Bobby Scott

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is designed as a fix for last year's decision in Ashcroft versus Free Speech Coalition. The problem with the amendment is that it has the same problems as the law that was struck down. The Ashcroft case held that sale or possession of non-obscene computer-generated material depicting child-like characters engaged in explicit sexual activities does not constitute a crime. This bill says it is a crime, just like the law that was struck down. Child pornography and object are despicable and illegal and can and are banned and prosecuted. These crimes and their severe punishments are left intact by the Ashcroft decision. What the court struck down was the criminalization of computer-generated and other depictions of children, which is not obscene, in undesirable, including sexual, situations where no child was actually involved in making the material. We all see pornography as despicable, period. But under our laws, pornography that is not obscene and does not involve real children is just that, pornography. Whether we like it or not, the Supreme Court has told us that pornography is not illegal. It is a category of speech that is despicable but not illegal. While pornography is legal, child pornography is illegal. But to constitute child pornography, the Supreme Court has told us that a child has to be involved in the production. Virtual computer-generated images, therefore, unless they are obscene, are not illegal. The law called into question in Ashcroft was a law enacted in 1996. The problem the court found with the law was that, while it prohibited images that constituted child pornography, it also prohibited images that did not constitute child pornography, because actual children were not involved in the production. The court made it clear that protected speech may not be banned as a means to ban unprotected speech. This would turn the first amendment upside down. Proponents of the bill believe that the court left intact or left open the question of whether government can establish a sufficiently compelling State interest to justify criminalization of computer- generated images that are not obscene and do not involve real children. However, the court cited in its decision New York versus Ferber from 1992 when it said, virtual images record no crime and creates no victims by its production and therefore are legal. Proponents also argue that the court did not consider the harm to real children which would occur when, through technological advances, it will become difficult to tell real children from virtual children, thereby allowing real children to be harmed because the government cannot tell the difference for the purpose of bringing prosecution. But the court did clearly consider that, and stated, and I quote from the decision, ``The government next argues that its objective of eliminating the market for pornography produced using real children necessitates a prohibition on virtual images as well. Virtual images, the government contends, are indistinguishable from the real ones. They are part of the same market and often exchanged. In this way, it is said virtual images promote the trafficking in works produced through the exploitation of real children.'' But then the court says, and I continue quoting, ``The hypothesis is somewhat implausible. If virtual images are identical to illegal child pornography, the illegal images will be driven from the market by indistinguishable substitutes. Few pornographers would risk prosecution by abusing real children if fictional computer-generated images would suffice.'' Nor was the court persuaded by the argument that virtual images will make it difficult for the government to prosecute cases. As to that concern, the court said, ``Finally, the government says that the possibility of producing images by using computer imaging makes it difficult for it to prosecute those who produce pornography using real children. Experts, we are told, may have difficulty in saying whether the pictures were made using real children or by using computer imaging. The necessary solution, the argument runs, is to prohibit both kinds of images. ``The argument,'' the court said, ``in essence is that protected speech may be banned as a means to ban unprotected speech. This analysis turns the first amendment upside down. The government may not suppress lawful speech as a means to suppress unlawful speech.'' Finally, Mr. Chairman, the government suggests that because the court determined that it did not decide whether an affirmative defense could save an otherwise unconstitutional law, it left open that possibility. That may be technically true, but listen to what the court said: ``In order to force this objection, the government would have us read the CPPA as not a measure suppressing speech but as a law shifting the burden to the accused to prove the speech is lawful. In this connection, the government relies on an affirmative defense under the statute which allows a defendant to avoid conviction for nonpossession offenses by showing that the materials were produced using only adults and were not otherwise distributed in a manner conveying the impression that they depicted real children. ``The government raises serious constitutional difficulties by seeking to impose on the defendant the burden of proving his speech was not unlawful. The affirmative defense applies only after the prosecution has begun, and the speaker must himself prove, on the pain of felony conviction, that his conduct falls within the affirmative defense. ``In cases under the CPPA, the evidentiary burden is not trivial. Where the defendant is not the producer of the work, he may have no way of establishing the identity or even the existence of the actors. If the evidentiary issue is a serious problem for the government, as it asserts, it will be at least as difficult for the innocent possessor.'' This statute, however, Mr. Chairman, by its very words, makes illegal what the court said was legal. Five Justices joined in the majority opinion. One concurred, one concurred in part and dissented in part, two dissented. With five Justices, all of whom are still on the court, agreeing with the whole decision and only three dissenting in any part at all, this is not a close decision with wavering members. So, Mr. Chairman, I think we should avoid the necessity of the court's telling us again that we cannot prosecute child pornography unless real children were, in fact, involved in the production of the material or unless they are otherwise legally obscene. Finally, Mr. Chairman, we should note the subsequent action in the Ashcroft case. The trial court on February 7, just a few weeks ago, ordered attorney's fees to the plaintiff on the grounds that the government's defense of the statute was not substantially justified. This is essentially the same statute. It says that virtual child images can be made illegal. The court has said that virtual images cannot be made illegal. Those of us who are familiar with our system of government recognize that the same ruling by the same Supreme Court will find this bill unconstitutional and unenforceable; and, therefore, the amendment should be opposed. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I seek time in opposition.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I would point out that this is going in the right direction. We need to work on this as quickly as possible, in this bill or outside of this bill. I think it is a good idea, and I am in support of the amendment.

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

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, when you ask for the courts to review it, that is so it can be considered in the courts with all the evidence, not in the political branch. It is better to leave it to the sentencing commission and the courts than to floor amendments in the House of Representatives. If this is such a good idea, then let us do it through the regular order. Let us have some hearings, subcommittee markup, committee markup, and then we can slowly and deliberately consider such an amendment. The purpose of the sentencing commission is to get away from the floor amendments and the sound bites so you can have intelligent sentencing. We have had situations where you have had sentences that are way out of proportion to crimes that are just as serious, or less serious, totally out of context. That is why we try to get away from it, so that serious crimes get serious punishment, lesser crimes get lesser punishment. That is the purpose of the sentencing commission. You cannot do that with floor amendments in the House of Representatives. That is why we would hope this amendment could be defeated. We could get a clean Amber Alert bill passed so we can get that enacted and not have to get bogged down in consideration of amendments such as this.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time, and reserve the right to close.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This is one of the reasons why it is difficult to consider legislation on the floor that had not been considered by committee. Reading the legislation, it appears that they have defined things that are obscene and, if that is the case, the whole site can be busted for obscenity. If it is not obscene, I am not sure that the amendment even applies. Adding ``misleading'' will just add complications to the prosecution because if we can prosecute for the obscenity, we do not have to get into the question of whether the title was misleading or not. We have constitutional implications with this because ``misleading'' may apply to adults as well as children. There have been no hearings on this to my knowledge and certainly no committee consideration of this. I would point out that if the exemption on the bill, if we have a sexual implication in the name of the Web site, that might cause as many problems as it does solutions because it would make it easier to find the pornographic and obscene sites. The AMBER alert bill ought to be passed by itself. We ought not be complicated with amendments such as this that have not been considered on the floor. So I would hope we would defeat the amendment, take the AMBER alert portion of the bill by itself so that that could be passed and considered, and deal with this kind of a measure in committee where we can deliberate and get all the fact and implications. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and I thank her for holding this Special Order. First of all, we need to put these cuts in perspective and with the budget to see how we got to where we are. This is a chart, not spin, not adjectives, a chart of the budget deficit which you notice goes deep under the Reagan and Bush administrations, 8 years of digging out in the Clinton administration up to a surplus and right back down into a deep deficit. This is not a war budget way down here, because this was passed without the war budget money in it. The war budget will take you off the chart. This is where we are. What is the plan? You notice we started with a little surplus in 2001, and we spent all the Medicare surplus; in 2002, all the Medicare, Social Security and then some for as far as you can see. We had no growth, unemployment is up, the stock market is down. And what is the consequence of running up all that debt? Right now, a family of four, divide the country into the interest on the national debt, $4,500 for a family of four paying on the national debt. If we had not messed up the budget, we would have paid off the whole national debt and have zero debt tax. But by 2008 it will be $6,400; and by 2013 it will be $7,500 for a family of four because we have run up so much debt. Because we have so much debt, we have had to cut the budget. We have had to cut agriculture. We have had to cut education, energy and commerce; and we have had to cut veterans benefits, disability compensation, pensions, GI bill, housing subsidies, health care. This is wrong. We are cutting these because we have run up the debt because of the tax cuts. Our veterans deserve better. We should improve the budget before final passage and restore the cuts in those veterans programs. We should honor the sacrifices our troops are making today by restoring the cuts in veterans programs. Today's troops are tomorrow's veterans.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, a few years ago, we were asked to pass the budget, the Republican budget. We passed it. This is the economic growth over the last few years. We got the lowest economic growth that we have gotten in 50 years. We also have a budget that creates new debt. This is the surplus and deficit over the past few years. You will notice it under Reagan and Bush; the Clinton budget, which was passed without any Republican help; President Bush came in, and we are back down into deficit. This is called a wartime budget. Unfortunately, there is no wartime money in the budget. How bad do deficits have to get? This is a chart that shows where the interest on the national debt has gone. Interest on the national debt, if the Republicans had not messed up the budget, would have gone to zero by the end of this budget deficit. The red line is the interest on the national debt under the Republican plan. To put it in perspective, the blue line is the entire nondefense discretionary budget. Instead of going to zero, we are going to be spending more on interest on the national debt than we are spending on everything in government. Because of the deficits we are cutting education. The 12 percent increase over the past few years, this budget is a cut in education. We are talking about cuts not only in the veterans benefits that we had but also cuts in education, cuts in safe and drug-free schools, after- school programs, education for homeless children, vocational education, 28,000 Head Start students not being educated under the Head Start program. At a time when States are increasing their tuitions, we are cutting Pell grants. We are cutting student loans and school lunches. We are also not funding No Child Left Behind. The President went all over the country talking about No Child Left Behind and the amount of money that was authorized to be spent. Unfortunately, we are not even spending on No Child Left Behind what we spent last year. Look at the difference in what we are spending. In order to take pay cuts for the wealthy, we have run up a huge debt, cut veterans benefits, cut education. That is the wrong priority. We should fund veterans and education first and then consider tax cuts second. We have got the wrong priorities. Education is the right priority.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I come from a State that has a long tradition in supporting religious freedom. In fact, it was Thomas Jefferson who wrote the Virginia statute for religious freedom which precedes the first amendment to our Constitution. House Resolution 132 is totally gratuitous, as it will do nothing to change the underlying law. This is because we are dealing with constitutional issues that cannot be altered by resolution. If the judicial branch ultimately finds the Pledge or the motto to be constitutional, then nothing needs to be done; on the other hand, if the Court ultimately finds it to be unconstitutional, then no law that we pass can change that. Mr. Speaker, I believe the reasoning of the majority opinion in the case was sound. In the case, the appellate court applied three different tests which have been applied in the last 50 years in Supreme Court jurisprudence in evaluating establishment clause cases. One test was whether the phrase ``under God'' in the Pledge constitutes an endorsement of religion. The majority opinion says that it was an endorsement of one view of religion, monotheism, and therefore was an unconstitutional endorsement. Another test was whether individuals were coerced into being exposed to a religious message, and the majority concluded that the Pledge was unconstitutional because young children who are compelled to attend school ``may not be placed in the dilemma of either participating in a religious ceremony or protesting.'' Finally, the court applied the Lemon test, part of which holds that a law violates the Establishment Clause if it has no secular or nonreligious purpose. For example, cases involving a moment of public silence in public schools, some of those laws have been upheld if the law allows silent prayer as one of many activities which can be done in silence; but courts have stricken laws in which a moment of silent prayer is added to existing moments of silence because that law has no secular purpose. The court concluded, if the 1954 law, which added ``under God'' to the existing Pledge, had no secular purpose, it was, therefore, unconstitutional. It is interesting to note the reasoning of the dissent in the Newdow case. The important operative language in the dissent was the following: ``Legal world abstractions and ruminations aside, when all is said and done, the danger that `under God' in our Pledge of Allegiance will tend to bring about a theocracy or suppress someone's belief is so minuscule to be de minimis. The danger that the phrase represents to our first amendment's freedoms is picayune at best.'' Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, our actions in enacting H. Res. 132 may cause the courts to review the sentiments behind ``one Nation, under God'' because, if the courts look at the importance we apparently affix to the phrase by passing yet another resolution before the judicial branch has even entered final judgment, this attention diminishes the argument that the phrase has de minimis meaning and increases the constitutional vulnerability of the use of that phrase in the Pledge. While one Federal appeals court rejected a call to rehear the controversial ruling that struck down the recitation of the Pledge due to its religious content, the fact remains that this issue is still alive and well; and every resolution we pass chips away at the de minimis argument. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, the court may look at this very resolution, understand the Lemon test, and find that today's exercise has no secular purpose and, therefore, adds to the constitutional vulnerability of the Pledge. Finally, Mr. Speaker, to quote from an editorial that appeared in the Christian Century, a nondenominational Protestant weekly, puts this matter in perspective: ``To the extent `under God' has real religious meaning, then it is unconstitutional. The phrase is constitutional to the extent that it is religiously innocuous. Given that choice, I side with the Ninth Circuit. The government should not link religion and patriotism.'' Mr. Speaker, for those reasons I believe we should reject this resolution.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, for centuries American bankruptcy law has had the principle that if a person ever gets over their head in debt, they can cash in all their assets, pay off all the debts that they can, and get a fresh start. For policy reasons, a few assets have been historically exempt and a few debts have been historically nondischargeable, especially those that have been incurred by fraud or through abuse of the bankruptcy system. Yet the principle has always been the same, cash in all one has and get a fresh start. This bill violates the historic principle. People who incur debts because of illness, unemployment, or business failure and have debts they cannot pay off will be denied an opportunity to get a fresh start. They will be stripped of every penny of income after basic expenses such as food and rent without reasonable allowance for unforeseen emergencies such as auto repairs and so forth, which will inevitably come up. People in these circumstances will be in economic slavery for 5 years and probably be worse off at the end of 5 years than they were before. During this time a person over his head in debt has nothing to lose. This bill will deny relief under the traditional bankruptcy laws for at least 5 years. The bill has no rational measure for determining a person's ability to pay off their debts. It says if they can pay off $10,000 on their debts over 5 years, that is $167 a month, then they are not entitled to a discharge. A person could co-sign a spouse's business loan only to have the spouse die or disappear and with a $50,000 salary find him or herself owing $1 million, unable to even make interest payments, and that person would be denied relief under this bill. This will cause many Americans who have had unforeseen business failures, health problems, or unemployment to find themselves unable to pay their debts and be trapped with no way out. If our goal, Mr. Speaker, is to create a situation where people are stressed out with nothing to lose and to maximize the chances that a person will totally lose control and terrorize the community or their co-workers, this is it. Just this week in Washington, D.C. we have seen the impact of financial stress. The North Carolina farmer who drove his tractor into the pond near the National Mall was quoted as saying: ``I'm broke, busted, I'm out.'' No one in the community is safer when we have increased the number of our neighbors who have nothing to lose. Finally, Mr. Speaker, we need to consider the impact this bill will have on small business entrepreneurs. How many will be willing to take a chance on a new business if any failure will result not just in bankruptcy but no relief for the family for 5 years? No bank in the future will lend a business any cash, especially one in financial distress which actually needs the money, without the personal signature of the owner. Long ago we decided that there would be no debtors prisons in America. This bill represents an effort to take a giant step backwards to this bygone era, and I urge my colleagues to reject this bill and the rule.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, let me tell my colleagues what the Disabled American Veterans think of this budget. ``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 service members are in harm's way, fighting terrorists around the world, and thousands more of our sons and daughters are preparing for war against Iraq.'' In another letter, the Disabled American Veterans write to the chairman of the Committee on the Budget and say that ``you were quoted as saying, `We're asking tough medicine at a tough time.' You're asking veterans to swallow a bitter pill to remedy an illness of your own making. While we all would like to see taxes reduced when prudent, cutting already underfunded veterans' programs to offset the costs of tax cuts is indefensible and callous. You will be cutting benefits and services for disabled veterans at a time when we have thousands of our service members in harm's way fighting terrorism around the world and when we are sending thousands more of our sons and daughters to fight a war against Iraq.'' What does the American Legion say about this budget? ``This budget defies common sense. Veterans' pensions and disability compensation are parts of the cost of defending freedom. Our Nation cannot, in good conscience, commit men and women to battle and reduce the meager, yet well-deserved, compensation for those who are wounded. Of all of the citizens who benefit from mandatory Federal funding, none are worthier than those who are disabled today because they risked all of their tomorrows fighting for freedom. ``There are few options available for those who would cut veterans' benefits. Congress could eliminate cost-of-living adjustments, curtail the awarding of disability compensation, roll back the disability ratings or a combination thereof. None of these moves are justified. In fact, any of those cuts would be the highest form of ingratitude this government could inflict and would give moral ammunition to those who would discourage young people from undertaking military service. ``There must be a better way to provide tax relief to the American people than to balance the budget on the backs of disabled veterans. There has to be a better way to promote morale in the armed services than to slight those in whose shoes today's troops might someday be. There is certainly a better way to reduce the Department of Veterans' backlogs of disability claims and veterans waiting up to 2 years for doctors' appointments at VA hospitals.'' That is what the American Legion thinks of today's budget. Now, how did we get to where we are? This is a chart showing the deficits over the past few years starting with President Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan and Bush. Deficits explode. Under the Clinton administration and the Clinton budget, over the objection of the Republicans, because not a single Republican, House or Senate, voted for the budget that put us on the trajectory of 8 years of fiscal responsibility, going from a huge deficit up to a surplus; and when the present administration came in, we went directly back into huge deficits, most of which happened before September 11, 2001; this trajectory had already started, and with the huge tax cut plan of 2001. And as we can see, for many years to come, deficits projected out. Now, what is the plan? Well, we see what the plan is. We see when this administration came in, we had a surplus. That is this blue line over here. Now, September 11 was 3 weeks before the end of the fiscal year. In 2001, we had already spent most of Medicare. In 2002, we had spent all of the Medicare surplus, all of the Social Security surplus, and another almost $200 billion. In 2003, we spent all of the Medicare and Social Security surplus and about $300 billion. Deficits as far as the budget goes. Now, after they passed their so-called growth package, what happened? Well, we see that those tax cuts that ruined the budget were supposed to stimulate the economy. This is the economic growth, President-to- President, starting with Truman, Eisenhower, Eisenhower's second term, Kennedy, Johnson, Johnson, Nixon, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan. We have so far the worst economic growth in over 50 years as a direct result of passing that irresponsible plan. Now, what do we have as a result of that? We have what had been projected to be a debt paid off. What do we have so far? A debt exploded. As a matter of fact, for a family of four, in January of 2001, in 5 years, the family of four's share of the national debt, $520, was projected. What is it projected to be now? Six to $8,000. Now, that is not free. A family of four's share of the national debt today, $4,500, as I said, going towards zero; in 2008, it will be $6,400 and going up and almost $500 a year, year after year, a family of four's share of the national debt. Now, this is a time when Medicare and Social Security will be needed. This is a chart of the Medicare surplus and shortfall. We are right now enjoying a surplus in Medicare, the same chart for Social Security. We are enjoying a surplus. In 2017, 2016, 2018, somewhere in there, it will change into a deficit and go into a deficit. Now, we wonder with deficits this large, we would never be able to pay those. With one-half of the tax cut that has already been implemented, if we had taken the other half and allocated that to Social Security and Medicare, we could have had enough in the trust fund to cover Social Security and Medicare for 75 years. Now, part of the plan, as the gentleman from Illinois mentioned, involves severe spending cuts to accommodate some of those tax cuts that were made. Medicare cutting $214 billion, Medicaid $93 billion. Every Member of Congress has been hearing from doctors and hospitals about the compensation out of Medicare and Medicaid, that they cannot make ends meet, they are not even covering costs, and here we are responding to that with major cuts in Medicare and Medicaid. Veterans' benefits are being cut. Food stamps, farm programs are being cut, education programs are being cut. The President went all over the country bragging about No Child Left Behind, and we do not fully fund it. We are billions of dollars short in funding No Child Left Behind. This is not a responsible budget. As we started off, we had the opportunity to continue, pay off the entire national debt and be in a position where Social Security and Medicare would be funded, and we turned right around and in 1 or 2 years went to the biggest deficits in the history of the United States. There is one figure where the debt is so large, by the time we get out to 2013, that the interest on the national debt will exceed the entire national budget outside of Social Security, Medicare, and defense. The entire national budget in the plan that was reported by the Republicans just a couple of days ago has in 2013, the entire budget, outside of defense, Social Security and Medicare, the entire budget, that is the FBI, NASA, foreign aid, agriculture, education, everything, $466 billion. They have run up so much debt that the payment on interest on the national debt will be $477 billion. Mr. Speaker, this budget is so far out of balance that we need to start from scratch. I thank the gentleman from South Carolina for his hard work in trying to make sense out of a budget that makes no sense at all.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, this closed rule does a disservice to the legislative process. Medical malpractice is a very complicated issue, there are many different provisions, and we cannot possibly debate each one with a closed rule. The fact is that one-half of the medical malpractice premiums represent \1/2\ of 1 percent of health care costs, and those costs have been going up at the same rate of health care inflation. California had medical malpractice reform, but the rates did not go down until there was insurance reform. This bill does nothing to eliminate frivolous lawsuits, but it makes the bona fide lawsuits even more difficult to bring. The elimination of joint and several liability means that you have to chase each and every doctor for each and every portion of their liability. The young Mexican girl with the transplant, one would have to prove a separate case against each and every company, the transplant company, the hospital, and everybody else before she could get anything. She would probably use up the whole $250,000 cap before she could get anything. The collateral source rule will shift the cost of malpractice onto the employer. If one has a self-insured employer, if one of their employees gets put in a malpractice-induced coma, the employer will have to pay the bill. This bill prohibits subrogation so that the employer cannot get the money back; the malpractice insurance company will not have to pay that hospital bill. Mr. Speaker, we need to debate that and discuss it; but we cannot, because it is a closed rule. I hereby attach to my statement, the additional dissenting views I offered to the Judiciary Committee report on H.R. 5. Additional Dissenting Views In addition to the dissenting views, I would add the following: 1. In addition to the comments on the bill's elimination of joint and several liability, I would add that this new burden on the plaintiff is administratively unfair to the plaintiff. The apportionment of malpractice responsibility is routinely made in the health care field by apportionment of insurance coverage. Health care providers can and do decide in advance who will pay for what coverage. The plaintiff, on the other hand, is not in a position to apportion damages, because the plaintiff often has no idea what happened, much less who was responsible. The entire concept of res ipsa loquitur is based on the fact that some cases are so obviously the result of malpractice that the general burden of proof is eased for such victims. With the elimination of joint and several liability, and without knowing exactly what happened, the plaintiff will have to make a separate case, including establishing a standard of care, violation of that standard and proximate cause for each conceivable participant in his care and always have the possibility of defendants pointing to an ``empty chair'' or an insolvent defendant at the trial. This burden comes with the costs of expert witnesses for each doctor, nurse and hospital even minimally involved in the most egregious and obvious cases. As the dissent mentions, any defendant can always seek contribution without the elimination of joint and several liability. 2. In addition to the comments in the dissent on the collateral source rule, I would add that there are three interested parties: the plaintiff, the health care insurance company and the defendant. Good arguments can be made for the plaintiff to benefit from the provisions he has made to pay his bills. Some may have saved money over the years, including a medical savings account, and others may have paid for insurance. Those persons who have invested in insurance should be able to benefit from their thrift. If one is not persuaded by that argument, and is offended by the plaintiff ``being paid twice'' for the same bill, then one could reasonably say that the health insurance carrier should be able to get its money back through subrogation, and charge a smaller premium based on the anticipation that some of their claims will not ultimately have to be paid, because a tortfeasor will be responsible. The last person of interest who should benefit from the plaintiff's insurance should be the tortfeasor. In fact the prohibition against subrogation in the bill creates the bizarre situation in which a self- insured small business could have an employee in a malpractice induced coma, and have to pay all of the hospital bills, notwithstanding the fact that the negligent doctor is fully insured. 3. Finally, one of the reasons why the ``average'' malpractice award is increasing is because smaller cases are not brought. The complexity of the cases makes it impossible to hire an attorney if the award is too small to generate a meaningful attorney's fee. This ``average'' will undoubtedly increase if this bill is enacted because of limitations on damages, limitations on attorney's fees, elimination of joint and several liability and elimination of collateral sources. A better measure of the impact malpractice litigation has on the health care system is the fact that all malpractice awards and settlements have been approximately \1/2\ of 1 percent of the national health care costs and have been recently increasing at the same rate as the health care costs generally. Robert C. Scott.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my name removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 936.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

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

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

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this provides a GAO study of the issue. This amendment is being presented jointly with Rep. Wu. We all agree that the cloning technology we are aware of today should not be used for human reproductive purposes. Yet, we all know that the nuclear cell transfer process that this bill bans in this country will continue in other countries in order that the promising developments in stem-cell research can continue. It is possible that this process can develop to the point that it could be used to prevent or cure many dreaded childhood or adult-onset diseases such as Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, diabetes, cancer, heart disease, spinal cord injury, multiple sclerosis, severe burns, or other diseases, disorders, or conditions. These developments are proceeding at a very rapid pace. This amendment would ensure that Congress is informed of developments in the technology and their potential for medical advances. It would advise us of any need for technical changes to the bill which would keep its prohibition on reproductive cloning effective and narrowly drawn, while allowing any beneficial uses of the technology consistent with the prohibition. Furthermore, this is an area where public attitudes and ethical views are often confused and uncertain, and a GAO study would be helpful in summarizing and clarifying them before Congress chooses to revisit this issue. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, at the suggestion of the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu), I ask unanimous consent to modify the amendment.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. We were about to pay off the entire national debt, so there would have been no interest on the national debt. Even if you do not pay off any of the debt, you still have to pay the interest. These are big numbers. Let us divide it and see what it means to a family of four. For a family of four, dividing the population into the interest on the national debt, we have gotten it down to $4,500. As you saw, it would have gone down to virtually zero. It was $4,500 for a family of four, headed toward zero. But instead, it is going to be $6,500 by 2008, and going up at a rate of about $500 a year as far as you can see. By 2008 it will be $6,500 just interest on the debt before you have got any government at all. Now, as it gets worse and worse and the debt tax gets worse and worse, we are trying to prepare for the baby boomers and Social Security. This is the chart of the Social Security surplus. Social Security, we are bringing in more than we are sending out; and we have a surplus, temporarily. In 2017 it will be about even, and then it gets worse and worse, and we will have almost $1 trillion in deficit out here in 2037. Now, if we had banked all this money and invested it, we would be able to pay this. In fact, we could have covered all of the Social Security deficit out 75 years with one-half of the tax cut that has already been implemented. In other words, if they had cut taxes only in half and allocated the other half to the Social Security problem, we would have had a solvent Social Security system for 75 years. But instead, they spent all of the Social Security surplus. Now, people ask, what is our plan? They have ruined the budget. What is our plan? I remind them that our plan is right here in green. When Democrats controlled the budget, the deficit was less and less, into surplus, going towards the end of the national debt. That was our plan. This is President Bush's plan. Now, when we were leading, this is how we led. I do not think you can escape this chart. You do not create a chart like this by accident.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I think it is helpful just to use the charts because the charts tell the story better than anything else. I mean, we have all this rhetoric about how good the economy is, how good this is, and whether or not there is going to be a deficit. But one does not produce numbers and charts like this by accident. If we look at when President Reagan came in, my colleagues will remember that his budget passed pretty much as he introduced it. He had enough support in Congress to get his budget passed. And we see what happened to the deficit after Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, what happened to the deficit under Reagan and Bush. It was essentially their budgets that passed. When President Clinton came in, it was his budget that passed. Very narrowly without a single Republican vote in the House or the Senate, his budget passed, and we saw the deficit declining year after year. When the Republicans took over, it was still President Clinton's budget, because he vetoed the budgets passed by Congress several times. My colleagues will remember that the Republicans shut down the government because they would not accept President Clinton's budget. They sent him a budget. He vetoed it. They closed the government down, he kept vetoing the bills. Finally, the budget kept going with continuing resolutions and otherwise, but essentially it was President Clinton in charge of the budget. He had enough support in Congress to sustain his vetoes, and it was essentially his budget that created the situation where there were smaller and smaller deficits, up to the point where there was, in fact, a surplus. This is the nontrust fund, so this is the surplus after you secure Social Security and Medicare, save them for Social Security and Medicare; and we still had a surplus. President Bush comes in, and it is his budget that is adopted; and we see what happens to the deficit this first year. September 11 is within 3 weeks of the end of the fiscal year, so most of this happened before September 11, and we see as far as the eye can see what is happening to the budget. When we look at the President's proposal, we see that, according to his budget, we started out 2000 with the surplus; the first year, 2001, we spent all of Medicare and some of Social Security; 2002, all of Medicare, all of Social Security, and about $160 billion more in debt. The budget year we are in now looks to be worse than that. The budget projection for as far as the President's budget goes, according to his budget, he is recommending all of these deficits. Now, I think you have to put those numbers in some kind of context. This is the President's budget out to 2008. The on-budget deficit for this year is going to be $468 billion. In the 2004 budget, the one he is recommending, it is going to be $482 billion. It is offset somewhat by Social Security, so it is not quite as bad as it looks. But the on- budget, after you have taken just the on-budget part, before you offset it by spending the Social Security and Medicare, it is $468 billion and $482 billion. Now, the President says if we just would not spend as much, maybe the budget would go into balance. It has already been pointed out that the entire non-Social Security/Medicare/defense part of the budget, nondefense discretionary budget, is about $425 billion. In other words, we would have to eliminate all of education, all of transportation and roads, all of the Department of Justice, FBI, prisons, all of NASA, all of foreign aid, all the veterans benefits, eliminate all of government outside of Social Security, Medicare and defense, and we still would not have the budget in balance. So when he says just cut a little spending, look at the numbers. The next chart is when you run up deficits, it is not free. This bottom line is what the Federal payment on the national debt would be and what it was supposed to be when the President came in. We would have paid off almost the entire national debt by 2011 to 2015. Instead, we are running up debt. So we have to pay more in the debt tax.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

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

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, after the President's budget was adopted, the economy kept going down and down. And so some of this recalculation is an acknowledgment that the President's budget had caused the economy to tank, and they had to recalculate it based on the new numbers. When President Clinton's budget was adopted, they always underestimated the effect because that budget was improving the economy and every year the economy was doing even better than expected. The stock market was improving; unemployment was going down. When this President's budget was adopted, things just kept getting worse. And they had to recalculate it based on that new forecast. So it is all not just technical miscalculations. Some of it, a lot of it, is recalculation based on how poorly the economy was doing.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. The gentleman indicated that deficits reduce the size of government. Is this budget coming in not presented to us larger than the one before? So it does not reduce the size of government. When we cut all these taxes and reduce revenue, we are not reducing the size of government. We are just running up debt on which we have to pay interest.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Does the gentleman know who said the budget deficit is a stealth tax that pushes up interest rates and costs the typical family $36,000 on an average home mortgage, $1,400 on an ordinary student loan and $700 on a car loan?