Bobby Scott

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

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

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for the question; and, frankly, Mr. Chairman, I do not know. You would have someone who has filed his lawsuit, gets a judgment. The underlying conviction is overturned. I do not know. Maybe the gentleman from Colorado can help answer the question. In my opening remarks I made a point that pending prosecution and all the appeals, if you start off with an acquittal, with a case thrown out and then reinstated on appeal, maybe after the statute of limitations. There is no other situation where you have to get a conviction before the civil lawsuit can go forward; and I would ask the gentleman from Colorado.

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

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Chairman, I would just point out that without this amendment, this bill protects criminals. Without the amendment, we could have a criminal actually admitting to the crime, but unless there was a conviction, we could not use that admission in a civil case. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me. A great political philosopher once said, if you do not change directions, you might end up where you are headed. Let us look at where we were headed; as we look at the budget deficits over the course of the years, we see the Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, and Bush deficits. When President Clinton came in, we passed a budget in 1993 without any Republican support in the House or Senate. The Republicans took over the House and Senate after the 1994 election, but remember, when they passed massive tax cuts similar to the ones that they passed in 2001, President Clinton vetoed those bills. They threatened to close down the government if he did not sign them. He vetoed them again. They closed down the government. He vetoed them again, and it was essentially the Clinton plan that ran us up into surplus. Within 1 year of the Bush administration, we are back down into deficits, and everything that we are spending on the war, since there is no way to pay for it, adds on to the bottom line, so this chart really might go off the chart. What is the plan? In 2000, we had a surplus. By 2001, we have spent all of the Medicare surplus. September 11 is 3 weeks before the end of the fiscal year. The fiscal year ends September 30, so this was done before September 11, 2002, we are spending all of Medicare, all of Social Security, and $160 billion in more debt. If we keep going at the rate we are going, it is going to be all of Medicare, all of Social Security, $300 billion in additional debt as far as the eye can see. Now this has consequences. We have heard of the debt tax. A family of four's proportion of interest on the national debt, when you run up all that debt, $4,400. It was going to be down to zero if we had kept going in the direction we were going; but instead, since we were piling on new debt, by 2013, a family of four, over $8,400. We were told we had to run up all this debt and ruin the budget to create jobs. This is the number of jobs in millions for each administration: Carter, 9 million; Reagan, second administration, 9 million; Clinton, 10 million. We are losing more jobs than we are creating after that budget was created. With no money, you have an effect on education. About a year and a half ago, the administration ran all over the country with a bipartisan group of leaders in the House Committee on Education and the Workforce and the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions because we had passed No Child Left Behind. We have a two-step process in Washington about spending money. The authorization, No Child Left Behind, and then the appropriation. Here is the authorization. In 2003 we spent $23.8 billion; and this year's budget, we are going to spend less, about $10 billion less than we promised in No Child Left Behind. At the same time, we are eliminating education programs like comprehensive school reform, dropout prevention, elementary school counseling, eliminating those programs, eliminating arts programs for disabled students. We are funding at less than inflation after-school programs, safe and drug-free school programs, bilingual education. Those are the kinds of cuts that are necessary because we do not have the money. We are also cutting education generally. Over the last few years, we have been increasing education 12.3 percent. This budget that we are looking at now cuts education 2.7 percent, and what gets cut? Head Start, 28,000 if Head Start takes its proportional share of the hit; 28,000 students will not get the ability to get a head start. That program has been proven to give those not born to privilege a fair chance in life, and now because we are giving tax breaks, they will not have that opportunity. If the money comes out of school lunches proportional to the way the budget is cut, 500,000 students will not get school lunches. That is what happens when we cut the budget. We have to cut something. School lunches is what gets cut. We are also cutting access to college. We know that college tuition, particularly State college, is going up. States are having fiscal problems, every State. I know my State is increasing student tuition. Of the last count, over 400,000 students every year qualify for college, take the right courses, take the college entrance exams, have good enough grades to get in, but cannot afford to go because they cannot afford it. And here we are in this budget cutting student loans, cutting Pell grants so that the maximum amount is less than it is this year. To add insult to injury, we are also cutting programs that encourage low-income and minority students to attend college, and we know that college is one's ticket to success in this country. Also in special education, several decades ago we promised to spend 40 percent of the cost of educating students under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. At the rate we are going in this budget, we will never get to 40 percent. This budget cuts important programs. We have heard about health care. We have heard about veterans. We have heard how deep in debt this budget goes, and we just have to wonder how bad it has to get before it is time to change directions again and go in a better direction. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him for his leadership in responsible budgeting.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

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

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I think the plan that we have is a much better use of the taxpayers' money than in the underlying bill, and we would hope that the Chair would rule that it is in order to appropriately spend the money.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment which we have introduced jointly. The airlines are facing financial difficulties. Bankruptcies, layoffs, increased costs of fuel, and the war with Iraq have led the Republicans to propose a $3.2 billion bailout of the passenger airline industry in its House supplemental war appropriations bill. I believe it is time to have a more focused approach. The real problem is that every day airlines fly with thousands of empty seats. A recent New York Times article referred to the airlines problem and estimated that, on average, 25 percent of the seats on airlines are left unsold, even though the number of flights have been reduced. The reduction in flights means cuts in the number of pilots, airline flight attendants, baggage handlers, and additional travel industry jobs. So instead of just writing a check for $3.2 billion to the airlines, we should be considering a way to encourage the American public to fly and fill those empty seats in a way that will preserve and create jobs. This will do it. As a result of this amendment, air travel will naturally increase because the cost of consumer air travel will be cut in half. The plan will benefit not just the airlines but the traveling public. It will stimulate business for hotels, restaurants, rental car companies, travel agencies and other travel-related industries. This is better than a subsidy. A subsidy will not create new passengers, will not preserve jobs. Over the past week, the airlines have laid off 10,000 workers; and a subsidy will not stem the tide of additional layoffs. Jobs in the airline industry will be no more secure after the subsidy than before. On the other hand, the proposed program will result in increased airline business and increased demand for workers. This will fill the empty seats, making them more affordable, increase revenues for the airlines, preserve jobs and generate additional revenues for others involved in travel commerce. We hope, Mr. Chairman, that this amendment will be adopted. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) for yielding. We have heard a lot of adjectives and descriptions. Let me just show some charts that show where we are and why we have so much trouble in funding programs. And one cannot spin these charts. These charts show the numbers of the budget. This chart shows the deficit over the past few years starting with the Johnson administration, Ford, Carter. Reagan and Bush, as everyone knows, generated a great deal of debt. These are the deficits. When President Clinton came in, we passed a budget in 1993 without a single Republican vote, 218 to 216 in the House, 50/50 with Vice President Gore breaking the tie in the Senate and creating a straight line, straight up until we generated a surplus. The Republicans note that they were in the majority in much of this time. However, people will remember that their budgets were vetoed. They closed down the government. President Clinton would not sign their budgets because they were irresponsible. So the line kept going because President Clinton had enough Democrats to sustain the veto and those Republican budgets were not passed, were not enacted; and we have a straight line going up into surplus. In 1 year in the Bush administration, when there was no veto on those irresponsible budgets, we had the deficit coming right back worse than it ever was. This chart was developed before the recent budget that we will consider tomorrow, $70-some billion with no way to pay for it. So this red line will go almost off the chart. What are the plans? The plans are we started with a surplus in 2000. In 2001 we spent all of the Medicare surplus. September 11 is 3 weeks before the end of the fiscal year; so there is nothing that could have been done in those 3 weeks. We had already gone into Medicare and almost into Social Security by September 10. In 2002 we are spending all the Medicare, all the Social Security surplus, and $160 billion in additional deficits. In 2003 it looks like we are going to spend all of the Medicare, all of the Social Security, and $300 billion in additional debt. As a matter of fact, we are going to spend Social Security and Medicare and hundreds of billions of dollars in debt as far as the eye can see. How did all of this happen with this tax cut? Who gets the tax cut? The blue is the 2001 tax cut. The green is the proposed 2003 tax cut. My colleagues will see, and take my word for it, the lowest 20 percent do get some. There is a little bar there. We can hardly see it. The second 20 percent, the third 20 percent, the fourth 20 percent, the top 20 percent, what they get out of the tax cuts. This line right up to here shows the top 1 percent, the next 4 percent. So this is the top 5 percent population. The top 5 percent gets this much of the tax cut. We were told we had to do that for economic growth. This is a chart of economic growth since the Truman administration. Average growth of the Presidents, the worst growth since World War II as a result of that tax cut. Most people who have any kind of retirement fund know what the stock market looks like. This is 2000, the average price on the Dow, the S&P and the NASDAQ collapsing right after we enacted those budgets. We ran up all that debt. My colleagues will notice that in the Clinton administration when he left, we had anticipated by 2008 paying off almost all of the debt held by the public so there would be almost no debt held by the public. Right now in 2008 it looks like we are going to have this much debt. We have to pay interest on that debt. Here is the difference in interest that we are going to be paying over these years. We add up the difference of what we anticipated paying and, because we have no debt, what we are going to pay. By 2010 we would have paid an extra $1.6 trillion, with a T, trillion dollars in additional debt. Let us make this personal, a family of four. Add up the whole interest on the national debt, divided by the population, multiplied by four, and what do you get? In 2003 a family of four's share of the interest on the national debt, not the national debt, the interest, $4,500. As my colleagues will remember, it was going to nothing; but instead, by 2008 it will be almost $6,500; by 2013, almost $7,500 interest on the national debt. We do not get anything for that. This chart shows where we are with Social Security. Right now Social Security is paying a surplus. We are getting more into Social Security than we are paying out. 2017 we will break even, and then it gets worse. We will be paying almost $1 trillion a year more out in Social Security than we have coming in. The thing about this chart that is interesting is the tax cut in 2001 already enacted was twice as big as necessary to pay Social Security for 75 years. In other words, if we cut taxes half as much in 2001 as we did and the other half receive the taxes and allocate it to Social Security, that half would have been enough to pay for Social Security for 75 years. But, instead, we are paying more interest on the national debt, and what happens? We have heard about the cuts in veterans benefits, cuts in heating assistance for low-income elderly, cuts in education. The last 5 years or so, 4 or 5 years, average 12.3 percent increase in education, this year a cut in education, which means that we are going to be cutting school lunches. We are going to be cutting school loans and Pell grants at the time when States are increasing their tuition. With No Child Left Behind, the president went all over the country bragging about that authorization, but the money is not there to fully fund it. I just want to ask how bad it has to get before somebody realizes that the budget is not working and we have to do something. We are cutting veterans benefits, housing, health care, and education.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and would just want to point out, Mr. Speaker, this chart, which shows in stark terms what the budget deficit looked like over the years, until 1993, when this green box right here shows the Democratic plan to a surplus, and in 1 year we are back to worse than where we were. I would point out that this chart was done before the supplemental war budget, which has no way to pay for itself, so the red ink would go even $70 billion further down than this chart. Mr. Speaker, because of the tax cuts that caused this drop, we are having to do spending cuts; spending cuts like cuts in school lunches, Pell Grants, student loans, health care, and veterans benefits. That is right, over $14 billion in veterans benefit cuts will be restored if the motion to instruct is adopted. Mr. Speaker, what are some of those cuts? Fraud, waste and abuse? No, they are cuts in disability compensation, pensions, GI bill benefits, housing subsidies, and burial funds. This is an unconscionable attack against our military personnel at a time when they are deployed in Iraq. And Mr. Speaker, some say that we could get this through eliminating waste, but the President of the United States does not need funding cuts to stop paying benefits to people that are ineligible for benefits. This budget will cut benefits for eligible veterans. Now, what do some of the veterans groups say? Letters to the Speaker from the American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars, and Disabled American Veterans say that ``we recognize that our country has serious budget problems, but cutting already underfunded veterans programs to offset the cost of tax cuts is indefensible and callous.'' The Disabled American Veterans wrote, ``Has Congress no shame? Is there no honor left in the hallowed halls of our government that you choose to dishonor the sacrifices of our Nation's heroes and rob our programs, health care, and disability compensation to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy? You will be reducing benefits and services for disabled veterans at a time when thousands of our servicemen are in harm's way fighting terrorists around the world, and thousands more of our sons and daughters are preparing for war against Iraq.'' And what do the Paralyzed Veterans of America say? They say, in a letter to the Speaker, ``The House Committee on the Budget proposal also calls for cutting $15 billion over 10 years, $463 million in fiscal year 2004 alone, in VA mandatory spending under the guise of eliminating `fraud waste and abuse.' We do not consider payments to war-disabled veterans, pensions for the poorest disabled veterans, and GI benefits for soldiers returning from Afghanistan to be fraud, waste, and abuse. Fifty percent of the spending in VA entitlement goes to monthly payments to those veterans and their survivors. The House Committee on the Budget plan, if approved, would force cuts in each of these programs.'' Mr. Speaker, listen to our veterans, support our troops, and pass the motion to instruct conferees. Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record the letters I just referred to. March 17, 2003. Hon. J. Dennis Hastert, Speaker of the House, House of Representatives, Washington,

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

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

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, could the Chair advise us as to the amount of time remaining on both sides?

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 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. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1104. I would like to be able to support the AMBER Alert part of the bill, but that bipartisan, noncontroversial part of the bill has been buried behind literally a host of controversial sound-bite-based provisions which have passed the House several times, only to die in the Senate. The AMBER Alert portion of the bill would codify a program of grants and assistance to States and localities to establish a nationwide system of communications and alerts to assist in locating and returning missing and abducted children. The system has proven itself on the State level and would help save lives and additional heartache on a national basis. The AMBER Alert bill has already passed the Senate unanimously and could pass unanimously in the House, I believe, absent the controversial sound bites that have been tacked on. Last Congress, many of us warned the majority that coupling the AMBER Alert bill with controversial sound bites would mean that neither the AMBER Alert nor the sound bites would be passed, but the House passed the same kind of omnibus bill anyway; and, as expected, the whole thing died in the Senate. Yet, here we are again facing the same misguided strategy and this time again with even more reasons for the Senate to reject the bill which the AMBER Alert bill is buried in. Again, we have to protest the strategy that will again defeat the AMBER Alert system and again defeat the sound bites as well. Mr. Chairman, I think the Senate has chosen not to consider many of the controversial items hitchhiking on the AMBER Alert bill for good reasons: more death penalties, at a time when we know the death penalty has problems; more mandatory minimums, two strikes and you are out. We are authorizing FBI wiretaps for behavior that is not even a crime; pretrial detention, lifetime supervision, and removing the statute of limitations on crimes such as adults crossing State lines to engage in consensual sex that would be a crime in the home State. I would just remind Members that any kind of sex outside of marriage is a crime in Virginia. Virtually all of the crimes described in the bill are already crimes with significant penalties. Others have already passed the House in separate bills and are still pending in the Senate, as they have been for the last 6 years. It is wrong to hijack the AMBER Alert bill to try to pass these things again. It will not help AMBER Alert, and it will not help pass the extraneous provisions. It is true that the President has not waited for Congress to pass an AMBER Alert bill and has, by executive order, implemented many of the provisions of the bill. But the passage of AMBER Alert is still necessary to make the program permanent and to increase the funding of the program. Mr. Chairman, we have letters from the National Association of Police Organizations, and I will just read two paragraphs from it: ``On behalf of the National Association of Police Organizations, representing 230,000 rank and file police officers from across the United States, I would applaud your valiant efforts in calling for an immediate passage of stand-alone AMBER Alert legislation. The recent successful recovery of Elizabeth Smart exemplifies the power of an informed public. ``In this light, legislation that will greatly enhance recovery abilities should not be tied down with additional controversial provisions and political wrangling. The Senate quickly passed S. 221 92 to nothing. Like other child abduction bills, H.R. 412 and S. 121 enjoy broad bipartisan support.'' We have other letters asking for passage of a stand-alone AMBER Alert bill from the Edward, Lois and Elizabeth Smart family and from the Polly Klaas Foundation. I would ask that we defeat the bill and take up H.R. 412, the stand-alone AMBER Alert bill. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would have the effect of turning the sentencing guidelines into mandatory sentences in the cases it affects. We have not had hearings or markups on this matter; and this is not the way we should amend the sentencing guidelines, without thought or consideration. The purpose of the sentencing guidelines is to provide intelligent consistency in sentencing, considering each sentence within the overall framework of other sentences, and ensuring that more serious crimes get more serious punishment. That is impossible when you just take one crime at a time outside of that context with a floor amendment such as this. The fact is, it makes no sense to have people with different degrees of criminality getting equal sentences or people with equal degrees of criminality getting vastly different sentences. The evidence is that the guidelines are operating the way they are supposed to. About 85 percent of the sentences are either within the guideline range or outside of the guidelines at the request of the prosecution. The sentencing commission should retain the appropriate discretion, since that discretion has been essentially taken away from judges. If we want the commission to look at this specific problem of downward departures in these cases, we should direct the sentencing commission to do just that and not take it upon ourselves to do it all by ourselves in a vacuum. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In closing, I would like to say that this bill has significant constitutional implications. I include for the Record a letter from Artist Empowerment Coalition in opposition to the amendment. Artist Empowerment Coalition, New York, NY, March 26, 2003. Honorable Member, House Committee on Judiciary, Washington, DC. Dear Member: The Artist Empowerment Coalition (AEC) strongly opposes the language in Section 108 of the Amber Bill, which refers to MISLEADING DOMAIN NAMES ON THE INTERNET. The AEC represents a nationwide coalition of artists, songwriters, producers and industry executives. On behalf of the coalition, we ask that you oppose this amendment and prevent its inclusion in the legislation. The impact of its passage would be much broader and more harmful than the intent in our view, for the following reasons: 1. It is the artists' 1st Amendment right to express themselves creatively on the web or otherwise. 2. Recording artists of all genres have website domain names, which vary in origin and may reflect simply their names, titles, who they are and/or what they represent musically. 3. In some instances, an artists website content can include language and lyrics which are part of their overall body of work. 4. The content of the website and their creative expression is not and cannot always be reflected within the domain name. 5. Under Section 108 of this proposed amendment, content of an artists' website, judged subjectively, may be deemed ``obscene'' and therefore, based upon absence of labeling to that effect, exposes an artist to punishment under the law which can include, but is not limited to imprisonment. 6. The domain name selection, and its use on the part of an artist, is not, in this case, ``knowingly misleading,'' rather it is selected based upon an artists rights under the 1st Amendment of the Constitution. Further, the AEC believes artists should have the right to use domain names, which are not subject to ``labeling'' and third party interpretations. We believe it is wrong to imply that an artist intends to ``knowingly deceive'' a person or persons simply by using his or her name, for instance, as the domain name rather than a description of the website contents. While the AEC supports efforts to protect children from kidnapping and efforts to apprehend criminals, we oppose this and any measure, which wrongly makes criminals of the creative community, hinders the creative process and violates creative rights under the law. Please vote ``NO'' on this bill as amended. Sincerely, Tracey Walker, Director of Public Affairs.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) for purposes of control.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. The Supreme Court told us that virtual images produced without real children cannot be prohibited unless they are obscene. The bright line is a person has got to use real children for it to be illegal. This bill says that virtual images without using children are illegal. The same Supreme Court will make the same decision. This amendment is unconstitutional and ought to be rejected. Mr. Chairman, I yield back 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 believe the motion is self- explanatory, and I would hope that it would be adopted. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees.