Bobby Scott

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman remember how many Republicans voted for that budget?

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cooper) remember the vote in 1993?

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. When we consider that we are spending the entire surplus, to continue spending at that rate, we will not have that surplus in 2017. So we are going to have to figure out, have some plan to figure out how to pay that. Are we going to raise taxes? Are we going to cut spending? The gentleman has already indicated that we could eliminate the entire Federal budget that is nondefense, discretionary spending, we can eliminate the entire budget, that is, no roads, no education, NASA, everything, State Department, foreign aid. Get rid of all of it. Not cut it, eliminate it, and not be able to cover the on-budget deficit that we are running up now. So where are we going to get it? Are they going to raise taxes in 2017? And then not only do they not have the cushion, since we do not have the reserve, we are spending it; how will we come up with this money? Frankly, I do not think they will come up with the money. They will just repeal Social Security. And if that is not the plan, they ought to have some way of explaining how they will pay Social Security in the future. The President, in one of his addresses to Congress, said he intended to maintain Social Security for those retiring and those close to retirement, which suggests to me that these people down here will not have any Social Security. If they have no coherent plan, they ought to admit that they will eliminate Social Security. And if they intend to pay Social Security, they ought to have some coherent plan to show how they are going to do it. All they are doing now is running up debt. We cannot continue to do that. A family of four is already up to $6,500 interest on the national debt. It is getting worse before it gets better. How are they going to pay Social Security? I think they have a stealth plan to eliminate Social Security when the burden becomes too deep. They have got all these retirement plans so that all those who are privileged to have inherited wealth, they will be all right. But the vast majority of Americans with no pension plan will be back where they were before Social Security was there. We need answers. They are not delivering answers. They are not making any tough choices like we made in 1993, tough choices that converted deficits into surpluses. They are not making any tough choices. All the easy choices. Anybody who wants a tax cut gets one. Anybody who wants some spending gets spending, unless it is education or something important. You do not get those. How are they going to pay this? So I think they need to come forward and explain how they will do this without eliminating Social Security. And if you listen to their remarks talking about personal responsibility, you assume that sooner or later your retirement will be your personal responsibility. There will not be any Social Security to keep you out of poverty.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, when the gentleman talks about the calculation being a miscalculation, is some of the calculation not a recalculation based on how poorly the economy was doing after the President's budget was adopted?

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. And we made those tough choices without any Republican help, House or Senate. And does the gentleman remember what they did in the next election? When they demagogued that vote, said we made the tough choices, criticized those choices, and they won 50 seats in the next election.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, now we turn over a surplus to President Bush and he has made no tough choices. He has cut taxes and increased spending. Have they recommended any tough choices?

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to join my colleagues as we express profound sympathy and condolences to the families, friends, and associates of the crew of the Space Shuttle Columbia and to pay tribute to the seven heroic men and women who gave their lives in service of their countries and all mankind. I also join my fellow Virginians in a special mourning of the loss of our native son, David Brown, mission specialist of the Columbia. Mr. Speaker, the labors and sacrifices of the Columbia crew will not be in vain. The information from over 80 scientific research experiments will unlock discoveries which will reshape the world to the benefit of all of humanity. And so I believe the most profound tribute that we can pay to the seven Columbia heroes is to continue the work that they dedicated their professions and ultimately their lives to further. I am proud, Mr. Speaker, that much of that work will take place at NASA Langley in Hampton, Virginia. Mr. Speaker, the names Apollo 1, Challenger, and now Columbia will be revered throughout time for the supreme contributions and sacrifices of their crews. So I say to the families of those who were lost: weep not. The dreams of the great men and women who dared to explore the outer boundaries of humanity will not be forgotten.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, along with my colleagues, Representative JoAnn Davis and Representative Ed Schrock, I rise with great pride to call attention to a group of young students from Hampton, Virginia who have distinguished themselves, their school, their community, and the Commonwealth of Virginia. The Phoebus High School Phantoms football team had a remarkable season and we believe the Phantoms deserve formal recognition for their accomplishments. On December 14, 2002, the Phoebus High School Phantoms won their second straight state Group AAA Division 5 Football Championship, defeating Stafford 39-13 in the title game at the University of Richmond stadium. And they did not just win the championship, they did it in style. The Phoebus Phantoms went undefeated during the 2002 season--finishing with a record of 14 and 0. There are 114 state Group AAA schools that play football in Virginia, and Phoebus High School was the only one to finish the 2002 season undefeated. And their win in the title game was Phoebus High School's 26th win in a row--including 10 shutouts. Opened in 1975, Phoebus High School is the newest and smallest of Hampton's four high schools. Under the direction of Principal Phyllis Henry, the Phoebus faculty seeks to inspire students to strive for excellence and achievement in the classroom, in their extracurricular activities, and in their communities. Phoebus students meet rigorous academic requirements, and take responsibility for academic progress, behavior and attendance. The majority of Phoebus students continue on to institutions of higher education. It is clear that this drive for excellence has now been extended into the field of athletics. Phoebus High School's championship this year marked the 8th time in the last 11 years that a Peninsula District team has won a state title in football. To quote from our hometown newspaper, the Daily Press, ``High school football on the Peninsula is championship football.'' We would like to extend our enthusiastic congratulations to Coach Bill Dee, his coaching staff, and all of the players on the Phoebus High School Phantoms--the 2002 Group AAA Division 5 Virginia High School League State Football Champions.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, as the Ranking Member of the Crime Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee, I wish to address an aspect of H. Rep. 107-769, the Committee Report accompanying H.R. 4689. In that report, the Majority unjustifiably impugns the integrity of James M. Rosenbaum, a distinguished federal judge and former prosecutor who testified before our subcommittee on May 14, 2002. Judge Rosenbaum serves as the Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. Prior to his appointment to the bench by President Reagan, he served as the United States Attorney for the District of Minnesota. Judge Rosenbaum did not seek to testify before Congress. Rather, he was invited to participate in the May 14 hearing by Chairman Sensenbrenner at my request. At the hearing, Judge Rosenbaum expressed support for an amendment to the federal sentencing guidelines that had been transmitted to Congress by a unanimous vote of the United States Sentencing Commission, and expressed opposition to H.R. 4689, a bill to block that guideline amendment. Judge Rosenbaum's position in favor of the amendment is shared by, among others, the three Republican members of the Sentencing Commission and the Judicial Conference of the United States. Moreover, Judge Rosenbaum's position is largely embodied in legislation (section 202 of S. 1874) introduced last year by Senators Jeff Sessions (R-AL) and Orrin Hatch (R-UT). The amendment in question would cap the base offense level established by the sentencing guidelines for low-level drug defendants who are classified as ``minimal'' or ``minor'' participants in the offense, as those terms are defined in the guidelines manual. In support of that policy, Judge Rosenbaum testified using fact patterns taken from actual cases in the District of Minnesota. He never testified about the actual sentences imposed; he simply demonstrated the differences between the presumptive sentencing range under the existing sentencing guidelines, and the presumptive sentencing range calculated under the proposed guideline amendment. His analysis was primarily based on pre-sentence reports, which describe in detail the roles of low-level defendants in actual rather than hypothetical cases. The Committee's 22 page critique of Judge Rosenbaum's testimony is highly repetitious, but contains four major charges: First, the Committee complains that Judge Rosenbaum did not cooperate in the Committee staffs attempts to learn more about the examples cited by Judge Rosenbaum. This criticism is groundless. Judge Rosenbaum responded promptly to the Committee's requests and made the resources of his courthouse available to committee staff. This was true despite the vexatious nature of the Committee's inquiries. Chairman Smith sent four letters to Judge Rosenbaum over the three month period following the hearing. The first letter, worded in the manner of litigation interrogatories, enumerated eleven separate categories of information sought by the Committee. One follow-up letter, four pages in length and densely footnoted in the form of an adversarial brief, posed six separate questions about a single case. The practice of propounding follow-up questions to congressional witnesses is common, but the intensity with which this subcommittee pursued Judge Rosenbaum is unprecedented. Second, the Committee claims that Judge Rosenbaum ``misstated`` facts by not explaining that several defendants he described were awarded downward departures from the guideline range. This criticism misunderstands the point of Judge Rosenbaum's testimony. In supporting the Sentencing Commission's proposed amendment, Judge Rosenbaum faulted the current sentencing guidelines that result in unjust sentencing ranges. The fact that judges possess statutory authority to ``depart'' from the guidelines in unusual cases is an insufficient objection to the proposed guideline amendment, because the guidelines themselves should result in a just sentencing range for a class of defendants. The fact that at least a half dozen drug defendants in a single federal district in a short period of time qualified for downward departures demonstrates a flaw in the guidelines. Moreover, a departure is subject to appeal while a sentence within the guidelines is not. In any event, Judge Rosenbaum did not ``misstate'' facts as the report alleges. He made amply clear that he was presenting the sentence each defendant was ``subject to'' under the existing guidelines-- guidelines which he, the seven members of the Sentencing Commission, Senator Sessions and Senator Hatch all believe should be amended. Third, the Committee alleges that Judge Rosenbaum testified ``falsely'' when he stated that low-level drug defendants are sentenced ``the same way'' as more culpable defendants. This is an absurd criticism. Judge Rosenbaum's basic point was that the current sentencing guidelines are flawed in that they utilize drug quantity to determine the base offense level for all drug trafficking defendants, even those who, although legally responsible for an amount of drugs, played no role in setting the quantity or sharing in the profits. In his prepared statement, Judge Rosenbaum described this problem clearly: ``it is the quantity of drugs in the whole scheme that drives the sentence. The judge only looks at the defendant, after all the scheme's drugs have been accounted for.'' He did not contend that minor and major participants receive identical sentences; rather he stated that all drug defendants are sentenced ``the same way,'' i.e., using the same quantity-driven mechanism. The Committee chooses to interpret the judge's words ``the same way'' to mean the same sentence. A full reading of his written and oral testimony makes clear that is not what Judge Rosenbaum meant. But the Committee then uses this misunderstanding to accuse Judge Rosenbaum of providing ``unquestionably false,'' ``inaccurate'' and ``utterly false'' testimony to Congress. On this innocuous record it is inconceivable that any witness, least of all a federal judge, could be accused of testifying falsely. Fourth, the Committee accuses Judge Rosenbaum of improper motives in closing a sentencing hearing and suggests that he may have acted ``unlawfully.'' There is no reasonable basis for this grave accusation. The Committee says Judge Rosenbaum may have ``unlawfully'' sealed the transcript of a sentencing hearing ``to conceal from the public and from the Subcommittee'' his actions. By definition, the facts involved in a sealed proceeding may not be revealed publicly, and the Committee's speculation is irresponsible. But if either the sentence itself or the decision to seal the proceeding were illegal, the United States could appeal. It has not done so. Conclusion By voting in favor of H.R. 4689, a majority of the House Judiciary Committee expressed its disagreement with the views of Judge Rosenbaum, all seven members of the Sentencing Commission, and Senators Sessions and Hatch. That is the Committee's prerogative. It is also the Committee's prerogative to rebut the arguments of any witness. However, the Committee exceeded the bounds of decency and fairness when it published a 22 page diatribe against a distinguished, respected federal judge and former United States Attorney.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I signed the ``Dissenting Views'' to the Committee Report to H.R. 4689, the ``Fairness in Sentencing Act of 2002,'' along with three other members of the Committee. The views included the following statements: ``If enacted, the bill would prevent individuals who perform low-level drug trafficking functions from qualifying for a mitigating role adjustment under the United States Sentencing Guidelines.'' and ``The bill prevents low-level, first- offense drug offenders from receiving a mitigating role adjustment under the sentencing guidelines.''. These statements do not precisely reflect their point. The bill would overturn a new U.S. Sentencing Commission guideline which establishes a 10-year cap on how much drug quantity can impact the guidelines. Without such a cap, the impact of drug quantity alone can result in a sentence that is in great disproportion to the relative role of the offender in a drug enterprise. Accordingly, although the statements may not be precise, the point remains that, under the bill, certain low- level offenders will be prevented from receiving any meaningful benefit from a mitigating role adjustment, so long as the quantity alone can require such a disproportionate sentence under the guidelines.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill, which I believe will go a long way towards securing our ports against potential terrorist threats. The events of 9-11, as devastating as they were, exposed our vulnerability to terrorist attacks. None of us believe future threats will be restricted to the tools of war used on that day, so it is important for all of us to closely examine all of our security issues, particularly our port security. My district includes the port of the Hampton Roads, the second busiest port on the eastern seaboard. There is military and commercial presence in the port. It is the home of the Navy's Atlantic fleet, and the port is used for numerous maneuvers and military exercises. It is also one of the largest commercial container ports in the United States. Almost 800,000 containers moved through the port last year. Keeping this area secure from terrorist attacks is important to all of us, so we went to work. Along with other Members, I toured the West Coast and local ports, including the one in Richmond, Virginia, and convened the First Responders and Homeland Security Task Forces in my district to seek advice. The Democratic Homeland Security Task Force also came up with recommendations. This legislation contains many of the ideas and recommendations from those efforts. For example, the legislation requires the new Department of Homeland Security to perform vulnerability assessments on all of our U.S. ports. It requires the development of national, area, and individual port facility anti-terrorism plans. Individual vessels and shore facilities that may be targets of terrorist attacks are required to prepare individual anti-terrorist security plans. This legislation also requires the new Department of Homeland Security to develop and maintain an antiterrorism cargo identification, tracking and screening system for containerized cargo shipped through the United States ports, and to develop performance standards for the physical security of shipping containers. And it establishes a matching grant program so the Federal Government can help share the costs of increased security. The port of Hampton Roads has already adopted many initiatives to address the potential threats, and the bill will make additional improvements possible. Many of these ideas originated with our local first responders, and I thank them for participating in this process. This bill is a vital step in making certain that our country's ports and those who live and work nearby are kept safe from terrorism. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, if our goal is to disarm Iraq, I believe the best way to accomplish that goal would be to utilize the strategy articulated a few weeks ago by Secretary of State Colin Powell, that is, to reinstate, utilizing established rules and supported by multilateral military force if necessary. This policy has the best chance of working, and it has the support of the international community. If military force is needed to enforce the inspections, it will be targeted, focused, and not requiring a massive invasion force. It will be unlikely to provoke widespread warfare all over the Middle East; and it is just as likely to fulfill the goal of disarming Iraq as widespread bombing. If on the other hand we merely start dropping bombs, how do we even know where to bomb if we have not inspected first? If we do know where the weapons are, those locations can be placed first on the inspection list, and if there is any resistance to the inspection, multilateral military force could be targeted on those sites. But today we are discussing a resolution authorizing the use of force before the inspectors have even had an opportunity to do their jobs. This resolution represents the last opportunity for Congress to have a meaningful input in the decision to go to war, and unfortunately there are many problems and unanswered questions with granting this authority now. The first problem is that although the resolution suggests that the President first try to work with the U.N., that provision is unenforceable. This is a problem especially because the President has already stated that he did not need the United Nations, and this resolution allows the President to just notify Congress that, based on the authority granted in this resolution, he has decided to attack Iraq. Furthermore, the broad authority granted in this resolution is inappropriate because of the timing of this vote, less than a month before the election. Twelve years ago under the first President Bush, the vote to use military force in the Persian Gulf was taken after the election. The timing of this resolution also raises questions because there is nothing shown to be urgent about the situation in Iraq. If the President discovers that the U.S. is in imminent danger, he is already authorized to defend the Nation and no one would expect him to wait for a congressional resolution. If the argument is that the urgency was created a year ago on September 11, the evidence supporting the connection between 9-11 and Iraq is at best tenuous. In addition to these problems, granting the authority in the resolution is premature because many questions are unanswered. For example, what plans have been made for the governance of Iraq after we win the war? And what chance is there that a regime change will create any better situation than we have now? And to the extent that Iraq has chemical and biological weapons, is it a good idea to invade Iraq and place our troops right in harm's way? And what will the war cost, and how will we pay for it? Eighteen months ago we had the largest budget surplus in American history. Today even without the cost of a war, we are approaching the largest deficit in American history with huge deficits already projected for the next 10 years. So what is the plan to pay for the war? Are we going to cut funds for education and health care? Are we going to raise taxes, or will we just run up additional deficits? And what will the domino effect be? If we attack Iraq, Iraq may attack Israel, Israel will attack back, and then everyone in the Middle East will choose sides, and how will that make us better off than we are now? If we are to make progress against terrorism, we have to recognize that hate is as big an enemy as complex weapons. That hatred may increase because others will resent the fact that we have chosen to apply rules to others that we are unwilling to have applied to us. We would not tolerate applying regime change to the United States, nor would we accept preemptive strikes as an acceptable international policy. The CIA has now reported that the chance that Iraq will use chemical or biological weapons has actually increased since all of the talk about a war began. Mr. Speaker, all of these problems persist and questions remain unanswered, and they lead to the same basic uncertainty. What is the plan both before and after the war and what are the consequences? Some have argued that a vote against the resolution is a vote to do nothing. That is not true. We should act, but based on the information we now have, I believe the wisest course is to proceed with the strategy proposed by Colin Powell, and that is U.N. weapons inspections in Iraq enforced with multilateral military power. That strategy has the support of the international community. It is most likely to actually disarm Iraq; it does not require a massive unilateral invasion force; and it reduces the risk of provoking widespread armed conflict in the Middle East and terrorism in the United States. I therefore urge my fellow Members to vote against the resolution. Mr. Speaker, these votes on the Iraq resolution pose difficult questions for all of us. A large part of the difficulty is caused by the Administration's inconsistent policies on what we should do, when we should do it, and whose approval we need. Not many days ago, the Administration articulated the policy that it could proceed unilaterally, without U.N. support, and without Congressional approval, to attack Iraq, with a preemptive strike, without the necessity of an imminent threat to the United States, for the purpose of ``regime change''. On one recent Sunday, Vice President Cheney and Secretary of State Powell articulated inconsistent descriptions of the Administration's policy. This resolution, which the Administration is now supporting, repudiates the initial Administration policy by requiring the Administration to seek both U.N. cooperation and Congressional approval. Last weekend, the Boston Globe began an article on the Administration's position on Iraq with the sentence ``As administration officials struggle to reach an agreement with U.S. allies about Iraq, President Bush has been shifting his rhetoric in favor of less aggressive language that emphasizes disarming Saddam Hussein rather than ousting him.'' So because of these constant changes, formulating a response to the Administration's position has been difficult. The first question we must address is this: what is the goal? If the goal is to disarm Iraq, I believe that the best way to accomplish that goal would be to utilize the strategy articulated a few weeks ago by Secretary of State Powell: reinstate U.N. inspections, utilizing the established rules, supported by multilateral military force, if necessary. This policy has the best chance of working. At a minimum, it is an important first step. And it has the support of the international community. If military force is needed to enforce the inspections, it will be targeted, focused and not requiring a massive invasion force; it would be unlikely to provoke widespread warfare all over the Middle East; and it is also just as likely to fulfill the goal of disarming Iraq as widespread bombing. If, on the other hand, you merely start dropping bombs--how do you even know where to bomb, if you haven't inspected first? If you do know where the weapons are, those locations could be placed first on the inspection list, and if there is any resistance to the inspection, multilateral military force could be targeted to those sites. But today we are discussing a resolution authorizing the use of force, before inspectors have had an opportunity to do their jobs. Unlike the first Administration resolution offered a few days ago, this resolution does require the President to cooperate with Congress and to try to work with the U.N. This resolution is not as broad as the previous draft. It is limited to Iraq, not the entire Middle East, but it still gives the President the authority to attack, if he determines it to be necessary and appropriate. This resolution represents the last opportunity for Congress to have meaningful input in the decision to go to war. And unfortunately there are many problems and unanswered questions with granting this authority now. The first problem is that although the resolution suggests that the President try to work with the U.N., the provision is unenforceable. The President merely has to notify Congress, if he chooses to launch an attack. If we are truly interested in making sure that the President fully exhausts diplomatic efforts before using force, then the resolution should not authorize a military attack without a subsequent statement from Congress. There is a consensus in the United States that we should work with the U.N. to the extent possible. But after this vote, Congress will have no opportunity to require meaningful efforts to seek cooperation with the U.N. This is a problem especially because the President has already state his disdain for the U.N. by saying at first that he didn't need the U.N., and when he finally sought U.N. support, he implied that if they failed to support the United States, he would proceed to attack without them. Furthermore, the Administration is now insisting on new, unprecedented rules for inspections, a position which may provoke Iraq into resisting the inspections and creating an unnecessary impasse at the U.N. A more prudent strategy would be to require the President to come back to Congress and explain that he made the good faith effort to work with the U.N.--rather than allowing the President to just notify Congress that based on the authority granted in this resolution, he had decided to attack Iraq. Furthermore, the broad authority granted by this resolution is inappropriate, because of the timing of this vote--less than a month before the election. This problem is magnified by the fact that nearly all of the President's statements on the need for this resolution have been made at partisan political fundraisers, where he attacks Democratic officeholders. Twelve years ago--under the first President Bush--the vote to use military force in the Persian Gulf was taken after the election. That would be a good model to follow, because then members voted without the interests of personal political considerations competing with the national interests. The timing of the vote on this resolution also raises questions because there is nothing urgent about the situation with Iraq. We have the same information now that we had 2 years ago. For example, we have known that Iraq has had the capability to build biological and chemical weapons for years; in fact we know this because they bought some of the materials from the United States. Furthermore, no case has been made that there is an imminent threat to the United States. So why is it essential for the President to have the authority to attack Iraq now? If the President discovers that the United States is in imminent danger, he is already authorized to defend the nation, and no one would expect him to wait for a Congressional Resolution. So what is different now? If the argument is that the urgency was created a year ago on September 11th, the evidence supporting the connection between 9/11 and Iraq is at best tenuous. So what is the urgency to authorize force right before the election? Another problem with the broad authority granted in the resolution is that this issue appears to be personal for the President. He admitted as much when he described Saddam Hussein as ``the man who tried to kill my Dad.'' The United States should not go to war to settle a personal vendetta. In addition to these problems, granting the authority in the resolution is premature because many questions are unanswered. For example, if the President uses the authority granted in this resolution and attacks Iraq, what plans have been made for the governance of Iraq after we win the war. And what chance is there that a regime change will create any better situation than we have now. We cannot forget that the United States was involved in the regime change in Cuba in which Batista was kicked out and we ended up with Castro. So why isn't it likely that Iraq will select someone who hates us even more than Saddam Hussein. And other questions need to be addressed, such as, to the extent that Iraq has chemical and biological weapons, is it a good idea to invade Iraq and put our troops right in harm's way. ``And what will the war cost and how will we pay for it? There is no question that we are willing to pay whatever it costs to be successful in the war, but we can't ignore the questions of ``how long'' and ``how much money.'' Eighteen months ago, we had the largest budget surplus in American history. Today, even without the costs of a war, we are approaching the largest deficit in American history, with huge deficits projected for the next 10 years. The direct costs of the war have been estimated at $100 billion; the indirect costs, such as higher oil costs, have not even been estimated. And so, what will we be giving up in terms of being able to fund education and health care and other needs here in the United States? Or is the plan to raise taxes? Or is the plan to just run up more deficits? What will be the domino effect? If we attack Iraq, Iraq will attack Israel, Israel will attack back, and then everyone in the Middle East will choose sides. How will that make us better off than we are now, especially in our fight against terrorism? And in the end, what will we have won? In making progress against terrorism, we have to recognize that hate is as much of an enemy as complex weapons. The weapons used to cause mass destruction on 9/11 were boxcutters. Firearms and explosives are easily available in the United States and can be used against buildings or modes of transportation. If the result of the war is that others hate us worse than they do now, then we have to understand that suicide bombings in the United States may increase. Moreover, that hatred may increase because others will resent that we have chosen to apply rules to others that we are unwilling to have applied to us. We would certainly not tolerate another country applying ``regime change'' to the United States. And we would never approve of preemptive strikes when there is no imminent threat as an acceptable international policy. Recently, the Administration threatened Iraqi military personnel with trials as war criminals; but the U.S. policy is not to subject our personnel to the jurisdiction of international criminal tribunals. The CIA has now reported that the chance that Iraq will use chemical or biological weapons has actually increased since all of the talk about war began. Mr. Speaker, all of these problems persist and questions remain unanswered, and they lead to the same basic uncertainty--what is the plan, both before and after the war, and what are the consequences. Some have argued that a vote against the Resolution is a vote to do nothing. That is not true. We should act, but based on the information we have now, I believe the wisest course is to proceed with the strategy proposed by Secretary of State Powell--U.N. weapons inspections in Iraq enforced with multilateral military power. That strategy has the support of the international community; it is most likely to actually disarm Iraq; it does not require a massive, unilateral invasion force; and it reduces the risk of provoking widespread armed conflict in the Middle East and terrorism in the United States. I therefore urge my fellow members to vote against this resolution.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I come from a State that has a long tradition in supporting religious freedom. In fact, it was Thomas Jefferson of Virginia who wrote the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom which precedes the first amendment of the Constitution. Today's exercise is totally gratuitous, as nothing we do here will change the underlying law. This is because we are dealing with constitutional issues that cannot be altered by statute. If the Judicial branch ultimately finds the Pledge or the national motto to be constitutional, then nothing needs to be done. If, on the other hand, the courts ultimately find either to be unconstitutional, no law that we pass will change that. Although I tend to agree with the dissent in the Newdow case regarding the Pledge of Allegiance, I believe the reasoning of the majority opinion in that case was sound. In that case the Supreme Court applied three different tests that have been applied in the last 50 years in evaluating the establishment clause cases. One test was whether the phrase ``under God'' in the Pledge constitutes an endorsement of religion. The majority opinion says it was an endorsement of one view of religion, monotheism and, therefore, was an unconstitutional endorsement. Another test was whether the individuals were coerced into being exposed to the religious message, and the majority opinion concluded that the Pledge was unconstitutional because young children ``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 silence in public schools, some of those laws have been upheld if the law allows silent prayer as one of the many activities that 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 that the 1954 law which added ``under God'' to the existing Pledge had no secular purpose and, therefore, was unconstitutional. Mr. Speaker, I indicated that I tended to agree with the dissent in the case. The operative language in the dissent which persuaded me was, ``Legal world abstractions and ruminations aside, when all is said and done, the danger that 'under God' in our Pledge of Allegiance will tend to bring about a theocracy or suppress someone's belief is so minuscule as to be de minimis. The danger that phrase represents to our first amendment's freedoms is picayune at best.'' Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, our actions today may cause the courts to review the sentiments behind ``one Nation under God'' or ``In God We Trust'' because if the courts look at the importance that we apparently affix to ``one Nation under God'' or ``In God We Trust,'' then it diminishes the argument that the phrase has de minimis meaning and increases the constitutional vulnerability of the use of that phrase in the Pledge. Furthermore, the court may look at the legislation under the Lemon test and find that this exercise has no secular purpose and is, therefore, unconstitutional. The section of bill referring to ``In God We Trust'' as the national motto appears to be vulnerable to the same constitutional attack as the phrase ``under God'' in the Pledge. Those attacks gain validity because of our actions today. Mr. Speaker, let me just close with a quote from an editorial that appeared in the Christian Century, a non-denominational Protestant weekly, which a good friend was kind enough to send me. It reads, ``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, we side with the Ninth Circuit. We see no need, especially for Christians, to defend hollow references to an innocuous God.'' For those reasons, I urge Members to oppose this legislation.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 5422. I would like to be able to support the AMBER Alert portion of this bill; but that bipartisan, noncontroversial part of the bill has been buried literally behind a host of controversial soundbite-based provisions which may do more harm than good if passed. The AMBER Alert portion of the bill, which is the only justification for being here today, would provide grants and assistance to States and localities to establish a national system of communications and alerts to assist with locating and returning missing and abducted children. The system has proven itself at the State level and could help save lives and additional heartache on a national basis. An AMBER Alert bill has already passed the Senate unanimously and could easily pass the House. America On-Line has already implemented an AMBER Alert system over its Internet systems and the President, through the first White House council on missing, exploited and runaway children which was held last week, has directed Federal agencies to assist. If we had before us either the bill introduced by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) and the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn), called the Amber Alert bill, or the companion Senate bill which has already passed that House a few weeks ago, I would be speaking in favor of that bill and urging its passage. Instead, we have additional death penalty provisions and more mandatory minimum penalties, as if we do not already have too many of both. We all know the problems we have with implementing the death penalty in this country. Over 100 individuals on death row have been exonerated in the last decade. Until we pass the Innocence Protection Act to shield against more innocent individuals being sentenced to death, we should not be passing more death penalties, especially complicating a noncontroversial bill to establish a national alert system to protect children. That Innocence Protection Act has over 240 cosponsors, so we should pass that. But in the meantime, this bill includes more new death penalties. The bill also includes mandatory minimum penalties. Mandatory minimums have been studied and been found to distort the sentencing process, discriminate against minorities, and waste the taxpayers' money. Even Chief Justice Rehnquist, who is no flaming liberal when it comes to crime issues, has decried the effects of mandatory minimum sentences on a rational sentencing process and states that mandatory minimums are frequently the result of floor amendments to demonstrate emphatically that legislators want to be ``tough on crime.'' Just as frequently, they do not involve any careful consideration of the effect they may have on sentencing guidelines as a whole. One of the worst examples of mandatory minimums included in the bill is the ``two strikes and you're out'' bill that comes before us today, which mandates a life term without eligibility for parole for offenses, including consensual sexual activity between a 19-year-old and a 15- year-old, including those that may even be engaged to be married. Such approaches will do nothing to reduce crimes against children and may even endanger them. A professor from the University of California Law School at Berkeley in his testimony at an earlier version of ``two strikes'' cautioned that when we punish lesser offenses such as consensual sex crimes with the same penalty reserved for the highest grade of murder, a child sex offender would have nothing further to lose, if not an incentive, to eliminate the victim who is the most important witness against him. Furthermore, because the ``two strikes'' bill applies to cases brought in Federal jurisdiction, 75 percent of those cases will involve Native Americans on reservations. This means that two offenders sentenced for the same crime in the same State with the same prior criminal record could receive such varied results as probation for one and life without parole for the other depending on whether the crime was committed on one side of the reservation line or the other. It is grossly unfair to subject one group of people to such a vastly disparate impact of law based on the fact that they live on a reservation. Amendments to exclude these types of consensual sex crimes and their Draconian impacts on Native Americans were rejected in committee. Although all parts of this bill have passed the House during the last three Congresses, it is small wonder why the Senate has not seen fit to take up this matter. In addition to the ``two strikes and you're out,'' there is a lifetime supervision provision, sex crimes wiretapping, sex tourism, all parts of this bill, all have passed the House and are awaiting Senate action. If the Senate has not seen fit to take any of them up because they do not have sufficient merit, now or in the last three Congresses, why would we think the Senate would see more merit in them with more new death penalties and additional mandatory minimums? And why should we jeopardize children by tying up a clearly meritorious, bipartisan, noncontroversial bill that could help them and get that into a legislative quagmire just for the purposes of having individuals have their little bills passed one more time? Mr. Speaker, I would hope that we will put aside the politics of divisive, repetitive soundbite legislation, defeat this bill and take up a bill which would be the AMBER Alert bill that has already passed the Senate or the House version of that bill. Mr. Speaker, I hope that we would defeat the motion to suspend the rules and defeat this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT

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

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of H.R. 4561, the Federal Agency Protection of Privacy Act. I believe this legislation will improve the regulatory process and protect Americans from unjustified or unintended invasions of privacy. Individuals are required to provide detailed personal information while conducting a variety of everyday activities including credit card purchases, Internet usage, medical care, financial transactions, and the delivery of basic government services. Public transmission of this information further heightens the potential of identity fraud, a growing problem which impacted more than 700,000 Americans last year. While the Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act of 1988 was enacted to address this problem, the FBI stated that identity theft remains America's fastest-growing white collar crime. Under this legislation, Federal agencies must consider the impact of proposed regulations on individual privacy. They will be required to include an initial privacy impact analysis with proposed regulations that are circulated for public notice and final privacy impact analysis that describes the steps that were taken to minimize the significant privacy impact of proposed regulations and justifies any alternative with respect to privacy that was chosen by the agency. In addition, the bill provides judicial review of the adequacy of an agency's final privacy impact, similar to that provided by the Regulatory Flexibility Act for small businesses. Essentially, the bill requires agencies to take responsibility for privacy concerns of individual citizens. At a time when identity theft and misuse of personal information is rampant, increasing this bill will go a long way in protecting the American citizens from victimization. That is why it is supported by broad bipartisan, diverse political and philosophical organizations, such as the ones the chairman mentioned. I support the legislation and strongly urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I am going to just let the charts tell the story. We have seen this chart. We do not create a graph like this by accident. My colleagues will notice that the Carter administration left a deficit; Reagan and Bush came in, they passed their budget, they never suffered a veto override. President Clinton came in, passed a budget without a single Republican vote, vetoed some Republican budgets when the Republicans took over the House and the Senate, and maintained fiscal responsibility to a surplus and, in one year, we are back down to a deficit. Now, it is interesting to say, if we could see the next chart, that we are down to where we started; and it is going to get worse before it gets better. If we look at the surplus that was inherited in the year 2000, 2001, this yellow line is Medicare. We spent all of Medicare. The red line is the Social Security surplus. By next year we will have gone through all of the Social Security surplus and then some deficit on top of that. For the rest of the Bush Presidential term, he will be spending all of Medicare, all of the Social Security surplus that we have promised to protect, and then, running up a deficit on top of that. In fact, for the next 10 years we will be dipping into Medicare and Social Security that we promised to save. Mr. Speaker, if I could see the next chart. How did this happen? According to OMB, 40 percent of that was because of tax cuts which we will remember were mostly to benefit the upper income. What happens as a result of this? We see on the next chart, number 9, we see the economic growth, the worst we have had in 50 years. We have seen on chart number 1, we have seen the number of jobs held by Americans is down. On the next chart, number 12, unemployment is up a third. We see foreclosures, how home foreclosures are going up month after month. We have another chart showing the stock market, and I think people are familiar with what that chart would look like. And what are we doing? Chart number 18 shows that every year for the past 10 years we have passed either all 13, 12, 12 or 13 of the appropriations bills by the first of the year. This is what the House does. Not blaming it on the Senate, the House can pass its bills. We may have an excuse that the House and Senate cannot agree. This is just what the House did in 2002, only 5 of the 13 appropriations bills have been passed. And what are the proposals? There are no proposals, other than just passing 5 of the 13. Now, a great political philosopher once said, ``If you don't change directions, you might end up where you're headed.'' Let us see where we were headed in May of 2001. We would have paid off the entire national debt held by the public by 2008. The discussion was, What are the economic implications in paying off the debt? What will it do to the bond market? That was the discussion that we would have had, a surplus of Social Security and Medicare, so that the money would be there when the baby boomers, like myself, retire; the money would be there. But no, we passed by 2002 legislation that has resulted in a debt; essentially nothing paid off. Mr. Speaker, it is going to get worse before it gets better, because if we look up here, if we adopt the policies of this administration, we are going to be running up even more debt. We need to change. If September 11 was the cause of this, then we need to change policies. In past years when we had a war, we sacrificed. We do not give juicy tax cuts to those that have the most, while other people are losing their jobs. We need to change directions, and we can begin by passing responsible appropriations bills and not by passing more juicy tax cuts for the privileged few. We need to go back to the fiscally responsible years of the Clinton administration and keep the promise of protecting Social Security and Medicare surpluses so those funds will be available when needed. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the leadership of the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) in trying to bring fiscal sanity to this budget, advocating the responsible things that need to be done and pointing out the irresponsible direction that we are headed in.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill. Once again we are here debating a very controversial bill with profound constitutional implications which has bypassed the regular order in the committee of jurisdiction, has been placed on the suspension calendar late at night with limited time for debate and no amendments allowed. I do not know what the supporters of the bill think it does, but this bill is in fact a tax bill and describes what a church can do and still maintain its tax exemption. The legislation before us allows a religious tax-exempt organization to engage in political activities, partisan political activities, while using tax-exempt resources so long as those activities are not more than an ``insubstantial part'' of their activities. Pursuant to the Tax Code, that means anywhere from 5-15 percent of an organization's budget can be used for partisan political activities. For a church with a $1 million budget, that is 50,000 to $150,000 in campaign cash. Mr. Speaker, we also have to consider the bill in light of legislation that has already passed the House, and that is H.R. 7, the so-called Charitable Choice bill, which allows the church to be directly funded with government contracts. This bill will allow those churches to show their appreciation to the government officials that helped them with campaign contributions amounting to 5-15 percent of the grant. This gives a new meaning to the idea of tithing. Contrary to assertions, churches and other houses of worship can and do speak out on issues of the day. When the gentleman from California says they cannot speak, it is true, they cannot take out a paid political ad paid for with tax-deductible money. But under current law, churches can host candidate forums, can issue unbiased voting guides, engage in lobbying activities on legislation, endorse or oppose referendums, constitutional amendments or other ballot initiatives, and they can certainly speak out on the moral issues of the day, whether it be civil rights, universal health care, or education. Furthermore, ministers or religious leaders in their private capacity can and do endorse political candidates and even become candidates themselves. In fact, my representative in the Virginia Senate is a pastor of a Baptist church. The difference is they cannot use the resources of a tax-exempt church in a partisan political campaign. Churches, like other tax-exempt organizations, are prohibited from using tax-exempt church contributions for candidates. They cannot create PACs or solicit or provide financial support to a candidate. That would change under this legislation, which specifically allows our houses of worship to funnel tax-exempt funds to candidates in political parties. There are other issues that we have to consider as we debate this measure. For example, houses of worship are exempt from certain Internal Revenue filings; and, therefore, we will never know whether they are spending 5 percent or 50 percent of their funds on political activities unless the supporters expect the IRS to be auditing church finances. In addition, unlike other organizations exempt under section 501(c), churches do not have to file for incorporation. Essentially any organization claiming to be a church gets automatic tax-exempt status from the IRS. As a result, during election cycles we might see the formation of new churches formed for the express purpose of political activity on behalf of a candidate or political party. Mr. Speaker, current law treats our houses of worship and secular nonprofits with respect to partisan political activity equally. Neither can use tax-exempt resources for partisan political activities. If they want their organizational resources to be used for partisan political activities, they can. They just cannot get tax deductions and use tax- deductible resources for that purpose. Should this legislation pass, our houses of worship may risk becoming sham political organizations. As the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) explained, we would have created a gaping loophole in our campaign finance laws. I strongly urge rejection of this legislation.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a distinguished legislator and an amazing activist and a wonderful person, Patsy Mink. President Kennedy once said, ``A nation reveals itself not only by the men it produces, but also by the men it honors, the men it remembers.'' Because of Patsy, both from her example and her legislative teachings, we know that quote needs to be amended, for a Nation is revealed not only by its men, but also by the women produced, honored, and remembered. As we know from working with her, Patsy made sure that, as a Nation, we honored and remembered those who might otherwise be pushed aside and forgotten. Patsy was a voice, loud and strong, for those who had no voice, or those whose voices were in danger of being drowned out. As the author of Title IX, she drew attention to women's educational needs and abilities. When we consider that over 80 percent of women in senior executive positions today report having participated in organized sports after grammar school, we can know that Patsy Mink's work has changed the face of the Nation. Through her years in the House, she tirelessly fought for women, for the poor, for immigrants, for children, for workers. She fought for civil rights, for health care, education, child care, teachers' professional development. I had the honor of knowing Patsy for the last 10 years. We were on the Committee on Education and the Workforce, where I had the privilege of watching her at her best. Although we mourn the loss of Patsy, I will always honor the privilege of having served alongside such a tenacious and thoughtful legislator. The legacy of her life and accomplishments are great lessons to us all. We owe many thanks to her work and her memory, and that has revealed a lot about this Nation. So today we are better for honoring and remembering the gentlewoman from Hawaii, the Honorable Patsy Mink.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak), who contributed significantly to this legislation.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff), who has been very helpful in putting this bipartisan package together.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin).

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), who is the ranking member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, which did a tremendous job on part of the juvenile justice provisions in the legislation.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter).