would find that it had more merit than they thought. So there is nothing inherently wrong with sending it to a study to get the facts. The study is already underway. The information will be to us by April, and there are a lot of statements that have been made on this floor as to whether this bill will hurt or help small business. We know right now that FPI spends 75 percent of all of its revenue on purchasing supplies from outside of the prison system. Small businesses, 62 percent of the 75 percent is spent with small, disadvantaged or women-owned businesses. Only 23 percent of Federal purchases generally are spent this way. So there is a question of whether small businesses will be better or worse off if this bill passes. But let us get a study. Let us study the effect. Last year we passed amendments similar to the provisions in this bill that affected the Department of Defense. What happened as a result of those provisions? Thirteen factories have closed, 1,700 jobs have been eliminated, 500 more jobs are expected to be eliminated in the near future. There has been a temporary upward blip in jobs in Federal Prison Industries because of the war in Iraq, but we need to study to see what the long-term effect will be. Finally, we need to know whether or not we are going to actually appropriate the money for on-the-job training programs and the other programs in the bill. FPI pays for itself. Are we going to actually appropriate the money, or will we just let the crime rate go up? Because if we eliminate the jobs without any replacement, crime will go up. These are the kinds of things we will learn from a study, and that is why I am delighted to stand up and support the pending amendment, and I hope it is in fact adopted.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, if this bill passes, we will very seriously jeopardize the viability of the Prison Industry programs that will reduce the number of prison jobs. It will actually reduce the number of business opportunities because right now we are only talking about one-fourth of 1 percent of the Federal procurement. In addition to all of the private procurement going on, obviously eliminating the prison work and one- fourth of 1 percent of just the Federal part of the entire market share will make no difference to anyone. If they cannot get a contract now, they certainly will not be able to get a contract if this bill passes. We do know, however, that crime will go up if this bill passes. It does not cost the taxpayer any money. It works. I would hope that we will defeat the bill.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel). Mr. Chairman, before the gentleman speaks, could the Chair advise us how much time we have left?

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. Majette). (Ms. MAJETTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

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