Bobby Scott

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I would want to point out as challenging as this chart looks, we are running up a little surplus, but we will shortly be into great deficit. And to put some of these other numbers into perspective, as we indicated, in 2001 we passed a tax cut that the top 1 percent got half of the value of that tax cut. Instead of giving the top 1 percent a tax cut, if we had directed that income flow into the Social Security Trust Fund, just what the top 1 percent got, not what everybody else got, we would have had enough money to pay Social Security benefits without reducing benefits at all for 75 years, or the top 1 percent can get a tax cut. Guess what the majority in Congress voted for? They voted to leave this problem for another day and voted for a tax cut for the upper 1 percent. Those are the kinds of decisions that are being made and the kind of decisions that have to be changed. Mr. Speaker, that is why I am delighted to recognize our friend from Hawaii who has been a stalwart new Member coming in fighting for budget sanity, the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Case).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

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

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

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time under my reservation, I again want to thank the chairman of the committee, and I hereby submit for the Record a statement on the bill as well as a letter in support of the legislation from a long list of organizations. April 18, 2003. Dear Mr. Speaker, Senator Frist, Senator Daschle, Majority Leader Delay, and Minority Leader Pelosi: We write to strongly urge your support for the Sessions-Kennedy-Wolf- Scott Prison Rape Reduction Act of 2003, H.R. 1707. Those of us who have signed this letter have many disagreements on public policy matters, including a variety of issues relating to criminal law and punishment. But we are united in our unyielding determination to end the scourge of prison rape and to enact the Sessions-Kennedy-Wolf-Scott bill. Of the 2 million prisoners in the U.S., a conservative estimate is that one in 10 has been raped--more than 200,000 inmates! Further conservative research indicates that inmates who are sexually assaulted are also victimized, on average, nine additional times during their incarceration. In addition, incarcerated youths are more likely to be raped than are adult inmates and, when they are, more likely to be acutely victimized and shattered. The Sessions-Kennedy-Wolf-Scott bill is a moderate and necessary response to this crisis. It is designed to eliminate prison rape in a manner that is respectful of the primary role of States and local governments in administering correctional institutions and of the federal government's obligation not to impose unfunded mandates on them and to make the problem more fully visible to the American people and those who can combat it. Additionally, the legislation has been carefully drawn to ensure comprehensive study and reporting of prison rape, and to reverse perverse prison administration incentives that now often make it exceedingly difficult for prison officials to engage in priority efforts to abate prison rape. The Sessions-Kennedy-Wolf-Scott bill is not only a means of protecting inmates. Society pays dearly for ignoring prison rape. Clearly, prison rape costs taxpayers greatly in recidivism and increased violent crime and thus negates federal programs designed to reduce the incidence of crime. Inmates, often non-violet first time offenders, come out of a prison rape experience severely traumatized and thus leave prison far more violent than when they entered. The high incidence of rape within prison also leads to the increased transmission of HIV, hepatitis and other diseases, which in turn imposes costs on all of society. Fighting prison rape is also affirmatively mandated by the Constitution. As distinguished from federal programs designed to address problems ranging from teenage drinking to declining education standards, the Sessions-Kennedy-Wolf- Scott bill deals with plenary and constitutionally inescapable federal responsibilities--this in light of the determination of a near unanimous Supreme Court in Farmer v. Brennan that deliberate indifference to prison rape violates the 8th Amendment's cruel and unusual punishment provisions. In the end, perhaps most importantly, the effort to combat prison rape is a moral imperative. Prison rape is nothing short of torture--the infliction of severe emotional and physical pain as punishment and coercion. And, long after bodies have healed, the emotional trauma, shame and stigma of brutal and repeated prison rape lasts and embitters. Thus, prison rape not only derails justice--it destroys human dignity. The Sessions-Kennedy-Wolf-Scott bill offers great hope that the brutality of prison rape can be sharply curtailed, and our joint effort to enact it is thus a coalition of conscience rather than convenience. As such, we take heart from the Speaker's strong endorsement of the bill, and are determined to see its effective, moderate provisions rapidly brought into effect. As men and women of good will we will not rest while the violence of prison rape continues, and we strongly urge you to join us in an effort also certain to bring credit on the United States at a moment when America's need to show its commitment to democratic values has never been higher. Working with the bill's sponsors, we stand ready to meet with you at your earliest convenience. If you would like additional information or have any questions please contact Marian Bell, National Policy Director for Prison Fellowship Ministries, at (703) 478-0100 ext. 3630 or Vincent Schiraldi, President, Justice Policy Institute, at (202) 363-7847. Very truly yours, American Values Amnesty International USA Center for Religious Freedom Christian Coalition Concerned Women of America Focus on the Family Human Rights and the Drug War Human Rights Watch Intitute on Religion and Democracy Justice Policy Institute Kids First Coalition

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, and I will not object, however, I do want to thank the chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), and the ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), as well as the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), for their hard work in getting the bill to the floor, and especially to my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), for developing the bill and introducing it with me. I should also thank the House leadership and Senators Kennedy and Sessions whose bill we consider today. Mr. Speaker, I want to first express my appreciation to Chairman Sensenbrenner for the heavy lifting he did to get this bill before us today. Not only did he make it clear that this matter was of the highest priority to him, but he directed his staff to get with everybody necessary to expeditiously develop a bill that we all could support. A reflection of his commitment to expediting this legislation is his agreement, despite his reluctance, to take up the Senate bill for House Floor consideration instead of our Committee bill. So, I want to thank and commend you, Mr. Chairman for your commitment to this legislation and your excellent and expeditious stewardship of this matter to this point. I would also like to thank my friend and our Ranking Member, John Conyers, the gentleman from Michigan, for his support and assistance on this bill. And the leadership and determination of my Subcommittee Chairman and good friend, Howard Coble, the gentleman from North Carolina, must also be recognized. From the moment this matter hit the Subcommittee agenda, his strong and persuasive impact was felt in having it move forward. It was a pleasure to work with you on this, Howard. I must also thank Speaker Hastert, Majority Leader Tom DeLay and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi for their strong support and accommodations in assisting this legislation to this point. Of course, the spirit, purpose, and soul of this bill is personified in the efforts of its chief sponsor in the House, my friend and colleague Frank Wolf, the gentleman from Virginia. The passion and dedication he has given to this effort has fueled us all. Prison rape has been shown to have a devastating impact on our prisons. Not only does it cause severe physical and psychological trauma to its victims, but prison rape is recognized as a contributing factor to prison homicide, violence against staff, and institutional riots. Prison rape also increases the transmission of HIV/AIDS, other sexually transmitted diseases, tuberculosis, and hepatitis B and C--all of which exist at a very high rate within U.S. prisons and jails. Prison rape is a problem of sizable scope. Of the 2 million people incarcerated today, it is estimated that one in ten, or roughly 200,000, are victims of prison rape. And youths in adult prisons are 5 times more likely to be raped than adults. Yet, because it occurs in prison, like most other aspects of prison life, prison rape is, essentially, ignored as a societal problem. And society pays dearly for ignoring prison rape. Inmates, often non- violent first time offenders, come out of a prison rape experience severely traumatized and leave prison not only more likely to commit crimes, but far more likely to commit violent crimes than when they entered. And the high incidence of rape within prison which leads to the increased transmission of HIV, hepatitis and other diseases there, in turn, increases the incidences of these dreaded diseases and it imposes threats and costs to society at large. Prison rape is a crime with constitutional implications. The Supreme Court held in Farmer v. Brennan that deliberate indifference to the risk of prison rape violates the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. While prison conditions may be ``restrictive and even harsh,'' prison and jail officials ``must take reasonable measures to guarantee the safety of the inmates.''. The bill requires an annual statistical study of the incidence of rape in a significant number of federal, state and county prisons and jails, and public reviews of institutions where the rate of prison rape is 30% above the national average rate. It also establishes a clearinghouse for complaints of prison rape to assist prevention and prosecution, and provide training and assistance to prison and jail officials. Further, the bill establishes a program to provide grants, from a total authorization of $40 million each year, to state and local governments and institutions for the purpose of enhancing the prevention and punishment of prison rape. The bill also provides for the establishment of a Commission to develop standards for addressing and eliminating prison rape, and finally, the bill requires prison accreditation organizations to examine prison rape prevention practices as a critical component of their accreditation reviews. In the end, and perhaps most importantly, the effort to combat prison rape is a moral imperative. Prison rape is nothing short of prison torture--the infliction of severe emotional and physical pain as punishment and coercion. Long after bodies have healed, the emotional trauma, shame and stigma of brutal and repeated prison rape lasts and embitters. Whatever their crimes and whatever the prescribed punishment for them, in a humane society prison rape should not be a part of it. Prison rape not only derails justice--it destroys human dignity. Again, I would like to thank Chairman Sensenbrenner, Chairman, Coble, and Chairman Wolf, the chief Sponsor of the bill in the House, for their dedication and diligent work on this issue. I would also like to thank Senator Ted Kennedy and Senator Jeff Sessions, the chief sponsors of the Senate bill. A reflection of the work they have done on this issue over the past 2 Congresses is the fact that it passed the Senate unanimously and in record time. Further, I must thank the originators of this effort--Michael Horowitz of the Hudson Institute and Vinnie Schraldi of the Justice Policy Institute, for their vision, leadership and dedication in bringing this matter to the forefront and keeping it going. They developed and led the amazingly diverse coalition supporting this bill, that is listed at the end of these remarks for the record. And I thank our staff--Katy Crooks, Bobby Vassar and Chief Counsel Jay Apperson of the Subcommittee, Robert Toone of Senator Kennedy's office and Andrea Sanders of Senator Sessions office, Nathaniel Zylstrap of Hudson Institute, and, of course, Committee Chief Counsel, Phil Kiko, whose heavy hand directed the staff effort, for their yeoman-like work on this bill.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is simple. It preserves the law just as it has been since the Head Start program began. Faith-based organizations can and do sponsor Head Start programs. In fact, 8 percent of the Head Start programs today are sponsored by faith-based organizations. They administer the Head Start programs just as any other sponsor of a federally funded program, including compliance with traditional anti-discrimination laws. The underlying bill allows many programs to discriminate in employment based on religion. Make no mistake, if there is discrimination based on religion, there can be discrimination based on race, because eleven o'clock on Sunday is still the most racially segregated hour of the week. So if an organization can select employees based on which church, synagogue, mosque or temple someone belongs to, that will have racial overtones. There used to be a time in America when certain people were routinely denied the opportunity to even be considered for good jobs and all African American parents at one time or another had to explain to their children why they had to sit in the back of the bus or why they could not be considered for jobs at certain companies. That invidious discrimination was so ugly that our Nation passed laws to make it illegal to discriminate in employment based on race, color, creed, national origin or sex in most cases, even with private funds, but illegal to discriminate in all cases with Federal funds. Now, churches can discriminate with their own money, but not with Federal taxpayers' money. If this amendment is not adopted, the days of invidious discrimination could return and some parents will have to explain to their children why other parents could become teachers but not them solely because of the family's religion. Just what kind of head start lesson is that? So this vote is important because it will decide and we will decide tonight just what kind of head start our next generation will have.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, a couple of things that have been said that I think need direct response to. One is you could serve more children if you allow people to discriminate. That is not true. You will serve more people if you put more money into the Head Start program. There are plenty of sponsors who are willing to provide services without discriminating. Second, you lose your right to discriminate. You do not lose your right to discriminate with your church money if you sponsor a federally funded program, but you cannot discriminate with the taxpayers' money. I think that needs to be said in response to some of the comments previously made.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Woolsey antidiscrimination amendment and against the part of the bill which would allow employment discrimination based on religion in the Head Start program for the first time since the program began. Yesterday, the bipartisan leadership of the House and Senate celebrated the historic March on Washington and praised the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., and others for their courageous demonstration 40 years ago. Let us not forget what that march was about because two of the demands of the March on Washington were: ``Withholding of Federal funds from all programs in which discrimination exists'' and ``a Federal Fair Employment Practices Act barring discrimination.'' Both of those demands were enacted within 2 years of the march. Now, one day after the bipartisan celebration, we have a bill before us which undermines the same victories which were celebrated. But the Woolsey amendment will preserve the tradition of nondiscrimination in federally funded programs. That tradition goes back to 1941, when President Roosevelt issued an executive order prohibiting antidiscrimination laws that have not caused all these problems over all these years. In fact, today 8 percent of Head Start programs are sponsored by faith-based organizations, and Head Start officials recently expressed outrage that someone could tell a Head Start child's parents that they were not qualified to be Head Start teachers solely because they attended a synagogue rather than a church or a mosque rather than a temple. Next year, we will celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education. That case spoke of the ravages of segregation when it stated that ``the policy of separating the races is usually interpreted as denoting the inferiority of the Negro group. A sense of inferiority affects the motivation of a child to learn. Segregation with the sanction of law, therefore, has a tendency to retard the educational and mental development of the Negro children.'' Mr. Speaker, although the children in the Head Start programs may not be segregated, some will not miss the message their parents were not qualified to be teachers while parents of other children were qualified. Mr. Speaker, we have a choice today. Preserve the equal employment opportunity principles and traditions established by President Roosevelt, Brown v. Board of Education and the March on Washington or change the law in such a way that someone will have to explain to some young Head Start students why their parents were not good enough to be teachers solely because of the family religion. The vote on this amendment will determine what kind of Head Start the next generation will have.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to draw attention to the 50th anniversary of the American Political Science Association (APSA) Congressional Fellowship Program. The goal of the APSA Congressional Fellowship Program is simple: to help participants better understand Congress. It is the oldest such program on Capitol Hill, designed to place highly skilled professionals from a broad spectrum of backgrounds in congressional offices for nine months as legislative aides. Over the years, the highly selective, nonpartisan program has grown from its beginnings with six fellows in 1953 to the current program, which selects between 40 and 45 professionals who have built impressive records of accomplishment as political scientists, journalists, sociologists, domestic and foreign policy government specialists, health policy experts and international scholars. The relationship between the fellow and the Members of Congress is a symbiotic one as Members obtain access to new sources of expertise, while fellows obtain first-hand perspectives about life on the Hill. There is, after all, no substitute for practical experience to understand Congress as a living institution. I wish to place on record my support for it. I have had the privilege to be associated with two APSA fellows in my office during the time I have been serving in the House of Representatives. As it turns out both are female journalists from foreign countries. Fardah Assegaf from Indonesia worked at the National News Agency of Indonesia, and served in my office in 1993. Michelle Phipps-Evans from Trinidad and Tobago worked at the Washington Afro American Newspapers and is serving this year. Both have been invaluable in the levels of writing and researching they have brought to the table. Each acted as full members of my staff advising me on various issues. Other enrichment opportunities continue through the program with the Wilson Seminar Series, which augment the legislative experience with speakers closely involved in the legislative process. A state-federal legislative comparative program at the State House in Annapolis, Maryland, and the Canadian Parliamentary Exchange provide further education. During the Canadian exchange, fellows provide their northern colleagues with a one-week orientation to Congress and receive a similar program through the House of Commons in Ottawa, Canada. Upon completion of the year on Capitol Hill, which often includes experience in both the House and Senate, the fellows return to their previous employment where their understanding of the political process becomes integrated and disseminated, with a kind of ripple effect among their colleagues. This knowledge of the workings of government enhances their future participation in the democratic process. Mr. Speaker, I salute the APSA Congressional Fellowship Program, which has given over 1,800 individuals what can only be called an ``opportunity of a lifetime.''

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland for yielding. The gentleman from Maryland is an outspoken advocate for education and knows the value of the Head Start program, so I rise in support of the Head Start program but in opposition to the Republican Head Start bill. In 2002, the Head Start program served nearly 1 million children, over 62,000 infants and toddlers in early Head Start. Unfortunately, however, Mr. Speaker, only 60 percent of the qualified 3- and 4-year- olds are currently enrolled in Head Start, and early Head Start is only funded to serve 3 percent of the eligible infants. We need to make a commitment to fully fund the Head Start program, and this is because money spent on Head Start is money well spent. For every dollar we spend on Head Start, $4 to $7 are saved in future expenses because children who participate in Head Start need fewer services in elementary and high school, and they are less likely to go to prison or end up on welfare. During the Clinton administration, Head Start funding grew from $2.8 billion in 1993 to $6.2 billion in 2001. That is an average of approximately $425 million per year. Over the past 2 years, the President's administration has proposed only a total increase of $300 million, about $150 million per year. That is about one-third of the average annual increase over the prior 8 years. There are a lot of problems with the Republican Head Start bill, but as the gentleman from Maryland indicated, one of the most glaring is the fact that it permits programs run by faith-based organizations to discriminate in their hiring practices with the Federal money; that is, it permits employment discrimination with Federal money, not the church money, but with Federal money. Sixty-two years ago, on June 25, 1941, President Roosevelt signed an executive order that banned discrimination by defense contractors based on race, creed, color or national origin. Executive order 8802 was the first law prohibiting employment discrimination and marked the beginning of fair employment practices in the United States. These protections against employment discrimination were expanded by subsequent Presidents. For example, Executive Order 11246, signed by President Johnson in 1965, expanded the prohibitions against employment discrimination to all government contractors, not just defense contractors. Every President of the United States since 1965 has enforced these executive orders. Over time, various civil rights laws were passed that contained similar prohibitions against discrimination and employment based on race, creed, color, national origin or sex. However, on December 12, 2002, President Bush issued an executive order that for the first time since 1941 actually rolled back the prohibitions against employment discrimination. Under his executive order 13-279, religious organizations which received Federal funds would be permitted to discriminate in employment based on religion unless there is a specific prohibition. Now, when the President says that we should remove barriers to faith- based organizations serving as sponsors of federally funded programs, he does not explain what the barriers are. Even without new laws, many faith-based organizations have sponsored federally funded programs for decades, and they administer these programs just like any other sponsor, including compliance with fair employment practices, and that is with positions paid with Federal funds. Now, in fact, any program which can be funded under this administration's faith-based initiative can be funded without that initiative, without new legislation, and without executive orders if the sponsoring organization agrees not to discriminate in hiring with the Federal money. Not the church money, the Federal money. And today, in fact, 8 percent of the Head Start programs are sponsored by faith- based organizations. If the sponsor insists on discriminating on employment, a barrier exists and the faith-based initiative removes that barrier and allows the sponsor to administer the program and select employees paid with Federal money based on religion. Now, there was a time in America when people of certain religions were routinely denied jobs solely because of their religious beliefs, but we passed laws to end that invidious discrimination. So when this administration talks about restoring publicly funded religious discrimination, let us remember the old adage that you can put lipstick on a pig, but you cannot pass it off as a beauty queen. Likewise, you can use poll-tested semantics and euphemisms, but you cannot pass this off as anything but ugly discrimination. And let us take a look at the Head Start program. If the Republican Head Start bill passes, thousands of today's Head Start teachers could lose their jobs if they fail their employer's religious tests. Tens of thousands of already at-risk 3- and 4-year-old children could lose their Head Start teachers if the teachers happen to be of the wrong religion or do not contribute enough to their church. Tens of thousands of parent volunteers could lose their privilege of serving as volunteer teacher aides in their own children's Head Start classrooms based on their religious beliefs. These parent volunteers would be blocked from the opportunity to become trained and paid Head Start teachers solely because they do not share the federally funded employer's religious beliefs. And 29 percent of today's Head Start teachers started off as volunteers. Now, exactly what kind of head start will children be getting when they see their parents denied the opportunity to become a teacher solely because of their religion? And because 11 a.m. Sunday morning is still the most segregated hour of the week, religious discrimination in Head Start programs will often mean that teachers of the wrong race will not be hired, thereby threatening 33 percent of the Head Start teachers who are African American and nearly 23 percent of the Head Start teachers who are Hispanic. The result of the Head Start bill sponsored by the Republicans will be that in many federally funded Head Start centers all of the teachers may end up being of one religion and one race and one ethnicity. This is a return to the old days of segregation. If this bill passes, it will be done with Federal money. I urge my colleagues to strongly consider just what they are voting for when the Head Start bill comes to the floor later this week. We should preserve decades of fair employment practices and reject Republican attempts to allow the most qualified employees to be rejected solely because they fail a religious test.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of Representative Jo Ann Davis and myself to recognize the outstanding service of Dr. Wayne Lett. Following 34 years of educational service, Dr. Lett will be retiring from his post as Superintendent of Newport News Public Schools on July 1, 2003. Dr. Lett's career has been devoted to education and his efforts have been important to the lives of countless young people in Newport News. His achievements have been recognized by both local and national organizations. In 2001, Dr. Lett was named Virginia Superintendent of the Year by the Virginia Association of School Superintendents. He has provided leadership in many urban school organizations and has served as President and Vice President of the National Association of Federally Impacted Schools. Dr. Lett's illustrious career in education began in 1969, following his graduation from East Carolina University with an A.B. in history and political science. He first served as a teacher, assistant principal, and personnel director in York County Public Schools. It was during this time that Dr. Lett earned his M.A. in history from Old Dominion University in 1972, a C.A.S. in education administration from the College of William and Mary in 1975, and an Ed.D in education administration from the same institution in 1984. Dr. Lett's tenure in Newport News Public Schools began in 1984. After serving in a number of different administrative positions for the school district, Dr. Lett was named Superintendent in 1996. Under Dr. Lett's leadership, Newport News Public Schools has made significant progress in the academic performance of its students. The number of fully accredited schools has risen from one to nineteen, access to rigorous coursework has been made a priority, tutoring and mentoring programs have been expanded, and the dropout rate has been reduced by more than 50 percent. During this time Newport News Public Schools has received more U.S. Department of Education ``Blue Ribbon'' designations than any other school division in Virginia. These are only a few of the many achievements that are the direct result of Dr. Lett's leadership. Mr. Speaker, Representative Jo Ann Davis and I would like to congratulate Dr. Lett on his distinguished service and thank him for his great commitment to the education of our youth.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me this time. I rise in opposition to the rule and the bill, H.R. 1115, the so- called Class Action Fairness Act. This is an unfair bill that does nothing to resolve disputes. Moreover, the bill has a number of significant problems. First, the bill will disrupt ongoing litigation because it applies to pending class actions. Some of those class actions that would be affected would be those cases against Enron, WorldCom, and Arthur Andersen for financial fraud; other major cases involving environmental damage or employment discrimination; and several drug companies involving problems with their pharmaceuticals. It is fundamentally unfair for Congress to change the rules for consumers midstream by including these pending cases and, therefore, making it more difficult to resolve disputes in a timely manner. This bill is overly broad. It defines class actions not only to include class actions, but also State actions brought on behalf of the general public by State attorneys general. These cases are important consumer protection tools in some States, particularly California; and all of these cases would be considered class actions and subject to the provisions of the bill, even though they were not filed as class actions and even though they were brought by the State attorney general under State law. Mr. Speaker, by shifting class actions to Federal court, H.R. 1115 will overload the Federal judiciary and increase delays. Criminal cases are always given priority in Federal courts; and because the courts are already overloaded with criminal cases, including many traditionally State cases that have been transferred to Federal jurisdiction over the past few years, State actions that are referred to Federal courts by this bill will be delayed. They also may get caught up in some judicial districts that have been dealing with terrorism cases or the temporary onslaught of other criminal cases. Adding in complex class action litigation to an already overloaded docket will only add to additional delays. These delays will be exacerbated by the provision in the bill that grants an automatic, pretrial appeal and a stay of discovery during that appeal. Guilty corporations who use their appeals under the bill will be able to delay their inevitable judgment day by several years. A rule that was offered in committee by the gentleman from Massachusetts and myself would have specifically dealt with this problem, but that amendment was rejected by the Committee on Rules. Mr. Speaker, many of the cases, in fact, should remain in State court. H.R. 1115 would often require Federal judges to apply State law when State judges have more familiarity with the law in their own States. This may result in mistakes being made in the application of State law, affecting both plaintiffs and defendants. H.R. 1115 violates uniform rules of Federal procedure. For example, Federal courts will be required to apply one set of rules on diversity jurisdictions for everybody except class actions. There will be a separate rule for class actions. There will also be rules on removal, dismissal, remand, appellate review, and discovery where there will be rules for everybody, except class actions, another set of rules for class actions. Now, there has been a whole lot of hoopla about so-called coupon settlements, about how legislation is necessary to address that problem when plaintiffs get a negligible recovery. Now, as the gentleman from Texas has pointed out, there are as many examples of Federal court abuses regarding coupon settlements as there are State court abuses. But there is nothing inherently wrong with coupon settlements. If a business has been stealing only 50 cents at a time, the recovery for each individual class member will be minuscule. But a class action, even with a coupon settlement, will be effective in stopping the ongoing theft. One recent case involved a business which fraudulently calibrated its cash registers to steal small amounts of money from each customer. Now, how much will each customer be entitled to if they are cheated out of 3 cents? If you cannot have a favorable verdict when the individual damages are de minimis, you give an unscrupulous corporation a free pass, so long as they do not steal too much from each person. Federal and State judges oppose this bill. The Federal Judicial Conference headed by the Chief Justice of the United States, the Conference of the Chief Justices which represents chief justices around the country, both oppose H.R. 1115. It is also opposed by the American Bar Association and consumer advocacy groups. We have the responsibility to our citizens to ensure timely access to the courts for damages sustained. This bill will do nothing to help that issue. It will only give unscrupulous defendants new procedural schemes to delay justice, and justice delayed is justice denied. Mr. Speaker, I ask that we reject the rule and reject the bill as unnecessary, unwise, and creating more problems than it solves. I urge my colleagues to oppose the bill.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) who is a lead sponsor of this resolution, an advocate for the issue.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her advocacy, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise to join the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary in supporting S.J. Res. 8 to call attention to National Sexual Assault Awareness and Prevention Month. The purpose of this resolution is to increase public awareness of sexual assault and to recognize the important contributions of various individuals and groups across the United States that combat sexual assault. Mr. Speaker, sexual assault victims are primarily young people with 44 percent of the victims under the age of 18, 80 percent under the age of 30. Sexual assault affects women, men, children of all races, social, religious, age, ethnic and economic groups and even prisoners. Yet less than 40 percent of sexual assault victims pursue prosecution by reporting their attack to law enforcement agencies. Mr. Speaker, as we recognize Sexual Assault Awareness and Prevention Month, Congress also recognizes that other tools are also important in preventing and addressing sexual assault. With advances in DNA technology, law enforcement agencies have been able to identify and prosecute many offenders, and the potential exists to identify tens of thousands of additional offenders in unsolved rape cases. That is why it is so important that Congress provide additional resources needed to immediately eliminate the current backlog of rape evidence kits across the United States. I look forward to working with my colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin, in authorizing and funding the Debbie Smith Act and other bills aimed at reducing the DNA backlog. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

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

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1529, the Involuntary Bankruptcy Improvement Act of 2003, a bill which was reported by the Committee on the Judiciary with bipartisan support and without dissent. I commend the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) for moving so quickly to deal with a real and pernicious problem. This legislation is a good first step in providing bankruptcy courts with congressional guidance in dealing with the phenomenon of malicious and baseless involuntary bankruptcy petitions. It augments the existing powers of the bankruptcy court and makes clear Congress' intent to ensure that the targets of this abuse will have available to them meaningful protection from the lasting effects of meritless involuntary bankruptcy petitions. An involuntary bankruptcy petition, even if no order for relief is entered, and even if dismissed expeditiously by the court, can inflict lasting damage. Credit reporting agencies generally list the filing of a bankruptcy petition on a person's credit report almost immediately. This can destroy the ability of an individual to obtain credit or to obtain credit on appropriate terms, even if the petition is wholly without merit. For this reason, the dismissal of the case alone does not provide adequate relief. This problem is a real one. Cases have already been filed for malicious and harassing purposes. Congress must make clear that the bankruptcy system cannot be used to harass and injure people. Mr. Speaker, there are other changes in the Bankruptcy Code that are equally pressing and equally noncontroversial. Many of these improvements have been unnecessarily held hostage to a larger and far more controversial bankruptcy bill, our family farmers and fishermen, the stability of our financial markets, and the rights of parties whose cases are unnecessarily delayed because of inadequate judicial resources deserve better. I hope we will be able to work with the chairman of the committee to deal as expeditiously with these problems as we have with this one. So I commend the chairman for his efforts, and I urge my colleagues to support the motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. He has said on numerous times that if we run up significant deficits and increased debt that it will eventually have an effect on interest rates. It will increase interest rates. For a person with a mortgage, car loans, and credit cards, every time we increase interest rates we have taken money out of their pockets. As we look at this, we just have to wonder how bad does it have to get before we notice that something is not right. As I indicated, we are not creating jobs. The Joint Committee on Taxation shows that in several years after we have passed this thing, as a direct result, we will have fewer jobs than if we had done nothing. Now, running up debt has consequences. Even if we do not pay the debt off, we have to pay interest on the national debt. Under the Clinton administration we left a surplus that was in the process, by all projections, of paying off the entire national debt, debt held by the public, by 2008; and by 2013 or so, pay off the entire national debt. So as this green bar shows, the interest on the national debt would be going towards zero. Unfortunately, because of all the new debt we are running up, the interest on the national debt that we can actually pay in red is going up to almost $500 billion. To put this number, since it is a big number, in perspective, I have put in blue the defense budget. We are going to be paying, instead of zero interest on the national debt, almost as much in interest on the national debt as we are paying on defense. Now, we can make it personal and divide the interest on the national debt by the population, multiply it by 4, so we have the family of four's portion of the national debt, interest on the national debt, just interest. Right now it is about $4,500. We are paying a family of four's proportionate share of interest on the national debt, and it is growing by 2013 to $8,500. Now, the difficulty, the challenging thing about this is when we consider that chart and the Social Security cash flow, we are running about a $100 billion surplus in Social Security; but soon, by 2017, we will be running a significant deficit. As the interest on the national debt is increasing, how are we going to pay the Social Security for the baby boomers on out? Now, the egregious thing about the tax cut is if you look at this challenging chart and wonder how we can possibly pay Social Security in the future, we did some calculations and found that if, instead of the tax cut given to the top 1 percent, if that amount of money had been allocated to the Social Security trust funds, that would have been enough money to have paid Social Security benefits for 75 years without any reduction in benefits. We had a choice: make Social Security solvent for 75 years or a tax cut for the upper 1 percent. And this House and Senate passed a tax cut for the upper 1 percent and left Social Security who knows where.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. This is the first Clinton administration and this is the second Clinton administration.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. We have legislation pending in this body that would do that. Interestingly enough, that tax cut would be paid for under the standard that we had adopted helping to create the green, that if you pass a tax cut it ought to be paid for with other tax increases or spending cuts so that the tax cut does not add to the deficit. And we close some loopholes and do other things that pay for the tax cut that would give relief to those in the $10- to $25,000 range. And people have said that is close to the minimum wage. A full- time worker at minimum wage makes about $10,000. So when you get up to 25, you are 2\1/2\ times the minimum wage. So it is just not the bottom of the scale. You have gone quite a ways up of people that were left out that would be compensated and would be able to get the benefit of the tax cut without adding to the national debt, because in our plan that would be paid for, and that is the fiscally responsible way of doing it.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. You wonder how you could pay the Social Security challenge that is shown on this chart, because instead of a nice surplus that we have been spending, we are going to have to actually come up with even more money. At the same time, the interest on the national debt is increasing. We are going to have to come up with more cash to pay this. And the tax cut, the amount of money that went to the top 1 percent in 2001, not 2003, 2001, that tax cut to the upper 1 percent only would have been sufficient to cover all of this red ink, for 75 years, no reduction in benefits.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, this chart shows, and we can hardly see, compared to what the millionaires get, we can hardly see the benefit we get if we are in the $50,000 to $75,000 or less range. This chart shows what we would get.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. During the Presidential campaign, everyone had agreed that you would have a lockbox; you would not touch the Social Security money that was supposed to be for Social Security, and Medicare money collected for Medicare should be reserved for Medicare. Instead, we passed a $1 trillion tax cut and dipped into that spending, into great deficit.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. When we spend without paying for it, we run up debt and you have to pay interest on the national debt. This is a family of four's portion of interest on the national debt. It is going up year after year after year. When President Clinton left office, the projection was at that time if you did not take any action the interest on the national debt, just maintain services, kept the Tax Code as it is, interest on the national debt by 2013 would be zero. Instead, a family of four's portion of the national debt would be $8,500 and rising. At the same time, the Social Security Trust Fund would stop running the surplus that we have been spending and turned into a significant deficit.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. We just want to remind people who asked what our plan is, our plan is the green. If we had our ways, we would be running up back into surplus with the stock market high, unemployment low. This is what we would do if we had the choice. Unfortunately, this is where we are because of all the deficit spending and the tax cuts which basically went to the wealthiest Americans.